Lifesize Science

Understanding Our Claims, and the Science and Research Behind Them!

The purpose of this page is to list the claims we make about our product – the Lifesize basic kit and the Lifesize Program – and to give you the studies and articles we used to develop Lifesize and to back up our claims.

This paper is broken down into sections, according to the types of claims:

Summary of statements we make about diets, portion controlweight loss and LifeSize

Claims we make about Diets

Claims we make about the Lifesize Weight Loss System

We do make certain statements about the failure and difficulty of diets and dieting because we are making an argument for the superiority of portion control as a weight loss and weight loss maintenance strategy.

From there, we build the argument for our unique portion control product. We then make claims about our product’s effectiveness in weight loss. And we have the studies and articles we believe back up our product.

In structuring this paper, we will lay out each claim, then provide you with information to back up that claim, so you can see how we either say the claim or support it in our explanation of Lifesize. This will give you an additional opportunity to understand Lifesize Portions, how it works, and what you can expect from our system!

After the script section, we will give you the logic and science and supporting articles and research for that claim.

The next page has a summary of the claims we make and some supporting science and articles. Then, in the following pages, we will walk you through each claim, flesh out how we usually say that claim so that you are familiar with our wording, and then provide you with the documentation to back up each claim.

I will often highlight specific passages and lines in the research to guide legal through some of the longer research documents. However, I don’t know exactly what Legal will want to read, nor how much. So many times I’ve included the links to the entire study on the web. And also, some of the research covers several points that I think are appropriate so I will indicate that too.

.

Here is a general overview of some of the material we used to back up our claims. I am highlighting some of the material that was most important and used often in designing our program. Other material and studies will be presented in the separate sections for each individual claim.

There is a lot of research that we’ve done over a period of 30 years, but Here are 5 sources of studies and research that help you understand the claims that Lifesize makes about our system:

Source 1 (New England Journal of Medicine)

Source 1 (New England Journal of Medicine)

1. The New England Journal of Medicine (February 26, 2009)
published a 2 year study that compared low-fat, low-carb
and other diets. This is one of the longest and largest
studies ever done on diets, if you can believe that.
The conclusions support a lot of what we say about losing
weight and diets, as well as the methods we use on the
Lifesize Program to induce weight loss and weight loss
maintenance. Here are some of their conclusions which we
find supportive:
- There is no significant difference in weight-loss between
a low fat or low carb diet. As a matter of fact, no diet
has the magic bullet of the type of food someone should eat
for weight loss. The key is to come up with a personal
eating plan that you can live with for life and stick to
it.
- It does all come down to calories in versus calories out,
no matter what you are eating.
- There is no significant health benefit to one diet over
another. The blood profile did not improve more for the
low-fat diet or the low-carb diet.
- But what was significant is that when a person lost
weight, no matter how he or she did it, their blood profile
improved, sometimes significantly (good cholestrol went up,
bad cholestrol went down, triclycerides also dropped).
Thus, the conclusion one must draw from this material is
that the healthiest thing you can do for your health is to
lose weight.
- Social and psychological factors should be considered in
coming up with a diet plan that someone is going to stick
to for a lifetime. Sometimes these are more important than
other factors like cutting carbs, fat, etc.
You can find the full report here:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/9/859
This was such a big and important study that you can find
summaries of the report in major newspapers with these
links:

 LA Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-scidiet26-

2009feb26,0,336991.story

 ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/story?id=6960102&

page=1

 Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB123559955210376029-
lMyQjAxMDI5MzA1NTUwOTU5Wj.html

 USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/weightloss/2009-02-25-
diets-calories_N.htm

 NYTimes

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/health/nutrition/26diet.h
tml
Some of the important comments in these newspapers about
this report were:
“In the end, all the diets produced weight loss to the same
extent,” said Dr. Frank Sacks, lead author of the study and
professor in the department of nutrition at the Harvard
School of Public Health. “It really doesn’t matter what
particular amounts of fat, carbohydrates or proteins you
eat.” from the ABC News article

From the Wall Street Journal article:
You aren’t what you eat. You’re how much.
That’s the message from a two-year National Institutes of
Health-funded study that assigned 811 overweight people to
one of four reduced-calorie diets and found that all
trimmed pounds just the same. It didn’t matter what foods
participants ate, but rather how many calories they
consumed.

An intense debate has long raged over which dieting regimen
is best. Low carb? High protein? Low fat? But the federal
study, one of the longest of its kind, “really goes against
the idea that certain foods are the key to weight loss,”
says Frank Sacks, principal investigator and a professor of
cardiovascular-disease prevention at Harvard School of
Public Health. “This is a pretty positive message. It gives
people a lot of choices to find a diet they can stick
with.”

 

Also from the same article in the Wall Street Journal:
Rudy Termini, a retiree in Cambridge, Mass., says that
before joining the study, he downed about 2,400 calories a
day. If he dined on T-bone steak, he’d make it a onepounder.
“I just didn’t need all that food,” says the 69-
year-old and former owner of a telecommunications company.
Smaller Steaks

 

Mr. Termini, who is 5 feet 11 inches tall, says he dropped
to 175 pounds from 195 pounds and lost his “little pot
belly” by limiting himself to 1,800 calories a day. He
followed the study’s higher-fat, average-protein diet (40%
fat, 15% protein, and 45% carbohydrates). For fats, he ate
avocado, nuts and other sources of unsaturated fat. Mr.
Termini says he stuck with the diet because he could eat
what he enjoys, but just smaller portions — his steak
choice now is a small fillet. He says he’s kept the weight
off since the study ended.

 

The message is that dieting may be “much simpler” than
everyone thought, says Catherine Loria, a nutritional
epidemiologist at the NIH and co-author of the study.
Along with choosing healthful foods, “all you have to do
is count your calories.”

 

The USA Today article summarizes the study:
In 4-diet study, all lost weight if they watched their calories
In addition to weight loss, subjects reduced their risk of
heart disease and diabetes and improved their blood
pressure.

 

When all is said and done, it comes down to calories.
A landmark study shows that people can lose weight on a
variety of diets — including low-fat plans and low-carb
ones — as long as they consume fewer calories.
Yes, it does seem like common sense, but weight loss has
become a big business. Diet programs and best-selling books
offer a banquet of different approaches, including cutting
fats or cutting carbohydrates.

 

To get to the heart of the matter, the National Heart,
Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of
Health financed a two-year study of hundreds of overweight
people. The research was conducted by experts at the
Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and the
Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, part
of the Louisiana State University system.

 

They came up with “a very simple message that cuts through
all the hype: To lose weight, it comes down to how much you
put in your mouth — it’s not a question of eating a
particular type of diet,” says Frank Sacks, a lead
researcher and professor of cardiovascular disease
prevention at Harvard.

 

Four diets, 811 overweight participants

 

The researchers recruited 811 overweight or obese older
adults and put them on one of four diet plans, including
two low-fat diets with 20% of calories from fat and two
high-fat plans with 40% of calories from fat. The calories
from carbohydrates ranged from 35% to 65%. Protein was
either 15% or 25% of calories.

 

Dieters were encouraged to attend regular individual and
group weight-loss counseling sessions and keep an online
food diary. Everyone was given a personalized calorie goal,
and most aimed for 750 calories below their daily needs.
Participants’ exercise goals were modest: about 90 minutes
of moderate physical activity a week. Researchers were
focused on how the composition of the diets affected weight
loss and did not want to distort the results.

 

Among the findings, presented in today’s New England
Journal of Medicine:
• In six months, the dieters lost an average of 13 pounds
no matter which diet they were on.
• After two years, they had kept off an average of 9 pounds
and lost 1 to 3 inches in the waist, regardless of which
diet they were on.
• Dieters had improvements in heart-disease risk factors,
including increases in the HDL (good) cholesterol, and
decreases in LDL (bad) cholesterol and triglycerides (blood
fats) at six months and two years.
• People reported similar levels of fullness, hunger and
satisfaction on the different diets.

Source 2: U.S. Center for Disease Control

Source 2

We are going to quote several different studies from
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
You can get to the studies by these links
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/index.html
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/nutrition/pdf/portion_size_
research.pdf
Look at such topics as;
Nutrition for everyone
Healthy Weight
Overweight and Obesity
Portion size research
Specifically, from the portion size research pdf entitled
“Do Increased Portion Sizes Affect How Much We Eat”, the
CDC used a huge amount of research to prove that…

 

RESEARCH TO PRACTICE:
As we have seen from the research review above, portion
sizes in this country have increased over the past two
decades. The research also shows that portion size
influences how many calories a person consumes, and
may hinder the ability of individuals to accurately assess
how much they are eating. Because oversized portions
are pervasive in our culture, from restaurants to
supermarkets to vending machines, it is important to make
people aware of the subtle ways in which portion size can
sabotage even the most valiant weight control efforts, and
to give them strategies for avoiding some common pitfalls.
discourage inadvertent overeating.
They suggest ideas that we have incorporated into the
Lifesize Program:

 

Portion control when eating out. Many restaurants serve
more food than is appropriate for one person. Encourage
your patients or clients to control the amount of food that
ends up on their plate by splitting an entrée with a
friend, or asking the waiter to put half of the meal in a
“doggie bag” before it’s even brought to the table.

 

To minimize the temptation of second and third helpings
when eating at home, people should serve reasonable
portions on individual plates, instead of putting the
serving dishes on the table. Keeping the excess food out
discourage inadvertent overeating.

 

When eating or snacking in front of the TV, encourage
people to put a reasonable amount of food into a bowl or
container, and leave the rest of the package in the
kitchen. It’s easy to overeat when a person’s attention is
focused on something else.

 

Encourage your patients or clients to eat a snack, like a
piece of fruit or small salad, if they feel hungry between
meals to avoid overeating during the meal.

Source 3: National Institute of Health

Source 3

The National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute is part of the
National Institute of Health – NIH. They published a report
that we will refer to called:

 

CLINICAL GUIDELINES ON THE IDENTIFICATION, EVALUATION, AND TREATMENT OF OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY IN ADULTS

 

The Evidence Report
The Link to the full report is

 

http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/ob_gdlns.pdf

Source 4: Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion / U.S. Dept of Agriculture

Source 4

The Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion is part
of the US Department of Agriculture. We will also cite
several of their reports, but specifically you should look
at Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010, with a link here:
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-DGACReport.htm
We focus on parts of this report and will refer to it.
Specific sections you might want to look at are:
Part D. Section 1: Energy Balance and weight management
Appendix E – 1: Major Conclusions

Source 5: Empirical Research - 30 Years Real World Evidence

Source 5

Some of our claims about Lifesize stem from 30 years of
Steven Kates’s observations and work with people in the
fitness and nutrition business in Los Angeles. Kates is
one of the co-inventors of the Lifesize tools and the
Lifesize business.

 

Steven Kates was Executive Director and Chief Operating
Officer of the first Nautilus Chain west of the Mississippi
and introduced Nautilus to Los Angeles. Spinning was
invented in one of Steve’s Nautilus complexes by his friend
and employee Johnny G.

 

Steven has founded and operated several fitness studios and
workout facilities in the Los Angles area. Many Santa
Monica and Los Angeles doctors and chiropractors refer
their patients to Steven to help with recovery and therapy.

 

Steven has a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from UCLA.

.

Claims We Make About Diets, Portion Control, Weight Loss and Calories.

On the following pages, we will present to you Our Claim,the science, logic and articles behind our claims.

To make going through our claims easier for you, we have included portions of the articles in this document so that you don’t have to go look up each one. Of course, we have also included the link and title of each article or research paper so that you can check them for yourself.

.

Claim: Diets Don't Work

Claim: Diets don’t work.
How we say it:
You don’t have to go on a diet to lose weight. In fact,
you shouldn’t go on a diet to lose weight…because for the
great majority of people, all diets fail in the end.
With all the diets to choose from; with all the advice from
scientists and nutritionists about what to eat and what are
good foods and what are bad foods…America is still getting
fatter.
Somehow, something is wrong. And what’s wrong, why diets
don’t work for you is because…
Diets don’t work.
You will lose weight on a diet at first. But if you’re not
eating foods that you really love, it’s only a matter of
time until you feel deprived. And when you eventually break
down and eat one of those foods that you “shouldn’t,” you
immediately start feeling guilty.
Deprivation and guilt are major reasons for stress. And if
you’re stressed—you eat! Or you quit your diet. Or both. So
when you go back to eating the way you used to, when you go
back to eating the foods you want to eat, you gain back
whatever weight you lost.

