Kate Bosworth Losing Excessive Weight

Kate Bosworth is getting scary skinny. Here's a recent photo (June 2006) of her promoting the world premiere of 'Superman Returns' in Los Angeles. She really is way too skinny here to be optimally attractive.

Last year in February 2005 Bosworth was quoted as saying she would like to add more weight to her frame. At that point she said she weighed 115 pounds. What's her height? She is 5'7" tall.

And what is her weight speculated to be at now? According to US Weekly Bosworth weighs about 105 pounds now. She eats lots of veggies, fruits and protein and exercises by walking with her dog. US Weekly also says she drinks a lot of herbal teas and takes wheat grass shots.

Bosworth, 23, is on her way to becoming a superstar. The Superman movie is her biggest yet, but there will undoubtedly be more huge roles in the near future. Her other movie appearances include Bee Season (2005), Beyond the Sea (2004), Win a Date with Tad Hamilton! (2004), Advantage Hart (2003)' Wonderland (2003),The Rules of Attraction (2002), Blue Crush (2002),Remember the Titans (2000),Young Americans (2000) TV Episode, The Newcomers (2000), and The Horse Whisperer (1998).

Just in the last year or so, there has been a high-profile and dangerous trend with Hollywood celebrities looking increasingly like skinny skeletons. Hopefully one of these A-list young celebrity females will take a stand on this issue soon. Otherwise it could have very serious repercussions for the rise in eating disorders amongst young women.

Getting Rid of Sagging Skin after Weight Loss

There's an interesting discussion going on over at Livin' La Vida Low-Carbabout how to get rid of the excess skin on your body after a dramatic weight loss. People who lose many dozens of pounds are often left with a great deal of sagging skin. Surgery is increasingly being touted as the solution to the excess flabby skin, but a lot of people believe this is not optimal and necessary. Here are some comments people have made there:

"I thought for sure I'd have to get plastic surgery. But the more weight I lost, the more what I thought was loose skin tightened up and the better it looked. Based on my experience, I don't think you have loose skin; instead there's more fat under there to lose."

"I myself have the excess skin after losing 100 lbs. I am 37 years old. The biggest area where I had it was around my tummy, so I purchased an Ab Lounge and over the last several months, I have noticed a major improvement in my stomach area. I'm also doing a combination of aerobic type activity (belly dancing and hula-hooping), pilates, and other weight-bearing exercises for toning. I think "toning" is the key. Lifting weights is also key. I might always have the underarm waggle and the extra skin on the bottoms of my thighs, but I look MUCH better than I did before. I look better at 37 than I did @ 27."

"I do believe that it takes time to tighten up the loose skin. I lost half of my body weight from 220 to 110 when I was in my 50's (I am now 72). It took about 7 years but I did lose most of the loose skin. I tried going down further in weight to lose it faster and to lose the little belly pouch but it didn't work, just made my arms and legs look like sticks. I still have the belly. Unfortunately the low fat crowed convinced me that low carb was ruining my health and I gained most of it back before I regained my senses and went back to low carb. I now weigh 130 which is healthy for my 5'3". In short give it time, it takes about 7 years I have heard for the body to completely replace itself cell by cell."

"Time and exercise have worked for me. Almost four years after losing the bulk of 95 pounds, I only have a few spots that would qualify as loose skin and they're barely noticeable. The worst spot was my lower stomach, but it only looked a bit wrinkly, not hanging and since I've upped my exercise intensity it's gotten even better. I'm 43 and have birthed two strapping boys, so I don't have the benefit of youthful elasticity."

See the full discussion at Livin' La Vida Low-Carb. Untitled photo by Malingering.

Trans Fat: the Key Food to Avoid Trans Fat: the Key Food to Avoid

How much plastic are you eating today?

Have you recently eaten chips that said "Zero Trans Fat"? If so, you may have just eaten a lot more plastic than is good for you.

Trans fat is making headlines these days. It's been banned in restaurants in several countries. Is the FDA going to take some more action about it soon?

You've probably heard that trans fat is a very bad thing. It's linked to obesity, heart problems and high cholesterol. It's even worse than saturated fat, because though it raises the bad cholesterol levels just like saturated fat, it also lowers the amount of good cholesterol levels in your body - which even saturated fat is not guilty of doing.

Right now the Federal Dietary Guidelines recommends people eat less than two grams of trans fat per day. That would be equivalent to about one small glazed donut or one small handful of french fries cooked with trans fat.

The Institute of Medicine disagrees however, and says the only safe level of trans fat is zero.

