Pulling the Rug...

There are no shortages of reasons given for the obesity “epidemic” here in America. Sugar soda consumption, long hours sitting in from of a computer or television and easy access to junk foods are some of the more common reasons given by the experts.

Another reason heralded by the same experts in recent years has been the idea of food desserts. A food dessert is a community where obesity rates are high but access to healthy food is low. These are typically reported to be in poorer neighborhoods among those who have limited access to transportation. Thus with limited financial and travel resources to get healthy foods residents of the community resort to eating readily available unhealthy foods from convenience stores and fast food establishments. This according to experts is the case.

However a couple of recent studies show a much brighter picture. One study by the RAND Corporation a nonprofit research institute found that rather than being food desserts these neighborhoods should be called food swamps because of the many available food options. In other words the very idea of food desserts has been a fabrication of those in the health misinformation industry whose job it is to protect their job.

An article appearing in the New York Times about these findings lamented:

“Some experts say these new findings raise questions about the effectiveness of efforts to combat the obesity epidemic simply by improving access to healthy foods. Despite campaigns to get Americans to exercise more and eat healthier foods, obesity rates have not budged over the past decade, according to recently released federal data.”

Why is this the case when billions and billions of tax payer dollars are spent annually on healthy promotion and healthy eating campaigns? The truth is what I have been writing about for nearly a decade. That is some people are fat and others are thin. Some people will get diabetes and others will not though they follow a similar diet pattern. More importantly all people regardless of where they live, what their financial status is and whether they have access to transportation will eat what they like.

Incidentally the US Department of Agriculture report on food desserts found that few areas in our nation met the strict qualification of a food dessert. One of those areas that qualifies is the neighborhood where I live just miles from several large grocery stores.

  

New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/health/research/pairing-of-food-deserts-and-obesity-challenged-in-studies.html?_r=1

USDA food dessert report http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP036/AP036fm.pdf

Confidence Lost

Stop the presses a new study has found that belief in science among conservatives has dropped sharply in the last quarter century. Gordon Gauchat a professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill reported in a review of data from the General Social Survey that conservative’s confidence in science has dipped from nearly 50% to 35%. Moreover Dr. Gauchat was trying to support the thesis of Chris Mooney’s’ 2005 book “The Republican War On Science”.

Dr. Gauchat and Mr. Mooney theorize that conservatives have lost confidence in science largely because of the influence of religion in conservative thinking, a general distrust of government regulatory power, overall growth of government and the political nature of science. Each of these theories accurately assesses conservative skepticism of modern science but there is a why behind each reason.

Over the past century scientific dogma has sought to replace faith in God with faith in science. Disciples of Darwinian evolution have taken extreme measures to purge the mention of God from public schools and the public square in general. Faith in God and the Bible still held in high esteem among conservatives has been maligned, impugned and ridiculed as a fairy tale by science. Science has set itself at opposition with faith rather than seek to coexist with it. Is it a wonder then why conservative religiously minded people choose to ignore “science” that seeks to undermine their faith? 

This same anti faith science has been used by an ever growing government to restrict and regulate practically every area of our lives. From the cars we drive, the fuel that powers them, what makes a healthy meal how food is grown, how our homes are built and on and on and on are regulated by government which is “supported” by science.

Of particular interest here is food and nutrition. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the current My Plate began as a child of politics in a Senate subcommittee in the 1970’s that went looking for “science” to back up its desire to insert itself into our lives. Many of those recommendations were based on the scientific idea that saturated fat and cholesterol are the direct causes of heart disease as hypothesized by Ancel Keys in the Seven Countries Study published in the 1950’s. The problem is that the theories postulated by Dr. Keys have been disproven by more recent scientific discovery yet government recommendations and policy still operates under the former paradigm.

Furthermore science or what is called science has become hyper political. For example consider that since the 1970’s science has gone from predicting a coming ice age to declaring an impending global warming apocalypse. What causes conservatives to question the science of global warming is the childlike insistence that global warming is a fact and no opposing opinion or view point can be held on the subject. As open minded as those on the left claim to be they only on rare occasions demonstrate that open mindedness. Therefore since the science of global warming is not subject to debate our government has taken the opportunity to regulate more of our lives including banning incandescent light bulbs to investing in phony green energy companies to subsidizing electric cars and mass transit for everyone to prepare for the global cooking.

