Is it Better to Eat 5 or 15 Servings of Fruits and Vegetables every Day?

What’s the number one piece of nutritional advice given out in the media, by friends, colleagues, and nutrition professionals?  Eat more fruits and vegetables! 

Is it better for you to consume 5 fruit and vegetable servings/day or 15 servings/day?

You want to have more energy: Eat more fruits and vegetables!  You want to lose weight: Eat more fruits and vegetables!  You want to be healthier: Eat more fruits and vegetables!  You want clearer skin: Eat more fruits and vegetables!  Do you want to live longer: Eat more fruits and vegetables! 

Apparently, there is nothing that eating more fruits and vegetables cannot cure.  Personally, I have become exhausted by the relentlessness of the “eat more fruits and vegetables” mantra.  Incorporating more fruits and vegetables into your diet is great advice but I feel that we put way too much stock into this advice and as a result are subjected to hundreds of “healthy” vegetable based recipes and recommendations.  Many of us “fruit and vegetable outsiders” are ashamed of our own eating habits and are lead to believe that we are eating quite poorly based upon the advice we see and receive on a day-to-day basis.  Aside from my own dietary guilt and shame I have often wondered whether focusing on eating so many fruits and vegetables is actually beneficial to your health.  I am not a fruit and vegetable hater, rather, I am more interested in understanding what fruits and vegetables CAN DO for your health rather than focusing on what we are LEAD TO BELIEVE they can do. 

If we are supposed to be consuming more fruits and vegetables, how many should we be consuming?  The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) promotes eating more fruits and vegetables in numerous ways and one of their most notable campaigns suggests we eat “5 a Day”.  It turns out their advice to eat 5 combined servings of fruits and vegetables is spot on. 

The recommendation to eat more fruits and vegetables is beneficial to our health if we are currently eating less than 5 servings/day.  However, eating more than five servings of fruits and veggies/day provides essentially no return on investment 1.  A recent meta-analysis of 16 research studies that included a staggering 833,234 individuals found that eating one fruit and vegetable serving/day was more beneficial than 0, 2 was more beneficial than 1, 3 was more beneficial than 2, 4 was more beneficial than 3, and 5 was more beneficial than 4.  However, that’s where your return on investment ends!  Consuming more than 5 servings of fruits and vegetables/day provided no further protection against your risk of mortality.  From this very large study the bottom line is that it doesn’t matter if you eat 5 servings/day or 15 servings/day your likelihood of dying prematurely is identical.

The risk of mortality does not further decrease after you have reached 5 fruit and vegetable servings/day (1).  Note: it is better to be further away from 1 on this graph.

We are lead to believe, and we want to believe, that eating fruits and vegetables in large quantities will allow us to lead healthier, more productive, longer lives.  We have become a nation obsessed with eating kale and have found creative ways to make its taste tolerable.  My fear is that all of this fruit and vegetable madness is alienating everyone who cannot afford or cannot tolerate eating kale salads and sides of edamame.  As nutrition professionals, we are missing out on reaching all of those folks who want to eat healthy but are not inclined to drastically change their diets to one consisting primarily of fruits and vegetables.

Eating fruits and vegetables is important to your health, but eating endless amounts of them is not necessarily a cure-all.  Of course, if you already eat more than 5 servings/day there is no reason to change that, but if you are looking for a small way to improve your health, increasing your intake to 5 servings/day is a good place to start.

 So, the answer to the question of whether it is better to eat 5/day or 15/day is clear.  Focus on the attaining at least 5 servings/day, not 15.

Todd M. Weber, PhD, MS, RD

 

References:

1. Wang X, Ouyang Y, Liu J, et al. Fruit and vegetable consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Bmj. 2014;349:g4490.

5 Keys to Healthy Eating (Part 2 of 2)

In my previous blog post I pointed out that between eating 400 calories more per day than we consumed 40 years ago and moving 100 calories less during one’s workday than we did in years past, it is not difficult to see why we as a nation have gained weight.  You don’t have to “search” for a plausible explanation of obesity when you’re running a surplus of 500 calories/day (calories in > calories out).

There are far too many nutrition rules out there, yet in my opinion there are five “primary” rules you can follow to improve your nutrition and your health.  In my last post I outlined the first two rules.

1) Don’t Believe any Nutrition, Health, or Wellness Information in the Media.

2) Increase Your Physical Activity

Today I would like to give you the next three rules.

3) Decrease Your Portion Size.  I’m sure you have probably heard the popular refrain among nutritionists that “our portion sizes have gotten out of control” and they literally have (Google Image "portion sizes then and now" for a series of startling examples).

Food portions (and the amount of food we are accustomed to eating) are out of control and are only getting worse.

Food manufacturers have tried to appeal to our portion size mindfulness by creating portion-controlled packages (see Fudge Grahams on the left as opposed to Assorted Sandwich Creme Cookies on the right).

Food manufacturers clearly have two different types of consumers in mind (100 calorie packages vs. new 60 cookie size!).

I’m not sure whether to tell you these “portion-controlled” packages are good for you or bad for you.  On the one hand they are good for you because they help you portion control the number/quantity of cookies you eat but on the other hand they are bad for you because they enable you to eat cookies everyday of the week.  For individuals who tend to graze on cookies throughout the day, 100 calorie packages could be a godsend. 

A handful of cookies at a time adds up fast.

For these individuals, 3 cookies, leads to 5, 5 leads, to 7, and so on until your cookie package starts to look like this...

Half of the package is gone without us even thinking about it.

