Enough Is Enough

By Joan Breibart

When we watch a lion hunt and kill a gazelle on the Discovery Channel, we usually don’t detest the lion for his instincts. We cannot argue with Nature’s undeniable food chain. While we may cringe at the bloody scene or project imagined feelings of cuddliness onto the gazelle, most of us understand that predators are a necessary part of a healthy ecosystem. We humans, as the most sophisticated predators, need not deny our own animal instincts. We can be carnivorous and responsible too. 

In a world of 7 billion people and counting, responsible, moderate meat eating is the most balanced and efficient dietary choice on the market. Human bodies need amino acids, which are the protein building blocks of all our cells. Because animal meat provides these essentials in their most concentrated, absorbable form, it helps balance a diet of fruits and vegetables, providing the grounding yang to plants’ nourishing yin.

Seeking a balance of plant and animal nutrients is the key to optimizing health: a diet that is overly vegetarian or carnivorous quickly leads to overconsumption. The more you eat, the more you stretch your stomach. When your stomach’s elastic lining expands, the hormones that affect digestion and hunger control—Leptin and Ghrelin—malfunction. Soon, your stomach’s ability to detect that it is full becomes impaired, your desire to consume more and more food increases, and you unwittingly take the first, treacherous steps towards obesity.

The harsh truth is that plants yield proteins of lower biological value than animal sources, which means that vegetarians must consume more food to meet their daily protein requirements. Consider that 8 ounces of chicken supplies the 56 grams of daily protein that male adults require (46 grams for women).  If we obtain half of the 56-gram requirement from 4 ounces of chicken, we consume 220 calories and three-fourths of a cup in volume. In order to receive the same protein intake from kidney beans, a typical vegetarian substitute, you would need to consume 19 ounces of beans (3 ½ cups!) at a whopping 840 calories! Even if you stretch your stomach to tolerate this enormous quantity of beans, you would still have to make up the missing amino acids with some other grain or vegetable to get a complete protein equivalent to the biological value of chicken.

Why should a discussion of eating practices center on the ethics of meat eating while we ignore our most destructive habit of total overconsumption? 

Our immoderate behavior strains our agricultural system and encourages irresponsible farming of livestock. The entire world’s population was not mean to eat steak. Our land cannot sustain it. Our timid palates exacerbate this problem: we need to expand our tastes beyond the usual options and include wild game, goat, eel, herring and even insects. Changing tastes is often as easy as changing terrains. Journalist Matt Forney shares in this NY Times article how scorpions and snails move to the top of his kids most requested snack list after moving his family to China. Expanding our choices reduces the strain on our supply system, decreases our reliance on the most calorically dense meat varieties, and reduces the impact on any one species.

Today, one billion people are obese, and billions of us could certainly consume less. Excluding an entire food group from our diet is supremely unethical when we consider than 1 billion people around the world are starving, especially as the responsible, balanced consumption of meat could have such positive health and environmental consequences for our society.

Overconsumption (aka gluttony) strains the earth’s declining ability to satisfy the appetites of the 21st century. Forget the forks over knives battle, and turn, instead, to the concept that less is better. Less is enough. 

Eat Healthy / Exercise More

It’s clear that the eat healthy/exercise more solution isn’t working now. If you were born after 1970, you probably still think that it did.

You must have heard about those days long ago when Americans ate home-cooked, nutritious meals of lean meats, fresh vegetables and fruits. And we walked everywhere.

Except we didn’t! 

We ate greasy burgers, fries and full strength soda at White Castle. We drank frozen juice concentrates diluted with tap water. The “fresh” vegetables were canned or frozen, except in summer. And lots of Crisco, of course—every home had a tub of it. That’s why the fried chicken, fried potatoes, grits, piecrusts, and cakes tasted so good!

Okay, so the trimmer bodies of the Fifties weren’t due to more wholesome meals. Then how were we so much skinnier you ask? Let’s take on the myth that we were exercising. Well, health clubs didn’t start until the 1970s, and even then most women didn’t go. Sweating was unfeminine! So we sat and played Canasta or Mahjong, read a book or wrote letters. Fun times, right?

Yet these Moms from the Fifties delivered four kids and still managed to get back into pre-baby wardrobes. Then why are we fatter than our grandparents?