Looking at the evidence and drawing conclusions based on that evidence then being able to verify those findings through further investigation is the scientific process. Much of what passes for science falls far short of being verifiable through further study.  It is then entirely plausible to infer that conservatives have lost confidence in science because much of what is called science is biased against the conservative point of view. It appears that anti conservative point of view is all that is needed to be considered sound anymore. Speaking for myself and I think many others conservatives as well I don’t need science to validate my faith, my common sense, my family or my life. Until science gets outside of the fish bowl I suppose they will continue to lose credibility with us conservatives.

Friendly Neighborhood Produce Man

Some time ago I was invited to be a panelist for a men’s health forum. Heart health and nutrition were the main topics and as such weight loss was discussed. Weight loss and a low fat diet have long been regarded as key nutrition interventions for a healthy heart. One man in the audience shared his experience with weight loss while working in an Africa country.

There, he explained, it was easy to eat healthy because readily available fresh fruits and vegetables were and part of every meal. As a result of having worked in that environment for a number of months he pointed out that weight loss was easy. He noted that he lost a considerable amount of weight and felt great as a result. What he said next however was quite curious.

Upon his reassignment to the states and consequently resuming the “American” diet the same fellow noted that all the weight he had lost came back and then some. The reason he gave was that fruits, vegetables and other healthy foods are just not as accessible here as they were to him there. After unfurrowing my brow I asked “Have you been to your local supermarket lately”?

Far too often the sentiments just described are espoused without question. Many in the health establishment like to pontificate on the difficulties of eating a healthy diet in our modern society. When I hear these things I have to wonder if they ever even go out of the house.

Within a few miles of my house there are five or six grocery stores with a produce sections containing hundreds of different varieties of fruits and vegetables. All I have to do is be willing to go there, pay what they are asking then bring those fresh healthy foods home to eat which I do with relative frequency. This is why I have such difficulty going along with what is routinely said regarding the availability of healthy foods in our country.

Furthermore the fruits and vegetables found in these stores is much less expensive per portion that so called “junk foods” or other choices that could be made. For example bananas the last I saw were 69 cents per pound putting one banana at between 25 and 30 cents.

It is always easy to complain about certain circumstances and glamorize how they would be better somewhere else. That is the essence of the saying how green the grass is beyond the fence. In terms of food availability and inexpensive nutrition we have it great right here at home in the good old United States. If you have a doubt about that pay a visit to your friendly neighborhood produce man.

The Truth....Can You Handle It?

Truth is somewhat like a vineyard of grapes in that to get the best fruit you must dig. Truth may not always lie on the ground for the taking therefore you must dig to get to it. In terms of science the truth may change as new discoveries are made. For example some in the scientific community once considered the earth to be flat an idea that has been roundly disproven by more modern science.

 

Nutrition science is much the same in that it too changes as new discoveries are made. For example scurvy once a widespread often fatal disease common among sailors was thought to have been caused by consuming tainted canned meat. Since 1932 however when vitamin C deficiency was shown to be the cause of the disease scurvy has been all but eradicated. Now a case of scurvy could be cured by a glass of orange juice.

 

Fast forward to today and take note of how much of what we do and the diseases we incur is said to be affected by nutrition. For the last half century is has been commonly assumed that the science behind saturated fats and their link to heart disease were set in stone. In fact most doctors practicing today operate under this paradigm yet the science is not as clear as you might think.

 

In 2009 a review of studies conducted over the 14 years prior was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. In that article researchers found there to be no evidence for the conclusion that saturated fat was associated with an increased risk of heart disease (1).   So after all the years of preaching low fat dieting has the truth finally been uncovered? The evidence seems clear but a generation of health policy is not cast aside in a day.

 

Next notice the statement published by the American Diabetes Association on its own web site in the diabetes myth section. It declares that most overweight people never develop type 2 diabetes and many people with type 2 diabetes are at a normal weight (2). Furthermore the ADA explains that eating too much sugar does not cause diabetes (3). Surely there must be a misprint and the web master needs to correct the mistake most might say but could it be that the truth is not watered by popular belief? Perhaps it is time to heed the truths of nutrition science rather than make assumptions based on tradition.

 

 Finally another long held belief is hopefully going the way of antiquity. For years we have been conditioned to hold back on the salt shaker because higher sodium intake was linked to hypertension and heart disease. The truth seems to be that the opposite is true. A recent study found that that those who consumed the least amount of sodium had the greatest incidence of heart disease and those who ate the most salt had the least amounts of heart disease(4).

These are only a few of the big nutrition related issues that have changed as science has made its inquiry and discovery. What changes at the slowest rate are the perceptions and attitudes that have been built around the old science over the last generation. What we should expect and even demand from our doctor, nurse or nutritionist is the truth as told by the most recent and credible science available. Our responsibility is to dig for that truth and not just accept what might be lying on the ground.