Instead of letting food manufacturers dictate what you eat, my advice is to remain within your existing dietary habits and simply take what you normally eat in a meal or snack and cut it in half or by a third.  If you usually eat 3 tacos for dinner, eat a 1.5.  If you eat 3 brats, eat two.  People are so afraid of being hungry when in reality hunger is a normal physiological process that you should feel at least once/day.  IT IS NORMAL TO BE HUNGRY!  If you’re not hungry at least once a day, then you need to reduce the amount of food you are consuming.  You also need not eat until you are stuffed....save this feeling for special occasions such as birthdays and Thanksgiving.  Eat until you are satisfied, not until you are stuffed.

Let me also ask you this question: when you sit down for dinner do you have an idea in your head of how much food you are going to consume at that meal?  If you have a routine or a healthy habit developed, you do not even have to think about how much food you are going to consume.  You know that you are going to eat 2 tacos or 2 brats.  You don’t even have to think about it.  However, when you are in the midst of controlling your portions you are going to have to put forth some mental effort to determine how much you normally eat and how much you should be eating.

You do not have to portion control your entire meal but you should try to either limit your side choices to 1-2 sides instead of 3-4 or take really small portions of each.  For example, instead of having 1) potato salad, 2) baked beans, 3) coleslaw, and 4) corn on the cob with your brats just have 1) baked beans and 2) corn on the cob as your sides.  Also, let’s say you are craving another brat but you’ve already had your preset limit of one: eat the brat without the bun.  You’ll save ~180 calories this way.  As I have previously posted, you have got to set some nutrition rules for yourself and stick with them no matter what anyone else thinks. 

Finally, I am not a huge proponent of counting calories.  Infact, I hate counting calories and think we get way too caught up in it.  However, you do have to have a rough idea of how many calories you are consuming and an appreciation for whether the amount of food you are eating is causing you to lose weight, gain weight, or maintain your weight.

4) Energy Density.  Energy density is a term used to describe how much energy is packed into a given quantity.  In food science, the measure of energy is calories.  There are 4 calories/gram in carbohydrate, 4 calories/gram in protein, 7 calories/gram in alcohol, and 9 calories/gram in fat.  Fat is a very efficient storage form of energy and is the most energy dense of all the macronutrients.  During the past 30 years, people have avoided fat partially because it is the most energy dense macronutrient.  Unfortunately the avoidance of fat has lead us to overcompensate by consuming far too many carbohydrates, tipping us into a positive energy balance, and causing us to gain weight.  Also, just because a food is marketed as “low fat” or “reduced fat” doesn’t mean that it is any less energy dense.

Reduced fat peanut butter contains 170 calories; full fat peanut butter contains 180 calories.  You do the math, it's not worth it.

Take peanut butter for example.  The “reduced fat” peanut butter contains nearly the same number of calories as the regular peanut butter (170 vs. 180 kcal).  Without looking at the label one would likely have guessed that the “reduced fat” peanut butter contained less calories.  The only thing reduced fat peanut butter has less of is taste.  It tastes like paste, not peanut butter.  When it comes to peanut butter, my recommendation is to choose the full fat version, as you will be more satisfied and won’t have ‘spent’ any extra calories.

Nutritionists absolutely love to tell people to eat more fruits and vegetables.  It’s probably their favorite thing in the whole wide world to say.  We all know fruits and vegetables are full of vitamins, minerals, and fiber.  That’s beside the point to me.  To me the point of eating more fruits and vegetables is all about energy density.  If you were to eat only fruits and vegetables you could almost eat an unlimited amount and it would be nearly impossible to meet your caloric needs.  I am by no means an animal nutrition expert but think about the amount of time herbivores (cows, horses, elephants, even chimpanzees to a large degree) spend grazing and eating.  They eat ALL DAY LONG and they can/have to eat all day because the plants they eat are NOT energy dense.  Weight Watchers has really got things right in this arena.  Food is like money (calories) and you only have so much money (calories) to spend in one day so spend it wisely by eating foods that have a low energy density and not wasting your money on energy dense, nutrient lacking junk food.

5) Food Frequency.  Nutritionists have colossally messed this one up by telling everyone to “eat 5-6 meals/day to keep your metabolic engine revving”.  There is absolutely no basis for this recommendation outside of anecdotal reports (I can produce the references for those who are interested).  “Eat breakfast to jumpstart your metabolism” is another popular food frequency myth.  Yet another myth is “if you aren’t losing weight you are probably not eating enough food.  Your body is in a starvation mode and is trying to hold on to every calorie because it does not know when it is going to get fed again”.  Each of these statements is scientifically incorrect and defies the natural  laws of bioenergetics.  There is never a situation where you should eat more to lose weight.  The primary basis for each of these recommendations relies on taking advantage of the thermic effect of food.

Each time you consume a food or drink that contains calories your body has to digest, absorb, transport, and store or burn these nutrients.  This process costs energy and your metabolism will increase to a small degree each time you consume a meal.  The logic goes that if you maximize the number of times your body “revs up your metabolism” during the course of the day you will burn more calories and lose weight.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t quite work that way.  Whether you eat 2 large meals or 6 small meals, as long as the type of food and amount of food you eat is identical, you will burn the same exact number of calories.  Eating 6 meals/day as opposed to 2-3 meals/day offers no thermogenic advantage; however, there is a distinct disadvantage to consuming 6 meals/day.

Every time you eat presents an opportunity to overeat.  For the 5-6 meals/day plans to work you must be very careful in planning out and measuring out exactly what you are going to eat at each of those occasions.  If you are not supremely strict with this process you are going to end up overeating, period.  If you are very strict in this process, why not plan for 3 meals rather than 5-6.  It seems like it would be a whole lot easier than having to break up your busy/hectic day just to eat.