The simple, unvarnished, scientifically researched answer from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is that we just plain eat more. In 2006, the CDC reports that women now eat 22 percent more than women did in 1971. Go back to 1958 and the number is 30%! And we’re not talking apples to apples, unless we are actually eating apples. Today we have hundreds of calorie-free beverages and reduced-fat foods.

So if overconsumption got us into this mess, why didn’t we all just eat less? Because in the 1980’s, legions of fitness gurus and diet experts—some of them physicians— became media savvy and perfected their messages. They convinced us that we needed the magical trifecta: eat only foods that are healthy (translation: eliminate fats then carbs); exercise (beat up your body and “burn” calories) and drink water (at least eight glasses a day).

The result was that eager Americans embraced the “go for the burn, no pain no gain” body-damaging exercise to get rid of the extra calories.

Bad choice: the Pennington Biomedical Research Center recently determined that exercise is NOT a weight loss solution. A six-month study proved that dieting alone reduces weight just as well as dieting and exercising. People who cut calories 25 % by only dieting and those who cut with half exercise, half diet, lost the same amount of weight. And both groups experienced the same decrease in muscle mass and basal metabolism! Don’t stop moving however; your heart, muscles and bones need exertion.

What about eating?

Well the diet industry convinced us that grazing, formerly known as snacking, was healthier than eating regular meals. This meant that consuming food anywhere at any time wasn’t just acceptable, it was downright medicinal. As for quantity, we want to believe that if it’s “good” food, you can’t eat enough. Except that reason tells us that the more often your stomach is stretched, the more you must shovel in to feel sated.

Finally came the glorification of water, which led us to believe that we could drink away our hunger or even “wash” away those calories. In 1976, each of us annually drank only a gallon of bottled water. Today we each drink 28 gallons. Now we know there has been some climate change—obviously made worse by the need to dispose of billions of plastic water bottles. Yet we drink as much as we can, though we don’t live in deserts today and we weren’t dying of thirst 30 years ago.

What’s the current word from the experts who gave us all this flawed advice? Now researchers are distancing themselves from past weight loss theories. Now, we really know what the problem is and how to fix it. If you’re overweight, it’s not your fault, of course. Blame genetics, set points and stress hormones for your problem! We now believe we’re born to eat more?? We don’t exactly say we have mutated in just 50 years, but the implication is that we don’t have control over our bodies because after decades of gaining and losing and then regaining, they aren’t co-operating.

It’s a complicated situation and we’re burnt out from all the talk and failed solutions. And maybe being thin is overrated, now that 7 out of 10 of us are not. Yet just when we’ve given up along comes the Recession. We’re closing our purses. Can our mouths be far behind?

The BITES Challenge

Wondering who came up with the idea that counting bites would be useful for weight loss?

You probably suspect it was the 80Bites duo, Meredith Luce, RD, MS, LN, and Joan Breibart, but actually Dr. Richard G. Black, a Seattle physician, devised the first bite counting system. His program, “Count Bites, Not Calories.” was published in Family Circle in 1977. Unfortunately, neither Luce, Breibart nor most of America read the article so the bites plan didn’t get any further attention. Meanwhile, every year thereafter, new “miracle” diets came about in the media, each with some weird nutrient or food manipulation promising to melt away the fat.

Finally, ten years later, SELF Magazine publishes our system in “The No-Diet Diet,” written by Candace Bushnell, of Sex & the City fame. And what was the reaction of the public, the press and the diet professionals? The same as it was 10 years earlier. They didn’t bite—pun intended. No one was interested.

Then, in 2004, with obesity being a daily news item, the New York Post publishes our bite program in, “The Bite Stuff—Chew Story.” This time professionals voiced their disagreement with loud and public criticism. Why? Our “failure” to back the accepted dogma: eight glasses of water daily; low-fat eating; and “fat burning” exercise.

What Have We Learned

Twenty seven years later, we know that the 1955 “Water” Directive should have read Fluids– not Water alone! The 70s campaign to vilify fat only encouraged sugar binging. As for exercise, the simplistic calories in calories out is a nice equation, but “fat burning” exercise is really just a good marketing ploy.

While the concept of bites is gaining support—there are even copycats with bite counting gadgets– there is still disbelief because counting bites does not equate with calories ingested. (Even Dr. Black tried to equate bites with caloric intake.) What we are beginning to recognize is that you cannot overload the body. Too much quantity will stretch the stomach and cause a critical digestive hormone to malfunction. The result is leptin resistance—the reason why almost everyone in America is hungry most of the time.

