No more prevalent, in the lonnnng list of reasons why women like me don’t work out, is the excuse of the booty.

As much as I love her... she's doing exactly what I'm talking about - hiding her front (in a robe, no less) but accentuating her back? Why not work on both? Good grief.

I’m serious. In fact, the only post on this entire site full of excuses, explanations, “b-b-buts,” disbelief and complaints is the one post I did about building a fit booty. Women who don’t believe that it is possible to build a booty (why? because they haven’t been able to do it yet, of course) complaining and questioning me, all because I question the desire to cling to an unhealthy lifestyle all for the sake of holding onto a rebuildable feature.

When women talk to me about how they don’t want to work out because they don’t want to burn the booty, I often – in my head – question if they notice the other things that come with that choice. For example, the huge thighs attached to the fat booty. The spare tire that nests directly above it. The gut we’re constantly trying to hide with long, cute, flowy shirts. The saddlebags that come from thigh fat being pushed aside for our gut sitting on our laps. And somewhere, someone is wondering what the hell saddlebags are.

I think of the women often named to me in regards to having large booty, and it’s almost always a video chick. Why? Because that’s what they hear the men (or women?) near them desiring, and since they want to be desired too, this is what they covet. I giggle a little bit when I google them or when I reference the pictures they’ve shown me. There’s usually a chick in a bikini, typically photoshopped [poorly], with her booty turned flush to the camera. The first thing in my mind is “Okay, so what does she look like in motion?” Then, I hit youtube. I can usually see what they look like without the interference of photoshop. There’s usually something out of wack that cannot be hidden by creative photoshopping, clever positioning of arms and legs, or “interesting” costuming… but we’re willing to overlook that in our desire to glorify her booty.

So… let’s look at what we’re working with, here. Girls who make money off of their bodies being in tip top shape are being idolized by women who don’t want to work out… because they think that not working out will help them develop or maintain the same figure. There’s no logic in that. None.

There’s also always the occasional mention of the around-the-way-girl-with-the-giant-booty. The girl who has a phenomenal figure complete with a giant behind, and everyone – including her – knows it. This girl is usually shaping the hell out of her behind and thighs with the same brand of jeans every day, and telling everyone she was “just born this way.” I’ll tell you from personal experience – these girls are, more often than not, lying. There’s always something about being told you have an admirable feature, and being able to say “Oh, I was born with that!” with a sly smile tacked on the end.. knowing full well you’re enjoying fooling people.

It’s bull. Be it straight up exercise, dance, yoga positions – or, hell, sex positions – something is helping assist in the shape of that body. It can be hormones and genetics, but more often than not? You’re being hoodwinked… or snookered.

The amount of stock we put in this is crazy to me. I’ll even fire a few shots – some of the booties that I’ve seen women claim to want to protect… could use a lot of work. No one seems to notice that the booties belonging to these video and magazine girls don’t have creases… or dimples… or clumps of fat. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to denigrate anyone, here. I’m trying to understand why we would cling to a misconception of what a “great booty” truly is, to use as an excuse to not put in work. Three particular things can actually enhance the booty we all have: 1) decreasing the “spare tire effect” around the tummy actually increases the slope from the back to the booty; 2) decreasing the thigh fat increases the curve in the booty; 3) squatting, lunching and hopping for your life actually picks up your cheeks. But for some reason, we’d rather believe that proper booty shaping comes from being cornfed and allergic to the gym. I mean, I could assume that it’s simply because we don’t want to put in work… but that’s nothing new.

I’d ask the question of why the booty is so powerful among women that we’d risk our health to preserve it.. but I believe I’ve already answered it. “Because that’s what they hear the men (or women?) near them desiring, and since they want to be desired too, this is what they covet.” I’ve already shared my thoughts on this foolishness.

The reality is this. We all know how prevalent this thinking is in our community. And much like the thinking that makes a processed food lifestyle so accepted, much like the mentality that you have to adopt to be anti-processed foods and pro-clean eating)… you have to be equally strong-willed in your rejection of this booty talk. Have faith in the fact that you can build the booty you want along with the completely fit and sexy body you desire… and develop better health all along the way. That’s what I call a total win.