 

Science and logic behind our claim:
It’s almost a mantra to say that diets don’t work. There
is of course the empirical evidence that the diet industry
is growing each year, but Americans are still getting
heavier. So clearly the industry isn’t helping the country
and the product they are selling – diets – aren’t working.
And the reason why most people claim that diets don’t work
is that most people can’t stay on a diet for very long.
They will lose weight in the beginning, but find that they
are too restricted or deprived and go back to eating the
way they use to and dropping the diet. Inevitably the
weight they loss comes back – the yoyo effect common with
many people.
However, here are articles and studies that state that
America is getting fatter and that diets don’t work. Here
are a few:
1. Dieting does not work, researchers report
April 4, 2007
http://www.physorg.com/news94906931.html
Will you lose weight and keep it off if you diet? No,
probably not, UCLA researchers report in the April issue of
American Psychologist, the journal of the American
Psychological Association.
“You can initially lose 5 to 10 percent of your weight on
any number of diets, but then the weight comes back,” said
Traci Mann, UCLA associate professor of psychology and lead
author of the study. “We found that the majority of people
regained all the weight, plus more. Sustained weight loss
was found only in a small minority of participants, while
complete weight regain was found in the majority. Diets do
not lead to sustained weight loss or health benefits for
the majority of people.”
Mann and her co-authors conducted the most comprehensive
and rigorous analysis of diet studies, analyzing 31 longterm
studies.
“What happens to people on diets in the long run?” Mann
asked. “Would they have been better off to not go on a diet
at all? We decided to dig up and analyze every study that
followed people on diets for two to five years. We
concluded most of them would have been better off not going
on the diet at all. Their weight would be pretty much the
same, and their bodies would not suffer the wear and tear
from losing weight and gaining it all back.”
People on diets typically lose 5 to 10 percent of their
starting weight in the first six months, the researchers
found. However, at least one-third to two-thirds of people
on diets regain more weight than they lost within four or
five years, and the true number may well be significantly
higher, they said.
“Although the findings reported give a bleak picture of the
effectiveness of diets, there are reasons why the actual
effectiveness of diets is even worse,” Mann said.
Mann said that certain factors biased the diet studies to
make them appear more effective than they really were. For
one, many participants self-reported their weight by phone
or mail rather than having their weight measured on a scale
by an impartial source. Also, the studies have very low
follow-up rates.
Diet studies of less than two years are too short to show
whether dieters have regained the weight they lost, Mann
said.
“Even when you follow dieters four years, they’re still
regaining weight,” she said.
One study of dieting obese patients followed them for
varying lengths of time. Among those who were followed for
fewer than two years, 23 percent gained back more weight
than they had lost, while of those who were followed for at
least two years, 83 percent gained back more weight than
they had lost, Mann said. One study found that 50 percent
of dieters weighed more than 11 pounds over their starting
weight five years after the diet, she said.
Evidence suggests that repeatedly losing and gaining weight
is linked to cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and
altered immune function. Mann and Tomiyama recommend that
more research be conducted on the health effects of losing
and gaining weight, noting that scientists do not fully
understand how such weight cycling leads to adverse health
effects.
Medicare raised the issue of whether obesity is an illness,
deleting the words “Obesity is not considered an illness”
from its coverage regulations in 2004. The move may open
the door for Medicare to consider funding treatments for
obesity, Mann noted.
“Diets are not effective in treating obesity,” said Mann.
“We are recommending that Medicare should not fund weightloss
programs as a treatment for obesity. The benefits of

 

dieting are too small and the potential harm is too large
for dieting to be recommended as a safe, effective
treatment for obesity.”
From 1980 to 2000, the percentage of Americans who were
obese more than doubled, from 15 percent to 31 percent of
the population, Mann noted.
A social psychologist, Mann, taught a UCLA graduate seminar
on the psychology of eating four years ago. She and her
students continued the research when the course ended.
Mann’s co-authors are Erika Westling, Ann-Marie Lew, Barbra
Samuels and Jason Chatman.
“We asked what evidence is there that dieting works in the
long term, and found that the evidence shows the opposite”
Tomiyama said.
Source: University of California – Los Angeles
link to study: http://motivatedandfit.com/wpcontent/
uploads/2010/03/Diets_dont_work.pdf
Many articles on this study, but here is another great one:

http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20070411/diets-dont-worklong-

term
2. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010
USDA Center for Nutrition Policy
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-DGACReport.htm
Part D Section 1 Energy Balance and Weight Management
D1 – 59
The prevalence of overweight and obesity in the US has
increased dramatically in the past three decades. This is
true of children, adolescents, and adults and it is more
severe in minority groups. There is an increased morbidity
in the obese, with diabetes, heart disease, and cancer
being particular risks, leading to a greater mortality. The
American environment is conducive to this epidemic,
presenting an abundance of foods to the populace in the
form of tasty, energy-dense, micronutrient poor foods and
beverages.
The macronutrient distribution of a person’s diet is not
the driving force behind the obesity, rather it is the
overly large amount of total calories eaten coupled with
very low physical activity. There is no optimal proportion
of dietary fat, carbohydrate, and protein to maintain a
healthy body weight, to lose weight, or to avoid weight
regain after weight loss. It is the total amount of
calories eaten that is essential.
While weight can be reduced with diets where the
macronutrient proportions vary widely, the crucial issue is
not the macronutrient proportion but rather the compliance
with a reduced-calorie intake. The energy density of the
foods eaten is important in causing the overeating. This is
true not only for adults but also for children, who take in
energy-dense fats and added sugars at levels higher than
required to maintain themselves at normal weight.
3. Article: Americans are getting fatter in 37 states
State-by-State Ratings Show Waistlines Still Widening
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Health News Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
The latest annual state-by-state obesity rankings don’t
paint a pretty picture:
Number of states in which adult obesity rates went up: 37
Number of states in which adult obesity rates went down: 0
Number of states in which adult obesity rates went up for
the third year in a row: 19
Percentage of population that was obese in the four most
obese states in 1991: 15% to 20%
Number of states in which at least 1 in 4 adults is obese:
28
Number of states which at least 1 in 5 adults was obese in
1991: 0
These are just a few of the shocking numbers in the fifth
annual “F as in Fat” report from the Trust for America’s
Health, with funding from the Robert Johnson Foundation.
Senior author of the report is Jeffrey Levi, PhD, director
of Trust for America’s Health and professor of health at
George Washington University School of Public Health.
Obesity in the U.S. is less like a rising tide than like a
hurricane surge, suggests James Marks, MD, MPH, senior vice
president and director of the health group at the Robert
Wood Johnson Foundation.”This is the fifth annual report,
and with each and every year we see more evidence the
obesity epidemic is gaining speed and destructive force,”
Marks said at the news conference.
This article includes State-by-State Adult Obesity Rankings

Claim: The Way To Lose Weight Is To Eat Less Food

 

Claim: The way to lose weight is to eat less food.
How we say it:
Diets focus on the wrong things. Diets focus on what you
eat. Diets cut out entire categories of food, like carbs or
fat, or dairy or sugar. This means that inevitably…
Diets cut out foods that you love, like pasta or steak or
chocolate or ice cream. And since you’re not eating foods
that you really love…
Diets are based on sound scientific research about carbs
and fat and metabolic rates and glycemic indexes. But the
problem is that these theories only work in a lab. They
don’t work in your daily life. They are too restrictive.
They cut out foods you love and make you eat foods you
don’t like. And many times the amount of food they allow
you to eat is too small.
Diets fail because they focus on the wrong things.
The secret to losing weight is not to cut carbs or fat or
count calories or raise your metabolic rate. The secret is
scientific, but it’s very basic. The secret to losing
weight and keeping it off for the rest of your life is…
Eat less food.
That’s it. That’s the big diet “secret” and only eating
strategy that’s ever going to work. If you’re overweight,
you’re eating too much food. If you want to lose weight…eat
less food. Period.
There are, of course, a few exceptions, the most important
being that you might be overweight because of a medical
condition.
But for most people, if you are 5 pounds overweight or more
than 80 pounds overweight – you’re eating too much food.
If you want to lose weight, just eat less food. It’s not
what you eat, it’s how much you eat.
Eat what you want, but eat smaller amounts. Don’t diet.
Don’t deprive yourself of foods that you love. Don’t change
what you eat, just change how much you eat.
So it’s not what you eat, it’s how much you eat. Don’t
focus on the what, focus on the how much.
The logic and supporting studies and articles:
We are suggesting that you can cut calories, carbs, fat,
sugar and other nutrients by eating less food. This is a
much easier eating strategy than counting calories or carbs
or fat. It also will be more effective than isolating a
macronutrient like carbs and forgetting other weight-loss
issues like fat and calories.
Also, we suggest that the way to eat less food is to eat
smaller portion sizes. That will cut down the amount of
food a person eats.
1. This is the same eating strategy which is recommended by
the Mayo Clinic on their website.
Reducing your portion sizes
The sizes of your portions affect how many calories you’re
getting. Twice the amount of food means twice the number of
calories. It’s common to underestimate how much you’re
eating, especially if you’re dining out. Controlling your
portions is a good way to control calories. Portion Sizes
A typical
portion …
Calories
*
A standard
serving
Calories
*
Orange juice, 8
ounces
120 Orange
juice, 4
ounces
60
Buttermilk
pancake, 6-inch
175 Buttermilk
pancake,
4-inch
86
Whole-grain
cooked pasta, 1
1/2 cups
210 Wholegrain
cooked
pasta, 1/2
cup
70
*Actual calories may vary by brand.
Try these tips to control portion sizes and cut calories:
Serve smaller portions. At the beginning of a meal, take
slightly less than what you think you’ll eat. You can have
seconds later if you’re truly still hungry.
See what you eat. Eating directly from a container gives
you no sense of how much you’re eating. Seeing food on a
plate or in a bowl keeps you aware of how much you’re
eating. Consider measuring your food with a measuring cup
or scale to see how much you are actually eating.
Check food labels. Be sure to check the Nutrition Facts
panel and other nutrient information for the serving size
and number of calories a serving. You may find that the
small bag of chips you eat with lunch every day, for
example, is two servings not one, which means you’re eating
double the calories listed on the label.
Don’t feel obligated to clean your plate. Stop eating as
soon as you feel full. Those extra bites of food that
you’re trying not to waste add unneeded calories.
2. As part of the logical proof that eating less food will
create weight loss in a person, the opposite must be true.
We know that Americans are getting heavier, but is there
any correlation between the obesity epidemic in America and
an increase in food consumption in America? In fact there
is a lot of proof. Here is one study which says:
Dietary portion sizes, energy intake, dietary fat, and fast
foods have all increased significantly since the 1970′s and
in particular over the past two decades. For example,
between 1977 and 1996, food portion sizes increased both
inside and outside the home for all categories except
pizza. The energy intake and portion size of salty snacks
increased by 93 kcal (from 1.0 to 1.6 oz [28.4 g to 45.4
g]), soft drinks by 49 kcal (13.1 to 19.9 fl oz [387.4 ml
to 588.4 ml]), hamburgers by 97 kcal (5.7 to 7.0 oz [161.6
g to 198.4 g]), French fries by 68 kcal (3.1. oz to 3.6 oz
[87.9 g to 102.1 g]), and Mexican food by 133 kcal (6.3 oz
to 8.0 oz [178.6 g to 226.8 g]). See Nielsen, S.J. and
Popkin, B.M., Patterns and Trends in Food Portion Sizes,
1977-1998. JAMA. 2003; 289:450-453.
3. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010
USDA Center for Nutrition Policy
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-DGACReport.htm
Part D Section 1 Energy Balance and Weight Management
Page D1 – 7
Strong evidence documents a positive relationship between
portion size and body weight…In order to reduce the obesity
epidemic, actions must be taken to improve the food
environment…In addition, individuals can adopt a series of
dietary behaviors: Individuals are encouraged to prepare,
serve, and consume smaller portions at home and choose
smaller portions of food while eating foods away from home.
Continuing on page D1 – 15
Evidence for Adults. The 2005 DGAC reviewed the evidence
related to the effect of portion size (the amount of food
served in one eating occasion) on energy intake, concluding
that portion size influences how much a person eats; and,
in general, more calories are consumed when a large portion
is served rather than a small one (HHS/USDA, 2005).
A NEL literature review on the effects of portion size on
body weight was done, and four studies were identified:
three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (Gilhooly, 2007;
Hannum, 2006; Hannum, 2004) and one case-control study
(Pearcey, 2002). The studies were conducted in the US.
Studies ranged in sample size from 19 (Pearcey, 2002) to 53
(Hannum, 2004), and one study included only men (Hannum,
2006), two studies included only women (Gilhooley, 2007;
Hannum, 2004), and one study included both men and women
(Pearcey, 2002). The three RCTs focused on controlling
portion sizes to aid in weight loss and all found a
positive relationship between controlling portion size and
weight loss in adults. The small case-controlled study of
Pearcey et al. (2002) followed weight stable and weight
gaining adults and found that consuming larger portion
sizes was positively associated with weight gain.
Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010
USDA Center for Nutrition Policy
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-DGACReport.htm
Part D Section 1 Energy Balance and Weight Management
Page D1 – 47

There is strong and consistent evidence that when calorie
intake is controlled, macronutrient proportion of the diet
is not related to losing weight. A moderate body of
evidence provides no data to suggest that any one
macronutrient is more effective than any other for avoiding
weight regain in weight reduced persons.
D1 – 48
There are no data to suggest that any one macronutrient is
more effective than any other for avoiding weight regain in
weight-reduced persons.
4. The NIH has suggested that the best weight loss strategy
is to eat less calories in a day. The way to accomplish
this is not to isolate fats or carbs, but to eat less of
both. This would mean eating less food in general.
NIHPUBLICATION NO. 98-4083 SEPTEMBER 1998
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in
cooperation with The National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
CLINICAL GUIDELINES ON THE IDENTIFICATION, EVALUATION, AND
TREATMENT OF OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY IN ADULTS
The Evidence Report
HOWTOACHIEVEWEIGHTLOSS
1. Dietary Therapy
Low-calorie diets are recommended for weight loss in
overweight and obese persons. Reducing fat as part of a
low-calorie diet is a practical way to reduce calories.
Reducing dietary fat alone without reducing calories is not
sufficient for weight loss. However, reducing dietary fat,
along with reducing dietary carbohydrates, can facilitate
caloric reduction.
A diet that is individually planned to help
create a deficit of 500 to 1,000 kcal/day
should be an integral part of any program
aimed at achieving a weight loss of 1 to 2
lb/week.
5. Finally, the NEJof Medicine study suggests that it
doesn’t matter if you cut carbs, cut fat or what you do,
just eat less calories. That is the most important
strategy for weight loss. And an individual should
implement that strategy in a way that he or she would be
most successful at doing. So in other words, it doesn’t
matter if you cut carbs or cut fat, cut something so that
you eat less food. No one strategy is better than another.
The New England Journal of Medicine
February 26, 2009
Comparison of Weight-Loss Diets with Different Compositions
of Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrates
Frank M. Sacks, M.D., George A. Bray, M.D., Vincent J.
Carey, Ph.D., Steven R. Smith, M.D.,
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/9/859
Conclusions There is intense debate about what types of
diet are most effective for treating overweight — those that
emphasize protein, those that emphasize carbohydrates, or
those that emphasize fat.Reduced-calorie diets result in
clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which
macronutrients they emphasize.
The principal finding is that the diets were equally
successful in promoting clinically meaningful weight loss
and the maintenance of weight loss over the course of 2
years. Satiety, hunger, satisfaction with the diet, and
attendance at group sessions were similar for all diets.
Weight Loss
The amount of weight loss after 2 years was similar in
participants assigned to a diet with 25% protein and those
assigned to a diet with 15% protein (3.6 and 3.0 kg,
respectively; P=0.22) and among those who completed each of
those diets (4.5 and 3.6 kg, respectively; P=0.11) (Figure
1). Weight loss was the same in those assigned to a diet
with 40% fat and those assigned to a diet with 20% fat (3.3
kg, P=0.94) and was similar among those who completed each
of those diets (3.9 and 4.1 kg, respectively; P=0.76). There
was no effect on weight loss of carbohydrate level through
the target range of 35 to 65% (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The
change in waist circumference did not differ significantly
among the diet groups (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

.

