I haven’t been blogging much lately, and there was a reason. It’s now finally time to share this reason with you guys.

After a whole lot of thinking, planning, designing, programming, fixing, changing, and even some real life actual money spent on a fantastic programmer, I am now happy to introduce to you… a Calorie Counter.

a Calorie Counter (aCalorieCounter.com) is my own version of all of the “calorie counter” type sites currently around. Type in the name of your food, hit search, and see that food’s complete nutrition facts instantly. See calories, protein, carbs, fat, sugar, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and a whole lot more. And, as if it even needed to be mentioned, a Calorie Counter is 100% free.

After years of using other similar sites to get the nutritional information of the foods I eat, I decided it was time to make my own better version. There’s no clutter, and there’s no nonsense. What there is though is what I am fairly certain may be the USDA Food Nutrient Database made available in the quickest and cleanest format it has ever been made available in before.

Think of a Calorie Counter as the equally literally named side-kick to The Lose Weight Diet. Use it, bookmark it, and then use it again. Tell your friends to use it. Tell your family to use it. Tell your pets to use it. Tell your pet’s friends and family to use it. If you have your own site or blog, feel free to link to it. If your pets have their own site or blog, tell them to link to it too. Basically… enjoy.

You may also notice that I’ve already written a bunch of articles for a Calorie Counter, all of which will most definitely be of interest to anyone who finds The Lose Weight Diet useful. So, be sure to check those out as well.

Other than that, let me know what you think. Like it? Hate it? Have any suggestions for something you’d like to see on there? Notice something not working correctly? Comments, feedback and suggestions are more than welcome. Just leave ‘em in the comments of this post.

So um, go check it out already: a Calorie Counter

So, I don’t know how else to say this, but, food companies are lying to you. Yes, YOU. The really strange part is that they are actually allowed to lie to you… by law.

I’m not even joking. It’s plain old crazy.

The lying takes place on the nutrition facts label of whatever kind of box or package or container your food came in. You know, where the ingredients are listed, along with other nutritional information like how many calories or carbs there are per serving. All of that information is usually true and accurate. However, when you get to trans fat, that all changes.

First and foremost, for anyone who doesn’t know what trans fat is, let me give you a very quick and simple description. It’s one of the “bad” types of fat. In fact, trans fat is the baddest of them all, and that’s “horrible” bad, not “hip and cool” bad. How bad? Well, think of a health problem someone could have. Go ahead, any health problem. Got it? Ok. There is a very good chance that whatever you thought of is one of the many health problems and diseases caused by eating a diet high in trans fat.

See… bad.

But, most people are already aware of how terrible trans fat is for you. Most of these people became aware of this around January 1, 2006, which is the date that the FDA started requiring that trans fat content be included on the nutrition facts label of all foods. Yup, they meant business. Trans fat is borderline poison, and now we can feel safe knowing that all we need to do is take a peek at the nutrition facts label of our food to make sure we aren’t eating any of it.

Well, not quite. This is where the lying is happening.

See, there is a largely unknown loophole in the FDA’s trans fat requirement. Instead of telling you what this loophole is, I’ll let the FDA explain it for me. Here is a direct quote from a “question and answer” page on the official web site of the Food and Drug Administration.

Q: How will the nutrition label be different?

A: The FDA final rule on trans fatty acids (also called “trans fat”) requires that the amount of trans fat in a serving be listed on a separate line under saturated fat on the Nutrition Facts panel (see figure). However, trans fat does not have to be listed if the total fat in a food is less than 0.5 gram (or 1/2 gram) per serving and no claims are made about fat, fatty acids or cholesterol content.

Get all that? I bolded the important part for you. Basically, here’s what they’re saying. If a food has 1 gram of trans fat per serving, it will say “Trans Fat: 1 gram” on the nutrition facts label of that food. If that food has 0 grams of trans fat per serving, it will say “Trans Fat: 0 grams” on the label. However, if a food has exactly 0.49 grams of trans fat per serving, it will say “Trans Fat: 0 grams” on the label.

Let that one sink in for a second. Food companies are allowed by law to tell you that there is “0 grams” of trans fat in the food you are eating even though there actually IS trans fat in that food. Insane, isn’t it?

