The Encore Fitness Blog Resources and information from top Las Vegas personal trainers, fitness and dietary experts. Carol Strom.

March 16, 2012

Exercise Makes You Smarter By Giving Your Brain Extra Energy

Exercise Makes You Smarter By Giving Your Brain Extra Energy

Everyone knows exercise is good for you, and studies have previously shown that it can boost learning

and even stave off dementia in later life—though nobody knew why. New research suggests, though, that it’s because the brain takes advantage of energy delivery systems just as much as your muscles.

When you exercise, your muscles create something called mitochondria—tiny structures in cells that provide the body with energy. It turns out brain cells also get a boost in mitochoindira when you exercise, according to research, which appears in the Journal of Applied Physiology, by J. Mark Davis, a physiologist at the University of South Carolina.

According to the researcher, the presence of extra mitochoindria in the brain provides an increased energy supply, which in turn allows the brain to work faster and more efficiently. It could help explain why exercise seems to reduce age- and disease-related declines in brain function. “The evidence is accumulating rapidly that exercise keeps the brain younger,” Davis told Scientific American. [Journal of Applied Physiology via Scientific American; Image:Rido/Shutterstock]

article originally from: Gizmodo

June 23, 2011

Did you miss it? Look through our before & after success stories!

Filed under: Uncategorized — Encore Personal Training @ 4:10 pm

Encore Personal Training, Boot Camps, Pilates and Yoga offers affordable, convenient and professional services for your health and fitness goals. Browse through our previous clients to see what they have to say about our Las Vegas Personal Trainers!

www.rockyourbody.com

And go to our “testimonials” page!

June 3, 2011

Copy your Cat!

Are you flexible?

Some people are just naturally more flexible. Flexibility or the lack of it can be due to your genetics, gender, age, body shape, and level of physical activity.
As people grow older, they may get wiser but they also tend to lose flexibility. Sometimes the loss of flexibility is the result of inactivity, but it is also because of the aging process itself. The less active you are, the less flexible you are likely to be. And like most everything, including cardiovascular endurance and muscle strength, flexibility will improve with regular training too.

So make like cat-woman…or Katmandu… as the case may be. You need to work it like a cat; stretch and bend at least twice a day. You’ll have the flexibility to keep you purring right along. If you need a good example of how to stretch click on Zeke.

June 2, 2011

The myth of ripped muscles and calorie burns

Weight training can build muscle, but that doesn't mean you start burning calories like a Hummer burns gasoline. (Mark Boster, Los Angeles Times / May 16, 2011)

Sorry to say, but gaining muscle doesn’t make your metabolism skyrocket. Put down that Haagen-Dazs.

Whenever I hear about some amazing way to boost resting metabolism, my male-bovine-droppings detector goes berserk. Take the perennially popular one stating that 1 pound of muscle burns an extra 50 calories a day while at rest — so if you gain 10 pounds of muscle, your resting metabolic rate (RMR) soars by an extra 500 calories each day.

Awesome!

And also drivel. I’m more likely to believe bears use Porta-Potties and the pope is a Wiccan.

Though its origins are uncertain, any number of fitness magazines have made the “50 calories per pound of muscle” statement. Popular weight-loss gurus have jumped on the muscle-building-as-panacea-for-fat-loss bandwagon as well.

Dr. Mehmet Oz said in a 2007 presentation to the National Cosmetology Assn., “Muscle burns about 50 times more calories than fat does.” Bill Phillips wrote in his bestselling “Body for Life” that, “through resistance training, you can also significantly increase your metabolic rate … weight training is even superior to aerobic exercise for people who want to lose weight.” And Jorge Cruise wrote in “8 Minutes in the Morning” that his exercise regimen “will help you firm up five pounds of lean muscle within the first few weeks, allowing your body to burn an extra 250 calories per day.”

Gain 5 pounds of muscle in the first few weeks? If only.

Let’s use me as an example. I’ve added about 20 pounds of muscle through several years of hard weightlifting. If this myth holds true, I’ve gained 1,000 calories of additional resting metabolic rate each day. Well, I keep pretty close tabs on my energy balance, and I can guarantee this isn’t happening. Too bad, because those extra 1,000 calories a day could translate to a gluttonous feast of salt-and-vinegar potato chips and cookie dough ice cream.