Claim: Losing weight is all about calories in vs. calories out

Claim: Losing weight is all about calories in versus calories out.How we say it:If you eat more calories than you use, you gain weight
because your body stores the extra calories as fat. But if
you eat less calories than you burn, you lose weight
because your body burns the fat where those extra calories
are stored.The logic and research behind our claim:1. American Heart Associationfrom their website
Reduce calories in and increase calories out.
Losing weight means changing the balance of calories in to calories out. If we eat
more calories than we need, we gain weight. If we eat fewer calories than we
use, we lose weight.
One pound equals 3,500 calories. To successfully and healthfully lose weight—
and keep it off—most people need to subtract about 500 calories per day from
their diet to lose about 1 pound per week.2. NIHPUBLICATION NO. 98-4083 SEPTEMBER 1998 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in
cooperation with The National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
CLINICAL GUIDELINES ON THE IDENTIFICATION, EVALUATION, AND
TREATMENT OF OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY IN ADULTS
The Evidence Report
Strategies for Weight Loss and Weight
Maintenance: A diet that is individually
planned and takes into account the patient’s
overweight status in order to help create a
deficit of 500 to 1,000 kcal/day should be an
integral part of any weight loss program.
Randomized trials suggest that weight loss at the
rate of 1 to 2 lb/week (calorie deficit of 500 to
1,000 kcal/day) commonly occurs for up to 6
months.
Reducing the percentage of dietary fat alone will not
produce weight loss unless total calories are also reduced.
Isocaloric replacement of fat with carbohydrates
will reduce the percentage of calories
from fat but will not cause weight loss.
Reducing dietary fat, along with reducing
dietary carbohydrates, usually will be needed
to produce the caloric deficit needed for an
acceptable weight loss.
A decrease in calorie intake is the
most important dietary component of weight
loss and maintenance. LCDs have been shown
to reduce total body weight by an average of 8
percent over a period of 6 months, accompanied
by significant reductions in waist circumference.
Since this represents an average that
includes individuals who did not lose weight,
an individual average goal of 10 percent is feasible.
When weight loss occurs, the loss consists
of about 75 percent fat and 25 percent
lean tissue. 556, 557 A deficit of 500 to 1,000
kcal/day will produce a weight loss of 70 to
140 grams/day, or 490 to 980 grams/week (1
to 2 lb/week). A deficit of 300 to 500
is achieved, excess weight will gradually
kcal/day will produce a weight loss of 40 to
70 grams/day, or 280 to 490 grams/week (1/2
to 1 lb/week.3. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010 USDA Center for Nutrition Policy
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-DGACReport.htm
Part D Section 1 Energy Balance and Weight Management
Page D1 – 1
Energy balance refers to the balance between calories
consumed through eating and drinking and those calories
expended through physical activity and metabolic processes.
Energy consumed must equal energy expended for a person to
remain at the same body weight. Overweight and obesity will
result from excess calorie intake and/or inadequate
physical activity.
Weight loss will occur when a calorie deficit exists, which
can be achieved by eating less, being more physically
active, or a combination of the two.
Recommendations for calorie intake to maintain weight will
vary depending on a person’s age, sex, size, and level of
physical activity.4. The New England Journal of Medicine
February 26, 2009
Comparison of Weight-Loss Diets with Different Compositions
of Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrates
Frank M. Sacks, M.D., George A. Bray, M.D., Vincent J.
Carey, Ph.D., Steven R. Smith, M.D.,
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/9/859
In conclusion, diets that are successful in causing weight
loss can emphasize a range of fat, protein, and carbohydrate
compositions that have beneficial effects on risk factors
for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.29,40 Such diets can
also be tailored to individual patients on the basis of
their personal and cultural preferences and may therefore
have the best chance for long-term success.5. From the CDC report on portion control
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/nutrition/pdf/portion_size_
research.pdfQ: I’ve heard it is more important to worry about
carbohydrates than calories. Is this true?

A: By focusing only on carbohydrates, you can still eat too many calories.
Also, if you drastically reduce the variety of foods in
your diet, you could end up sacrificing vital nutrients and
not be able to sustain the diet over time.

.

Claim: Don't count calories. Practice Portion control

Claim: Don’t count calories. Practice Portion control
How we say it:
Losing weight and maintaining your weight is all about
calories. But how do you keep tabs on the calories you’re
eating? One way might be to count the calories in your
food. No!!! Counting calories is the wrong eating strategy.
Weighing food, checking charts, trying to remember lots of
numbers for everything you put in your mouth and trying to
remember how many calories you eat during a day is too
hard. And it’s too hard because you can’t see a calorie.
The easiest way to cut and to control the amount of
calories you eat in a meal (and in a day) is by cutting and
controlling something you can actually see – the food on
your plate.
If you eat less food, you eat less calories. And if you eat
less calories, you lose weight.
That’s portion control.
Americans are not overweight because we are eating too many
carbs or too much fat or too much sugar. Americans are
overweight because we are eating too much of everything.
And studies show that most overweight Americans are eating
too much food specifically because we’re eating portions of
food that are way too big. Nutritionists, scientists,
doctors and other medical experts are all pointing to our
eating Super Size portions in restaurants and stores and
now in our homes as the main cause of obesity in America.
So if you are a typical overweight American, the one thing
you should focus on is cutting down the portion size of
everything you eat. This is the single most important thing
you can do to lose weight and keep it off.
This is the eating strategy that people are now calling
portion control.
If you are overweight then that means that when you eat
your lunch or breakfast or dinner, the portion sizes of
food on your plate are too large.
The problem with a typical American meal is that there is
too much food on the plate, which means that there are too
many calories on the plate. If you want to lose weight and
keep it off, you don’t have to change what’s on your plate.
All you have to do is make a few simple changes in the
amount of food on your plate.
So if you want to lose weight…
Don’t focus on carbs, fat, metabolism, food combining.
Don’t deprive yourself of food you love or that your body
needs. Eat everything. Just eat less of it. In the right
amount.
Don’t cut out…just cut down. You don’t need as much food
to satisfy your hunger as you think you do.
Don’t cut out cookies…just eat less of them. If you want
to have pizza for dinner have pizza. But instead of having
3 or 4 slices, have 2 slices. Don’t have a double
cheeseburger…have a cheeseburger. Don’t have large
fries…have small fries. Don’t drink a supersize coke.
Drink a small coke.
Portion Control is the best, most natural and most balanced
way to control calories and lose weight. And by the way, if
you eat less food, you’re not just cutting the amount of
calories you eat, you’re also cutting the amount of carbs
and fat and sugar you eat.
The beauty of portion control is if you eat the right size
portions of food, you can eat whatever food you want. You
don’t have to make dramatic changes or give up foods you
love, and you will be able to reach and stay at your proper
weight for the rest of your life.The logic and research behind our claim:1. Mayo Clinic suggests the same strategy that we do, which
is to cut calories by controlling your portion sizes.Their recommendations:
Tipping the scale: Cutting calories
Your weight is a balancing act, but the equation is simple:
If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight.
Cutting calories doesn’t have to be difficult. In fact, it
can be as simple as:
Skipping one extra high-calorie indulgence a day
Swapping high-calorie foods for lower calorie options
Reducing portion sizes
Reducing your portion sizes
The sizes of your portions affect how many calories you’re
getting. Twice the amount of food means twice the number of
calories. It’s common to underestimate how much you’re
eating, especially if you’re dining out. Controlling your
portions is a good way to control calories.Try these tips to control portion sizes and cut calories:
Serve smaller portions. At the beginning of a meal, take
slightly less than what you think you’ll eat. You can
have seconds later if you’re truly still hungry.
See what you eat. Eating directly from a container gives
you no sense of how much you’re eating. Seeing food on
a plate or in a bowl keeps you aware of how much
you’re eating. Consider measuring your food with a
measuring cup or scale to see how much you are
actually eating.
Check food labels. Be sure to check the Nutrition Facts
panel and other nutrient information for the serving
size and number of calories a serving. You may findthat the small bag of chips you eat with lunch every
day, for example, is two servings not one, which means
you’re eating double the calories listed on the label.
Don’t feel obligated to clean your plate. Stop eating as
soon as you feel full. Those extra bites of food that
you’re trying not to waste add unneeded calories.
2. Research is showing a direct correlation to increase of
calories with the increase of portion sizes.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 82, No. 1,
236S-241S, July 2005ABSTRACT
The increase in the prevalence of obesity has coincided
with an increase in portion sizes of foods both inside and
outside the home, suggesting that larger portions may play a
role in the obesity epidemic.
Data indicate that portion size does influence energy
intake. Several well-controlled, laboratory-based studies
have shown that providing older children and adults with
larger food portions can lead to significant increases in
energy intake. This effect has been demonstrated for snacks
and a variety of single meals and shown to persist over a 2-
d period. Despite increases in intake, individuals presented
with large portions generally do not report or respond to
increased levels of fullness, suggesting that hunger and
satiety signals are ignored or overridden.
The experimental evidence demonstrates that portion size
has a significant effect on food intake in adults in the
short term. The effect of portion size was seen not only
with a variety of foods in single meals (16, 17), entrées in
a restaurant (18), and foods over several days (19) (Table
1). with a variety of characteristics. Increases in intake
were observed in both men and women across a range of ages,
body weights, and psychological factors, such as scores for
dietary restraint and depression. It is not clear why
individuals consistently increased their intake as portion
size increased. In the single-meal studies (16, 17), it
appeared that subjects were unaware of their extra intake,
in that they did not report feeling fuller after eating
significantly more food. In the studies that included
multiple meals (16, 17), subjects reported that they felt
fuller, yet they did not respond by eating less within the
meal or at subsequent meals. This suggests that adults
ignore or override hunger and satiety signals when presented
with large portions of food. It is possible that individuals
learn to eat in the absence of hunger as young children and
continue with this eating behavior into adulthood (10, 21).3. From the University of Ulster in England
New Study Proves Larger Portions Expand Waistlines
21st January 2010
Eating large food portions can significantly increase our
weight even during short periods – researchers at the
University of Ulster have discovered in the first ever
study of its kind.
Many people are feeling the pinch in their clothes at this
time of year after overindulging at Christmas but instead
of cutting back on certain foods, eating smaller portions
could be the answer.
A team of nutritionist researchers, led by Professor
Barbara Livingstone and Dr Mary Kelly from Ulster’s
Biomedical Sciences Research Institute, has carried out the
first study in controlled conditions, of how eating
different portion sizes impacts on energy intake and body
weight.
And the results were dramatic – in just four days men
eating three large meals a day piled on an extra kilo,
while women weighed an extra half a kilo on the scales.
Professor Livingstone outlined the reasons behind carrying
out this investigation.
“In the past few decades several key environmental andcultural factors have converged to increase the probability
of over-eating in the face of reduced energy needs,” she
said.
“One environmental factor which has become the focus of
attention is that of food portion size, which has been
increasing steadily over the past two decades in parallel
with the rise in overweight and obesity.
“Studies have demonstrated that portions of food sold in
supermarkets, fast food establishments and restaurants have
steadily increased since the mid 1980s – a trend that has
been most apparent and best documented in the USA.
“Therefore it is thought that increasing portion sizes of
food may be undermining normal appetite control and
inciting over-eating.
“One possible reason for over-eating is that consumers tend
to eat what they are served even if it is an inappropriate
amount for their energy needs and consequently may not
compensate for this over-consumption at subsequent eating
occasions.
Dr Kelly explained the importance of the University of
Ulster study.
“The data from this study provides evidence to support the
general consensus that larger food portions may be a
contributing factor to the obesity epidemic,” she said.4. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007 Jun;15(6):1535-43.
The effect of large portion sizes on energy intake is
sustained for 11 days.
Rolls BJ, Roe LS, Meengs JS.
Department of Nutritional Sciences, Pennsylvania State
University, 226 Henderson Building, University Park, PA
16802-6501, USA. bjr4@psu.edu
AbstractOBJECTIVE: A previous study showed that increasing the
portion sizes of all foods led to an increase in energy
intake that was sustained over 2 days. The objective of the
present study was to determine whether participants would
compensate for excess energy intake or continue to overeat
when portion sizes were increased for 11 days.RESULTS: The 50% increase in portion sizes resulted in a
mean increase in daily energy intake of 423 +/- 27 kcal (p
< 0.0001), which did not differ significantly between women
and men. This increase was sustained for 11 days and did
not decline significantly over time, leading to a mean
cumulative increase in intake of 4636 +/- 532 kcal. A
significant effect of portion size on intake was seen at
all meals and in all categories of foods except fruit (as a
snack) and vegetables. The effect of portion size on intake
was not influenced by the body weight status of
participants.DISCUSSION: These results strengthen the evidence
suggesting that increased portions contribute to the
overconsumption of energy and to excess body weight.5. While it is intuitive to understand that counting
calories is very hard to do, a recent study which was
reported in Time Magazine and other news outlets indicates
that it is actually impossible to get the right calorie
count of foods.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1951798,00.h
tml
According to a new study published in the Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, prepared foods may contain
an average of 8% more calories than their package labels
own up to and restaurant meals may contain a whopping 18%
more. Worse still, as far as Food and Drug Administration
regulations are concerned, that’s perfectly O.K.
The findings are the result of work conducted by Susan
Roberts, professor of nutrition at Tufts University, and
Jean Mayer, of Tufts’ USDA Human Nutrition Research Center
on Aging. As a rule, she lost weight on the menu plans she
recommended to readers, but when she redeveloped some of
the meals using what were supposed to be calorically
equivalent supermarket or restaurant foods, the pounds
stopped dropping off. Just as suspiciously, she always felt
full.
“I went into the lab and said, ‘I don’t believe these
calorie numbers,’ ” she says. “So we went out and started
collecting foods and sampling their contents.”
No one would deny that the 18% calorie overload on
restaurant menus is a problem. The additional 8% in frozen
foods sounds less serious; in a 500-calorie entree, after
all, 8% adds only 40 calories. That, however, is in asingle meal. Over the course of a year, consuming just 5%
more than you need in a 2,000-calorie diet can mean a 10-
lb. weight gain. “The 18% and 8% figures are just what you
need not to lose weight,” says Roberts.
In her book, Roberts reformulated menus to correct for the
problem, but there’s a big, fattening world out there that
isn’t taking such remedial steps. Federal regulations are
strict about the accuracy of the net weight of a package of
prepared food, which must be at least 99% of the advertised
weight. When it comes to calories, the count can be a far
bigger 20% off. The Federal Government plays no role in
checking the calorie claims in restaurants, which means
it’s up to the states to handle the job — with the
predictable patchwork results. “It really is the Wild West
when it comes to this,” says Roberts. “And when state
inspectors do visit, they have other issues to worry about
— like making sure there are no mouse droppings in the
kitchen.”
Even a restaurant whose published numbers are accurate down
to the last calorie still may not give customers a truly
realistic sense of what they’re consuming. Every item on
the menu, after all, has a separate calorie count, but many
people pay attention mostly to the main course, piling on
side dishes as something of an afterthought. Five of the
restaurants in the survey even provided side dishes at no
extra cost, and these added up to an average of 471 extra
calories — exceeding the 443-calorie average of the
entrees. “What they should be telling consumers,” Roberts
says, “is what actually comes on the plate.”
That seems like a fair requirement. It’s hard enough to
maintain your weight in the all-you-can-eat buffet that is
the modern world. The least the health-conscious should be
able to expect is a fair reading of what they’re eating —
and they can take responsibility from there.