5 basic rules.  If you follow these five basic rules, you don’t have to follow the 50 other nutrition rules out there and you don’t have to worry about whether an egg is good or bad for you or what type of egg you are supposed to be eating.  1) Be very skeptical of nutrition information outside of your trusted sources (hyperlinks in previous post), 2) get into the habit of incorporating physical activity in your day-to-day life, 3) eat smaller portions, 4) choose more nutrient dense (fruits/veggies), not energy dense foods, and eat 5) 3 meals/day, not 5-6.  Nutrition is not as complicated as everyone makes it out to be.  Keep it simple and healthy nutrition will follow.

Todd M. Weber PhD, MS, RD

Sources for Pictures:

• Portion Distortion: http://www.sproot.co/tag/portion-size/

5 Keys to Healthy Eating (Part 1 of 2)

In my previous blog post I put the nutrition community on the spot by asking whether they are at fault for the increased prevalence of obesity in the United States.  So many nutrition professionals are going on a “wild goose chase” trying to track down the singular “reason” why we are gaining weight.  Clearly, there are hundreds of factors that contribute to weight gain.  However, if we attempt to manage each and every one of those factors we will fail and will continue to fail provided we follow this complicated plan.  Regardless of what you personally believe about nutrition, overweight and obesity still boil down to the fact that we are eating too much and moving far too little.  Now, I know that many people believe this statement is a fallacy or at the very least an oversimplification, but the data to support this statement do not lie. 

Figure 1:  On average we consume 400 more calories today than we consumed in the 1970's.

We are, on average, consuming 400 more calories per day today than we were consuming in the 1970’s (Figure 1).  We are also less physically active, as the need to move has been engineered out of our environments (think remote controls, drive thru’s, electric can openers, riding lawn mowers, escalators, moving walkways, etc.).  On average, the number of calories required during our workday today is 100 less than what was required in the 1960’s and 70’s (Figure 2).  Now, I realize this is only one measure of physical activity and is a bit of an oversimplification on my part, but between eating 400 calories more and moving 100 calories less during one’s workday, one can see how we have put ourselves into a position to gain weight.  You don’t have to “search” for a plausible explanation of obesity when you’re running a daily surplus of 500 calories/day (calories in > calories out).

Figure 2:  The number of calories burned during occupational activity has decreased by 100 calories/day over the past 5 decades.

No one wants to accept the simple explanation of “calories in/calories out” because if it’s really that simple then we begin to feel like it’s our fault for being overweight.  And to some degree it is our fault.  However, with that being said, I have heard some of the most well known obesity experts on planet suggest that despite our energy dense food environments and work/life imbalances it is actually quite impressive that ~25% of our population remains stubbornly lean. 

With so many food options, so much misinformation, and so many work/life demands it is very challenging to maintain a healthy lifestyle.  Despite the obstacles to healthy living that we must circumvent in everyday life, it is more than possible to eat healthy.  To help you get started/improve your nutritional outlook, here are five things (not 50) that you can start doing on a daily basis to improve your health.  There are far too many nutrition rules out there, yet in my opinion there are five “primary” rules you can follow to improve your nutrition and your health.

1.  Don’t Believe any Nutrition, Health, or Wellness Information in the Media.  Companies pounce upon nutrition misinformation to convince you, the consumer, that their product is something you need to be healthy.  The purpose of a company is to make money, PERIOD.  Do they really want to help you?  Yes, as long as they can profit from it.  Companies are not charities, they are not Mother Theresa, and they are definitely not your friends.  Companies don’t necessarily create the confusion over nutrition but they definitely cater to it and profit from it.  For example:  Fill in these blanks.  Eating Honey Nut Cheerios can help lower (blank) and reduce the risk of (blank) disease (answers: cholesterol and heart). 

General Mills has us all convinced that eating Honey Nut Cheerios is "good" for our hearts.

If you read the fine print you can see that General Mill’s Honey Nut Cheerios provides 0.75 grams of soluble fiber per serving.  3.00 grams of soluble fiber along with a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, MAY reduce the risk of heart disease.  If all of these conditions are met, eating Honey Nut Cheerios MAY help you out in the long run.  There are hundreds and probably thousands of foods higher in soluble fiber than Honey Nut Cheerios, yet General Mills has us all convinced that we should eat Honey Nut Cheerios to support our heart health.  I really wish that instead of claiming to be heart healthy due to its soluble fiber content, Honey Nut Cheerios slogan would be “Hey, we’re a healthy alternative to eating bacon!”.

If you cannot trust the media to provide you with nutrition information, where should you/can you get scientifically sound nutrition information?  There are a variety of sources for you to obtain trusted nutrition information such as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, ChooseMyPlate, the American College of Sports Medicine, Harvard Health, the Anschutz Health & Wellness Center, EBNC, and Cornerstone Training & Nutrition, among others.

2.  Increase your Physical Activity.  What does physical activity have to with healthy eating?  EVERTHING!  You cannot discuss healthy eating without also discussing physical activity.  The media loves to chastise physical activity by making claims such as 1) increasing physical activity does not burn enough calories to contribute to weight loss and that 2) physical activity causes you to be hungry and this hunger will lead you eat more calories than you burned in your workout.  Although these two claims are true in some cases these are more of the exception than the norm.