Beyond making me the go-to guy for opening pickle jars, what other contributions are made by that extra muscle? To get the answer, I spoke with Claude Bouchard of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, La., who has authored several books and hundreds of scientific papers on the subject of obesity and metabolism. Bouchard told me that muscle, it turns out, makes a fairly small contribution to RMR.

“Brain function makes up close to 20% of RMR,” he said. “Next is the heart, which is beating all the time and accounts for another 15-20%. The liver, which also functions at rest, contributes another 15-20%. Then you have the kidneys and lungs and other tissues, so what remains is muscle, contributing only 20-25% of total resting metabolism.”

So, if you slave at weightlifting and increase your muscle mass by an ambitious 20%, this translates into only a 4% to 5% increase in RMR. Since a 200-pound man has an RMR of roughly 2,000 calories, a 20% increase in muscle mass equals only an 80- to 100-calorie increase.

For fun, let’s run the numbers in even more detail, adding the role played by body fat. Bouchard sent me a follow-up email explaining that — based on the biochemical and metabolic literature — a pound of muscle burns six calories a day at rest and a pound of fat burns about two calories a day, contrary to what the myth states. So, muscle is three times more metabolically active at rest than fat, not 50 times.

Again, let’s use me as a guinea pig and do the math. The 20 pounds of muscle I’ve gained through years of hard work equate to an added 120 calories to my RMR. Not insignificant, but substantially less than 1,000. However, I also engaged in a lot of aerobic activity and dietary restriction to lose 50 pounds of fat, which means I also lost 100 calories per day of RMR. So, post-physical transformation, my net caloric burn is only 20 calories higher per day, earning me one-third of an Oreo cookie. Bummer.

Don’t think I’m down on weights; I lift four hours a week because it’s awesome. It makes me stronger, increases my bone density and improves the strength of my connective tissues. It hardens me against injury from other activities. And my wife says that it makes me pretty from the neck down.

Bill Phillips told me through an assistant that weightlifting is better for fat loss because “each new pound of muscle tissue increases chronic total energy expenditure/metabolism” and that “aerobic exercise alone does not offer this benefit.” However, a sizable body of research shows that intense aerobic activity like running burns twice as many calories per hour as hard weightlifting, and the metabolic boost from added muscle is not nearly enough to compensate for this difference.

(I should note that Phillips and I are on the same general side in that we both recommend a combination of aerobic training and weightlifting.)

But wait! When you factor in “after burn,” couldn’t weightlifting still be some miracle calorie-consumer? Sorry, Conan, but after-burn — technically called excess post-exercise oxygen consumption, or EPOC — does exist, but only to a small degree. As I’ve covered in an earlier column, the EPOC of interval training is insignificant. And the same holds true for weightlifting.

A quick scan of the research:

• In 1995, researchers at the University of Limburg in the Netherlands published a study in Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise on 21 male subjects and determined that weight-training “has no effect” on RMR.

• In 1994, researchers at the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University in Denmark compared 10 bodybuilders with 10 lean (you are so puny!) subjects. Published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, the report found that intense weight-lifting did not result in any measurable EPOC.

• In 1992, researchers from the University of Texas at Austin compared intense weightlifting with intense aerobic exercise on 47 males and reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that “RMR did not significantly change after either training regimen.”

Certainly the act of weightlifting burns calories, but intensity makes a big difference. In 1988, researchers at the University of Alabama in Birmingham published a study in the Journal of Applied Sport Science Research that used 17 subjects to compare the caloric burn of light versus heavier weightlifting.

When accounting for the same total volume of weight lifted (lifting 100 pounds three times is the same “volume” as lifting 300 pounds once), they found that when people lifted at 80% intensity, they burned three times as much energy as lifting at 20% intensity.

All of this, in any case, ignores the most important part of weight loss: what you eat. “The bottom line is that weight loss is 90% about diet,” obesity researcher Dr. Sue Pedersen, a specialist in endocrinology and metabolism in Calgary, told me. “The studies show that exercise alone is not going to result in weight loss.”

In other words, hours of running and weightlifting won’t burn your belly fat if you fuel that exercise with Haagen-Dazs.

June 1, 2011

Got culture?