.

Claim: If you want to lose weight, just focus on one thing – portion sizes.

Claim: If you want to lose weight, just focus on one thing – portion sizes. How much food you are eating.
How we say it:
Another reason why diets don’t work is that they make you
do too many things all at once and right from the start.
Diets make you change what you eat, give up food you love,
eat food you don’t like, and eat less food. That’s too
much to handle all at once and too many changes for you to
make and too many details to focus on right at the
beginning.
If you really want to be successful at losing weight, or at
any big project or major change in your life – just focus
on one thing. Especially when you’re first starting out.
Just focus on losing the weight, and forget about
everything else.
You’ve read or heard that they should eat more vegetables
and less meat, more fiber and less sugar and processed
foods. You’ve been told you have to worry about fattening
foods, or food that’s bad for you, or good carbs vs. bad
carbs, or saturated fats vs. trans fats.
You’re going to get lost in those details. Just focus on
one thing: the amount of food you are eating, the portion
sizes of the food you are eating, and forget about
everything else.
Don’t get lost in the details of whether you should have
ham or turkey in your sandwich. Focus on the size of the
portion of ham or turkey in your sandwich. When you sit
down to eat, don’t focus on the carbs in your meal. What
you should focus on is, “should I eat one piece of toast,
or two?” And here’s a suggestion that you won’t hear on any
diet, if you love KFC, eat KFC. But have two pieces of
chicken, not a bucket.
Don’t be calorie-wise and pounds-foolish.
Even diets that make you count calories are focusing you on
too many details. They push you to eat a low calorie fruit
like an apple instead of a higher calorie fruit like a
banana. Why? To save 30 calories?
You might be in the mood for steak at dinner. But you
choose broiled, skinless chicken instead because you think
it is “healthier” and lower in calories. If you believe
that by simply eating chicken instead of steak you’ll lose
weight, you won’t pay attention to the quantity of the
chicken you eat. So, you will eat too much chicken, and you
won’t end up losing weight. And you won’t end up healthy
either.
On Lifesize, the proper portion size for all meat—steak,
chicken, etc.—is exactly the same. It’s one Lifesize Meats
device. There are more calories in steak than in chicken,
but do you know what the difference in calories is between
the Lifesize portion of steak and the Lifesize portion of
boneless, skinless chicken? It’s around 150 calories. Max!!
That 150 calorie difference is not what’s making you fat.
What’s making people fat in America is overeating by 800 or
1000+ calories in a day or more. What’s making people fat
is eating 10 ounces or 16 ounces or even 19 ounces of
steak.
We’re not saying ignore 150 calories, after all it’s
calories in versus calories out. We are saying, don’t be
calorie-wise and pounds-foolish. If you love steak but eat
chicken to lose weight, then you are depriving yourself of
food you love just to save 150 calories. And if you deprive
yourself for very long, you’ll drop that diet or eating
strategy and go back to overeating by 1000+ calories a day.
To be sure, there’s more fat in red meat than in chicken.
And there are people who need to pay close attention to
their fat intake because of family history. But for most
people, the difference in the amount of fat between the
Lifesize portion of red meat and the Lifesize portion of
chicken is not enough to clog their arteries. BUT… if you
are overweight by 40 pounds, that extra body weight does
have enough fat to clog your arteries.
Eating chicken instead of red meat to cut some calories,
that’s getting lost in the details. The size of your
portion of red meat or chicken, that’s the big picture
idea.
Just focus on portions…and forget about everything else.The logic and studies behind this claim:
We believe that people need a very simple strategy to lose
weight. So we say to focus on portion control and forget
about everything else. Clearly this is easier than
focusing on several things, and focusing on things you
can’t see like calories and carbs in food. However, if
someone just focuses on portion sizes, will they lose
weight?1. This study shows that the one thing that is causing
Americans to gain weight is simply that we are eating too
much food.
ScienceDaily (May 8, 2009) — New research that uses an
innovative approach to study, for the first time, the
relative contributions of food and exercise habits to the
development of the obesity epidemic has concluded that the
rise in obesity in the United States since the 1970s was
virtually all due to increased energy intake.
Increased Food Intake Alone Explains Rise In Obesity In
United States, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (May 8, 2009) —How much of the obesity
epidemic has been caused by excess calorie intake and how
much by reductions in physical activity has been long
debated and while experts agree that making it easier for
people to eat less and exercise more are both important for
combating it, they debate where the public health focus
should be.
A study presented on Friday at the European Congress on
Obesity is the first to examine the question of the
proportional contributions to the obesity epidemic by
combining metabolic relationships, the laws of
thermodynamics, epidemiological data and agricultural data.
“There have been a lot of assumptions that both reduced
physical activity and increased energy intake have been
major drivers of the obesity epidemic. Until now, nobody
has proposed how to quantify their relative contributions
to the rise in obesity since the 1970s. This study
demonstrates that the weight gain in the American
population seems to be virtually all explained by eating
more calories. It appears that changes in physical activity
played a minimal role,” said the study’s leader, Professor
Boyd Swinburn, chair of population health and director of
the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for
Obesity Prevention at Deakin University in Australia.
“To return to the average weights of the 1970s, we would
need to reverse the increased food intake of about 350
calories a day for children (about one can of fizzy drink
and a small portion of French fries) and 500 calories a day
for adults (about one large hamburger),” Swinburn said.
“Alternatively, we could achieve similar results by
increasing physical activity by about 150 minutes a day of
extra walking for children and 110 minutes for adults, but
realistically, although a combination of both is needed,
the focus would have to be on reducing calorie intake.”
He emphasized that physical activity should not be ignored
as a contributor to reducing obesity and should continue to
be promoted because of its many other benefits, but that
expectations regarding what can be achieved with exercise
need to be lowered and public health policy shifted more
toward encouraging people to eat less.2. The American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR)
Does the growth in portion sizes factor largely in the
American obesity crisis? According to a survey commissioned
by the AICR in 2001, the answer is yes. Twenty-six percent
of Americans base the amount of food they consume on how
much they are served. This passive approach to portions
(once known as the “Clean-Plate Club”) is more prevalent
among overweight Americans than those who say they are at
their ideal weight.3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
“Do Increased Portion Sizes Affect How Much We Eat
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/nutrition/pdf/portion_size_
research.pdf
In the section on weight management, the Dietary
Guidelines address portion sizes, stating that
there are short-term studies showing that controlling
portion sizes helps limit calorie intake, particularly when
eating high-calorie foods.
Short-term studies show that people eat more when they
are confronted with larger portion sizes. The research
studies described in the following cover only one or a few
eating occasions in a short time frame. Research studies
have yet to assess the impact of portion sizes over longer
periods of time. However, the phenomenon of unknowingly
eating larger amounts when presented with a large portion
is an important aspect of weight management.
A study by Rolls et al.9 tested how adults responded to
meals on different days of four different portion sizes of
macaroni and cheese. They found that the bigger the
portion, the more participants ate. Participants consumed
30% more energy (162 cal) when offered the largest
portion (1000g) compared to the smallest portion (500g).
They also reported similar ratings of hunger and fullness
after each meal despite the intake differences. After the
study, only 45% of the subjects reported noticing that
there were differences in the size of the portions served.
Because oversized portions are pervasive in our culture,
from restaurants to supermarkets to vending machines, it is
important to make people aware of the subtle ways in which
portion size can sabotage even the most valiant weight
control efforts, and to give them strategies for avoiding
some common pitfalls.

.

Claim: Just losing weight is the healthiest thing you can do.

Claim: Just losing weight is the healthiest thing you can do.
How we say it:
We’re not saying that you should never focus on trans fats
or saturated fats or good carbs and bad carbs. We’re just
saying keep things simple.
There’s a lot of scientific evidence that is warning us
that if you’re too heavy, no matter what you’re eating,
you’re going to have health problems.
No matter what you’re eating – vegetables or good carbs or
good fat or fiber – if you’re overweight, you’re facing
health problems. Most people in the medical community agree
that losing weight is the single healthiest thing you can
do for your heart, your whole cardiovascular system, most
of your organs and your immune system, regardless of what
you’re eating. Getting to your proper weight will lessen
your risk of diabetes, many cancers and depression,
regardless of what you’re eating.
So get rid of the excess weight first. Then if you want to
talk about fats and saturated fats and all the other
micronutrients and health issues, do it when you’re already
losing weight and well on your way to your proper weight.
Logic and science behind claim:
We acknowledge that giving a simple strategy of losing
weight and ignoring such common ideas such as eating
“healthy” can stir up debate. Some nutritionist we’ve
talked to have initially said that we are being
irresponsible. We don’t think so. And as a matter offact, not one doctor whom we have talked to disagrees with
us. And we have talked to many doctors, including 3 top
cardiologists in Los Angeles, one who is listed in the US
NEWS and World Report as one of the top 100 cardiologists
in America.
And the reason that doctors agree with us, and eventually
nutritionists do to, is because the science behind this
claim is unequivocal.1. American Heart Association
from their website
Your healthiest weight
Losing even 10 pounds will improve your blood sugar readings and HbA1c. It
also will help lower your blood pressure and LDL (“bad”) cholesterol and raise
your HDL (“good”) cholesterol.
Even taking off a few pounds can provide you with cardiovascular benefits, so
every step in the right direction is a step toward healthier living. Consider these
reasons to work toward maintaining a healthy weight.
When your weight is in a healthy range:
Your body more effectively circulates blood
Your fluid levels are more easily managed
You are less likely to develop diabetes, heart disease, certain cancers and
sleep apnea.
Obesity is defined simply as too much body fat. Your body is made up of
water, fat, protein, carbohydrate and various vitamins and minerals. If you have
too much fat — especially around your waist — you’re at higher risk for health
problems, including high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, diabetes, heart
disease and stroke.
raises blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels.
lowers HDL “good” cholesterol. HDL cholesterol is linked with lower heart
disease and stroke risk, so reducing it tends to raise the risk.
raises blood pressure levels.
can induce diabetes. In some people, diabetes makes these other risk factors
much worse. The danger of heart attack is especially high for these
people.
Even when there are no adverse effects on the known risk factors, obesity
by itself increases risk of heart disease. It also harms more than just the heart
and blood vessel system. It’s a major cause of gallstones and can worsen
degenerative joint disease.2. NIHPUBLICATION NO. 98-4083 SEPTEMBER 1998 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in
cooperation with The National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
CLINICAL GUIDELINES ON THE IDENTIFICATION, EVALUATION, AND
TREATMENT OF OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY IN ADULTS
The Evidence Report
There is strong evidence that weight loss in overweight and
obese individuals reduces risk factors for diabetes and
cardiovascular disease (CVD). Strong evidence exists that
weight loss reduces blood pressure in both overweight
hypertensive and nonhy- pertensive individuals; reduces
serum triglycerides and increases high-density lipoprotein
(HDL)-cholesterol; and generally produces some reduction in
total serum cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-
cholesterol. Weight loss reduces blood glucose levels in
overweight and obese persons without diabetes; and weight
loss also reduces blood glucose levels and HbA1c in some
patients with type 2 diabetes. Although there have been no
prospective trials to show changes in mortality with weight
loss in obese patients, reductions in risk factors would
suggest that develop ment of type 2 diabetes and CVD would
be reduced with weight loss.3. This study is our personal favorite. It showed that it
didn’t matter if a person was on a low carb diet or a low
fat diet. If a person lost weight, their blood profile
improved. And the difference in which diet they lost the
weight on was insignificant.
The New England Journal of Medicine
February 26, 2009
Comparison of Weight-Loss Diets with Different Compositions
of Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrates
Frank M. Sacks, M.D., George A. Bray, M.D., Vincent J.
Carey, Ph.D., Steven R. Smith, M.D.,