So now, the food you eat will mention trans fat ONLY if there is more than 0.5 grams of it per serving. If there are 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, or 0.49999999 grams, it will still say there is no trans fat in the food. There’s really no other way to look at that… it’s a lie. Plain and simple.

There is of course an excuse for this insanity. The FDA claims that anything below 0.5 grams is considered a “very small amount” of trans fat. So, by that logic, if a certain amount of poison will kill me, I’ll be just fine consuming 0.4 grams since that would be a “very small amount” of poison. Mmmm, fantastic.

ANY trans fat is too much trans fat, no matter what the amount. It’s one of the worst possible things you can possibly put into your body. 0.4 grams, 0.5 grams, or 10 grams, I don’t care. I don’t want any of it, and anyone who cares at all about their health shouldn’t want ANY of it either. Unfortunately though, food companies are telling you that you aren’t eating any, even though you are.

Another key thing to keep in mind here is the term “serving size.” Food companies only need to report how much trans fat there is in one serving of there food. Did you ever pay attention to what “one serving” of most foods is? For example, for most cereals, one serving is usually 3/4 of a cup. Chances are there is at least double that amount in one average sized bowl of cereal. Another serving size might be “3 crackers.” How many people only eat exactly 3 crackers? Not many.

My point here is that most people eat more than “one serving” of most foods. And since trans fat only needs to be mentioned on food labels if there is 0.5 grams or more trans fat per serving, that means that if the food contained 0.4 grams, and you eat 4 servings of it, there’s 1.6 grams of trans fat. 1.6 is well above 0.5, yet the label will still only say 0 grams per serving. And, if you eat 4 servings of that food, 4 x 0 still equals 0 grams of trans fat. You continue to think you didn’t eat any, when in reality you ate 1.6 grams. How wonderful.

And don’t think food companies don’t take complete advantage of this loophole. I’m sure there are plenty of foods that are now purposely made with exactly 0.49 grams of trans fat per serving for the sole purpose of being allowed to put “Trans Fat: 0 grams” on their nutrition facts label. I’m also sure plenty of foods have seen a reduction in their serving size. If one serving used to be 1 full cup, and that contained 0.8 grams, all they need to do is change their serving size to half a cup, and the trans fat per serving drops down to magic number 0.4, which to them translates into “Trans Fat: 0 grams.”

Now that you fully understand this nonsense, let me show you how to spot it on your foods so you can avoid being tricked, and avoid eating that food. I actually mentioned this briefly when explaining another lie, 100% whole wheat bread. The key to finding out for sure if there is any trans fat in your food even when the label reads “Trans Fat: 0 grams” is by reading through the list of ingredients of that food.

The keywords you are looking for in those ingredients are “shortening” and the MUCH more common “hydrogenated.” If you see either of those words used in any way, there is trans fat in your food. Hydrogenated is used to describe an oil, as in “hydrongenated soybean oil” or “hydrogenated vegetable oil.” A lot of times it may use the words “partially hydrogenated.” As in, “partially hydrogenated soybean oil.” Partially hydrogenated or not, it’s still trans fat just the same.

Oh, and in case anyone thinks I’m making this stuff up, here’s another quote from the FDA web site:

Q: Is it possible for a food product to list the amount of trans fat as 0 g on the Nutrition Facts panel if the ingredient list indicates that it contains “partially hydrogenated vegetable oil?”

A: Yes. Food manufacturers are allowed to list amounts of trans fat with less than 0.5 gram (1/2 g) as 0 (zero) on the Nutrition Facts panel. As a result, consumers may see a few products that list 0 gram trans fat on the label, while the ingredient list will have “shortening” or “partially hydrogenated vegetable oil” on it. This means the food contains very small amounts (less than 0.5 g) of trans fat per serving.

How lovely.

If any of those words I mentioned above make an appearance in your food’s ingredient list, then it contains some amount of trans fat.

So, there you go. You’ll still be lied to about the trans fat in your food, only now you’ll be able to catch it and avoid it.

It was 1999 when I first made any effort to learn about any aspect of weight loss, nutrition, exercise and really just diet and fitness in general. Since that time, I’ve heard/read/seen some REALLY dumb things. Here now is one of those things…

Dumb Weight Loss Thing #8,304:

That you can workout at your desk.

Seriously, how many “5 simple exercises you can do while sitting at your desk at work” articles can one human being read before they never want to read ANY article of ANY kind EVER again.