Today we understand that carbo-hydrate, protein and fat calories are absorbed differently by the body. Theoretically, where you get your calories does make a difference, but more importantly, how much and how often are the significant and controllable measures. By starting the process of stimulating your stomach less often and with less quantity, you begin to re-train your weight at the digestive level. Learning how to eat less and drink less, less often, is simplified by using the 80Bites App counting method. The more you use it, the easier it becomes; the less you need to use it, the sooner your stomach takes over and the process becomes so natural that you will be saying, “Thanks, but I can’t eat another bite!”

Water Water Every Where But Not A Drop To Drink

Screen shot 2014-07-03 at 12.05.30 PM

Today we have a population who believes that everyone should drink 64 ounces of water daily. Five decades ago, we used to agree with humorist W.C. Fields’ who when asked if he drank water replied, “Hell No. Fish pee in water.” Today, we live in fear of dehydration while we should worry about the opposite — Hyponatremia: water intoxication.

How did we get to this stage where we worry about drought but think nothing of wasting water? It began in in 1945 when the U.S. Government issued a dietary directive, which said that everyone should drink 64 ounces of water daily. This number was apparently the result of a requirement that we drink 1 milliliter per calorie consumed daily (about 2500 calories a day!) We know that this is at least 600 more calories than what most women should consume if they don’t want to size up. So this directive went forth but omitting a crucial line: that all fluids count — obviously tea and coffee are 99% water—but also fruits, vegetables are mostly water. Even steak has water! So the line omitted should have said total fluids and that these were easily contained in any balanced diet.


So why you ask did this water nonsense take hold? Why did the American public decide to pay for trillions of plastic bottles of water considering that water in the USA is free, easily available and safe? The answer is d-i-e-t-i-n-g became big business — $65 billion at the latest count — and diet gurus figured that everyone needed something to put in their mouths that had no calories and was “healthy.” Even better, spring or purchased water was thought to be purer so it was purifying and holy as in holy water. Now 50 years after dieting started with the founding of Weight Watchers, we face water shortages; plastic bottles will be with us forever, and we are fatter than anyone thought possible. Plus the malady du jour is water intoxication whose symptoms: loss of energy, fatigue, restlessness and irritability may make one think they need to drink more bottled water and eat yet another “healthy” snack for refueling. However, what we really need is a BIG dose of common sense.




The Don’t-Diet Way To Lose Weight

80Bites premiered in Self Magazine 1987 (Photo shown below)
by Joan Breibart

One of Sir Winston Churchill’s wittiest pronouncements,” You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they have tried everything else,” was very relevant to three articles recently published. Allure magazine’s September cover story is “The No-Diet Diet – Eat Less, Feel Full”. It is 26 years since Self Magazine published our diet which obviously was ahead of its time. Additionally, the Allure magazine article even talks about the stomach – the focus of 80bites. This should be news to readers who only know the stomach from cues such as “tighten your stomach!” Will they be surprised that the actual stomach should be a six-inch sausage-shaped organ located under the left breast? Next were two articles from New York Times columnists: fitness writer Gretchen Reynolds’s “How Exercise Can Help Us Eat Less,” followed by famed columnist Frank Bruni’s, “Hard Truth About Our Soft Bodies.” The latter talks about a “macro approach to the obesity issue rather than a micro.” Translation: stop obsessing about eating kale or “burning” calories with crazy exercise “CrossFit’s Dirty Llittle Secret.” The macro approach could be summed up as: close your mouth sooner and open it less often. Could this signal a trend? Could this be a shift in the weight loss mantra of “eat healthy and exercise more” which has not worked. Approximately 95% of people who lose weight regain it, and some regain even more “The Fat Trap.”
Now when it is obvious that obesity is everywhere, we find that all those failed strategies have also affected our brains! “The Mental Strain of Making Do With Less.”

But will the media establishment take on the issue and try to correct the oversimplifications that have fueled this epidemic? This is the right time to examine our dieting culture. Weight Watches has just celebrated its 50th anniversary! Jenny Craig and NutriSystems have been selling diets for decades. The big three have enjoyed sales of more than three billion dollars annually — until this year. Now diet sales are down more than 25%. This no-diet phenomenon happened before—in the early 90s — just when the Pilates Method was trying to explain the benefits of balanced exercise as opposed to a focus on calories.