1.  http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

2.  http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-myths/

3. http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-myths/

4.   http://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/Eating_Less_Salt_Does_Not_Necessarily_Cut_High_Blood_Pressure_and_Heart_Disease_Risks_a1787.html

They're Here............

In case you missed it in last week’s news a “government official” confiscated the lunch of a four year old preschool student in North Carolina because it did not meet the nutritional requirements as a healthy meal. Yes around January 30th in Raeford North Carolina at West Hoke Elementary School a lunch brought from home consisting of a turkey and cheese sandwich, chips, banana and apple juice did not meet the government guidelines so the child was made to eat a government prepared meal of chicken nuggets. But wait there is more.

Another child in the same school around the same time was told her lunch did not meet the established government requirements and that she would have to eat a lunch from the cafeteria as well as pay for it.

As you might imagine school officials are hiding under their desks waiting for the storm to pass but in the meantime are blaming the students. Bob Barnes an assistant superintendent in the Hoke County Schools said in an interview with the McLatchy news service that the first child just misunderstood her teacher when she thought she was told to put away her homemade lunch and get one from the cafeteria. Barnes went on to say that the cafeteria foods were only meant to supplement items missing from the homemade lunch box.

Why are these things happening in a so called free nation? The first reason is competition. Every child that brings lunch from home is one meal that is not purchased from the school cafeteria. Since government funding of the school foodservice is based on rates of participation then brown baggers are seen as competition for the cafeteria. This is likely the reason that the children at Hoke Elementary were made to purchase foods from the cafeteria. This can be filed under the banner “If you can’t beat them ban them”.

Another reason for this trespass of freedom can be drawn from a memo sent to parents of West Hoke Elementary students dated January 27, 2012. In that memo the principal of the school Jackie Samuels noted that the West Hoke Elementary school received a rating of “good” rather than “excellent” on a recent ECER-S review. One of the glaring deficiencies noted was the nutritional quality of the meals brought from home.

So to protect the status of the pre-K program and no doubt the federal funding this principal has send correspondence to the West Hoke parents on how to assemble meals acceptable to federal USDA nutritional guidelines.

These stories are outrageous in a nation that calls itself free. If these things are going on in North Carolina then they are probably happening in many places. For many years our government has used the avenue of nutrition to drive its controlling talons into our national psyche. For the last few years many of those attempts to gain control have been chronicled here.

This is a tipping point in the race and it is time to let your voice be heard. Will you sit by and be bulldozed while a government cloaked in care and compassion takes away your right to eat the way you want? What next and then what will it be after that.

I have seen this coming for years and have warned of it but now….they’re here…….

Here is a great reason to be a skeptic

Watch this and worry less!

If It Sounds Too Bad To Be True Then It Probably Is

If it sounds too good to be true it probably is the old saying goes but what if it sounds too bad? If something sounds too bad to be believable it likely is as well. That is especially true given most of what is said about health and nutrition! The most recent example is an article by Dr. Robert Lustig in Nature the weekly international scientific journal.

The article titled The Toxic Truth about Sugar attempts to link sugar, the stuff that sweetens your tea with every health issue known to man. Everything from obesity and diabetes to heart and liver disease are linked to the sugar we consume. Dr. Lustig went even further in his assessment putting sugar on the same level as tobacco and alcohol in terms of its negative effects on health. After reading the article I have concluded that it just sounds too bad to be true.

Health warnings through the years such as salt causes high blood pressure and butter leads heart disease have made great fodder for the headlines but have done little to clarify what it really means to eat a healthy diet. As a consequence the ridiculousness escalates until there is a headline calling sugar a toxic substance needing to be regulated by the government. Another and even more egregious consequence is that we begin to question or ignore our own common sense when it comes to what we eat.

Here are a few quotes I have heard that highlight the point “White bread is bad for you and may cause diabetes”, “Refined white flour and sugar are devoid of nutrients and make you fat”, “I really need to stop poisoning myself with all of this sugar”. These comments and others like them may be a reaction to a headline but are in no way related to facts. The next time you read or hear something along these lines ask yourself “Does this sound too bad to be true?”

Although we are constantly old that many of the foods we eat, white bread, sugar, pasta, butter etc., are causing poor health is it true? Is drinking a soda or glass of sweet tea as bad for your health as smoking cigarettes? Is that linguine Alfredo you had for dinner on par with several shots of hard liquor in terms of health?  Is a Twinkie going to send you spiraling into a diabetic coma? The answers are no, no and no to all three.