You know, the Black female perception of beauty is a peculiar one to me. I know, I know that I say that in a way that implies that I’m on the outside looking in… but for this one, I think that I am. I literally feel like an outsider on this one, because there are contradicting philosophies that – while they tickle me a little… okay, a lot – I just cannot co-sign.

Anything to avoid the scale?

When my family left Cleveland, we moved to a predominately white city in central Indiana. Approximately 2% of the student population at my high school was Black. All of my dearest friends were white.

I remember going to lunch and always having a full plate on my tray, and at my table I’d see nothing but salads.. poorly made ones, at that. I’d see the single, solitary, lone bag of fries and a bottle of water. I saw girls chugging the diet soda, but nothing else in front of them. I rarely saw anyone with as much food on their plate as me, but then again… I was a size 18.

I suspect those girls were always told “you need to watch your figure,” but were never quite taught exactly what that meant. ‘Cause I know now, it certainly doesn’t mean “have a diet soda for lunch.”

Either way, “you need to watch your figure” was never a message I received. For me, it was genuinely harmful and catty statements something like “If you don’t quit eating all that crap, you’re going to be big as an elephant.” Well, seeing as how that “crap” was making me feel better about life (though it would be another ten years before I could understand why), and seeing as how hearing statements like that only made me miserable… you can imagine what being told “you’re going to be big as an elephant” did to a young girl who already thought she was “big as an elephant.” Not only did I not learn anything from the dialogue, but it ran me right back into a bowl of some-stuff-I-had-no-business-eating.

I bring this up to say that I am, interestingly enough, familiar with and can now recognize the philosophy of curtailing your eating and watching your figure at a young age because of those girls… even though I never embraced it myself (ironically enough.) Because those girls were white, I never really felt a need to adopt it for myself. To be fair, I never felt the need to dye my hair blond every month, either.

I get it. This healthy eating thing is hard. It requires a lot. But for some reason, eating healthy is often brushed off and regarded as a “white people thing.” You have no idea how often I hear “Um, naw – that’s white people food.” And I can’t help but think of really rude and snarky responses to this… because that kind of assertion often comes from the mouth of someone with a thin and bone straight haired weave on their head, or faux colored contacts, or someone fawning over “light” skin, or… whatever. I suppose that if I asserted that those were “white people things” as well, that would’ve ended the conversation. Quickly.

Using the excuse of “eating healthy is a white girl thing” makes me giggle that much more, because I think of those girls in high school who, apparently, didn’t know how to eat healthy, either. And sure, they were in high school… but one would think that if their mothers taught them enough for them to know to watch their figures, they would at least have shown them how to do so, as well. It also makes me laugh again because as 68% of America is overweight, 12% of America is Black and 60% of Black America is supposedly overweight. That means that 60% of 12% is roughly 8% of the overweight population. Black America contributes a whopping 8% to that overweight population… leaving about 60% unaccounted for. But “eating healthy” is a “white girl thing.”

Back to where I started, though. The Black female standard of beauty is so peculiar to me. For example… even the most unhealthy of us get “passes” because we have long (straight) hair, impeccable makeup, freshly finished nails and amazing shoes. We get a “pass” from our peers for being unhealthy if we have a fat booty. We don’t even call it “fat” anymore. We call it “phat.”

For some reason, we as women of color have allowed ourselves to embrace American culture’s (read: capitalist culture’s) materialism and Europe’s hair… but we’re doling out passes left and right when it comes to our bodies. What do I mean by “pass?” Simple. I mean ignoring and excusing the poor health of our loved ones because they’re “still pretty,” which should be an extremely insulting compliment, but ironically isn’t seen as such. I mean we allow ourselves to accept poor health because we can hide it by dressing to the nines or by having a mean shoe game.

So what keeps us from embracing an un-Black standard for figures, but embracing un-Black standards elsewhere? Questionably, everywhere else? That’s a question that, for every answer I can think up… still leads me to wonder why we don’t dole out passes for every other superficial concept we cling to and judge others by. For goodness sakes, we’re still judging people by the shade of their skin. If that’s not painfully European, I don’t know what is.

I was one of those girls with the perfect hair – spent every Saturday in the shop – perfect nails, perfect shoes, kept my clothing appropriate. Every girl should, no matter her size. But using those as justifications – “I don’t want to lose weight… I’m not trying to have to give up my wardrobe!”/”Why do I need to lose weight? I look good!” – to not pursue better health is more than likely what’s killing us.