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/360/9/859

Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes
All the diets reduced risk factors for cardiovascular
disease and diabetes at 6 months and 2 years (Table 2). At 2
years, the two low-fat diets and the highest-carbohydrate
diet decreased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels
more than did the high-fat diets or the lowest-carbohydrate
diet (low-fat vs. high-fat, 5% vs. 1% [P=0.001]; highestcarbohydrate
vs. lowest-carbohydrate, 6% vs. 1% [P=0.01]).
The lowest-carbohydrate diet increased HDL cholesterol
levels more than the highest-carbohydrate diet (9% vs. 6%,
P=0.02). All the diets decreased triglyceride levels
similarly, by 12 to 17%. All the diets except the one with
the highest carbohydrate content decreased fasting serum
insulin levels by 6 to 12%; the decrease was larger with the
high-protein diet than with the average-protein diet (10%
vs. 4%, P=0.07). Blood pressure decreased from baseline by 1
to 2 mm Hg, with no significant differences among the groups
(P>0.59 for all comparisons). These changes in risk factors
in the intention-to-treat population were about 30 to 40%
smaller than the changes seen among participants who
provided data at 2 years, reflecting the effect of the
imputation of missing values (Table 1 in the Supplementary
Appendix). The metabolic syndrome35 was present in 32% of the
participants at baseline, and the percentage was lower at 2
years, ranging from 19 to 22% in the four diet groups
(P=0.81 for the four-way comparison).4. Professor on a Twinkie Diet
Last week, a professor of nutrition put himself on a
1800 calorie/day diet to lose weight. It was mainly junk
food. He wanted to test whether or not he would lose
weight despite the fact that he was eating junk food. He
did. He lost a lot of weight. And what is just important
is that even though he ate mainly junk food, just by losing
a significant amount of weight caused his blood profile to
improve rather dramatically.
Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor

/index.html
Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts. For 10 weeks, Mark
Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State
University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three
hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady
stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on
Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is
what matters most — not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his “convenience store diet,” he
shed 27 pounds in two months.
For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than
1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub’s pre-dieting size
usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed
a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly
fewer calories than he burned.
His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight,
to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds. But you
might expect other indicators of health would have
suffered. Not so.
Haub’s “bad” cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and
his “good” cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He
reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of
fat, by 39 percent.
“That’s where the head scratching comes,” Haub said. “What
does that mean? Does that mean I’m healthier? Or does it
mean how we define health from a biology standpoint, that
we’re missing something?”
Haub’s sample day
Espresso, Double: 6 calories; 0 grams of fat
Hostess Twinkies Golden Sponge Cake: 150 calories; 5 grams
of fat
Centrum Advanced Formula From A To Zinc: 0 calories; 0
grams of fat
Little Debbie Star Crunch: 150 calories; 6 grams of fat
Hostess Twinkies Golden Sponge Cake: 150 calories; 5 grams
of fat
Diet Mountain Dew: 0 calories; 0 grams of fat
Doritos Cool Ranch: 75 calories; 4 grams of fat
Kellogg’s Corn Pops: 220 calories; 0 grams of fat
whole milk: 150 calories; 8 grams of fat
baby carrots: 18 calories; 0 grams of fat
Duncan Hines Family Style Brownie Chewy Fudge: 270
calories; 14 grams of fat
Little Debbie Zebra Cake: 160 calories; 8 grams of fat
Muscle Milk Protein Shake: 240 calories; 9 grams of fat
Totals: 1,589 calories and 59 grams of fat
Despite his temporary success, Haub does not recommend
replicating his snack-centric diet.
“I’m not geared to say this is a good thing to do,” he
said. “I’m stuck in the middle. I guess that’s the
frustrating part. I can’t give a concrete answer. There’s
not enough information to do that.”
Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also
took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily.
And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or
three to four celery stalks.
Families who live in food deserts have limited access to
fresh fruits and vegetables, so they often rely on the kind
of food Haub was eating.
“These foods are consumed by lots of people,” he said. “It
may be an issue of portion size and moderation rather than
total removal. I just think it’s unrealistic to expect
people to totally drop these foods for vegetables and
fruits. It may be healthy, but not realistic.”
Haub’s body fat dropped from 33.4 to 24.9 percent. This
posed the question: What matters more for weight loss, the
quantity or quality of calories?
His success is probably a result of caloric reduction, said
Dawn Jackson Blatner, a dietitian based in Atlanta,
Georgia. “It’s a great reminder for weight loss that
calories count,” she said. “Is that the bottom line to
being healthy? That’s another story.”
Blatner, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic
Association, said she’s not surprised to hear Haub’s health
markers improved even when he loaded up on processed snack
cakes.
Being overweight is the central problem that leads to
complications like high blood pressure, diabetes and high
cholesterol, she said.
“When you lose weight, regardless of how you’re doing it –
even if it’s with packaged foods, generally you will see
these markers improve when weight loss has improved,” she
said.
Before jumping on the Ding Dong bandwagon, Blatner warned
of health concerns.”There are things we can’t measure,”
said Blatner, questioning how the lack of fruits and
vegetables could affect long-term health. “How much does
that affect the risk for cancer? We can’t measure how diet
changes affect our health.”
I was eating healthier, but I wasn’t healthy. I was eating
too much.
–Professor Mark Haub
On August 25, Haub, 41, started his cake diet focusing on
portion control.”I’m eating to the point of need and
pushing the plate or wrapper away,” he said.
He intended the trial to last a month as a teaching tool
for his class. As he lost weight, Haub continued the diet
until he reached a normal body mass index.
Before his Twinkie diet, he tried to eat a healthy diet
that included whole grains, dietary fiber, berries and
bananas, vegetables and occasional treats like pizza.
“There seems to be a disconnect between eating healthy and
being healthy,” Haub said. “It may not be the same. I was
eating healthier, but I wasn’t healthy. I was eating too
much.”
He maintained the same level of moderate physical activity
as before going on the diet. (Haub does not have any ties
to the snack cake companies.)
To avoid setting a bad example for his kids, Haub ate
vegetables in front of his family. Away from the dinner
table, he usually unwrapped his meals.
To curb calories, he avoided meat, whole grains and fruits.
Once he started adding meat into the diet four weeks ago,
his cholesterol level increased.
Haub plans to add about 300 calories to his daily intake
now that he’s done with the diet. But he’s not ditching
snack cakes altogether. Despite his weight loss, Haub feels
ambivalence.
“I wish I could say the outcomes are unhealthy. I wish I
could say it’s healthy. I’m not confident enough in doing
that. That frustrates a lot of people. One side says it’s
irresponsible. It is unhealthy, but the data doesn’t say
that.”

.

B. Claims about the Lifesize product and Program


First, before we make our claims about Lifesize, let’s
review what the Lifesize tools and the Lifesize Program is.

What is Lifesize?
Lifesize is a different way to lose weight and keep it off.
We took the idea of portion control and ran with it in a
whole new way.

First, we looked at the foods people commonly eat, and we
created our own portion sizes that are small enough for
people to lose weight, but big enough so people don’t walk
around hungry.

The next thing we did was design really easy tools so that
people could just put their food in them and measure out
the perfect portions on to their plates, every time they
eat.

No guessing or weighing or visualizing or memorizing
anything. Our basic kit comes with:
A unique family of 8 measuring devices to portion out most
of your food. These measuring devices don’t measure ounces
or grams but rather the portion sizes for meat, snacks,
liquids, etc.

A wall chart and a guide for easy reference to look up the
portion sizes of every food that you eat. Also, the bottom
panel of the Lifesize Wall Chart has the portion sizes for
common foods that come in natural portion sizes, like eggs,
bread and pizza.

A DVD and a manual to teach a person how to use the
Lifesize tools and all about the Lifesize Program and
portion control.

 

The 5 Steps of Lifesizing

We also developed the Lifesize Program for those people who
wanted to lose weight faster and keep it off easier. In 5
simple steps we teach people how to eat the right amount of
food in a meal and in a day. The 5 steps are:The 5 Steps of Lifesizing
1. Throw out everything you think you know about food and diets
2. Figure out what you really want to eat
3. Portion out your food using the Lifesize measuring devices and wall chart
4. Eat 3 meals a day plus a snack and/or dessert
5. Eat 6 Lifesize portions a day plus your snack and/or dessert

 

Understanding Free Foods

In addition, we gently push people into eating lower
calorie foods by creating a category of foods called FREE
FOODS. These are foods that people do not have to portion
out at all, nor do they have to count them as a snack, a
dessert or as one of the 6 daily Lifesize portions.
FREE FOODS include all fruits, all vegetables and most lowfat dairy.
We also teach people to develop a few eating habits like
drinking more water, eat slower and eat more fruits and
vegetables during the day. However, the way we phrase
these habits and get people to think about them as well as
implement them is new:
The 3 Lifesize habits –
1. Water – “Whenever you feel hungry during the day, drink
some water. Then, if you are still hungry, go ahead and
eat a meal or snack. But most of the time you will find
that you won’t be hungry after the water, because most of
the time when you think you are hungry, you are really just
dehydrated.”2. Whenever you feel like seconds at a meal, wait 15
minutes. Then, if you’re still hungry, go ahead and eat.
But chances are, you won’t be hungry anymore.3. Fill in the gaps with FREE FOODS
On those days when you are a little bit hungrier and need
more than one snack and/or dessert, and for those meals
when you are just a little bit hungrier and the Lifesize
portions aren’t quite enough…
Turn to FREE FOODS to help satisfy you and fill in the
gaps.

In summary, on The Lifesize Program, the way a person loses
weight and keeps it off is by eating less food and thus
eating less calories. There are only three ways a person
can cut down the amount of food they eat:

By cutting down their portion sizes of food
By eating fewer portions in a meal
By eating fewer portions in a day

That’s what the Lifesize Program pushes a person to do –
cut down the amount of food they eat in those three ways.
And out of these three ways, the most important step a
person can take to lose weight and keep it off is to
downsize their portions.

We also push people to eat all the foods they love so that
they don’t feel deprived, which is a major reason why
people don’t stay on diets.

On the Lifesize Program, you must eat all the foods you
love. And we believe that if a person eats what they love,
if they are completely satisfied, and also lose weight…they
will find it much easier to continue with the Lifesize
eating strategy for the rest of their life.

All we do with the Lifesize tools and Lifesize Program is
find an easy way to push people to eat in moderation. We
also believe that by using a few psychological tricks, like
calling fruits and vegetables FREE FOODS, we will gently
push people into eating what doctors and nutritionists
consider the correct way of eating.

We believe that more people will end up eating more fruits
and vegetables if we call them FREE rather than if we told
them “you should eat more fruits and vegetables.”
.

Claim: Lifesize is the first program to teach people the fundamentals of portion control.

Claim: Lifesize is the first program that clearly illustrates the correct portion sizes for all the different foods a person can eat and teaches people the fundamentals of portion control.How we say it:
When most people hear about portion control it makes total
sense to them. You want to lose weight? Eat less food.
But when they want to try portion control…they don’t know
where to start. And it seems too hard –
Too many things to remember
Information is scattered all over magazines and TV and some
of it contradicts everything else
And people don’t want to start weighing ounces of food or
measuring inches of a sandwich
Too complicated. Until now…
The Lifesize Program makes everything easy for you. All
the information you need for portion control is finally in
one place. All the portions you need to know are listed on
our easy to read Wall Chart.
But most importantly, we are going to show you how to use
all this information in your daily life.
We will train you to eat whatever you want but in the right
portion sizes so that you can lose weight and keep it off
for the rest of your life.
The Lifesize Program teaches you a simple eating strategy –
and provides easy-to-use tools so you don’t have to
remember anything but can still get your portion sizes
right every time you eat.
No other portion control product provides you with as
complete instruction and training as the Lifesize product
and Program does.The logic behind our claim:Certainly this is more of a marketing claim than a
scientific claim. However, there has been some research
done which suggests that our way of teaching people about
portion control is the best way. We use measuring devices
or scoops and a colorful wall chart to show people and
teach them the correct portion sizes.1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
“Do Increased Portion Sizes Affect How Much We Eat

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/nutrition/pdf/portion_size_

research.pdf
Raise Awareness of Portion Distortion.
The most accurate way to monitor portion sizes is to
measure out food with a scale and measuring cup.2. So how can we claim:
No other portion control product provides you with as
complete instruction and training as the Lifesize product
and Program does.
We’ve looked at other programs and products. We believe:
Portion plates, portion bowls and portion discs are not as
effective as our Lifesize Measuring Devices because they do
not portion out as many different foods as we do, and most
of the time, they do not take into consideration the volume
of the portions of foods. How can a flat plate or disc
factor in portion volume of creamy soups? How high should
someone load a pile of spaghetti and meatballs onto these
devices?
And while portion bowls might factor in volume, how are
they used to portion foods that don’t go in bowls, like
sandwiches or candy bars or slices of pizza?
The Lifesize tools are more all inclusive of the variety of
foods that people eat and more accurate than these other
devices.
Also, if you look at the supporting material and
instructions that portion bowls and plates and discs offer
their customers, you will see that it is rather short and
slim. In contrast, the Lifesize DVD #1 is three hours and
thirty minutes of instruction on portion control and the
Lifesize Program which is based on portion control. DVD#2
is 2 hours long and allows the customer to actually see
many different Lifesize portions for many foods that they
commonly eat.
The supporting written material is also quite lengthy and
thorough. The User Manual is over 200 pages. The
Reference Guide is 160 pages.
Even great programs like Weight Watchers which would argue
that they teach portion control as one option to weight
loss in their system does not have as lengthy and all
inclusive instruction on portion control as we do.

.

Claim: If you eat the Lifesize portions, you will lose weight and you will keep it off.