Rather than writing a dissertation skewering all of these outlandish health claims I encourage you to ignore them and trust your own common sense. Seek out good sound information (i.e. from mother and grandmother) on what is good and healthy for you to eat. Finally if it sounds too bad to be true, it is!

Old School

Harry S Truman signed the National School Lunch Program into law in 1946. That law was spit shined this past week with a number of new standards including a mandate to provide more fruits, vegetables and whole grains. The new standards some experts contend will make America’s kids healthier through better nutrition.

The program which now offers breakfast, snacks and even dinner in some schools is touted as a low cost or free meal to our most vulnerable. Many who work in the school lunch program have stated that it is the only decent meals many school children get and without it they would go hungry. Therefore more and more dollars have been poured into this program as an anti-poverty measure as much as anything else.

The real question should be does more government spending and program expansion lead to less poverty? Statistics show that poverty levels are largely unchanged in the last fifty years despite billions spent in government attempts to eradicate the problem. If these anti-poverty programs were private sector businesses they would have been out of business long ago. If throwing money at the problem is not the solution then what is?

The solution to poverty, the health of America’s children and a host of other maladies lies in an institution that dates back to the beginning. The solution is marriage. The Heritage Foundation in a recent report shows that children who are born into two parent households where those parents are married are 82% less likely to live in poverty. The sad truth is that since 1946 the percentage of children born out of wedlock has increased by nearly 40%.

A society whose fabric is stability in the family structure is a part of the spiritual foundation that once undergirded our nation. A commitment to marriage in today’s vernacular is quickly becoming passé. Yet one thing we have is history as our instructor.

Many of those health elitists who champion government supervision of our lives and decry the unhealthy diet and lifestyles we live now always use as a contrast the simpler days gone by. Those good old days they tell us are when children were more active, ate less junk food, families ate dinner together and our world was a healthier and better place.  Those days were when the family unit was intact with moms and dads raising children not settling for the latest revision of a government program.  

The stability of any nation and the health of her children are in the home. Therefore the best “program” for us to pursue to make things right is called mom and dad.

Paula Deen and the Trapped Nutritionists

Television chef and personality Paula Deen revealed recently that she has type 2 diabetes. Taking advantage of the situation to demonstrate first rate condescension and everyone who has ever even seen a white lab coat derided the way she cooks on television citing it as the reason for the disease. All of that sugar and butter just is not good for a person some health pundits pontificated so Ms Deen should have seen the writing on the wall. Her freewheeling culinary message that if a little is good then a lot is better is going to lead to many people with getting diabetes as “she is a role model for a lot of people”.

 Jumping at Ms. Deen with such vitriol demonstrates that the health elitists are trapped in their own shortsighted ideology. Trapped is the appropriate description because they are unwilling to listen to any differing ideas on the topic. They assume this equation poor diet + Paula Deen = diabetes. What is missing in their analysis are the many other possible contributing factors to the onset of diabetes such as age and family history.

Age and family history are largely ignored because it is difficult if not unseemly to look down on someone due to age or genetically predisposed health issues. The way someone eats, their weight and their assumed lack of physical activity however is fair game to the nutrition know it alls. These after all are the golden keys to health and longevity.

The fact of the matter is that we are not meant to live forever and no amount of exercise and diet will thwart the natural processes of aging which usually includes the development of certain illnesses. This is true statistically because apart from accidental deaths the main cause of death is old age and the diseases associated with aging.

I don’t mean to say that we shouldn’t make every effort to be healthy including a good diet and regular physical activity. What I want to point out is that we shouldn’t be surprised to hear that a person in their mid sixties gets a condition such as diabetes.

Ultimately it is wrong for health elitists to tell anyone how to live their lives. To offer advice is one thing but arrogant condescension is beyond the pail. Last I checked we had certain inalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Within the bounds of these rights lies the right to eat what I like and even refuse to exercise.

Facts Are Stubborn Things

Keeping pace with nutrition literature and current trends is often puzzling. The ideas that are postulated rage from the possibly credible to the incredible. By incredible I mean arguments and ideas without credibility or substance. As has been quoted before “Facts are stubborn things” and such is the case with many nutrition ideas.

The most recent is the idea that we in the United States and especially our children are becoming more and more malnourished. This conjecture is often based on the notion that we don’t eat as many nourishing foods such as fruits and vegetables as we used to. Instead of these good foods many times people consume too much sugar and starch which in the minds of those who are willing to put forth ideas without the benefit of the facts are leaving us malnourished. Furthermore even those who are obese are regarded as malnourished because they are not eating the right types of foods.