Yes, I know that a lot of the people who want to lose weight and get in shape happen to spend most of their days sitting in a chair in an office and are just looking to make the best of this situation. I understand.

But, come on… “20 butt clenches” every half hour is not going to make any real significant difference. In fact, it’s not even going to make half of a real significant difference. In fact, the only real difference “20 butt clenches” will make is causing your co-workers to think you may have crapped your pants.

If you really want to make something real happen, make time for a real workout. None of the exercises I’ve seen in any of these crazy “how to exercise at your desk” articles are enough to make anything happen. Something as simple as going to bed at 10:30 instead of 11:00 and then waking up 6:00 instead of 6:30 is all it takes to get a REALLY REAL 30 minute workout in before you even get to work.

If you sit down and think about it and make a real effort, there are probably a dozen (or a few dozen) other ways you can rearrange your own personal daily/weekly schedule that will allow you to make time for real workouts. Whether it’s at a gym, inside your house, or just walking/jogging around your block… EVERYONE can make time for at least 3 or 4 real workouts a week.

Anyone who claims they can’t just isn’t trying hard enough. To you people, I have this message… we will all be laughing at you when you do your butt clenches.

This has been Dumb Weight Loss Thing #8,304.

Ah yes, milk. A good source of calcium, a good source of certain vitamins, and it’s even a good source of protein. But apparently, that’s not all. Milk also happens to be THE miracle weight loss drink.

Apparently.

I’ve been seeing this commercial lately for milk, or more specifically, the web site 2424milk.com. Maybe you’ve seen it? The “2424″ stands for “24 ounces of low fat or fat free milk every 24 hours.”

Every commercial states pretty much the same thing their web site states. And, that is that drinking milk, as part of a reduced calorie diet, will make you lose weight.

Hold on. Let me repeat that.

If you reduce the number of calories in your diet… and THEN drink 24 ounces of low fat/fat free milk per day… it will lead to weight loss.

I don’t know who is behind this whole ad campaign, but I’d put my money on it being the same geniuses who brought us Special K Cereal: The Miracle Diet Food. Their whole thing was that eating Special K cereal, as part of a reduced calorie diet, helps your weight loss.

Well, guess what? Eating a McDonald’s cheeseburger, as part of a reduced calorie diet, will make you lose weight.

Banging your head against a wall, as part of a reduced calorie diet, will make you lose weight.

It’s not the milk, it’s not the Special K, it’s not the cheeseburger, and it’s not the head banging… it’s the “reduced calorie diet” part. That’s it. Consume less calories than your body needs and you lose weight.

Every food and drink on the planet could make the exact same claim that milk is making here. Really, McDonald’s would be just plain crazy not to register 2424cheeseburger.com.

And just to clarify, I’m not anti-milk. Milk is far from bad. I’m just, ya know, anti-BS. And this 2424milk thing is pure BS. Actually, mentioning anything besides “exercise” and “reduced calorie diet” when discussing weight loss is BS pretty much every time.

Oh my God, do you know what I just realized? What if you eat your Special K cereal… IN A BOWL OF MILK? Holy crap, you may drop 50lbs instantaneously! There should really be some kind of warning about combining these products. “May cause extreme amounts of weight loss… as part of a reduced calorie diet.”

Ok, I’m going to answer a series of questions with either “yes” or “no.” After all the questions have been answered, I will explain.

1. Should I lose weight first and then build muscle?
   No.
2. If I want to lose weight and build muscle, should I wait until all of the weight is lost and then work on building muscle?
   No.
3. I have some fat that I want to lose and then I want to work on building muscle. But, my friend told me I should just work on turning my fat into muscle. Is that possible?
   Hell no.

There is a noticeable theme to these questions… the goal of wanting to both lose weight AND build muscle. I’ve noticed this to be the cause of a lot of confusion, so let’s get it all straightened out. Question #1 and #2 are basically the same question with a different wording. Either way, the answer is still no. Here’s why…

If you want to both lose weight and build muscle, there are absolutely no reasons to first ONLY lose weight, and then, when the weight is finally gone, first begin to build muscle.