I’m not even done… but there’s always tomorrow.

With any luck, you’ve decided to participate in the BGG2WL calorie counting challenge. You’re reading your nutrition labels. You’re measuring your portions. We’re not changing our habits, we’re just trying to get a good idea of what our current habits are doing for our goals.

Look at that ingredients list... good grief.

This is awesome. But now, I have to address something a little less than awesome. The FDA.

For those of us who are calorie counting, this is of interest to us. I, really, have no words for this just yet. But trust me.. they’re coming.

For those of you who may not be able to watch the video, the transcript (provided by The Today Show website) is pasted below. Just… wowzers.

Matt Lauer: This morning on TODAY INVESTIGATES, exposing the truth behind diet food labels. Can you really believe those fat and calorie numbers? NBC’s Jeff Rossen went to find out. And I have a feeling this is bad news, Jeff. Good morning.

JEFF ROSSEN reporting: No. And we brought them out to show you.

LAUER: All right.

ROSSEN: You know, a lot of us are on diets, including one of us on the couch right now. We’ll let you guess which one. And that’s why we buy these frozen meals. They make the hard sell right on the front. I’m sure you’ve seen it, with the low-calorie and the low-fat numbers. So we took them to a lab and did some testing of our own. This morning, we separate the fat from the fiction. IN the battle of the bulge these companies say they have the secret weapon.

ROSSEN: They brag about low fat and calories, knowing consumers eat this stuff up. How important are these numbers to you?

Unidentified Woman #1: They’re important.

Unidentified Man: And that’s all I look at. First thing, even before price.

Unidentified Woman #2: People don’t buy it because it tastes good. They buy it because the calories are there. And that’s what they’re looking for. And they’re like…

ROSSEN: So if the calories and the fat are off?

Woman #2: Yeah, then it’s what’s the point?

ROSSEN: Exactly. So we bought meals from the top diet brands: Lean Cuisine, Weight Watchers’ Smart Ones and Healthy Choice. We took the meals out of the packaging and put them into specially marked baggies, then sent them here to ESL, a top food laboratory. Scientists tested each sample for fat and calories. Would the numbers really match the labels? We found it was all over the map. Some were actually lower. Healthy Choice Roasted Beef Merlot, 17 percent less fat compared to the label. Lean Cuisine’s Grilled Chicken Primavera, 19 percent fewer calories than the label. And the rosemary Chicken, 60 percent less fat. But don’t start binging yet. Our tests showed many meals were packaged with higher numbers. Smart Ones Shrimp Marinara had ten percent more calories than the label. Healthy Choice Lobster Cheese Ravioli, 17 percent more fat than the label. And that Lean Cuisine Chicken Primavera? Twenty percent more fat. But the biggest gut busted of all? Smart Ones Sweet and Sour Chicken. It advertises 210 calories and two grams of fat. We found it really had 11 percent more calories and the whopping 350 percent more fat. While the company was “skeptical” at our results, they’ve now launched an internal audit.

Ms. SUSAN ROBERTS, PHD (Tufts University): It’s enough to make you cry. I mean, these – this is disgraceful.

ROSSEN: Susan Roberts should know. As a leading food scientist, she did similar testing in her lab and, like us, found lying labels.

Ms. ROBERTS: We hear all the time that people are not losing weight. They’re plateauing. They can’t understand why they’re eating almost nothing and not losing weight. Here’s one explanation.

ROSSEN: You may be outraged by this, but the government isn’t. In many cases, under the law it’s perfectly OK. Believe it or not, FDA regulations allow food companies to be as much as 20 percent off on their labels.

Unidentified Woman #3: That’s unfortunate, and especially at the same time when they’re preaching to us about obesity.

ROSSEN: The government allows these companies to be 20 percent off on their label.

Unidentified Woman #3: Why?

ROSSEN: Good question. The FDA declined our request for an interview, so we went to the group representing the food companies. Isn’t this deceptive?

Mr. ROBERT BRACKETT (Grocery Manufacturers Association): No, it’s not at all deceptive. It may be something that the consumers don’t necessarily understand. And this is a great to explain them.