Claim: If you eat the Lifesize portions, you will lose weight and you will keep it off.How we say it:
Eating less food is the secret to losing weight but there
is a very important trick to portion control –
You have to know the right size portions to eat!
You have to eat small enough portions so that you will lose
weight, but they can’t be so small that you feel hungry.
Your portions have to be big enough so that you leave the
table feeling full and satisfied. It’s a delicate balance.
The Lifesize portions and Lifesize Measuring Devices are
designed to make sure you eat the right amount to lose
weight and keep it off. Lifesize portions are carefully
balanced to be big enough to keep you satisfied but small
enough so that you lose weight and keep it off. They are
not diet portions. They are not supersize portions. They
are the perfect portions!
The basic philosophical difference between Lifesize and a
diet is…
- It’s not what you eat, it’s how much you eat.
Diets cut down the amount of calories or carbs or fat or
sugar you eat by cutting out large groups of food, and many
times, depriving you of food that you love to eat. We
think this is a bad eating strategy.
Lifesize cuts down the amount of calories and fat and sugar
you eat by cutting down the amount of food you eat. We
give you the freedom to eat whatever you want…just in the
proper portion sizes.
- There is no good food. There is no bad food. There is
just too much food.
Get rid of thinking there are good and bad foods. All
foods are good in the right portion size and in moderation.
Our goal is not for you to eat “healthy.” Our goal is to
cut down the calories you eat and get you to your proper
weight and keep you there your entire life. We believe
this is the healthiest thing you can do for yourself.
- You must eat whatever you love –
If you don’t eat the foods you love you are never going to
be successful in any eating program. You don’t lose weight
by making yourself suffer. You’re going to feel deprived,
end up cheating and eventually drop the diet.
It’s much easier to eat smaller portions of the food you
love than to not eat the food you love.
The logic and science behind the claim:
This is probably the most important claim that we make – if
you eat Lifesize portions you will lose weight. We
believe that if someone eats our portion sizes they will
have a steady weight loss while eating all the food they
love. And we believe that this will be real weight loss,
not fast weight loss from a fad diet that most people will
eventually gain back. This is the kind of slow and steady
weight loss that doctors recommend to their patients.
It’s eating in moderation. And it’s eating a number of
calories a day that will create weight loss and maintain
the proper weight after a person has lost his or her excess
weight.
Basically, we put people on a diet of anywhere from 1700 –
2300 calories a day. The caloric count will vary each day,
depending on what a person eats. So the question is, does
this caloric range create weight loss in a person? And is
this the amount of calories that a person should eat to
maintain his or her weight?
We would have to prove that this is less calories than the
average American eats in a day, and this is a range of
calories that has been suggested by respected experts to
elicit weight loss and weight loss maintenance in an
average American.
So everything starts with the current amount of calories
that an Average American eats in a day. Surprisingly,
there is no accurate count for that! The suggested numbers
are all over the map. Here’s what we found is being said
out there:UN Food and Agriculture Organization states Americans eat
3,790 calories a day.
US Agriculture Department says 2,757 in 2003, to over 3,000
today.
US Department of Health and Human Services say
On average—
• Males consume 2,475 calories daily and females consume 1,833 calories.
•Figure 2. Saturated fat intake as percent of total calories for U.S. population, NHANES 1999–2000The government periodically surveys Americans to find out
what they are eating and the latest results from the year
2000 are 2,666 calories per day (by men) and 1,877 (by
women) with 49% carbohydrates (by men) and 52% (by women),
33% fat (by men and women), 11% saturated fats (by men and
women), 16% protein (by men) and 15% (by women).
The average American consumes 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) of food
per year containing an estimated 3,747 kcal per day. The
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends an average
daily consumption of 2,000 to 2,500 kcal a day, much less
than the actual typical American diet. According to the
World Health Organization, the United States ranks no. 9 in
the world with 74.1% of the population being overweight or
obese. In contrast, Italy ranks no. 111 with 45% of the
population overweight or obese.
The second issue is how many calories should a person cut
out of his or her diet to elicit weight loss? Here, the
science and reporting seems to be a little more consistent.
We found many reports that suggested that Americans cut 500
calories from their daily consumption. Here are two
reports:
- 1. American Heart Association
from their website
Reduce calories in and increase calories out.
One pound equals 3,500 calories. To successfully and healthfully lose weight—
and keep it off—most people need to subtract about 500 calories per day from
their diet to lose about 1 pound per week.- 2. NIHPUBLICATION NO. 98-4083 SEPTEMBER 1998 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in
cooperation with The National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
CLINICAL GUIDELINES ON THE IDENTIFICATION, EVALUATION, AND
TREATMENT OF OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY IN ADULTS
The Evidence Report
HOW TO ACHIEVE WEIGHTLOSS1. Dietary Therapy
n Low-calorie diets are recommended for
weight loss in overweight and obese persons.
Reducing fat as part of a low-calorie diet is a practical
way to reduce calories. Reducing dietary fat alone without
reducing calories is not sufficient for weight loss.
However, reducing dietary fat, along with
reducing dietary carbohydrates, can facilitate
caloric reduction.
A diet that is individually planned to help
create a deficit of 500 to 1,000 kcal/day
should be an integral part of any program
aimed at achieving a weight loss of 1 to 2
lb/week.
Randomized trials suggest that weight loss at the
rate of 1 to 2 lb/week (calorie deficit of 500 to
1,000 kcal/day) commonly occurs for up to 6
months.
The next thing you have to consider is the daily caloric
intake recommended by the experts. We have come to assume
that it’s around 2,000 – 2,500 calories a day. Those are
the examples on food labels. But again, we found a range
of recommendations, although the range was smaller than the
estimates of how many calories we are eating.
Here are a few recommendations:1. Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010
USDA Center for Nutrition Policy

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-DGACReport.htm

Part D Section 1 Energy Balance and Weight Management
Page D1 – 1
Energy balance refers to the balance between calories
consumed through eating and drinking and those calories
expended. Energy consumed must equal energy expended for a
person to remain at the same body weight. Overweight and
obesity will result from excess calorie intake and/or
inadequate physical activity. Weight loss will occur when a
calorie deficit exists, which can be achieved by eating
less, being more physically active, or a combination of the
two.
Recommendations for calorie intake to maintain weight will
vary depending on a person’s age, sex, size, and level of
physical activity.
Specific equations for estimating calorie needs are
provided in the Dietary Reference Intakes (IOM, 2002/2005).
Recommended total energy intakes range from 2000 to 3000
calories per day for men and 1700 to 2400 calories per day
for women, depending on age and physical activity level2. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends an
average daily consumption of 2,000 to 2,500 kcal a day,
much less than the actual typical American diet. According
to the World Health Organization, the United States ranks
no. 9 in the world with 74.1% of the population being
overweight or obese. In contrast, Italy ranks no. 111 with
45% of the population overweight or obese.
We like and trust the American Heart Association we used
their recommendations as a starting point. They say:
American Heart Association
from their website
Know How Many Calories You Should Eat
The calorie ranges shown in this table allow for the needs
of people of different ages within an age group. Adults
need fewer calories at older ages. For example, an active
31-year-old man needs about 3,000 daily calories, but an
active 50-year-old man needs only about 2,800 calories.
Activity Level and Estimated Calories Burned
Gender Age
(years)
Sedentary1 Moderately
Active2
Active3
Female 19–30
31–50
51+
2,000
1,800
1,600
2,000-2,200
2,000
1,800
2,400
2,200
2,000-2,200
Male 19–30
31–50
51+
2,400
2,200
2,000
2,600-2,800
2,400-2,600
2,200-2,400
3,000
2,800-3,000
2,400-2,800
1 Sedentary means you have a lifestyle that includes only the light physical
activity associated with typical day-to-day life.
2 Moderately active means you have a lifestyle that includes physical activity
equivalent to walking about 1.5 to 3 miles per day at 3 to 4 miles per hour, in
addition to the light physical activity associated with typical day-to-day life.
3 Active means you have a lifestyle that includes physical activity equivalent to
walking more than 3 miles per day at 3 to 4 miles per hour, in addition to the light
physical activity associated with typical day-to-day life.
So the average woman are advised to eat 1600 – 2400
calories in a day, depending on her age and activity level.
Men are advised to eat 2,000 – 3000 calories a day
depending on their age and activity level.
Also, using the numbers from the American Heart
Association, remember they said that Americans should cut
around 500 calories a day from their diets. That would
mean that they believe Americans are eating 500 calories
more than their recommendations on average.
So therefore, the American Heart Association believes that
Americans are currently eating:
Women 2100 – 2900 calories a day
Men 2500 – 3500 calories a day
For Lifesize to claim that our portion sizes will create
weight loss in a person, the portion sizes need to be lower
than:
Women 2100 – 2900 calories a day
Men 2500 – 3500 calories a day
For Lifesize to claim that a person will lose weight and
keep it off eating our portions, the portion sizes would
have to be around those recommended by the American Heart
Association. And again, those numbers are:
So the average woman are advised to eat 1600 – 2400
calories in a day. Men are advised to eat 2,000 – 3000
calories a day.
Our portion sizes actually have less calories.
An estimate of what an average reasonable person eats in
America was developed, i.e., what specific foods are eaten
for breakfast, lunch, dinner, snacks, and dessert. Then
sample menus of an average day, an average week, and an
average month using these foods were developed to calculate
a calorie count that would lead to weight loss. The
portion sizes of the different foods were then determined
that are generally representative of that calorie count.
An exemplary collection of sample menus for a five day
period are presented in Table 1 below. To be safe, we have
provided a menu of high caloric and high fat content foods.
This means that most people’s weekly food consumption will
have less calories than what is listed in this chart.
Note, the calories listed for the meals below were
calculated by taking the size of the portions of food and
then looking up the number of calories in that amount of
food in Food Values of Portions Commonly Used by
Pennington.
Table 1
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
Egg
Sausages
Coffee
Bagel
Cream
Cheese
Cereal
Milk
Juice
Waffles
Butter
Maple
Syrup
Egg
McMuffin
Hash
Browns
OJ
Calorie
Count
400 300 400 375 750
Turkey
Swiss
cheese
Bread
Chips
Coke
Cheese
Burger
Fries
Coke
Pizza
Coke
Lasagna
Salad
Dressing
Chili
Salad
Calorie
Count
750 950 750 550 300
Mac and
Cheese
Salad
Dressing
Take-out
Chinese
Rice
Steak
Salad
Dressing
Wine
Fried
Chicken
Mashed
Potatoes
Spaghetti
and
meatballs
wine
Calorie
Count
500 750 750 750 700
Total
Calorie
1700 2000 1900 1675 1750
Again, this presents a worst case scenario menu of a person
eating really poorly and eating very rich foods. Look at
the menu. A person is assumed to eat fried chicken,
lasagna and waffles in one day, and Chinese, cheese burger
and fries and a bagel in another day. These are very high
in calorie and fat foods that most people would not eat in
one single day.
However, these are the calories for the portions of these
foods dispensed using the measuring devices and portions
listed on the Wall Chart.
This menu closely follows the recommended program of
limiting food intake to 6 measured portions a day as
further explained and described below, but sometimes going
over and having 7 portions as it is expected that users
will mistakenly do.
This menu does not account for those foods designated as
“free foods” (e.g., all fruits and vegetables) under the
program or a snack or dessert that a program user may have
once a day in addition.
In addition to portioned foods measured by the measuring
devices, a user of the program may eat and drink “free
food” and “free liquid” as desired throughout any day.
Exemplary free foods under the program may include, for
example, all fruits, all vegetables (including clear
vegetable soups and sauces), broth soups (without noodles),
condiments (excluding mayonnaise), low-fat dairy foods
(yogurt, 1%-2% milk, cottage cheese), low-fat salad
dressings, coffee, tea, and water.
A snack or dessert portioned using the goodies scoop or the
baked goods scoop is considered to be around 250 to 300
calories. Thus, the total extra calories from free foods
and a snack or dessert amount to about 200–400 calories per
day. This menu also presumes that the user does not
exercise during the day. If the user does exercise at an
appropriate level, the net caloric intake for a day may be
less, or it could be about the same if the user decides to
offset the calories burned through exercise with an
additional portion, snack, or dessert.
When these total calorie counts for a day are combined with
additional calories for a snack and/or dessert plus free
foods the total daily calorie intake for this exemplary 5
day period is shown below in Table 2.
Table 2
Calorie
Count
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5
Total
Calorie
Count
1700 2000
1900
1675 1750
Total
Calorie
Count
extra
200
calories
from
FREE
FOODS
and
snacks
1700
+200
1900
2000
+200
2200
1900
+200
2100
1675
+200
1875
1750
+200
1950
Total
Calorie
Count
extra
300
calories
1700
+300
2000
2000
+300
2300
1900
+300
2200
1675
+300
1975
1750
+300
2050
Total
Calorie
Count
extra
400
calories
1700
+400
2100
2000
+400
2400
1900
+400
2300
1675
+400
2075
1750
+400
2150
As indicated in the total calorie counts in Table 2, the
caloric intake of a user of the Lifesize tools (measuring
devices and wall chart) will vary from day to day because
the calories of various foods portioned using the same
measuring device will vary.
However, the Lifesize portion sizes ensure that the calorie
intake is generally low and that is variable within a range
that will lead to weight loss for overweight users and
maintain an appropriate weight if the user reaches a stable
healthy weight.
When compared to the recommended daily caloric intake from
the American Heart Association, you see we fall below their
total calorie count consistently.
Their belief is that people are currently eating
2100 – 3500 calories a day. Our range is 1675 – 2400
calories a day. Thus, our range is low enough to elicit
and maintain weight loss.
Their recommended calorie count to lose weight and maintain
weight loss is: 1600 – 3000 calories a day. Again, our
range is lower at 1675 – 2400 calories.
The only number we are slightly above is for an older,
sedentary woman, according to the AHA. They believe that
woman should eat 1600 calories a day. Our lowest count is
1675.
Of course, they and we can’t be exact in our calorie count.
This is an average. Secondly, our numbers reflect a very
high in calorie and fat diet. We also don’t believe an
older, sedentary woman would normally eat waffles and
lasagna and fried chicken in one day, which is a day we
brought the total calories at 1675. We presented an
extreme diet to prove our point that even under extreme
eating norms, our calorie numbers are within the range or
even lower than those from the American Heart Association.
We also believe that this calorie count is in range or
lower than most recommendations for daily caloric intake
presented by most experts in America.
One other note about our calorie count…
The portion sizes imposed by the measuring devices in the
program are the same for both men and women. While this
may seem counterintuitive due to the general differences in
size, build, and body structures of men and women, in
actuality it makes sense when human physiology is
considered. If fat intake as a percentage of food consumed
is high, the metabolic rate of a person is likely to remain
in a low state. However, if fat intake and total calorie
intake are reduced, the metabolic rate increases
significantly and begins to burn stored calories in the
form of fat. As body fat and weight decrease and the
metabolic rate increases, food cravings decrease. The
portion sizes for the designated food categories therefore
push users to eat the free foods described above that are
low calorie, but higher in carbohydrate content. The
greater intake of these kinds of foods triggers an increase
in the metabolic rate of the user, which in turn helps to
burn more calories that are stored as fat.
It should be noted that most men will lose weight on the
program faster than most women because of the differences
in physiology between the sexes. The metabolic rate of men
is generally higher than the metabolic rate of women.
However, both women and men can reach healthy weights
following the program and maintain those healthy weights by
continuing to eat the portion sizes prescribed by the
measuring devices for the food categories of the program
and additional free foods as desired. Men on the program
may need to eat a larger quantity of free foods because the
carbohydrate requirement of the typical male metabolic rate
is higher. A male on the program may thus feel more hungry
or less satisfied unless his intake of free foods is higher
than the typical female intake of free foods. The program
is meant to be a lifestyle or habit change that is
continued throughout life to maintain a healthy weight.