The importance of increasing your daily physical activity is more than just about the number of calories you burn, it’s about changing your mindset!   Sure, getting in a 30-60 minute workout on all or most days of the week probably will not burn a crazy amount of calories and you can easily outeat your workout.  However, if you are making an effort to be more physically active, this effort is bound to spill over into other facets of your life.  Parking further away from the store, taking the stairs rather than the elevator, holding walking meetings with your employees rather than sitting meetings, getting up from your desk for 5-10 minutes once an hour, commuting to work by bike once/wk, mowing your lawn with a push mower rather than a rider, participating in adult recreational leagues, and playing physically active games with your kids are all examples of mindset.  You wouldn’t do as many of these things if you weren’t in the physical activity mindset!  It’s not just about the calories you burn in the gym, it’s about the total number of calories you burn in the gym AND in your day-to-day life. When physical activity improves, nutrition choices also tend to improve at the same time.

To keep your attention span and prevent you from having to read a very long article, I will finish talking about the remaining 3 Keys to Healthy Eating in my next post.  Until then, start thinking about how you can incorporate my first two tips into your own healthy living habits.  

Todd M. Weber PhD, MS, RD

 

References:

Figure 1:  United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service; Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System; Loss-Adjusted Food Availability; Calories http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system.aspx#.U_OELEtb4X4

Figure 2:   Church TS, Thomas DM, Tudor-Locke C, et al. Trends over 5 decades in U.S. occupation-related physical activity and their associations with obesity. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e19657.

Is Nutrition Education the Real Cause of Obesity?

High fructose corn syrup, sugar sweetened beverages (soda), fast food restaurants, processed foods, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), gut microbiota, antibiotic exposure, cable television, video game systems, screen time, and a reduction in sport, recreational, and leisure time physical activity are all blamed as the “primary cause” of obesity by one expert or another.  Many of these supposed drivers for the obesity epidemic receive so much attention because they entered our food supply and/or our culture at the very time that the prevalence of obesity began to rise to dramatically in the early to mid 1980’s.  It is much too convenient to be able to pin the cause of obesity on events that occurred simultaneously to the rise in obesity without having any hard evidence to demonstrate cause and effect.  Just because these events coincided with one another has little bearing and no meaning on determining cause and effect.  As long as we are brainstorming possible drivers to the obesity epidemic I would like to implicate myself and my nutrition practicing colleagues as one of the many potential drivers of obesity in stating that I think nutrition education may actually be one of the greatest contributors to the obesity epidemic!

• 5 Tasks versus 50 Tasks.  We have all made eating healthy far too complicated.  If you were asked to complete 5 tasks or 50 tasks in the same amount of time how well would you be able to perform those 5 tasks versus those 50 tasks?  You would most likely perform those 5 tasks very well and would be able to master these items quite easily.  What about those 50 tasks?  Would you perform all 50 of those tasks well?  Would you even get all 50 of those tasks completed?  Or when faced with performing those 50 tasks in a limited amount of time would you even bother trying to accept the challenge to complete them?  Would you throw your hands up in the air and say “why should I even bother, I won’t get them done anyways”.

What I just described to you is nutrition in a nutshell.  We have far too many rules to follow.  If I asked you to follow 5 nutrition rules you could probably comply with those rules pretty easily.  If, on the other hand, I asked you to abide by 50 different rules you would a) have a tough time remembering what those rules are in the first place and b) probably wouldn’t do a great job of complying with those rules anyways.  As nutrition practitioners we need to simplify the complexity of nutrition and eliminate some of our rules to make healthy eating more manageable.

• We keep changing the rules and moving the bar.  Eggs are good for you, eggs are bad for you, yolks are bad for you because they contain too much cholesterol and you should only eat the whites, yolks are good for you because they contain vitamins and essential fatty acids and you should eat them, you should eat no more than 3 eggs a week, eat as many eggs as you want as long as they are fresh and natural, egg substitutes are superior to regular eggs, egg substitutes are not natural and are not superior to regular eggs, you should only eat eggs from chickens that are free range, don’t eat eggs from chickens that have been exposed to antibiotics, and don’t eat eggs that have been irradiated to kill pathogens that could make you very sick because irradiation destroys nutrients… 

After reading through that mess of a paragraph what kind of eggs should you buy?  Or should you be buying eggs at all?  The confusion over eggs is the same confusion that looms over meat and saturated fat, whole milk versus skim milk, organic versus conventional produce, grass fed versus grain fed, genetically modified versus “natural”, artificial sweeteners versus natural sugar, added sugar in general, food fortification, and so on.  It really just makes me sick.  I have been studying nutrition for close to 15 years and I oftentimes feel as confused as the rest of you as what to eat and when to eat it.  Eating should not be this complicated!

• Knowledge of macronutrient and micronutrient contents.  Nutrition educators love to talk about our Paleolithic hunter-gatherer ancestors, the diets they consumed, and how we should all strive to be eating like them for optimal health.  Do you think that our Paleolithic ancestors of 50,000 years ago had any clue what a fat, protein, or carbohydrate even was?!!  Absolutely not!  They ate what they had to eat to survive!  Now that is what I call simple nutrition.  If we fast-forward 49,950 years we reach the 1960’s.  The mid 20th Century is also popular with nutritionists these days because the 1950’s and 60’s represent the diets we consumed when the majority of our population was healthy, before the start of the dreaded obesity epidemic of the 1980’s.  Our diets in the 1960’s were lacking many of the processed goodies that we are able to consume today, but you cannot tell me that mothers and grandmothers weren’t making cookies and baking cakes.  Sweets were plentifully available in the majority of middle class households.

The traditional family dinner of the past.