Got culture? Museums, theaters and concert halls may be the ticket to a happy, healthy life

People who attended concerts, went to museums, and engaged in cultural activities in general were happier and healthier in a recent study. (Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times)

The secret to a healthy, happy life may be found at an art gallery, movie theater or concert hall. (It might even be in church, a baseball stadium or gym.) At least if you live in Norway.
A study of more than 50,000 Norwegian men and women found that those involved in cultural activities — either “receptive” activities like attending a concert or a baseball game or “creative” ones like playing in a band or working out — were more likely to be satisfied with their lives and to say they were in good health. They were also less likely to experience anxiety or depression.

The particular activities that made a difference were a little different for men and women. For instance, women who attended sporting events were more likely to report being in “good” or “very good” health. For men, involvement with anyreceptive cultural activity, including visiting a museum or going to the theater, was linked with “good” or “very good” perceived health.

With regard to depression, both men and women had lower scores if they participated in clubs, outdoor activites or worked out. Women also had lower scores if they went dancing, and men also had lower scores if they were involved in music, singing or theater.

Generally speaking, the more people engaged in various cultural activities, the better their scores:

“In both women and men, a dose-response effect was indicated,” the researchers wrote. “The frequency of cultural particpation and the number of different activities were positively associated with good health, SWL (satisfaction with life), a lower anxiety score and a lower depression score.”

Of course, people who earn more money were more likely to take part in both receptive and creative cultural activities. And it’s well known that people with higher incomes are also more likely to be healthy. But the researchers found that a link between cultural partipation and health that was independent of socioeconomic status.

May 31, 2011

Are Americans Too Big To Drive Small?

Analysts say Americans' waistlines may keep us from choosing small cars. (Adam Morath, AOL Autos)

Karen Steelman, a stay-at-home mom from Athens, Ga., has tried to like small cars. She read plenty of reviews, kicked their tires, and has even taken a few test drives.

But none of them make her feel safe. And none of them make her feel comfortable.

Steelman has a body mass index of about 37 – seven points above the obesity mark. She’s among a growing number of Americans who feel they are too big to comfortably drive a small car.

“I want to be environmentally friendly, but unless I am in an SUV these days … I find no pleasure or comfort in driving,” she says.

Automakers have long tried to figure out how to get Americans to buy smaller cars. But with obesity rates climbing, at least one analyst says there’s little point in trying.

Growing waistlines simply prevent a lot of U.S. drivers from feeling comfortable or secure in smaller cars. So, unless the entire country goes on a diet, says Dan Cheng, vice president and partner at business consulting firm AT Kearney, we may be destined to keep driving big cars no matter how much a gallon of gas costs in the future.

Cheng says the number of light trucks – a segment of the car market that includes SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks – has increased steadily since the 1970s. And so has the percentage of adults in the U.S. who are classified as obese.

The number of obese people in the U.S. is expected to increase from 40% this year to about 43% in 2018, Cheng says. Cheng predicts that will keep almost half the population from even considering a small car except for purely economic reasons as small cars tend also to be cheaper than big cars or SUVs.

Calculating the “real” obesity rate in the U.S. is a little tricky. Cheng’s 40% rate is at the high end of estimates. The Center for Disease Control says the overall self-reported obesity rate in the U.S. is 26.7%, with nine states reporting obesity rates over 30%. In any case, the rate is nowhere close to the 15% rate the CDC considers to be a healthy obesity rate.

Small cars have made up 22.6% of the U.S. car market so far this year. Back in 2008, small car sales made up about 28% of the market, back when gas spiked over $4 a gallon.

Smaller cars and alternative fuels are critical to President Obama’s plan to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. The President last week promised to cut oil imports by a third by 2025. To do that, the country will have to slash its petroleum use.

First Lady Michelle Obama has made fighting childhood obesity one of her public service missions, but so far no one in the Obama Administration has made the connection.

Virtually All Cars and SUVs are Becoming Much More Fuel Efficient

Today’s SUVs and mid-sized sedans and crossovers are becoming more fuel efficient than their predecessors of a decade ago. But it’s smaller cars, which tend to be the most fuel efficient of all because they are smaller and lighter, that are critical to automakers meeting toughening fuel economy standards imposed by Congress.

Automakers have to meet a Congressionally mandated fleet average of 35 mpg by 2016.