All of these ideas sound good and make headlines that tug at the heart strings leaving many to angrily ask “How can this happen in our prosperous country?” To be sure it can happen and probably in some places for specific reasons it is happening and there are citizens of the United States who are malnourished. Yet on the whole such is not the case.

Clinical malnourishment is a condition brought on by a lack of nutrients that support normal body function. Deficiencies in vitamin C, D, though rare, lead to diseases such as scurvy and rickets. A lack of sufficient energy or calories in the diet leads to diseases known as kwashiorkor and marasmus. In the United States these diseases have not been heard of for decades if ever. If these diseases of malnutrition are diagnosed clinically today they are usually the result of another underlying disease such as cancer or HIV not the result of too much soda or too many French fries.

What is at play here is a little nutrition sleight of hand. While our collective attention is drawn toward the helpless, malnourished, obese children the facts say otherwise. The nutrition magicians who turn these tricks have learned how to sell their ideas on an emotional level. They know that no one wants to see our children hurt so they cleverly intertwine their point of view with our collective desire to protect the innocent. And alacazam we are persuaded to believe something that is contrary to common sense. We live in a land of plenty and have left over to spare. This may contribute to our national girth but malnourishment?

2012 Predictions

Here at the close of 2011 and the beginning of a New Year I will continue to occupy my space in the puzzle that is nutrition. From that small but hopefully ever increasing niche that I carve here are a few predictions for 2012 in the sphere of diets and nutrition.

#1

The diet industry will be more concerned in a fat wallet for them than a thin waste line for you. I don’t make this prediction as a pessimist but rather as an observer of the world. If there was a pill or an elixir that would make you thin virtually overnight you wouldn’t you have taken it in 2011 and have had no need for it in 2012. Yet as I have already seen this New Year there are pills and potions on store shelves both actual and virtual that promise big but deliver thin. These are the same products with a shiny new label that were promoted last year and the year before that and the year before that. If they truly worked as advertised they would be out of business. So save your money and skip the pills.

#2
Every diet that promotes weight loss through eating fewer calories will work as well in 2012 as it did in 2011. Such will only work if they are adhered to with diligence. On again off again dieting rarely works at all so a little stick-to-itiveness will be the key to success this year. Diet programs such as Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig and a host of other plans whose success is based on cutting calories is a testament to just how well this avenue to weight loss works. Only this year if you are trying to lose a little and save a little money then skip the membership fee and push yourself away from the table a little sooner than normal and you should get the same outcome.

 #3

Common sense will still the reining king of health in 2012. Despite the cries from the health Gestapo to ban sugary beverages, limit salt and fat through onerous government regulation thereby making your choices for you, you are in the driver’s seat of your own health.            Adults are defines as those with the ability to make a plan and follow it therefore rational adults ought to be able to understand that making healthy food choices is a simple matter of planning and follow through.

For example most would agree that a diet made up exclusively of cupcakes is not the best health choice. This is why most people choose not to do this type of thing. Rather most choose a variety of foods that include fruits, vegetables, meats, dairy and the like. This constitutes a healthy diet when a helping of moderation is added in to the mix.

So in 2012 the diet and nutrition parade really resembles a carousel since what is old comes around again and again. Only this go round will have new looks and labels to catch the unsuspecting in a marketing scheme rather than sell them a sensible plan of how to eat healthy which by the way you can have for free with the input of a little gray matter. Happy New Year!!!     

A New Mantra For A New Year

“I am what I am and that’s all that I am” –Popeye the Sailor man

This quote from one of the most endearing characters in America History tells us a lot about ourselves. This sentiment reflects the rugged individualism that defines us as Americans. What it says is what you see is what you get like it or leave it.

Having been a fan of the spinach eating sailor since I was little I always appreciated that streak of independence. Lately it strikes me that we may need to rekindle that spirit of his “I am what I am” mantra and even apply it in other areas of life. For example instead of listening to every Tom, Dick and Harry with a lab coat tell us what our BMI should be and what our ideal weight ideally is why not decide I am what I am.

Working inside the beast called healthcare I very often see the frustration of those who feel that what the doctor says is just out of reach. Too often this frustration coupled with guilt for even looking at something sweet or fried leads to more guilt and poor self image. After the persistent message is that overweight and obese people simply lack the self control and will power to get healthy? Maybe the doughnut is in the other hand so to speak.