The big food companies are allowed to put "Zero Trans Fat" in big letters on their food packages even if the food inside contains trans fat. They can do this if the food contains less than half a gramper serving. This is a bit of a joke as 'one serving' is usually defined as a tiny amount, maybe just a few chips, whereas we all know what happens to a bag of chips in one sitting once it's been opened. So quite conceivably, you could eat a bag of chips that said 'zero trans fat' and have actually consumed several grams of trans fat!

There is a very good interview on NPR this week with Kim Severson. She is the author of The Trans Fat Solution: Cooking and Shopping to Eliminate the Deadliest Fat from Your Diet.

She says trans fat is the one food we shouldn't be eating at all. It is a completely artificial substance that our bodies don't know how to process.

It's like putting plastic fat into our body.

Trans fat (also known as 'partially hydrogenated oils') really started to get into our diets in a big way in the 1970's, along with the growth of the fast food industry. Trans fat is much cheaper than the more traditional oils. It can be reheated over and over without spoiling, and this is why it's so popular in the restaurant and fast food industry. It's also become a key ingredient in many packaged foods because it doesn't spoil as quickly as natural oils.

It looks like there is a movement starting to get underway to ban trans fat use in restaurants. Chicago may be the first city to do this in the United States thanks to the efforts of Alderman Edward Burke. And last month a consumer group sued KFC to try to stop the chicken chain from cooking with trans fat. A KFC meal of three pieces of extra-crispy chicken contains 15 grams of trans fat, and a single pot pie contains 14 grams.

What are other foods that are high in trans fats? Here's an excerpt from Consumer Reports from a couple of years ago:

WHERE'S THE TRANS?

We tested mainly the top-selling foods that we knew or suspected would contain at least some partially hydrogenated oil. We found trans fat--up to 4 grams per serving--in many of those foods. But since it's the combined total of trans and saturated fat that matters most, the table in Bad fats in common foods lists the foods in decreasing order of total bad-fat content. There's little benefit in choosing a food that's low in trans fat if it's high in saturated fat, and vice versa. Banquet Chicken Pot Pie, for example, contained just a trace of trans fat. But its 7.5 grams of saturated fat made it the top artery-clogging product on our list. The surprising runner-up for top artery clogger: Mrs. Smith's Apple Pie, with 4 grams of trans and 3 grams of saturated fat per slice. Other foods that you might not suspect of harboring bad fats: Nabisco Wheat Thins, Kellogg's Cracklin'’ Oat Bran Cereal, Kellogg's Eggo Buttermilk Frozen Waffles, and Pillsbury Buttermilk Frozen Waffles. While the amount of trans and saturated fat in many of the other tested foods may seem low, keep in mind that serving sizes are often quite small. Orville Redenbacher's Popping Corn Movie Theater Butter, for example, contains about 1.5 grams of bad fat--but that's in a mere 6.5-gram serving, or 1 cup, not the big bowlful that many people eat.
Note that our table doesn't list any fast-food french fries; McDonald's is reformulating the one such product we tested. But manufacturers'’ data provide some illuminating comparisons. Burger King's medium fries apparently supply more trans fat and more bad fat overall than any product in our table: 4.5 grams of trans plus 5 grams of saturated fat. Wendy's medium fries--a significantly larger serving--supply roughly the same total amount of bad fat: 6 grams of trans and 3 grams of saturated fat. McDonald's reformulated medium fries--about the same size as Wendy's--have less trans fat and less bad fat overall than either of those competitors. We plan to test french fries and other reformulated products in the near future to assess their bad-fat content.

______________
The above photos of donuts and fries are by pinkpucca andklynslis.

Waist to Hip Ratio Versus BMI

Studies are increasingly finding that the waist to hip ratio may be more relevant to determining if you are relatively healthy even if overweight than the BMI (body mass index) ratio.

Someone who is extremely fit will have much more muscle on their bodies than someone who is very sedentary. And muscles weigh four times as much as the equivalent space taken up by fat. So a very fit person who lifts weights may be considered obese by BMI standards though they are in fact not even overweight let alone obese. BMI is not the best indicator of knowing if your fat ratio is compromising your health.

The waist-to-hip ratio on the other hand has been shown to be a very good indicator of a person's risk of developing heart disease and getting a heart attack.

See more about this at The Fanatic Cook

Obesity Surgery has High Risks

A new study has found that four out of every ten people who undergo weight loss surgery experience complications within half a year. Many of these complications are so serious they have to go to emergency rooms.

The average cost of the surgery and six months of follow-up is $29,921. But for patients with complications that require re-admission to hospital, the average cost is $65,031.

Past studies found that ten to twenty percent of people had problems after the surgery. But this study done by federal researchers found that forty percent had complications within 180 days of surgery. The most common ailments include vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal hernias, infections, pneumonia, respiratory failure and leaking of gastric juices.