ROSSEN: He says these labels are merely an average. Companies come up with the numbers by testing a dozen or so meals then taking the average. Portions vary so they say no one meal can be exact. Why not be more transparent on the label and say this isn’t necessarily 230 calories, it’s an average? It’s 230-ish calories.

Mr. BRACKETT: Well, you could but it really wouldn’t help consumers. The idea here is that if you see 230 calories, that that’s a food that you normally eat, some are going to be more and some are going to be less.

ROSSEN: So you’re saying it’s OK for one particular sample to be three times higher than it says, another sample to be three times lower, as long as it averages out?

Mr. BRACKETT: Well, it’s — a better way to say this is not it’s OK, is that it’s a fact of nature. It’s a matter of being practical.

ROSSEN: Tell that to the poor customer who ends up with our Sweet and Sour Chicken, packed with three and a half times more fat than the label claims.

Woman #2: That’s scary, actually, because I eat those a lot, like very often, and now I’m wondering maybe that’s why I am — my weight hasn’t budged.

ROSSEN: No, she still looks good. In fact, scientists say these variations could cause you to gain weight over time. We shared our results with the food companies. They told us their labels and their testing procedures follow all FDA regulations. And, Matt, the big question is if these are made on a production line, why can’t they be more exact? The food companies say we’re dealing with real food here…

I really, really, reeeeeally wanted to write about Jamie Oliver’s new show “Food Revolution,” but something much more compelling came across my desk. Thanks to Ink for sending it over.

We’re all familiar with my disdain for high fructose corn syrup, right? I mean, the stuff’s pretty awful. If you’d like a not-so-quick rundown, check here. It may help you navigate this post.

Apparently, researchers at Princeton put together a study comparing rats fed basic rat food and liquid sweetened with high fructose corn syrup to rats fed the standard chow and liquid sweetened with basic table sugar.

Um, you read the rest:

Rats with access to high-fructose corn syrup gained significantly more weight than those with access to table sugar, even when their overall caloric intake was the same.

In addition to causing significant weight gain in lab animals, long-term consumption of high-fructose corn syrup also led to abnormal increases in body fat, especially in the abdomen, and a rise in circulating blood fats called triglycerides. The researchers say the work sheds light on the factors contributing to obesity trends in the United States.

“Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn’t true, at least under the conditions of our tests,” said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction.

“When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they’re becoming obese — every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don’t see this; they don’t all gain extra weight.” – [source]

Now, I’m not going to use this as an “I told you so” moment – that’s not my M.O. – but I do need to take a moment to make something clear.

I take a lot of flack about this site and my choice of approach to weight loss, health and wellness. The notion that “you don’t need a whole blog to tell people to put the fork down” is turned on its face by studies like this. Why? Because it’s not about “putting the fork down.” Studies like this prove that it’s about making sure you’re aware of what’s on the other end of the fork when you pick it up.

This study further proves that it’s not about the quantity of what you eat (although, let me be clear – there ARE people who eat too much and they CAN get in their own way.) This is validation for the fact that it is the quality of your food, not the quantity. If there is proof that a chemical [that can be found in most of the food we eat] can interfere with the body’s ability to burn the calories that we take in, then it’s much larger than “eat less.” Why? Because if I continue to eat smaller portions of the same harmful foods, I’d still get the negative results. See where I’m going with this?

I’ve long said on this site that the primary goal should be developing and understanding how to adopt a healthy lifestyle, because the pounds come off that much easier at that point. I know this because I’ve lived it, and still live it. If you limit the amount of things in your diet that come from lab chemicals (have you looked at the back of a box of crackers lately? Um…), you decrease the chance of becoming confused by where these changes in your body come from. We should all seek simplicity in our diet… not 4-word-long chemical chains that our body cannot break down.

I never give new science 100% credit or a 100% stamp of approval in any way, so I’d love to see more studies done and see what the fallout is over this, but I’ve got to tell you.. this is major. The majority of policy enacted by our government essentially ignores the quality of the calories we take in. School systems that insist on serving the kids reheated pizzas for breakfast (as shown in that “Food Revolution” show that I really wanted to write about first) use this “quality of calories is unimportant” mentality.

Honestly, what do I see happening? Not much. (Strange, isn’t it?) We still use sugar packets that say “Can contribute to causing cancer” on the side. I doubt there will be any regulation or modification in any way, because the public at large may not call for it, rally for it, demand it. Our politicians only act on something when there’s enough of a rallying cry to threaten their chances of re-election.. and so long as the public is kept in the dark, that rally will never happen.