Rather than always lambaste the unwashed masses for their supposed inability to get with the program why not scrutinize the program for its relation to reality.  In his book The Obesity Myth: Why America’s Obsession with Weight is Hazardous to your Health author Paul Campos exposes the “witch-hunt masquerading as a public health initiative”. In the book he points out how those with the reins of power in public health have “distorted available evidence” and “severely exaggerated” the risk association between weight and health.

What Mr. Campos, a lawyer by trade, has stumbled upon I have seen and written about for years. People come in all different shapes and sizes. Some are big and some are small, some are short and others are tall. To try and force everyone in the country into a one size fits all health model is ludicrous. Not only is it a bad idea is it is a serious waste of taxpayer money as untold millions are spent annually to help us get fit and healthy with no observable benefit.

So on your next visit to the doctor they give you that mindless prescription “you would be a lot healthier if you just lost 10 pounds” be prepared to say “I am what I am and that’s all that I am. Do not allow anyone to push a line of guilt on you. Remember that most of us with a little extra around the middle are just as healthy and fit as everyone else. Do not be defined by the size of your pants or the number on the scale be happy with who you naturally are! 

Survival of the Fattest

Entering the terms obesity and epidemic into any search engine will get you thousands of pages devoted to the latest problem experts say faces our country. I qualify that by saying “experts say” because every self-appointed pseudo-science expert has an opinion on this epidemic and their predictions are usually dire.

Of these experts I have had occasion to discuss these issues with a good number believe somewhat in the Darwinian theory of evolution and his “survival of the fittest” mantra. In short Darwinian disciples believe that man has evolved over millions of years into the form we are currently by a process of natural selection. Natural selection is the idea that the strong survive and the weak die off.

If it is true that we are getting fatter in epidemic proportions and it is also true that there is a process of natural selection at work are the two connected? If what the experts say is true that obesity is on the rise which must mean that skinny is on the decline then obesity must be winning the game of natural selection. If this is true then every intervention promoted by the experts for weight loss and health must be reconsidered immediately lest they be found to act against nature even Darwin himself.

I recommend to these experts a cooling off period of 25 to 50 years and perhaps longer. Give your ideas of weight loss and improved health some time on the sidelines to see of what you are really doing is for or against the natural selection process. If evolution is true and the strong survive then eating less and exercising more may only be standing in the way of nature and do you want that on you resume?

If after the cooling off period all of the fat have died off then your job has been done for you by your god Charles Darwin. Imagine the utopian scene of scores of thin healthy people living life unencumbered by high BMI scores or pant sizes. Imagine all of the fast food industry out of business because there will be no fat people to eat there. Just think of how much time you will have to focus on really important issues without all those fat Twinkie eating people to pull you away from real science.

While I try to be encouraging by foreshadowing your utopia you must also be prepared for the opposite eventuality that all the skinny people die off. Who knows what the turns and paths this natural selection process may take and it may lead to a world full of fat people. A world where lettuce is banned, walking is frowned upon and Ronald McDonald is president. A world where anyone below a size 6 is taken to fat camp to learn how to be fat so as not to be ostracized and ridiculed as all of the other skinnies are.

Who Are The Elitists?

There are a growing number of public health advocates and government bureaucrats who seek to rob our freedom to choose how to live and what to eat. In fact those who have read Eating Right for long will recognize these types as the villain in my essays. Who are they by name?

One of the finger wagers is none other than surgeon and talk show host Dr. Oz. As a cardiothoracic surgeon I have no doubt that Mehmet Oz is effective in treating disease. As a television talk show host spouting opinion with two scoops of hyperbole his prescriptions seem to contain plenty of production value. Why is Dr. Oz lumped in with all of the other food police?

Dr. Oz along with most public health and government health bureaucrats espouses the position that to be healthy we have to be thin and eat according to their menu choices.  Their popular refrain is that we collectively eat too much junk food, too much fast food and get too little physical activity. Therefore they indict the Western world as a nation of obese couch potatoes unlearned and untrained in the right ways, their ways, of health.

On a recent episode of the Dr. Ox Show Dr. Oz has as a guest Dr. Glenn Gaesser. Dr. Gaesser is Associate Director of Health Promotions at Arizona State University and author of Big Fat Lies: The Truth about Your Weight and Your Health. Dr. Gaesser presented Dr. Oz with scientifically sound information on the fact that weight is a poor predictor of health and that good health is possible at any body size. If you didn’t see the show the calm learned manner of Dr. Gaesser put Dr. Oz back on his heels.