Neither the diet of our Paleolithic hunter-gatherer ancestors nor the diets of friends and families of the 1960’s were particularly healthy from a macro and micronutrient standpoint.  And in both cases I am doubtful that either group had much of a macronutrient and micronutrient knowledge, meaning they probably didn’t have a very good idea of “good fats”, “bad fats”, or vitamin A and C content in certain foods.  They followed far fewer and simpler nutrition rules.  The Paleolithic hunter-gatherer ate to stay alive and the individual in the 1960’s ate meat, potatoes, and vegetables.  Neither group followed our modern day complicated nutrition rules and yet they seemingly made it just fine.

Public health experts stress the need for more nutrition education.  Why should we increase more of something that isn’t working?  Why don’t we stress simpler nutrition education?  Good nutrition is not as complicated as we all make it out to be.  Our stone-age ancestors and our nutrition naïve friends and family of the 1960’s ate simple yet healthy diets.  If nutrition education were simplified we could master the nutrition rules provided to us, we wouldn’t have to argue over whether an egg is good or bad for us, and we could do away with so many of our extraneous nutrition rules.  One day maybe nutrition education can be part of the solution rather than the problem!  Next week I would like to help you simplify your nutrition and share 5 basic principles to healthy eating.

Todd M. Weber PhD, MS, RD

Sources for Pictures:

• Traditional Family Dinner: http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/19/living/feiler-family-dinner/

Why Scientists do what they Do

When you try to visualize what a scientist looks like and what a scientist does on a day to day basis what comes to mind?  You may picture a person in a white lab coat pipetting a tiny amount of liquid, peering through a microscope, or operating some type of foreign looking machine in a small, dark, old room.  You may also think of someone staring into a computer screen while making graphs, tables, charts, and figures out of large amounts of data that the vast majority of us cannot even begin to understand.  Pop culture tends to portray scientists as individuals who are of high intellect but are otherwise out of touch, unemotional, uncool, rigid, and over analytical (think Sheldon on the CBS sitcom Big Bang Theory).   What probably does not immediately come to mind when you try to picture a scientist is an artist, entrepreneur, story teller, adventurer, or businessman!  However, these descriptors are just a few of many that apply to many scientific researchers:

Passionate ~ Discovery ~ Explorers ~ Love of Learning ~ Artists ~ Creative ~ Independent     Entrepreneurs ~ Communicators ~ Curious ~ Higher Purpose ~ Contributing to Greater Good               Idea Generators ~ Problem Solvers ~ Story Tellers ~ Businessmen ~ Persuasive Teachers ~ Tireless Dedicated ~ Perseverant ~ Deep/Insightful Thinkers ~ Imaginative ~ Competitors

In my last post, “The Plight of the Post Doc” I outlined many of the sacrifices a post doctoral researcher makes and the obstacles they must contend with to maximize their chances of transitioning into a research faculty position and then turning that into a successful academic career.  At the end of the article I questioned why anyone would want to pursue a career in basic science research when the pay is so little, the job security is so poor, and the demands are so high. 

Scientists are more than just nerds in lab coats.

There are many reasons why people are drawn to careers in scientific research and the answers are different for everyone, yet with a closer examination there are several characteristics common to the majority of scientific researchers including:

1. Following your Passions:  Think about something that you are very passionate about, so much so that some of your friends and family may think you are borderline obsessive.  When you think about what this obsession is, some type of hobby, leisure time activity, or sports team probably comes to your mind.  One of the last things to come to your mind is probably your job.  On the other hand, for many scientists, their passion is their work!  There aren’t many jobs out there that allow you to combine your passions with your work but that is exactly what a career in research can be. 
2. Becoming an Adventurer/Explorer:  The thrill of the hunt, the beauty of a newly found lake or stream, a new city to explore, or a country to visit.  All of these activities garner excitement and part of this excitement comes from discovering something previously unknown to you.  For a scientist, completing and analyzing the results of a recent experiment can be as exciting and exhilarating as discovering something new.  Sometimes when the scientific discovery is novel and substantial enough, it establishes an entirely new frontier of human knowledge.  You are not only discovering something new to you but something that is new to everyone ON PLANET EARTH!
3. Life Long Learning:  Learning does not or should not stop at the end of high school, college, or midway through your career.  Researchers never need to worry about their jobs being repetitive and boring because there will never be a time in their careers where they know everything they need to know,  because that does not exist.  As a researcher you are constantly being challenged and if you do not adapt you will be left behind.  Basic science research also allows you to follow your curiosity, ask thought provoking questions, and seek answers to why things are the way they are.  This curiosity extends well beyond the borders of research labs, spilling over into numerous facets of life.  The majority of scientists are really interesting people.  They oftentimes are highly interested in, and educated on, world events, local happenings, and other cultures (science is very ethnically diverse).
4. Being an Artist:  Art and science are typically thought of as being on the opposite ends of the spectrum when in reality they are oftentimes a blend of one another.  Creativity, control of one’s work, and independence are all characteristics that you might associate with art, but you can also associate them with science.  Science requires you to be creative in your experimental design, development of new ideas, and sometimes even in your explanations of new data.  You also generally have control of your own work.  One of the biggest complaints that artists have is that the studio has the last say in what their product is going to look like.  Basic research scientists do have a peer review process for publication and a rigorous review process for grant funding, however, their work is first and foremost dependent on the direction they want to take it.  Of course, it almost always comes back to someone else providing the support for you to complete that work, but the idea is of your own creation. 
5. Being an Entrepreneur:  The ability to take risks and the willingness to fail and start over are traits of most scientists.  So many of the things you attempt to do, or ideas that you think are a home run, are going to end in failure.  You must have the ability to persevere and try and try again until it works for you.  In science there is also a great deal of competition.  As in the highest levels of sport, you are competing against some of the very best and brightest minds in the world.  There is no such thing as a big fish in a small pond.  In science there is only one very large pond and that pond includes scientists spread across the United States and in countries around the world such as Australia, Korea, Japan, Canada, England, France, Sweden, and South Africa.  If competition and the race to discover something new before someone else excites you, then science may be appealing to you. 
6. Communicating and Teaching:  For people who like to communicate, teach, and share ideas, basic science research regularly provides these opportunities.  Scientists have numerous opportunities to share their knowledge in professional and community presentations, classrooms, small group discussions, and in the written word.  Basic science researchers must also be able to “tell a good story,” not only to sell their ideas in the first place, but to explain the impact and importance of them after their results become clear.  Admittedly, this is one area in which many scientists struggle.  Even the best thinkers and writers sometimes struggle to make the transition to good oral communication, particularly if you are shy or working in a foreign country.  However, good communication is the key to helping others understand what you are so passionate about and appreciate why it is important, so you will find that that most successful and respected scientists are those that are the best story tellers. 
7. Contributing to the Greater Good:  Today’s problems will be tomorrow’s solutions with the help of good scientific research.  There is a higher sense of purpose in knowing that your work will one day contribute to the curing of disease, understanding of a physiological phenomenon, or improve someone’s quality of life.  Along with contributing to the greater good, there is also a sense of community and respect among researchers.  Whether you are an epilepsy, obesity, sex hormone, or cancer researcher there are many opportunities to get together with other people that are equally as passionate about the science as you are and share ideas, criticisms, and advice about one another’s work to strengthen the potential for future discovery and breakthrough.  It is very fulfilling and rewarding to be able to communicate with other like-minded and passionate individuals.