And that’s okay… I guess.

The public at large deserves the right to make their own choices about whether or not they want this stuff in their food. Those of us who are working toward a healthier lifestyle, however, deserve to know the truth – that this stuff isn’t going to help us get what we want. We deserve to make our choices based off of proper information, and be able to determine – on our own, without the help of corny commercials (no pun intended, I promise) or marketing campaigns – whether or not we want to give our dollars to products or companies that insist on using this stuff.

After allllll that, I say this. Know what you’re eating. We can’t go wrong with the foods our families have healthily enjoyed for decades, centuries, millennia. We take chances on processed foods that make our lives easier, and we suffer those consequences. I’m done with taking chances and I hope you are, too.

All in favor of working to avoid the HFCS, say “Aye!”

From NBC Nightly News, I bring you this delicate little issue with the sensational little title.

My thoughts were, of course you can be fit and “fat.” And considering how “fat” in America is anything over a size 4 – depending upon who you talk to – MANY of us are “fat” in someone else’s eyes… clearly that doesn’t matter anywhere near as much as the stuff that keeps us alive. That stuff is filed under that “fit” label.

Those who I’ve dialogued with outside of the site know how I feel about this “fat” thing. As I’ve said before, my primary goal was just being a healthy weight. The vanity aspect of it came when I could afford to be vain and think about looks.. which, basically, was when I had my health situated.

There’s a point in that clip that disturbed me, though – the thinner woman said, “Because I am thin, because I’ve never been sick,” she never thought that her system could be in such bad shape because her body wasn’t in bad shape. I think that the American understanding that our “outer” is a direct reflection of our “inner” is what’s making it so hard for us to have these conversations about health.

What do I mean? I mean that we keep connecting a person’s size to their ability to be healthy. It shortchanges the people on both ends of the spectrum. If being obese is the epitome of poor health, then if I’m superskinny I should be good, right? I should be able to avoid all of that, right? Ever heard of metabolic syndrome?

Metabolic syndrome is a series of diseases that appear in the body in conjunction with one another as a result of a poor diet yet doesn’t always result in obesity. It creeps up on people because, since they believe their small frames alleviate them of the responsibility of caring for their systems, they tend to not only ignore any warning signs that their habits might be unhealthy but this also results in them continuing in said damaging behavior!

I guess I wanted to share this because I want us to stop thinking this skinny/fat thing is so linear. Good health manifests itself within ourselves mentally as well as physically. It extends itself far beyond a nice body. Taking care of ourselves means inside as WELL as outside. Don’t let yourselves get caught up in BEING skinny or shooting for skinny. Aim for better health first and foremost, and I can assure you everything else will become MUCH simpler!

It happens to the best of us. Out of nowhere, the downward spiral we all want comes to a halt. We start wondering what’s going on, and become unhappy. It might also be those of us who are just starting out – sweating our hair out at the gym only to go a week and find no results.  What are we doing wrong?

I’d like to offer up five big reasons why you might be hitting a brick wall with your weight loss.