So what can we do? We can start with the BMI—Body Mass Index — which was never intended as a measure of ideal weight. Today everyone has heard about the BMI. Using this measure a 5’6” woman could weigh 185 pounds and NOT be obese. However, if people knew about the HAMWI Formula, they would see the weight of the issue!! As if to underline this distortion a recent video arrived “Roll Over? Fat Chance.” Interesting that dog owners are concerned about their pet’s pounds, but not their own.

Want to Lose Weight, but tired of all those Diet Failures?

Option 1: The Diet Way

1.  Choose a popular diet (Jenny Craig, Nutri-Systems, South Beach, Weight Watchers, etc.) Or a “lifestyle” program (Gluten-free, vegan, vegetarian, raw foods, juicing.) Either way, you dive in happy to have found a “solution” and begin to follow the program religiously.
2.  Lose weight quickly and get excited.
3.  Feel encouraged that you’re losing and decide you can bend the rules just a bit… Mostly because at this point, you’re dying for a cheeseburguer or a cupcake or a Mojito.
4.  Begin to regain because that’s what 95% of peole do. Worse, you may regain more than you’ve lost… (One step forward, two steps back.)
5.  Get back on the diet and swear you’ll stay on it this time until the day you die… Because that is the only way! 

Option 2: The 80Bites Way

1.  Begin counting bites to see where your mouth and stomach stand, and know you’re eating way more than 80 bites per day… (Unless you’re drinking those calories.)
2.  Begin gradually reducing down and taking time chewing each bite.
3.  Develop a “sixth sense” for quantity awareness… You notice that your restaurant plate is easily 45 bites.
4.  You reduce the frequency of eating events. You quit grazing so your body can detox naturally.
5.  You realize that you are less hungry. Your stomach had begun to shrink to its natural (smaller) size.
6.  You pace yourself so that you don’t lose more than 2lbs. a month giving your digestive hormones time to adapt. YOU can beat the regain odds!
7.  You begin to feel uncomfortable when you overeat; your body is now working for you. There is no “diet” to follow, so you simply continue eating what you wish but always knowing that less is more.

Governor Christie and His New Stomach

Three months after Bariatric surgery, the Governor of New Jersey has revealed that he is now satisfied eating only one third of a typical American restaurant steak. Big deal. Fifty years ago before most American adults had stretched their stomachs, six ounces was a standard serving. And no one needed surgery to be satisfied.

Although the false premise that calories are the bottom line and exercise is a weight loss solution still seems to be universally accepted, it looks as if we are taking one step in the right direction. Sales at the Big Three — Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, and NutriSystems — are way down. So even if we are still believers in the new religion called Wellness, we may be getting tired of paying for this failed — and incorrect — formula.

Americans still want to believe that eating “healthy” means never having to say enough. Problem is that gluttony is still measured by quantity (not calories). And in a Christian nation, that means guilt, at the very least.

A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

This graph sums up the history of supersizing perfectly. Pretty mindblowing!

Gives new meaning to “The Good Old Days”

Sam Stomach Takes Hip Hop By Storm!

The official 80Bites rap is here! Check it out, yo:


So what inspired us to create this video, other than a burning desire to watch a cartoon stomach dance across our computer screens? We wanted to get our message out in a fun, lighthearted way…. we’re tired of the doom-and-gloom when it comes to discussing weight loss. So, enjoy, sing along with Sam, but beware… it may get stuck in your head.

Stars and Soda

Beyonce’s recent multi-million dollar deal with Pepsi has sparked a heated debate: is it ok for celebrities to endorse junk food?

An article in the NY Times launched the debate last week, and more folks are chiming in. As one commenter pointed out, a star would never align themselves with a cigarette brand in this day and age. Of course, no one will deny the dangers of nicotine, while the dangers of food are a little foggier. We’ll be the first to say that soda is A-OK… in moderation. But given the fact that over-comsumption of soda is the leading cause of obesity and diabetes in children, is it morally ok for celebs – especially those who have a massive influence on kids – to shill for junk food?

Beyonce isn’t the only culprit – Alternet rounded up a list of more celebs who have signed on with mainstream food brands. Then Coca Cola surprised everyone with an ad admitting to the dangers of too much soda.

We’re not sure where the conversation will lead, but we’re glad it’s happening.