 Colleges love to talk about how their diverse set of curricula helps to develop a well rounded education and worldview by exposing their students to a variety of topics that they otherwise would not be exposed to.  While this is true, going to school to become a scientist accomplishes this goal to a far greater degree.  Graduate school and scientific research teaches you how to think.  It requires you to develop the thought process and thought patterns to analyze almost any situation you may come across in life.  Your ability to analyze, dissect, and improve upon not only scientific research but pretty much any topic in the world (even if you don’t completely understand it) is an invaluable skill to have.  Basic science researchers practice their craft (analytical thinking) every day and are quite good at it.  Although most people are not aware of the broad skill set that scientists have outside of their expertise in a specific discipline, I feel it is important to recognize the many other aspects to their training and profession that can translate to outside careers. 

There are multiple reasons why I personally no longer have a desire to pursue a career in scientific research, but I know that keeping up with and disseminating the findings of new and exciting research studies will be a key to my future success in the health and fitness industry.  I know many people (myself included) cannot understand why some people would take up such a career with all of the associated pressure, stress, and struggles to succeed.  However, it is important to remember that scientists are more than just nerds in lab coats working in dark rooms on obscure facts.  They are super talented and hardworking people who are generating our knowledge of the universe surrounding us, whether it is space, earth, biology, physiology or a myriad of other specialties within the sciences.  So, whether or not you think someone is crazy for choosing a career in scientific research, stop and think about all of the contributions they have made to the world around you.  It is definitely more than meets the eye, and is a profession that should be highly respected even though it is often misunderstood.

Todd M. Weber PhD, MS, RD

The Plight of the Post Doc

How does this sound........you go to post secondary school for 10 to 12 years, accumulate tens of thousands of dollars of debt, postpone several major adult decisions such as purchasing a home, getting married, and having kids, and take limited to no vacations.  By the time you are in a financial position to have kids, your biological clock has nearly “timed out” adding more stress to your already stressful life.  To give yourself the best chance of future success, you also made the sacrifice of moving thousands of miles from home, friends, and family to pursue your dream of higher education and at the same time knowing that you will most likely never be able to find a job in your future profession within a four hour drive of where you grew up.  You typically work ~50-60 hours per week; however, some weeks with looming deadlines demand you work greater than 60 hours/wk

As with many professions of today, work life and home life are one in the same.

You constantly feel like you should be working and feel guilty for taking evenings and weekends off.  You have limited to no job security as your current position is guaranteed for about two to three years.  Depending on your productivity, along with luck/circumstances that are somewhat out of your control (i.e., grant funding) after two years you may essentially be fired and have to move to another city and in most cases an entirely different state and region.  To cap it all off, despite your 12 years of higher education, and hundreds of acquired technical, analytic, and reasoning skills, federal government pay scales from which most scientific postdocs are paid dictate you make no more than $41,000/yr to start your career!  Is this starting to sound like a pretty good career choice?  Well.....

This is the Plight of the Post Doc!  The hard work, dedication, and sacrifices required to become a postdoctoral researcher are not unique to the basic science career disciple.  Many professions demand putting off major adult decisions and making sacrifices in order to receive the (years of) training necessary to become successful in that profession.  The difference, however, between these careers and a career in basic science research is largely financial as the sacrifices made to pursue those careers are, by in large, worth it.  Medical doctors, surgeons, lawyers, physician assistants, MBA’s, accountants, and financial planners receive a level of compensation that makes all that hard work and sacrifice worth it.  None of these professions start off at $41,000/yr, job security is based on performance not circumstance, government funding, or grant cycles, and the opportunities for promotion and the ceiling for financial growth are much greater in careers outside of basic science.

In addition to medical knowledge, laboratory skills are vital to the success of a post doctoral researcher.

