It kind of amazes me that some people get so freaked out by a tiny teaspoon of sugar.  Fifteen calories has never gotten such a bad rap. In the rush to place blame for the so-called obesity epidemic, this basic carbohydrate that every body needs for fuel, has become a scapegoat.

Nobody has ever gained weight because they put a teaspoon of sugar in their two cups of coffee every morning.  And despite what the Food Police will have you believe, there is no reliable science that indicates that sugar causes obesity or has some extra-caloric superpower that causes people to gain weight.

But some people still don’t get that it’s a simple formula of “calories in, calories out,” and if you eat more calories than you need for energy you will gain weight, and those calories can be in the form of carbohydrates, protein, fat or a combination of all three.  A person can eat the “healthiest” foods imaginable, but if they eat more than they need they will gain weight.  And for the record, one gram of sugar provides 4 calories, one gram of protein and one gram of fat provides 9 calories each.

The one gram of sugar provides the same 4 calories any other form of carbohydrate provides.  The difference between sugar and the other calories is that sugar is immediately converted into fuel that the body uses right away.  If you are active eating carbs and sugars are a necessary part of your diet.  And if you exercise carbs and sugars are a vital part of your fueling and recovery regimens.

If you enjoy sugar, use sugar. Natural sugar.  I’m of the belief that it’s better to use natural sugar – or use nothing – than to use an artificial or chemically altered substance.  And some believe that the taste of real sugar can help to control hunger, and as a result help people to manage their weight.

I don’t believe in counting calories in order to restrict caloric intake. Rather I promote caloric awareness in the effort to get people to realize that they usually don’t eat enough food, not that they eat too much.

Calculating your Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR) is quite simple.  Here’s the formula.

• Convert weight in pounds to kilograms by dividing by 2.2.
• Convert height in inches to centimeters by multiplying by 2.54.
• Plug in kilograms and centimeters where appropriate in the following formulas.  The numbers that result the calculations are the calories that you need in a day to maintain current body weight with little or no exercise.
• Daily Resting Energy Expenditure Formula for Males
• 66 + (13.7 X kilograms) + (5.0 X centimeters) – (6.8 X years)
• Daily Resting Energy Expenditure Formula for Females
• 665 + (9.6 X kilograms) + (1.85 X centimeters) – (4.7 X years)

Let’s use the example of a 38-year old woman who stands 5’ 3” and weighs 125-pounds. Here are the calculations.

• 665 + 559 + 296 =1520
• 1520 – 179 = 1341 needed per day just to maintain without any additional energy expenditure.

Note the emphasis that 1341 calories are need just to maintain the status quo if this woman were just to sit around doing nothing during her waking hours.  To approximate the true daily caloric requirement taking into account activity level we can use the Harris-Benedict Formula, which applies a factor to the BMR.  Here are the factors according to activity level.

• Sedentary = BMR X 1.2 (little or no exercise, desk job)
• Lightly active = BMR X 1.375 (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk)
• Moderately active = BMR X 1.55 (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk)
• Very active = BMR X 1.725 (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk)
• Extra active = BMR X 1.9 (hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or 2X day training, i.e marathon, contest etc.)

Using the above example, apply the Moderately Active factor to the BMR of this working mother of three children who trains at least as hard as specified in this category.

• 1341 x 1.55 = 2078

I can guarantee that 99% of the women who fit the description of the example do not get anywhere near 2100 calories per day.  I’ll also wager that of these women, most are engaged in a regular struggle to lose 5-10-pounds, and do so by restricting rather than adding calories.  And keep in mind that these calculations under estimate the requirements for people are either very fit or very fat.

So calculate your BMR and gain an appreciation for how many calories are needed in a day to fuel your body.

When presented with nutritional information regarding calories contained in food in New York City’s fast food restaurants – as required by law – 85% of consumers ignored it.  According to a study released by researchers from New York University and Yale medical professors only 56% of consumers saw the information and a paltry 15% of fast food customers used the nutritional information to make their decision.

This law is a spectacular failure on the basis of these statistics alone. However, the researchers also found that fast-food consumers actually have purchased higher calorie foods after the law when into effect than they did before the law went into effect.  This proves, once again, that the government cannot legislate behavior and that this kind of “lawmaking” is counter-productive and a waste of time.

People eat fast food because they like how it tastes and because it gives them a good value for their money.  They also like how it tastes – that’s why it’s incredibly popular – and don’t really care if it fits someone else’s definition of, “good food.”  Also, people who visit fast food joints really aren’t going there to buy grilled chicken over salad

Legislators must think everyone thinks like they do and/or think people want to be told what they should eat.  Some things never change, like people who love fast food and elected officials who think that they exist to micromanage people’s lives. In the current economic climate where so many people have to watch every penny they spend, a $2 double cheeseburger makes a lot more sense than any item that may cost twice as much, or more. Although given the track our government is on, perhaps the government will subsidize “healthy food choices.”

With all of the major problems our country is facing, on the local, national and international front, you would think our elected officials would have more important things to worry about.  This kind of Nanny State legislation illustrates how tone deaf elected officials can be.