.

Claim: There is no other group of portion sizes out there like the Lifesize portion sizes.

Claim: There is no other group of portion sizes out there like the Lifesize portion sizes.The logic behind our claim:
We followed the theory laid out in:
NIHPUBLICATION NO. 98-4083 SEPTEMBER 1998
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in
cooperation with The National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
CLINICAL GUIDELINES ON THE IDENTIFICATION, EVALUATION, AND
TREATMENT OF OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY IN ADULTS
The Evidence Report
A diet that is individually planned to help
create a deficit of 500 to 1,000 kcal/day
should be an integral part of any program
aimed at achieving a weight loss of 1 to 2
lb/week.
Successful weight reduction by LCDs is more
likely to occur when consideration is given to a
patient’s food preferences in tailoring a particular
diet.
The type and number of Lifesize measuring devices and the
amount and kinds of portions listed on the Lifesize wall
chart has been designed to encompass as many different
foods as possible that people normally eat. This is larger
than you will find in most portion control systems.
Second, we believe that our portions are unique because
they were designed to factor in not only a calorie count
that would elicit weight loss, but also create an eating
experience which would not create feelings of hunger and
would also satisfy Americans psychologically and socially.
These portions were designed by Steven Kates who has 30
years of experience working with people in the area of
fitness training and weight loss. He observed the portions
that people eat who were considered thin and who maintained
their proper weight consistently over time. He observed
what portion sizes over weight clients could comfortably
eat and which portion sizes caused stress in those clients.
The Lifesize portions factor in all those observations and
feedback.
We don’t believe you have to starve yourself to lose
weight. And we know you can’t starve yourself to keep the
weight off in the long run. We are also pushing our
customers using Lifesize to a more responsible rate of
weight loss. Cutting back, eating in moderation will lead
to slow and steady weight loss, but real and permanent
weight loss which will include a change in lifestyle and
eating habits. That’s why we don’t believe in cutting out
certain foods as recommended in most other weight loss
programs, but rather cutting down the amounts of these
foods you would eat.
The Lifesize portions are smaller than the portions an
average person is eating now, so that person will lose
weight. But the Lifesize portions are big enough to leave a
person totally satisfied—and they are bigger than you might
think. Our portions are not diet portions of 3 or 4 ounces
of meat or a thimble of chocolate. Lifesize portions are
bigger and more reasonable portions because you don’t have
to starve yourself to lose weight.
The Lifesize portions are different than the portions of
food you get on a diet or that are suggested on TV or in
magazines. Many times the Lifesize portions are…bigger!
By comparison, to find unrealistic examples you need look
no further than the back of many a diet book in the
recommended recipe section. Take a look at some of these
recipes. Notice that the amount of meat or chicken in one
serving is usually about 3 or 4 ounces. Have you seen what
3 ounces of meat looks like?!! That’s too little food.
You are not going to eat 3 ounces of meat and then stop.
While a person might save some calories in a meal by eating
3 or 4 ounces of meat instead of the bigger Lifesize
portion, they will walk away from the table feeling hungry.
They’ll probably keep nibbling on food throughout the day
because they are hungry, and they’re likely to end up
eating more calories grazing than if they had eaten a
bigger portion of meat or chicken or fish and left the
table satisfied and full to start with as they would eating
Lifesize portions and FREE FOODS.The Lifesize portions are also unique because social and
psychological factors were also considered in designing the
portion sizes. For example, consideration was given to how
much of a food a person needs to eat to enjoy it — a
thimble-size piece of chocolate is not going to be
satisfying for most people; however, eating an entire
package of candy is too much. Alternatively, half a candy
bar should be completely satisfying and is a portion size
that could be eaten every day if desired, within the limits
of the system for overall portion intake, while still
achieving weight loss.
The Lifesize portion for pizza is 2 slices (large fold
over) partly because a portion of 1 slice of pizza for a
meal would be considered too restrictive, too small and
cause a psychological feeling of deprivation. Just like a
diet.
We suggest people have 2 slices of pizza as a portion or 2
glasses of wine as a portion because these are portions
that Americans will feel are reasonable psychologically and
socially. There are many examples of these kinds of
portions in the Lifesize Program.
As another example, it may be asked what the difference is
between a side of potato salad and a side of French fried
potatoes? Ultimately, the answer lies in typical people
eat these foods. The portion sizes of the measuring
devices were designed to reflect a balance between calories
and how the average reasonable person eats different foods.
In this example, a portion of potato salad measured out
with the carbohydrate scoop would generally be considered
too big, and a portion of French fries measured out with
the goodies scoop 116 would generally be considered too
small. Such a small portion of French fries would not be
psychologically satisfying to the typical user.
Convenience and normal eating conditions were also factored
into determining the portion sizes for the measuring
utensils. For example, a portion of sliced bread is 2
slices, not 1 slice, so that a user can make a sandwich.
Similarly, the portion size of soda is 12 ounces, not 10,
because soda comes in 12 ounce cans. It is unrealistic and
inconvenient to require a user to determine when two ounces
are left in a can and require the user not to drink that
amount. As compared to typical diet programs, it is even
more unrealistic to convert calorie limitations into
portion sizes of particular foods. Such an exercise
generally requires a calculator and strong determination.
But it also usually means that the dieter will get it
wrong, or lose interest in making those constant
calculations over time and quitting the diet.

 

.

Claim: You can lose weight just by eating Lifesize portions. But you will lose weight faster and keep it off easier if you follow the 5 simple steps of the Lifesize program.

Claim: You can lose weight just by eating Lifesize portions. But you will lose weight
faster and keep it off easier if you follow the 5 simple steps of the Lifesize program.How we say it:If all you do is eat the Lifesize portions, you will lose
weight. But we also developed the Lifesize Program for
those people who wanted to lose weight faster and keep it
off easier.If you just use the Lifesize Portions at a Glance Wall
Chart and the Lifesize Measuring Devices to portion all the
food you eat, you will be very successful at weight loss
and weight maintenance. But if you go one step further: If
you eat the right number of portions in a meal and the
right number of portions in a day, you will be wildly
successful at losing weight and keeping it off.The logic and science behind the claim:
If someone is overweight, they are eating too much food.
If that person eats exactly the same foods they eat, but
smaller portion sizes, they will cut down the amount of
calories they eat, and will thus lose weight.
If a person follows the Lifesize program, they will be
trained to:
  • Eat at least three meals a day
  • Substitute FREE FOODS (fruits, vegetables and low-fat dairy) for higher calorie foods
  • Control the number of times they eat in the day
  • Control the number of times they snack during the day
  • Control the amount of food they put on their plate in a meal
  • Add FREE FOODS to meals they feel they need to eat more
  • Add FREE FOODS to days they feel they need to eat more
  • Drink more water
  • Eat slower
  • Exercise more

These are all additional steps that are recommended for
weight loss and weight loss maintenance.

1. Here’s what the Mayo Clinic recommends
Mayo Clinic recommendations
Tipping the scale: Cutting calories
Your weight is a balancing act, but the equation is simple:
If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight.
Cutting calories doesn’t have to be difficult. In fact, it
can be as simple as:
Skipping one extra high-calorie indulgence a day
Swapping high-calorie foods for lower calorie options
Reducing portion sizes
Choosing lower calorie foods
Beyond your indulgences, you can also replace common foods
that are high in calories with ones that are lower in
calories. You may not realize how much you can cut with
some simple substitutions. For example, drink fat-free milk
instead of whole milk and sparkling water or diet soda
instead of blended coffee drinks. Have an extra serving of
vegetables at dinner instead of an extra serving of meat.
Or snack on sliced fresh fruit instead of chips.
Lower calorie options
Instead of this

Calories
* Try this … Calories
*
Whole milk, 8
ounces
149 Skim milk, 8
ounces
86
Blended caramel
coffee drink,
16 ounces
380 Diet soda,
12-ounce can
0
French fries,
large fast-food
packet
500 Strawberries
, 1 1/2 cups
whole
60
*Actual calories may vary by brand.
Putting it all together
Eliminating high-calorie foods, choosing lower calorie
alternatives and cutting your portion sizes can help you
reduce calories and improve weight control. For a
successful — and sustainable — weight management plan, you
also need to increase your physical activity. It’s this
combination of regular activity and healthy eating that
will help you achieve and maintain a healthy weight.
2. Here’s a summary of why 3 meals a day and limited
numbers of snacks are important…
Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010
USDA Center for Nutrition Policy

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-DGACReport.htm

Part D Section 1 Energy Balance and Weight Management
Page D1 – 18
Eating Frequency Evidence for Adults. The literature
review identified one prospective cohort study (van der
Heijden, 2007). The study investigated the association
between food patterns and long-term weight gain in US men
over 10 years. An increased number of eating occasions in
addition to three standard meals was associated with a
higher risk of 5-kg weight gain over time.
3. Here’s how FREE FOODS help with weight loss and
maintenance
Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010
USDA Center for Nutrition Policy

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/DGAs2010-DGACReport.htm

Part D Section 1 Energy Balance and Weight Management
Page D1 – 50 – 52
Strong and consistent evidence indicates that dietary
patterns that are relatively low in energy density mprove
weight loss and weight maintenance among adults. Consistent
but limited evidence suggests that lower energy density
diets may be associated with lower risk of type 2 diabetes
among adults.
Implications
Dietary patterns relatively low in energy density that have
been associated with beneficial body weight outcomes also
may be associated with lower risk of type 2 diabetes. They
are characterized by a relatively high intake of
vegetables, fruit, and total fiber and a relatively low
intake of total fat, saturated fat, and added sugars (Kant
and Graubard, 2005; Ledikwe, 2006a; Ledikwe, 2006b;
Lindstrom, 2006; Murakami, 2007; Savage, 2008b; Wang,
2008).
Review of the Evidence Background
The energy density of a food is defined as the amount of
energy per unit of weight, usually expressed as kcal per
100g. The energy density of an entire dietary pattern is
estimated by dividing the total amount of calories by the
total weight of food consumed. The overall fat and water
content of the diet is the key determinant of energy
density (Drewnowski, 2004). Short-term feeding studies have
consistently shown that lower-energy dense food choices
lead to a higher amount of food consumption but lower
energy intakes compared to higher-energy density diets.
This suggests that lower-energy density diets may lead to
better appetite regulation and improved body weight control
(Rolls, 2009). This hypothesis is supported by studies
conducted among free-living individuals (Ledikwe, 2007;
Savage, 2008b)
The 2005 DGAC report concluded that at the time of their
deliberations evidence was insufficient to come to a firm
conclusion on the impact of dietary energy density on body
weight. Since then, four RCTs and five prospective studies
have been published. The resulting clear and consistent
evidence led the 2010 Committee to conclude that dietary
energy density does affect both weight loss and weight
maintenance. Additional evidence has also indicated a
potential association between dietary energy density and
T2D.
Energy Density and Weight Loss
Four randomized controlled weight loss trials found that
lowering food-based energy density is linked with
significantly higher weight loss (De Oliveira, 2008; Ello
Martin, 2007; Rolls, 2005; Saquib, 2008). In these RCTs,
the average weight loss resulting from lower dietary energy
density ranged from 0.8 kg to 1.5 kg across studies.
Dietary energy density was reduced by either increasing
fruit and/or vegetable intake (De Oliveira, 2008; Ello
Martin, 2007; Saquib, 2008) or soup consumption (Rolls,
2005).
Energy Density and Weight Maintenance
Four observational prospective studies with follow-ups
ranging from 6 months to 8 years have consistently
documented a positive association between energy density
and weight maintenance
4. Here’s how eating slower with our trick of waiting 15
minutes before having seconds aids in weight loss
By waiting for about 15 minutes and further drinking some
water, a person may avoid overeating at a meal because the
sensation of hunger will subside once the body recognizes
that it has eaten and the carbohydrates, fats, proteins,
and nutrients start affecting the body systems. If the
program user is still hungry after waiting for this short
period and drinking a glass of water, the program
recommends eating additional free foods until the user
feels satisfied.
5. Here’s how drinking more water aids in weight loss.
Drinking water is a significant component in losing weight
and maintaining proper weight. The body recognizes
dehydration and hunger as the same thing. This means that
many times when a person feels hungry, the person is
actually just thirsty. So many times people eat food when
their bodies actually wanted some water. Therefore, the
recommendation is that whenever a user of the program feels
hungry, the user should first drink some water. If after
drinking some water, for example, after waiting about 15
minutes, the user is still hungry, then the user should
eat. However, many times the user will actually just be
dehydrated, and after drinking water, the hunger sensation
will disappear.