The best and worst advice you can give your 18 year old son or daughter is “to figure out what you love to do or are interested in and pursue it to the highest degree.”  This advice is completely solid if you make one qualifying statement and that is figure out what you love to do or are interested in and pursue it to the highest degree if you can get a worthwhile return on investment and make a living doing so.  What if your son or daughter is really interested in philosophy and more specifically the musings of 18th Century Kant and pursues it to the highest degree (PhD)?  How much will it cost him/her to complete this degree?  What are the career prospects for this degree?  How many different types of jobs require a PhD in philosophy?  And can you make a living studying the 21st Century relevance of 18th Century Kant?

Basic science research is the lifeblood of the biomedical industry and is a highly worthy cause.  It is where great discoveries happen and where the groundwork for drug discovery, patient care, and an increase in the health and quality of life for individuals is founded.  So many of today’s routine medical practices were yesterday’s basic science discoveries!  But with that being said, one must ask the question “why in the world would anyone want to pursue a career as a basic science researcher?” when the pay is so little, the job security is so poor, and the demands are so high.

Next week I’d like to share with you why, despite these unpleasant circumstances, scientists still do what they do.

Todd M. Weber PhD, MS, RD

Just Adding to the Confusion!

This morning the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a national environmental health research and advocacy organization issued a new report detailing the dangers of eating fortified cereal and snack bars.  In their report they identify 141 products (out of 2,550!) they perceived to be over-fortified, by their own standards this indicates the products contain a meager 30% or more of the adult daily value for vitamin A, zinc and/or niacin.  Only one of these three elements needed to meet their 30% threshold so if vitamin A was elevated but zinc or niacin were not, the cereal still made the list.  My response to this new “study” is really!!!!?  Are you kidding me?

Not exactly a kid's first choice in a breakfast bar or cereal!

If you look carefully at the EWG list you will notice that 11/23 cereals contain the word “bran” in their title and 15/23 contain the words “bran” or “whole grain”.  Not exactly the type of cereals that kids typically eat!  In addition, perhaps the EWG has already touched upon the topic, but isn’t it far more dangerous to take vitamin and mineral supplements on top of the nutrients we receive in our diets (1,2)?  Why focus on breakfast cereals and bars?  In today’s cereal article they provide the reader with numerous qualifying “could cause”, “can cause”, “can impair”, and “can result” statements, yet to the best of my knowledge, to date there is no hard scientific evidence linking cereal consumption to any of the toxicities, damage, or developmental abnormalities that they appear to be intent on scaring us all into thinking we might contract from feeding our kids breakfast cereals.

The health and wellness industry relentlessly tells all of us that we need to be consuming more vitamins and minerals for optimal health.  And to a certain degree, maybe they are warranted in doing so as less than 10% of Americans meet their daily nutrient requirements (3).  It also appears that Americans are listening to the health and wellness industry’s relentless chatter about our inability to meet the daily recommended nutrient intakes as greater than 50% of Americans now take some type of vitamin or mineral supplement (4).  Many of us are not meeting our daily micronutrient recommendations while on the other side of the coin many of us are exceeding recommendations.  However, for the vast majority of us, our micronutrient intake will neither kill us nor provide us with the fountain of youth.

Nearly 70% of Americans are overweight or obese (5).  Fortified cereals and bars not only help Americans meet their micronutrient requirements (6) but they are also an invaluable aid in calorie management.  In children and adolescents, regular breakfast cereal consumption is associated with a reduced likelihood of being overweight (7).  In general, breakfast cereals are not calorically dense and offer a healthy, cost effective, and convenient alternative to meals that we otherwise could be eating.  If breakfast cereals are so bad for all of us, what are we supposed to be eating, bacon and eggs?  Oh, that’s right we are often told that these options aren’t good for us either.

Congratulations EWG, you have done a great job of raising a caution flag in an area of nutrition that is really actually quite safe.  Your press release makes for great Internet fodder but does it actually help any of us eat better?  The headlines of the upcoming days are going to be how cereal is bad for us.  Most of us will not take the time to recognize the severe limitations of your “study” and will instead conclude that maybe we shouldn’t be eating cereal.  All of the anti-grain promoters will say, “see I told you grain is bad for you”.   I have to applaud you on your ability to further confuse the consumer and to give us all another reason to throw our hands in the air and say why bother!

Todd M. Weber PhD, MS, RD

 References:

1.  Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud C. Antioxidant supplements to prevent mortality. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. Sep 18 2013;310(11):1178-1179.
2. Miller ER, 3rd, Pastor-Barriuso R, Dalal D, Riemersma RA, Appel LJ, Guallar E. Meta-analysis: high-dosage vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality. Annals of internal medicine. Jan 4 2005;142(1):37-46.
3. Krebs-Smith SM, Guenther PM, Subar AF, Kirkpatrick SI, Dodd KW. Americans do not meet federal dietary recommendations. The Journal of nutrition. Oct 2010;140(10):1832-1838.
4. Gahche J, Bailey R, Burt V, et al. Dietary supplement use among U.S. adults has increased since NHANES III (1988-1994). NCHS data brief. Apr 2011(61):1-8.
5. Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Ogden CL. Prevalence of obesity and trends in the distribution of body mass index among US adults, 1999-2010. JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. Feb 1 2012;307(5):491-497.
6. Fulgoni VL, 3rd, Keast DR, Bailey RL, Dwyer J. Foods, fortificants, and supplements: Where do Americans get their nutrients? The Journal of nutrition. Oct 2011;141(10):1847-1854.
7. de la Hunty A, Gibson S, Ashwell M. Does regular breakfast cereal consumption help children and adolescents stay slimmer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obesity facts. 2013;6(1):70-85.