1. You’re eating too much after you workout. This was something I REALLY had to remind myself about, and became a better woman for it. Working out doesn’t give me carte blanche to eat how I want. It shouldn’t be looked at that way when I’m trying to lose weight. Working out doesn’t provide me with a “cushion” to fall back on if I overeat. It’s considered a known fact that people come out of a workout session sweaty and starving. What am I eating to replenish? Am I stopping by McDonalds drive thru, or do I have some grapes or a slice of cantaloupe waiting for me at home?
2. Are you a little too indulgent when it comes to the good stuff? So, you’ve finally done it. You’ve got a workout routine, you’ve slowed down on the junk food, and you’re only buying healthy/organic/[insert other fitness buzz word]. But wait? Have you merely replaced one vice for another? It may be organic, but that doesn’t mean that the caloric value is better. It especially doesn’t mean that just because the caloric value is smaller, that it’s ok to have 3 or 4 servings. If the “healthy” peanut butter is 20 calories less than the “regular peanut butter,” that doesn’t mean you should have more than you were originally getting! It might even mean you should start shooting for less.. since sometimes (especially with nuts) the more organic versions have the original fat values in tact, and can sometimes have more fat grams in them. To make matters worse, if that organic version has more sodium in it, it’s that much more likely to cause you to maintain water weight (which is usually a result of a high-sodium diet.) Talk about tripping yourself up.
3. You’re not drinking enough water. Here’s a neat little tidbit I picked up in my reading. The body burns fat whenever your internal temperature is increased. The more water you drink, the more able your body is to heat up. Remember, water is a conductor of heat and electricity – it makes it easier for heat to pass through it, thus making it easier for your body to heat up to do what it needs to do. Do you drink enough before your workout? Better yet, do you drink it afterwards? To tie in with the first point, if you’re drinking too many calories, you might be counteracting your body’s ability to burn calories… since you keep drinking so many!
4. You’re not hitting the potty enough. Where’s the fiber? For every meal that you take in, you should be releasing just that much. That’s right. Considering now that you know that, how far behind are you falling? Even more so, how much do you estimate you have stuck inside of your system? I know people who get such a small amount of fiber in their daily diet, they may not hit the potty at ALL in one given day. Trust me when I tell you, if your plate weighs 2lbs when you sit it down to eat, rest assured that you are adding at least a pound and some change to your weight. Add the fiber, already!
5. You’re doing better than you thought. Here’s another neat little tidbit I’ve picked up in my reading. Muscle weighs as much as [if not more than] fat. Yes, yes, this is true. You might’ve picked up just as many pounds in muscle as you might’ve lost in fat. This is a good thing, though! Why? “According to calculations published in the journal Obesity Research by a Columbia University team in 2001, a pound of muscle burns approximately six calories a day in a resting body, compared with the two calories that a pound of fat burns.” See how that works? So yeah, you might’ve gained a pound of muscle, but when you get your eating habits back together.. you will absolutely reap the rewards of having it!

I won’t lie – I’m facing this right now. I’ve been stepping up my calisthenics routine at home, and while I’ve lost a total of 12 inches between my upper/lower waist, hips, and thighs… I’ve only lost 12 lbs. 12! It’s hard to not let it get me down, which is why I focus heavily on what I look like, and not what I weigh. I suppose I need to re-read what I wrote about being a slave to the scale, eh?

How about it? How did you manage to fight your plateau? How did it affect you? Let’s hear it!

What other reasons are there why we might hit a brick wall?

Thanks to Nutrition to Wellness, I came across this phenomenal little series of videos from the 2007 Healthy Living Expo. Lots of juicy tidbits in there, but this one put me a little over the edge. I guess it’s a little silly to have expectations of an industry that owes you nothing, yet aims to make money off of you, regardless of what their choices do to your health.

This video basically explains the confusion that comes from the difference between the marketing on the box and the information on the side label. If you’re anything like my friends, the thought in your head is probably something like, “Dang, we can’t eat ANYTHING, then!” That’s not entirely accurate. You can eat whatever you choose, but you deserve accurate information to help you make those decisions. It’s only fair, I think.

How many people have made this mistake when glancing at the label? How many of us fall for the “fat-free” game?

Here’s an interesting little tidbit I picked up from a Weekly Spark article about misconceptions that we have about our bodies and doing right by them:

So what makes 7 (or 8 or 9) p.m. a magical cutoff time anyway? The original idea was that people should stop eating about 3 hours before bed, using 10 p.m. as an average bedtime. Although it is a good idea to stop eating a few hours before bed, the reasoning has nothing to do with weight gain; it’s basically an issue of digestion and personal comfort. Going to sleep on a full stomach may make sleeping uncomfortable, as the body is simultaneously shutting down to rest while still exerting energy to digest the food. This may lead to fitful sleep as well as gas and indigestion—but not weight gain. Your body is smart, but it doesn’t know what time it is when you eat. It will metabolize calories eaten after 7 p.m. the same way as it does the calories you eat earlier in the day. They will NOT automatically be stored as fat.

So… what’s the takeaway? The original thought was that eating so close to bedtime would mean that food wouldn’t be broken down properly – which is true, if you’re talking about digestion – and would be stored as fat. That’s not true! If you want to sleep a little better, there should be a relatively wide window between your last meal and your bedtime. Other than that? Sounds like a green light…. but no overeating!