What Dr. Gaesser has found in his academic research has supported what we the people have known instinctively for a long time that being a little or even a lot over weight is not always a death sentence. Unfortunately Dr. Oz given his highly visible platform is not persuaded by this common sense message and therefore not likely to begin supporting it. Why?

Health at every size is not glamorous and doesn’t sell as well as does the typical message that thin is in and thin means health. To take away the golden goose of obesity and its epidemic status from health elitists would bring an end to more than a few lucrative careers.   

Finally and perhaps most telling is how the health elitist community revels in the substantive science that undergirds their points of view. They love citing the government agency or commission or academic institution whose findings give legs to what they believe. They though turn a collective blind eye to any information that would overturn their apple cart.

Dr. Glenn Gaesser responds to Dr. Oz

Ronald 1-San Francisco Nanny State 0

 Ronald puts the McSmackdown on San Frans Food Police!

If you have not heard the news the city of San Francisco voted to ban the toys in McDonalds Happy Meals as of December 1, 2011. Ronald McDonald demonstrating his razor sharp capitalist prowess has decided to charge 10 cents for each Happy Meal toy and donate the proceeds to the Ronald McDonald House.

In honor of the victory over the liberal do gooders who currently govern San Francisco I will be eating at McDonalds soon and buying a Happy Meal toy.

Thanks Mr. Bradford!

             It is that time of year again when school children across our land will choose sides for the Thanksgiving pageant. Will it be a pilgrim or an Indian this year that your little one will dress like to tell the fabled story of the first feast of thanks? As heart warming as that story of peace, prosperity and pumpkin pie shared between those from the old world with those of the new is it does not tell the true story of the first Thanksgiving.

            As the band of pilgrims prepared themselves for the westward journey in search of religious freedom conditions for their settlement were established. One point in that agreement was that all goods produced in the new world would go into a common storehouse and be distributed evenly amongst the colonists. As time passed and the pilgrims learned from the natives how to grow indigenous crops such as corn and squash and how to catch local fish they became much more self sufficient. This ability to grow crops combined with the agreement to equal sharing of the pie however led to some rather unpleasant but certainly unintended consequences.

            William Bradford who became governor of the fledgling colony in 1621 observed in his History of Plymouth Plantation that the agreement to a shared communal storehouse often left the pilgrims to languish in misery of want. “This community”, he wrote, “was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort”. Furthermore he wrote that “young men most able and fit for service declined to work for other men’s wives and children without recompense”. It seems as thought the communal storehouse idea worked no better in 1621 that it does in today.

            Working to change the initial agreement Mr. Bradford and other of the leaders of the settlement decided to give a parcel of land to each family allowing them to keep what they produced rather than incite laziness in some by contributing their produce to the communal store. This amendment he wrote “had very good success for it made all hands very industrious and much more corn was planted that would have been otherwise under the old agreement. So successful was this endeavor that women who had previously thought it slavish went willingly into the field to plant corn even taking the little children to assist.

            On the heels of the birth of what is termed the protestant work ethic the bountiful harvest of that year gave rise to a feast of thanksgiving to God for His blessings. It is that same work ethic operating under the same free market conditions that have with the blessings of God made ours the greatest country ever established in human history. The ideas of faith and hard work are time tested and true and must be taught to the next generation.

            Writing further about this experience William Bradford said “our experiment in this communal course may be evidence of the vanity of the ancient philosophy that taking away private property and bringing it into a communal common wealth would make men happy and flourishing and if they were wiser than God”. Clearly from the example of the colony at Plymouth to our present flirting with socialism this system of government is fatally flawed and must be avoided. The History of Plymouth Plantation should be required in every school in the United States as a reminder that faith in God and hard work were once the hallmarks of our country. Thanks Mr. Bradford for the lesson. Have a happy Thanksgiving.         

Back In The Saddle

I have been on somewhat of a hiatus from writing these past few weeks. Perhaps for no other reason than to clear my own mind of the never ending battle of ideas with health ideologues whose aim it seems is to stamp out personal liberty in order to achieve their dream of some sort of health utopia.

I have climbed back in the saddle just in time to see that the nutrition leftists have not taken a rest. The most recent example comes from Great Britain where the government recently disbanded an obesity advisory panel prompting moans and groans from public health elitists on both sides of the great pond.

The advisory panel assembled by the previous administration in Great Britain was supposed to guide the government toward better strategies for obesity interventions. Much more than simply making recommendations on how to maintain a healthy diet this panel sought to change food environment, which really means take away freedom of choice, and counter food industry marketing, which really means blame corporations because a few people are fat.