What's in Your Exercise Toolbox?

Recently I completed some part time work with a health promotion company that involved conducting a series of biometric screenings (height, weight, waist circumference, and blood pressure).  Over the course of these screenings I interacted with some very fit, lean, and healthy individuals as well as some very overweight, unhealthy individuals.  Meeting with such a diverse population made me really start to wonder, why is one group of people thin and fit while the other group of people is overweight and out of shape?  What makes these groups so different? 

Obesity is oftentimes blamed upon socioeconomic factors:  proximity to fast food, level of higher education, earnings potential, location of residence, and length of commute to work.  However, during these recent biometric screenings, these factors did not seem to be the primary culprit.  I say this because the individuals I screened all worked for the same company, and although they performed numerous different jobs, in a sense their careers were all fairly similar.  In addition, the majority of the individuals I worked with earned a similar amount of money, and all lived in the Denver metro. 

Admittedly, I do not have statistics and demographics on these people to be 100% certain that these important socioeconomic factors are not different among this group of individuals.  If I did have all of their demographic information, perhaps I would see some of these socioeconomic factors contributing to whether a specific individual was lean or obese.  However, I would like to propose an alternative hypothesis underlying the reason as to why these two groups of people were so different.  This hypothesis is not based on empirical data but is instead based upon the numerous conversations I had with hundreds of people over the course of the recent month.

The most striking difference I saw between fit, healthy individuals, and unhealthy individuals was the number of skills in their “exercise toolboxes”.  In my vernacular, an “exercise toolbox” is the sum of all the abilities, skills, and tools used/required for an individual to be physically active.  The fit, healthy individuals that I screened reported that they oftentimes went on hikes, mountain biked, swam, road biked, biked to work, walked their neighborhoods, lifted weights, monitored their activity levels with a Fitbit accelerometer, or were an active member of a gym.  In general, the unhealthy population reported being in more of a transitory period where they were meaning to increase the amount of physical activity they performed but had yet to do so and weren’t really sure ‘”how” to do so.  I believe, for the most part, the unhealthy population is lacking the skills and tools to become more physically active, not necessarily the ability or the initiative.  The bottom line is, the healthy population tends to have a larger exercise toolbox than the unhealthy population.

How many skills and tools are in your exercise toolbox?

In addition to the high levels of activity the lean individuals performed, they had also developed skills and strategies to remain active in the face of adversity.  For example, let’s say that you are a regular runner and use it as your only form of exercise.  Eventually you find yourself with a running related injury.  Now what??  Do you quit exercising and take it easy until your injury heals?  Do you try to stretch and alternate between heat and cold and battle through the pain because running is all you know how to do?  Or do you find another mode of exercise to maintain your fitness while you do what’s necessary to get your injury healed up?

In the case of a runner with numerous tools at his/her disposal the following options are viable (depending on the injury, of course): swimming laps, running in a pool, stair climbing, walking on an incline treadmill, rock climbing, riding an exercise bike, rowing, or circuit training with weights.  These are all skills that must be learned or developed; however, this description provides an example of someone with a great exercise toolbox.

If you do not have access to a gym's equipment, can you make do in the park?

So, what about those individuals from the health screenings that finds him or herself overweight or obese.  As I mentioned above, so many times these individuals tell me that they know what they need to do, they just are not doing it.  I think this logic may apply more to nutrition (eat more fruits, vegetables, and lean meat) than it does to exercise.  Anyone who has ever been in a fitness center of gym knows that 90% of the people performing resistance training DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING (regardless of age or current fitness status)!  I give them a tremendous amount of credit for being in the gym, but I am amazed by the way they contort their bodies, tug, pull, and yank on equipment without severely injuring themselves.  The vast majority of overweight/obese individuals have no prior experience with resistance training and cannot just walk into a gym and feel comfortable being there, let alone with how to use the equipment.  The same idea holds true for cardiovascular equipment.  Many of us know how to turn on the machine, but how fast should you go and for how long?  How many days a week is necessary?  Should you alternate with sprints and rest?  There are so many questions that need answers.  Again, these skills must be learned, developed, or taught by a trainer, nutritionist, or friend. 

Performing a pull-up in the park can replace a lat pull-down in the gym

It is very important to keep in mind that there is nothing wrong with not knowing the first thing about exercise.  In fact, I think the majority of the people in the US today don’t know any more about basic exercise than they learned in Physical Eduation class in school growing up.  But, identifying activities that interest you and that you are willing and excited to learn about is the key to establishing those first tools into your toolbox.  Don’t limit yourself to just the traditional running and lifting weights, think outside the box!  Also, it is important to understand that there is nothing wrong with asking for help, searching on the Internet, hiring a coach, or buying a book to help you learn about a new activity.  Very few people can teach themselves how to play an instrument, so why should you have to teach yourself how to exercise.  It may be intimidating to ask for help or try something new (especially as an adult), but obtaining new skills and finding new passions makes it all worth it.

Someone with a great exercise toolbox has all the skills and knowledge necessary to be able to perform numerous different types of activities and also knows how to adapt to numerous different circumstances (injury, travel, weather, time, etc.).  No matter how large your toolbox or diverse your skill set there is always room to add new skills and explore different forms of physical activity.  If you are bored with your current routine, I encourage you to seek other new and exciting forms of physical activity.  You may not need to know how to swim or kayak now, but it may be a useful skill to add to your exercise toolbox for a later time.  When you do need it down the road, you’ll be ready!

Todd M. Weber, PhD, MS, RD