Some of the most fuel-efficient small vehicles on the road get over 40 mpg, like the Ford Fiesta. The most fuel-efficient pickup truck is the Ford Ranger, and it gets 24 mpg, according to the government site fueleconomy.gov. A new Kia Rio, debuting this fall, will also be above 40 mpg when certified by the EPA. But neither of these vehicles was especially designed to accommodate widening waistlines.

Ironically, there are a few small cars that are designed to be extra roomy inside making them noteworthy for their interior spaciousness, if not for exceptional fuel economy. The Honda FitNissan Cube and Versa, and Scion xBall have ample space up front, with good headroom and comfortable space for the driver. The Volkswagen Beetlehas long been a favorite among large people because of its easy egress and excess headroom.

Of those cars, only the Fit and Versa get above 30 mpg, and only just barely. In order for automakers to reach a 35 mpg fleet average by 2016, automakers need to boost those ratings closer to 40 mpg.

The most fuel efficient compact SUVs — the Hybrid versions Ford EscapeMercury Mariner and Mazda Tribute — get 32 mpg. Their non-hybrid versions get 25 mpg.

Resources For the Future, a Washington D.C. think-tank that explores environmental and energy issues, says they’ve found a link between obesity and large vehicle sales, too. They say policies that reduce obesity can also reduce fuel consumption, because smaller people drive smaller cars.

Automakers like Ford are trying to design interiors that keep the bigger population comfortable. Elizabeth Baron, Ford’s technical specialist for virtual reality and advanced visualization, says the automaker has recently updated its database of model human sizes to incorporate the growing number of obese adults.

Automakers Looking at Console and Roofline To Make More Room

To keep drivers comfortable, her team focuses on a few key areas: The center console, seat controls on the left, and head room. If the center console is too large, it can press into peoples’ bodies. And the storage space in the console can be awkward for larger people to use. Seat controls can also be difficult to reach. Also, because obese drivers sit higher in their seats, they often feel squeezed if the roof line is too low. Automakers also need to be aware of where they place sunroof controls, because those can get in the way.

Robert Dean Cole, from Kenosha, Wis., is 6 foot 7 inches and 240 pounds, and his six-year-old son is nearly 5 feet tall.

“Obviously, little cars are not going to be in our future,” he says.

While he’d like to own a car with better gas mileage, he says he can barely fit behind the steering wheel in most of them.

“And even if I could actually fit under the steering wheel of the car my next worry would be surviving a car accident,” he says. “Good chance I won’t be surviving due to my size.”

So he recently purchased a Ford F-150 – one of the biggest vehicles in the U.S. It is also the most popular.

Jake Fisher, senior engineer at Consumer Reports, thinks it’s more that fear of being crushed that keeps most people away from small cars. Fisher has recently been test-driving a Fiat 500 for Consumer Reports, and he can fit his entire family in the car comfortably. They’ve enjoyed using it for around town.

But out on the highway, when they encounter some trucks, being in the small can feel a bit sketchy, he says. “When you drive up next to a Suburban, it’s a little intimidating,” Fisher says.

Consumer Reports, in fact, last year came out with a list of “Best Cars for Larger Drivers,” to spotlight their recommendation to auto companies to redesign seats and seat-belts for reasons of both comfort and safety. The consumer advocacy organization, which tests cars, recommended several cars for their roomy driver position and easy access. AOL Autos Editors augmented that list with a few selections and can be seen in the gallery below.

Still, because SUVs have been so popular for so long, many consumers won’t consider small cars out of fear they will come up on the short end of a one-on-one collision with one. Also, auto designers say many drivers, especially women, have come to like the elevated, commanding seating positions that come with SUVs. This attitude is especially prevalent in rural markets where pickups and SUVs make up a larger percentage of overall vehicles than in the cities and suburbs.

But the idea that bigger is safer is often not true. Many small cars get as good or better crash ratings than larger vehicles because automakers have engineered many safety features into small cars precisely to make up for their lack of mass in a collision with a larger vehicle. The 2011 Ford Fiesta has a 4-star crash rating from the Federal government, as listed at www.safecar.gov, the same as the Ford F-150 pickup truck, and better than some larger corossovers and SUVs like the Toyota RAV4 (which gets 3-Star). The Scion TC, built by Toyota and a small car, earned a 5-star rating.

It’s important to research each car under consideration for purchase because size of vehicle doesn’t always tell the whole safety story. But the vehicle does need to fit in the first place when a customer sits behind the wheel.