On the other hand, there ARE many reasons to work on building muscle at the same time you are trying to lose weight. Some include:

• Weight loss happens when you put your body into a calorie deficit either by eating less of them, burning more of them, or a combination of both. And, huge surprise, weight training burns calories. It might not be equal to jogging on a treadmill, but it still burns a significant amount of calories.
• Not only does the actual act of weight training burn calories, but the results you get from weight training (increased muscle) ALSO burns calories. Yes, muscle literally burns calories. You know that whole calorie maintenance level thing? Well, that is the number of calories that your body naturally burns each day just functioning. The more muscle you have on your body, the more calories your body will naturally burn. You don’t even have to do anything. You just build muscle, and it takes care of the rest. Adding muscle to your body really is the closest thing to a weight loss miracle.
• HELLO… you start building muscle sooner! If you just sit around waiting until you lose weight before you finally try to build muscle, you will have wasted precious muscle building time. Both could have been getting done at the same time. (More on that later.)

So, to sum up, if you want to both lose weight and build muscle… you’d be pretty silly to not start off doing both at the same time.

On to question #3. The infamous “turn fat into muscle” idea. This, of course, is not possible. As mentioned above, you should start to both lose fat and build muscle at the same time, but you should also keep in mind that these are two separate things being lost and gained separately.

You’ve got your muscle, and you’ve got your fat. These are the only forms they come in. They can’t magically transform into the other. You can only gain and lose muscle, or gain and lose fat. That’s it. Those are the only tricks they do. Of course, you can lose 5lbs of fat and then gain 5lbs of muscle. But, one did not turn into the other. Case closed.

And now, one more related question:

1. I’ve heard that it’s not possible to lose fat and build muscle at the same time. Is this true?
   Sometimes

As someone whose goal was always to both lose fat and gain muscle, I know exactly how confusing that “sometimes” answer may appear. But, it’s really not. Let me explain.

In order to lose a significant amount of fat, you have to consume less calories than your body needs each day. In order to build a significant amount of muscle, you have to consume more calories than your body needs each day. As you can see, they are counterproductive opposites. If I currently tried to do both at the same time, I would fail at both.

However, don’t give up hope. There are two groups of people that could actually succeed at doing both at the same time, and I’m not one of them. These two groups of people are:

1. People with “assistance.” Specifically, a word that starts with “ste” and ends with “roids.”
2. Beginners. It truly is an amazing thing, and you’d be just plain stupid to not try to take advantage of it. See, when you are first starting to build muscle (aka, a beginner), very little is required for it to work. Don’t get me wrong, it will still take tons of effort and the correct information, but all of the other aspects that would cause a non-beginner to fail to build muscle does not apply to the person who is a beginner. Their body will, for the most part, build muscle either way. I’ve heard this borderline miracle described as “newbie gains,” “beginner’s gains” and the “honeymoon period.” None of these are scientific terms, by the way.

You remember that whole thing I said before about having to eat more calories than your body needs in order to gain a significant amount of muscle? And that the reason most people can’t do both at the same time is because losing fat requires consuming less calories (the opposite)? Well, this doesn’t really apply to the beginner. Yes, they will need to be in some kind of calorie deficit in order to lose weight. But, because they are a beginner, this won’t stop them from building muscle as it would a non-beginner.

And it is because of this reason that a beginner is able to both lose weight and build muscle at the same time. Amazing, isn’t it?

Obviously at some point you won’t be a beginner anymore and successfully doing both at the same time will become much harder (or near impossible). But until then, you might as well pretend you have temporary super powers and just enjoy it. In my opinion, the last thing you’d want to do is have this ability and not use it. That’s why the idea of waiting until you first lose weight before trying to build muscle is… well… dumb. It would be like Superman taking the bus to Lex Luther’s hideout.

You have the ability… use it while you can. As for how exactly to do this, it’s pretty simple. Follow The Lose Weight Diet (takes care of the weight loss part of the goal) and combine it with a proper weight training routine (takes care of the muscle building part of the goal). That’s it.

(Oh, and just to clarify something… any mention of the word “beginner” in this post refers to a weight training beginner, not a weight loss beginner. You could have been trying to lose weight for 10 years and have done all kinds of cardio and been on all kinds of diets, but unless you have been weight training consistently for the last 6-12 months, you are still considered a muscle building beginner who will most likely be able to take advantage of these “beginner gains.” Even if you worked out all the time when you were in college 5 years ago, unless you were doing it over the course of the last year, you too are still considered a beginner.)