What is refreshing is that the socialist government of the old country seems to have gotten a nudge in the “right” direction. Someone in that government came to their senses and realized that central authoritarian control of the lives of every citizen is impossible. Moreover concern over what people eat or what their waist size is not a functional concern of government.

So kudos to whoever is making some clear headed decisions across the pond. I would only request that you make your next stop Washington DC!    

Fragile?

A box labeled fragile gives a certain impression that the contents need careful handling. A set of fine china or crystal are usually considered fragile and the utmost care is taken not to break items like these. I have some of my grandmother’s china that is close to 100 years old and still looks new even though it is fragile because it was handled with care.

Are we like that china? Are our bodies fragile? The answer is both yes and no. Yes we as human beings as we age learn that life is fragile and will come to an end at some point. Most of us will have to deal with one form of disease or another which may ultimately cause our demise. On the other hand does this mean that every single thing we put in our mouths will cause harm, no.

In many ways we are pretty resilient. Many in the health establishment seem to ignore this fact. Some of those would insist that certain forms of sugar will cause harm to the body. Yet the facts tell another story. It is commonly reported that high fructose corn sugar is more harmful to us that cane sugar. Yet is the body so sensitive to sweets that it will reject one in favor of another? Will one cause harm while the other heals? No and the truth is that no matter what form of sugar is eaten it is all used in the body the same way. In the end sugar is energy no matter if it comes from a cane or from corn. We are not that fragile.

Likewise fat and cholesterol are the same way. Fat is a necessary part of our diet yet it has been told for decades that saturated fats from animal based foods are directly linked to heart disease. After almost 100 years of hearing that mantra the truth is being revealed. Many who consume high levels of saturated fat and cholesterol have no associated heart disease. For example Dr Malcom Kendrick demonstrates in his 2007 book The Great Cholesterol Con that Switzerland has the highest cholesterol levels in the world and the lowest incidence of heart disease. Conclusion: we are not that fragile.

The truth is that we all face an end at some point. On the path to that point we are bound to develop one or more diseases. Most of these diseases cannot be thwarted by eating a certain way or avoiding certain foods. Why is this? The answer is because the physical bodies we have are pretty good at using what we eat to support life. Of course too much of anything can have negative consequences. The point is that eating a burger and fries now and again will probably not do much harm and eating foods with corn syrup won’t either. At least it hasn’t happened to me yet.

Big Brother

Do you ever feel as though someone is always looking over your shoulder every time you eat something? No matter where you turn these days it seems like someone is sending the message that you should change your habits. Eat more of this, less of that and whatever you do not eat anything that tastes good or it’ll send you to an early grave. The message is often interpreted as “I must be content with bland tasting food”. The fact is we are inundated nutrition education messages warning of the dangers of an improper diet. As a practitioner of nutrition I feel overwhelmed at the seemingly endless exhortations to mend my unhealthy habits. I can only imagine everyone else feeling the same as I do in this case. I then begin to wonder if all of these warnings are making a difference.

            Statistics citing an increase in overweight and obesity in the American population cause me to doubt how well the nutrition education messages are being received. Furthermore, there are reasons to seriously question the effectiveness of such well meaning messages stemming from surveys asking people to list their favorite foods. At the top of the list year after year are burgers, fries, pizza, and doughnuts. With untold millions of dollars spent annually for this type of education it appears as though we are not getting a good return on our money.

            If money and the availability of education won’t keep us from making poor nutrition choices and we continue to crave foods that most say are bad for us what then should we do? In my characteristically unscientific way I have some suggestions and solutions to offer. These are observation taken from real experiences in my everyday work in this area.

            First it must be understood that most, I believe greater than ninety percent, people already know how to choose a healthy diet. Rarely do I meet someone who hasn’t heard some version of choosing lower fat foods with more fruits and vegetables. Most are well versed in this dietary doctrine with some having reached master level. More education is no necessarily the missing ingredient, what is needed is motivation.

            A majority of those I talk with need motivation to implement the education they already possess. Herein lies the great dilemma, the proverbial “You can lead a horse to water but won’t make him drink” sentiment. Until a person creates their own motivation and decides for themselves to make changes regarding nutrition and health it will not happen. No amount of urging, exhorting or down right brow beating will effect change in someone until they change themselves by conscious decision.

            Personal motivation comes in many forms but rarely does it come from a handout or poster published by a government agency. Early mortality will not convince some to change. I personally have years of study on the subject of nutrition and health under my belt and that is often times not motivation enough for self change. Health is a little like inheriting money. Some will squander it quickly and wonder where it went. Others will invest wisely and live comfortably for years to come.