Bottom Line
A vehicle needs to fit its occupant, and clever design and engineering can overcome size limitations. As any large person who has test driven cars can attest, the Honda Fit and VW Beetle are roomier for the driver than some larger vehicles like Ford Taurus or Nissan Maxima.

Automakers under pressure to achieve better fuel economy across their lineup may need to give greater consideration to making small cars more comfortable for average Americans. Those that place sleek design over practical will lose customers and consideration.

April 30, 2011

Tall, obese men at higher risk for blood clots

Tall men, especially if they are obese, are at a greater risk for blood clots than shorter, normal-weight men, suggests a new study. (AFP / Getty Images / April 29, 2011)

Tall and obese men appear more likely to develop venous thromboemoblism, which can lead to a potentially lethal blood clot in the lungs, according to a study published Thursday.

Researchers from the University of Tromso in Norway analyzed height and weight data from 26,714 people and assessed the incidence of venous thromboembolism over 12-1/2 years. In that time, 461 people developed the condition, in which a blood clot (or thrombosis) forms in a deep vein, usually in the thigh, and can move into an artery in the lung. Here’s a basic explanation of the condition fromPatient Health International and a detailed look, including risk factors, from Cleveland Clinic.

In the lung, the clot (called a pulmonary embolism) blocks blood supply and can lead to death. The American Heart Assn. offers this look at venous thromboembolism incidence and fatality statistics.

It begins: “Venous thromboembolism occurs for the first time in about 100 per 100,000 persons each year in the United States. About one third of patients with symptomatic VTE manifest pulmonary embolism, whereas two thirds manifest deep-vein thrombosis alone.”

The new research suggests that being either obese or tall, or the combination, puts men at greater risk for the condition compared to short (5 feet 7.7 inches or shorter), normal-weight men. Men who were obese and taller than 5 feet 11.7 inches were at fivefold greater risk of a blood clot, and men who were tall but of normal weight had a 2.6 times greater risk. Short, obese men had a 2.1 greater risk than short normal-weight men for a blood clot.

Yes, women too: Obese women, short or tall, had a slightly greater risk of a blood clot, scientists reported in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology. Tall normal-weight women didn’t have increased risk.

Obesity is already a well-known risk factor for deep-vein thrombosis, but researchers aren’t sure why tall people would be more prone to such clots. The lead author of the study, Sigrid Braekkan, offers an explanation in a press release:

“In tall people the blood must be pumped a longer distance by the calf-muscle pump, which may cause reduced flow in the legs and thereby raise the risk of clotting,” Braekkan said.

There’s nothing a man can do about his height, so researchers say big men – and short ones, of course — should try to stay slim.

In the meantime, here are a few tips for preventing blood clots from the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality:

— Don’t remain sedentary for more than an hour.

— On plane trips, get up from your seat and move around.

— Try not to cross your legs

— Wear loose-fitting clothing

— Reduce salt in your diet

And here are some tips from the same agency on preventing venous thromboembolsim in the hospital. There, it’s the most common cause of preventable death.

April 29, 2011

Interval training may help obese and overweight people slim down

A group cycling class can offer high-intensity cardiovascular training. (Jewel Samad / AFP/Getty Images)

The one-two punch of high-intensity exercise and healthful eating was helpful in getting overweight and obese people to slim down, a study finds.

The study, presented this week at the National Obesity Summit in Montreal, Canada, focused on data on 62 overweight and obese men and women involved in a nine-month program at the Montreal Heart Institute. The participants engaged in two to three weekly one-hour supervised exercise sessions and were instructed on how to follow a Mediterranean diet.

The exercise sessions concentrated on high-interval training, or alternating between short periods of vigorous workouts and rest periods. Interval training has been shown in some studies to promote weight loss as it boosts cardiovascular health. Participants had a five-minute warm-up followed by repeated bouts of exercise at 80% of peak effort. Those were interspersed with brief recovery periods, and the workout finished with a five-minute cool-down. In addition, the study subjects did a 20-minute weight training circuit and were encouraged to do one or two moderate 45-minute exercise sessions a week.

At the end of the study, the men and women on average lost 5.5% of their body mass, reduced waist circumference by 5.15% and increased cardiovascular capacity by 15%. They also had an average 7% decrease in LDL (bad) cholesterol and an 8% increase in HDL (good) cholesterol.