.

Claim: Lifesize is a lifestyle one can do for life

Claim: Lifesize is a lifestyle one can do for life
How we say it:
Anyone can lose weight on a diet. The trick is to keep it
off. And that’s the difference between a diet and a
lifestyle. Lifesize is a lifestyle.
On Lifesize you don’t make major changes in the types of
food you normally eat. You don’t give up foods you enjoy
or even crave. You don’t feel deprived. And The Lifesize
portions of food will leave you satisfied. You won’t walk
around hungry.
You are never again going to eat the same amount of food
that you are eating now—and you’re not going to want to.
Ths Lifesize portions are designed to leave you full and
completely satisfied, so you are not going to have to go
back to eating more food because you are starving or even
just too hungry eating the Lifesize portions.
This is a balanced eating program that gives you enough
food and teaches you to incorporate water, more fruits and
more vegetables into your daily eating routine. With this
level of satisfaction, by eating portions of food that are
enough to fill you up, by eating whatever you love, and by
adding low calorie foods to your diet to make sure that you
are full, we believe you will be able to continue this
eating strategy for the rest of your life.
And that’s how you lose weight and that’s how you will keep
that weight off for good.The logic and science behind it:
We believe we have created a way for people to eat whatever
they want, never walk around feeling hungry or deprived,
not have to change any major eating habits, and smoothly
incorporate their eating strategy into their normal lives
and in American society.
The program does not deprive users of certain types of
food. Users are free to eat whatever they want to eat and
like to eat. The only restriction is on the amount of
food. This offers a significant psychological benefit to
users of the program because they do not have a sense of
deprivation.
Second, the program does not require a change in eating
habits or lifestyle. Users are still able to eat a normal
three meals a day and also have a snack and/or dessert if
desired. In fact a user can still eat out at a restaurant
if the user limits the portion sizes consumed to what is
allowed by the measuring devices. The remaining food may
be taken home in a doggie bag for another meal.
Third, the portion sizes are generally larger than typical
calorie allotments of known diet plans. This reduces the
risk that a user will experience significant cravings.
Thus, the program results in gradual weight loss for users
that are overweight, but at a slower rate that typical diet
plans that severely restrict caloric intake. But there is
no stress which is a big reason why people quit their
diets.Here are some studies which support our claims:1. NIHPUBLICATION NO. 98-4083 SEPTEMBER 1998
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in
cooperation with The National Institute of
Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
CLINICAL GUIDELINES ON THE IDENTIFICATION, EVALUATION, AND
TREATMENT OF OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY IN ADULTS
The Evidence Report
Experience reveals that lost weight usually will
be regained unless a weight maintenance program
consisting of dietary therapy, physical
activity, and behavior therapy is continued.
Successful weight reduction is more likely to occur when
consideration is given to a patient’s food preferences in
tailoring a particular diet.2. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 82, No. 1,
236S-241S, July 2005
IS IT POSSIBLE TO EAT SATISFYING PORTIONS AND LOSE WEIGHT?
A crucial question is whether consuming low-energy-dense
foods is an effective long-term strategy for controlling
hunger while reducing energy intake and thus will result in
weight loss. This strategy was tested in a recent clinical
trial (38). One group of obese women was counseled to
incorporate into their diet satisfying portions of lowenergy-
dense foods, such as fruits, vegetables, and brothbased
soups, and to choose and prepare foods with less fat.
A comparison group was counseled to limit the portions of
all foods and to reduce their fat intake. After 6 mo, the
women who were advised to eat more low-energy-dense foods
consumed significantly more servings of low-energy-dense
fruits and vegetables than the comparison group and thus
decreased the energy density of their diets. These dietary
changes were associated with a 40% greater weight loss in
the reduced-energy-density group (9.0 kg; 20 lb) than in the
comparison group (6.7 kg; 15 lb) after 6 mo. Contrary to
standard advice to eat small portions to lose weight, advice
to eat satisfying portions of low-energy-dense foods was a
more successful strategy for weight loss.
Thus, when giving dietary advice for weight management, the
emphasis should be on the types of food that can be eaten in
satisfying portions instead of on restrictive messages that
advocate reducing the portions of all foods. If individuals
choose foods that are low in energy density, they will be
able to eat their usual amount of food, and this will help
to eliminate the sense of deprivation that can accompany
energy restriction.

.

Claim: Even if you're close, you will lose weight!!!

Claim: Even if you’re close, you will lose weight!!!How we say it:
Don’t get nervous or stressed out about learning how to
Lifesize. Lifesizing is easy. Plus…
We know that you aren’t perfect. So we have built lots of
fail safes into The Lifesize Program, and it’s all going to
work itself out in the course of a week or month.
If you make a mistake, if you measure lasagna in the Meats
Device or cheese in the Goodies Device…you’re going to lose
weight. If occasionally your portion is bigger than what
we’re giving you, it’s going to be bigger by a few
calories, maybe even a hundred calories, but not the
hundreds and hundreds of calories you’re missing by now!
So, if you make a mistake using Lifesize containers and
charts – You’re still going to lose weight!!!
Of course, getting the portions right, you’ll lose weight
faster and keep it off easier. But the best thing about
the Lifesize Program is…
Even if you’re close, you will lose weight.Logic and research behind claim:
Clearly we are trying to lower the stress anyone might have
in Lifesizing their foods with our devices.
I know that Jane Dyer was uncomfortable with this claim and
wanted us to modify it, which we are happy to do. Perhaps
changing the wording will help.
But I just want to point out the logic behind it. Which is
this:
The Lifesize Program tracks your calories in a much more
realistic and natural way. On a diet, you can eat a
certain amount of calories in a 24 hour period – you can
only have 1900 calories in a day for example. But your
body doesn’t work on a 24 hour cycle so this diet time
frame is unnecessary and unnatural and forces you to be
much more restrictive in your eating than you need to be.
The Lifesize Program doesn’t want you counting calories
every day on a 24 hour basis. We want you to eat whatever
you want because this is the only way to eat and because we
believe you will end up eating in a much more balanced way.
We realize that some meals you’ll eat more calories than
others. Some days you’ll eat more calories than other
days. But if you watch your portion sizes, the total
amount of calories you eat will work itself out over the
course of a week and a month and you will end up eating the
right amount of calories…naturally and with less stress.
Also, there is science behind the claim.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
“Do Increased Portion Sizes Affect How Much We Eat

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/nutrition/pdf/portion_size_

research.pdf
People can compensate for eating larger portions in one
eating occasion by eating fewer calories during the rest of
the day or the time period before or following the eating
occasion.
Of course, eating larger portion sizes at one eating
occasion will not cause weight gain unless it contributes
to a total eating pattern in which a person consumes more
calories than he or she expends. Although the research
has not yet shown that this happens, the literature does
show that people are offered many opportunities to be
exposed to large portion sizes. Certainly people who need
to lose or maintain weight should consider all
opportunities to eat appropriate amounts to avoid excess
calorie intake.

.

Claim: You don't have to count calories, because we already counted them for you

Claim: You don’t have to count calories, because we already counted them for you when we designed the Lifesize portions.This is one of our selling points that explains how easy,
doable and effective the Lifesize Program is. As you saw
on pages 60 – 62, we have counted the calories in every
Lifesize portion.
We based the calorie count on every Lifesize Portion on
Food Values of Portions Commonly Used by Pennington.
Lifesize and exercise
I want to conclude this paper with a brief discussion about
exercise in the Lifesize program.
We don’t emphasize it because we feel that the main factor
of weight loss is due to the amount of food consumed, not
in how much a person exercises.
However, we hold a carrot out for people to encourage them
to exercise by giving them an extra snack or dessert on
days that they do exercise.
We do include exercise in the program because we feel it
does help indirectly with weight loss in that it reduces
stress. Stress is one of the main reasons why people
overeat.
Finally, we don’t want to discourage overweight and obese
customers from our program. If we claim that they will
only be successful at losing weight if they also exercise,
we believe that many of these people will not do any part
of Lifesize.
However, by including exercise in our program, we believe
that an overweight and obese person will turn to exercise
at their own natural pace after they have had some success
losing weight. We also believe that exercise is important
in weight loss maintenance over time.
Studies and articles are appearing quite frequently which
are supporting our views.
1. The standard view of exercise and weight loss
American Heart Association
from their website
It’s hard for most people to get enough physical activity
to substantially reduce their weight. Regular physical
activity must be combined with sensible eating — and, most
importantly, portion control.
2. When a person exercises on the Lifesize Program they
are allowed to eat an extra snack or dessert. The Lifesize
Portion for a snack or dessert is around 200 – 300
calories.
USDA
Considerations
Activity also plays a role in how many calories the average
American should consume. Moderately active individuals, or
those who walk or run 1.5 to 3 miles a day, can typically
consume up to an additional 200 calories across age groups
and gender. Individuals who are active, or those who walk
or run more than 3 miles a day, can consume an additional
400 to 600 calories across age groups and genders. The
degree of increase corresponds with how much over the 3-
mile-a-day average an individual attains.
3. But here are studies which point out the limits of
exercise in losing weight
Article in the NYTimes Nov 4, 2009
Phys Ed: Why Doesn’t Exercise Lead to Weight Loss?

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/phys-ed-whydoesnt-

exercise-lead-to-weightloss/?
scp=1&sq=Reynolds%20November%204,%202009&st=cse
For some time, researchers have been finding that people
who exercise don’t necessarily lose weight. A study
published online in September in The British Journal of
Sports Medicine was the latest to report apparently
disappointing slimming results.
But few people, an overwhelming body of research shows,
achieve significant weight loss with exercise alone, not
without changing their eating habits. A new study from
scientists at the University of Colorado School of Medicine
in Denver offers some reasons why.
To their surprise, the researchers found that none of the
groups, including the athletes, experienced “afterburn.”
They did not use additional body fat on the day when they
exercised. In fact, most of the subjects burned slightly
less fat over the 24-hour study period when they exercised
than when they did not.
“The message of our work is really simple,” although not
agreeable to hear, Melanson said. “It all comes down to
energy balance,” or, as you might have guessed, calories in
and calories out. People “are only burning 200 or 300
calories” in a typical 30-minute exercise session, Melanson
points out. “You replace that with one bottle of Gatorade.”
Perhaps just as important, bear in mind that exercise has
benefits beyond weight reduction. In the study of obese
people who took up exercise, most became notably healthier,
increasing their aerobic capacity, decreasing their blood
pressure and resting heart rates, and, the authors write,
achieving “an acute exercise-induced increase in positive
mood,” leading the authors to conclude that, “significant
and meaningful health benefits can be achieved even in the
presence of lower than expected exercise-induced weight
loss.”
Finally and thankfully, exercise seems to aid,
physiologically, in the battle to keep off body fat once it
has been, through resolute calorie reduction, chiseled
away. In other work by Melanson’s group, published in
September, laboratory rats that had been overfed and then
slimmed through calorie reduction were able to “defend”
their lower weight more effectively if they ran on a
treadmill and ate at will than if they had no access to a
treadmill. The exercise seemed to reset certain metabolic
pathways within the rats, Melanson says, that blunted their
body’s drive to replace the lost fat. Similar mechanisms,
he adds, probably operate within the bodies of humans,
providing scientific justification for signing up for that
Thanksgiving Day 5K.
4. ScienceDaily (May 8, 2009) — New research that uses an
innovative approach to study, for the first time, the
relative contributions of food and exercise habits to the
development of the obesity epidemic has concluded that the
rise in obesity in the United States since the 1970s was
virtually all due to increased energy intake.
Increased Food Intake Alone Explains Rise In Obesity In
United States, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (May 8, 2009) —How much of the obesity
epidemic has been caused by excess calorie intake and how
much by reductions in physical activity has been long
debated and while experts agree that making it easier for
people to eat less and exercise more are both important for
combating it, they debate where the public health focus
should be.
A study presented on Friday at the European Congress on
Obesity is the first to examine the question of the
proportional contributions to the obesity epidemic by
combining metabolic relationships, the laws of
thermodynamics, epidemiological data and agricultural data.
“There have been a lot of assumptions that both reduced
physical activity and increased energy intake have been
major drivers of the obesity epidemic. Until now, nobody
has proposed how to quantify their relative contributionsto the rise in obesity since the 1970s. This study
demonstrates that the weight gain in the American
population seems to be virtually all explained by eating
more calories. It appears that changes in physical activity
played a minimal role,” said the study’s leader, Professor
Boyd Swinburn, chair of population health and director of
the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for
Obesity Prevention at Deakin University in Australia.
“To return to the average weights of the 1970s, we would
need to reverse the increased food intake of about 350
calories a day for children (about one can of fizzy drink
and a small portion of French fries) and 500 calories a day
for adults (about one large hamburger),” Swinburn said.
“Alternatively, we could achieve similar results by
increasing physical activity by about 150 minutes a day of
extra walking for children and 110 minutes for adults, but
realistically, although a combination of both is needed,
the focus would have to be on reducing calorie intake.”
He emphasized that physical activity should not be ignored
as a contributor to reducing obesity and should continue to
be promoted because of its many other benefits, but that
expectations regarding what can be achieved with exercise
need to be lowered and public health policy shifted more
toward encouraging people to eat less.5. And this cover story from Time Magazinehttp://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1914857-
1,00.html

  • You may use these HTML tags: <a> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <code> <del> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

  • Comment Feed for this Post
Go to Top