Tag Archives: research

Vitruvian Man Logo

coach, coaching, Dietitian, goals, health, health coach, health goals, health professional, Healthy Diet, weight, wellness, , , , , , , ,

You may have noticed that N.E.W. Motivation Coaching has an updated logo. We kept the Vitruvian man – because reasons below –  but made the graphic simpler and more visually friendly.

Logo-Medium_FINAL

Why Choose this Image?

You may know that the Vitruvian Man is a sketch done by Leonardo Da Vinci which represents the “perfect proportions” for man. The circle and square which surround the Vitruvian Man provide the touch-points for the length of the arms and legs as they move from one position to another.

It’s an art and a science: A multi-faceted approach. Leonardo’s new twist – to place the circle and square on top of each other – combine science and art. This is similar to our approach.

(1) We are firmly grounded in science, research, and evidence-based practice. We know the research and we keep up with new findings. We understand that the plural of anecdote is not data… yet we realize there are always outliers in research studies who may not fit the data trends. In other words, even if the research does NOT support something for a group on the whole, we are open to pursuing alternative paths to health as long as it does not bring you any harm!

(2) Making lifestyle changes that “stick” for the long-term is an art. We won’t throw information at you and tell you to make it work. Information is everywhere and if all it took was having legit info, then everyone would be exactly where they wished they were with health and weight. We do not believe our role is to tell you what you should do, what you should want for your health (or weight), or how to go about it. We instead focus on discovering your uniqueness (including your personal and environmental strengths and challenges) and then tweak, adjust, and experiment to create individualized goals to baby-step you to success. We use coaching and behavior change techniques to challenge you to think in new ways, but you will always make your own decisions.

Many body types can fit. Weight does not determine one’s overall health and yet many continue to focus on this one narrow view to judge their own health and the health of others. We like that a body with little fat and a body with lots of fat can both fit into the circle and square. The image is not body-shaming and embraces that all sizes belong.

What N.E.W. Stands For

Nutrition. The founder is a Licensed Nutritionist which means we can provide you with nutrition coaching and medical nutrition therapy. (More information on the differences here.)

Exercise. As an American Council on Exercise Certified Health Coach, we can get you started with activity and exercise safely.

Wellness. Health is more than food, exercise, and body weight. We work with you on finding health-life balance, improving sleep habits, managing stress, and figuring out all your Plan B’s for when life and situations throw you off course.

If you want more details, check out N.E.W. Motivation Coaching for upcoming workshops, group challenge classes, and individual coaching/counseling.

What do you think of the new logo and what it represents?

An Open Letter to my Dietitian Colleagues

Dietitian, health, health coach, health professional, Healthy Diet, research, wellness, , , , , , ,

What good is an RD’s opinion?

Our opinions – they do not matter. Hear me out.

What we personally think about alternative sweeteners, grains, and organic foods– this does not matter. We are not the “body of evidence” or the final authority on how people “should” eat. Our opinions may be based on years of research (hopefully) or they may be based on the latest nutrition trend (unfortunately). So, our opinions: they may stink.

Our opinions, however, carry a LOT of credibility.

Our profession touts us as “THE food and nutrition expert” and holds us aside, seemingly on a pedestal when compared to other health professionals and educational tracks. We have years of schooling and internships to teach us to interpret, and sometimes perform, research studies. This training does set us apart and people seek out our opinions; but it does not make our opinion valuable to anyone other than ourselves.

There is a need for education about food and nutrition – many people are misinformed, lack an deep understanding of science and physiology, and have been led to the dark side of junk science and the business of selling health. We cannot be a part of this problem RDs! Please stop telling people what they should eat to be: good, pure, healthy, clean, and angelic. Please stop telling people about how we personally eat and which foods are bad, toxic (really??) and the devil personified.

It’s just food. And our opinions have no place in someone else’s dietary choices (except maybe our partners or children… and boy-hardy don’t they feel lucky to live with RDs #sarcasm).

IMHO-Doesnt-Matter

Our job, our role, what we have been trained and educated to do, is to evaluate the research, separate the invalid bull from the valid conclusions, and share what we, as a field of study, currently know about food and nutrition. Yes, you may have to actually read a bunch of peer-reviewed research studies. #sorrynotsorry.

I learned a valuable lesson during my internship: the opinion of the person asking for your opinion is what really matters. People ask for an RD’s opinion to have their beliefs confirmed or to receive praise for “correct” choices. The trouble is that getting asked for our opinion gives us a launching pad to talk about our ideas – and don’t we all love doing that? Sure we do! But next time, take a beat and say, “That’s an interesting question and I can certainly give you some information; but let me first ask what you think about that?”

I’d wager that the conversation doesn’t come back around to our opinions at all.

Our actions should be in service to our clients.

Let’s try to stop focusing on being right, stop talking so much, and start listening more. Let’s focus on helping people be real with their food choices instead of making them feel “bad” for not eating “right.” Let’s use our expertise to give people evidence-based information instead of our opinions.

Let’s help people in the way that RDs really excel – by knowing and keeping up with the ever-changing body of evidence and by helping people figure out how to apply the information relevant to them to their unique lives in a way that supports a physically and emotionally healthy long-term relationship with food and nutrition.

Now, go forth and be awesome!

Go-Forth-Be-Awesome

Another Study on Splenda: Mice, Cancer, and Ridiculous Advice

Dietitian, Food, research, splenda, sugar, , , , ,

I just came across a blog titled Splenda Possibly Linked to Cancer, New Study Finds. I use Splenda. Daily. So I checked this out. Turns out the study was released in January, six months ago; but it was worth investigating since if it popped up in my Facebook feed, it was probably popping up in others.

In short – mouse study, blood cancers (leukemia), high doses equivalent to 10 cans of soda a day in people, and the CSPI, which has a lovely tool to rate foods, has changed its status to “avoid.

There is a link to the journal article in the blog which give a little more detail for consideration.

  1. The mice started being exposed prenatally. Chances are many little ones probably are also exposed during this stage if their moms use Splenda so let’s move on.
  1. Cancers only manifest in male mice. This is a place to pause. Why only in males? Assuming we can we extrapolate these results out to humans (possibly but not a definite), then do they apply to females? Are only males at risk? This is something that needs more investigation!
  1. The mice were given multiple doses measured in parts per million (ppm). The male mice developed cancer at doses of 2,000 and 16,000 ppm but NOT at 0, 500, or 8,000 ppm. Okay, let’s pause again. If Splenda is the reason for the cancers, we would expect that the higher the dose, the more cancers. So why yes-cancer at 2,000 ppm, but no-cancer at 8,000 ppm, and then yes-cancer again at 16,000 ppm. This is an unexpected result which needs more investigation!

So, file this study away under the developing story of Splenda but this is not the type of study that will lead to a blanket-statement and declare that all people must avoid Splenda! Well, except for the CSPI I guess.

Oh, and I can’t forget my favorite part – the ridiculous part – where the CSPI president is quoted as pointing out “that consuming too much regular sugar carries a higher risk of diabetes, heart disease and obesity than the cancer risk posed by artificial sweeteners.” Yet his organization now says to AVOID Splenda and CUT BACK on sugar.

So… let me see if I understand. Yes there is a high risk of big-bads from regular sugar versus low risk of big-bads from alternative sweeteners; soooo avoid the thing with the lower risk? What??? Makes sense to me (NOT!).

I routinely talk to my patients with type 2 diabetes and explain this exact thing. The chances that you will have negative health outcomes (high blood sugar) by using real sugars is pretty much a given unless the dose (amount) and meal composition (what do you eat it with) are pretty well designed. Having high blood sugar over the long-term can have some pretty devastating results (kidney disease, losing toes and vision). Compare that to the chances that you will get cancer from using alternative sweeteners, which is pretty low (unless you are downing a LOT of the stuff!).

What surprises me is that many people choose sugar over the alternatives. Thanks documentary-makers and media celebrities for ruining sugar’s reputation. To be clear, I don’t promote using a LOT of the natural OR the fake stuff – I promote letting your taste buds adjust to LESS sweet flavor in food and using very LITTLE of whichever one you choose.

Good news – it is YOUR decision what to choose.

Me? I’m sticking with my Splenda for now. What about you?