In the study the authors concluded that the supervised twice-weekly interval training program “appeared feasible, safe and time-efficient in this obese population.”

April 15, 2011

7 Breakfast Foods to Swap In, Not Out

Is breakfast really the “most important” meal of the day? Maybe, at least that’s what they told us in health class.

So if breakfast is the first meal of the day and you’re trying to lose weight, it’s probably a smart idea to make your first meal a good one.

And since most dieters judge food by two simple factors: fat and calories. Here are seven foods you should ditch and seven foods you should switch to if you’re looking for a better breakfast.

English Muffin or Bagel?

ENGLISHMUFFIN.jpg

Sorry, but a bagel with a schmear of cream cheese just isn’t Kosher – at least not for dieting. You’re better off switching to toasted nooks and crannies dripping with melted butter.

*English Muffin, with butter
5.8g total fat
189 calories

Bagel, with cream cheese
8g total fat
436 calories

Apple or Banana?

APPLES.jpg

Let’s face it, both apples and bananas are awesome – probably the healthiest foods on this list – but, if you’re looking to cut calories, go with the apple.

*Apple
0.17g total fat
50 calories

Banana
0.33g total fat
100 calories

Blueberry Yogurt or Oatmeal?

BLUEBERRYYOGURT.jpg

Even without the “probiotics,” eating a light yogurt is smarter than a bowl of old fashioned oatmeal.

*Dannon Light’n Fit Blueberry Yogurt (6oz)
0g total fat
80 calories

Old Fashioned Quaker Oats, with water (1/2 cup)
3g total fat
150 calories

Coffee with Skim Milk or 2% Milk?

STARBUCKSCOFFEE.jpg

For most people, missing their morning coffee is grounds for murder. So please, drink up! But make sure you stick with non-fat milk, not 2%

*Starbucks Coffee, with non-fat milk (short)
0g total fat
35 calories

Starbucks Coffee, with 2% milk (short)
2g total fat
50 calories

Wheaties or Raisin Bran?

CEREAL.jpg

One cereal uses professional athletes to push product. Another is peddled by the sun. The sports stars win, go with a bowl of Wheaties.

*Wheaties (1 cup)
1g total fat
110 calories

Raisin Bran (1 cup)
1.3g total fat
190 calories

Turkey Bacon or Pork?

BACON.jpg

It isn’t real bacon – it might not even taste like it – but the fat and calories don’t lie. Spare a pig, eat a turkey!

*Butterball Bacon-Style Turkey (1 slice, 18g)
3g total fat
40 calories

Pork Bacon (3 slices, 19g)
7.9g total fat
103 calories

Grapefruit Juice or Orange Juice?

GRAPEFRUITJUICE.jpg

Grapefruit juice might not taste as sweet, but choke it down. It’s better than orange juice. And when you drink grapefruit juice, it’s less likely to squirt in your eye.

*Tropicana Grapefruit Juice (8 fl oz)
0g total fat
90 calories

Tropicana Orange Juice (8 fl oz)
0g total fat
110 calories

April 12, 2011

Does Dieting Make You Angry And Stressed?

The idea of reaching for a stick of celery when all you really want is a big slice of chocolate cake, would probably make most people a little grumpy.

And, according to results published in the Journal of Consumer Research, exerting self-control while dieting can in fact make people feel angry and irritable.

The researchers set up four experiments to compare the attitudes of volunteers who were on a diet, with those who ate what they wanted. They found that:

  • Participants who choose an apple over a bar of chocolate were more likely to choose movies which had angry, revenge-filled plots.
  • Those who choose a gift certificate for groceries rather than one for a spa service, showed more interest in looking at angry faces as opposed to more fearful ones.
  • And, in an other experiment, people who chose a healthy snack instead of a less healthy one were more irritated by a public service advert promoting exercise.

Interestingly, the researchers have linked these feelings of irritation, stress, and anger to the act of exerting self-control while dieting, rather than the “dieting” itself.

The researchers point out that public policy makers should be more aware of the potential negative emotions, which can result when the public are encouraged to exert more self control over their daily choices.

What about you — does being on a diet make you feel more irritated or angry? How do you make healthy food choices without feeling like you’re denying yourself?

Article Courtesy from: diet-blog
Image courtesy by: Kreutziana

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress