Do you ever fell 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.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
What if?
Across the spectrum of health publications and literature there is one prevailing thought on the subject of obesity. The one line of thinking is that obesity has increased exponentially in the last thirty years and the blame lies with sugary foods and video games. Adults and especially children have fallen prey to these culprits and their health has suffered as a result.
Some flesh out this hypothesis with the anecdotes of a Norman Rockwell portrait. They opine that when they were young they rode bicycles and ran around rather than sitting for hours in from of a television or computer screen playing games while piling on the pounds. Add to this their notion that all of their meals were home cooked and therefore healthier than what kids get today. What if there are other explanations for the so called obesity crisis?
Is it possible that what we eat or how much we eat has little effect on our girth? Could we not open up to the theory that no matter how much or how little we engage in physical activity our weight is little affected? These are distinct possibilities deserving of serious scientific inquiry because we all have different genetic makeups. No one of the over 6 billion people on the planet is alike. Consider that our hair colors and textures, eye colors and shapes, height, shoe size and so on are all different. Yet all of us in order to be healthy are supposed to have a similar weight set within a very narrow range.
What if it is just the case that some are naturally thin and some are naturally plump? What if it is our genetic makeup that determines this? For example I could assemble images of 4 or 5 members of my family all of who share the same basic body type and build. Is that a fluke? Is that an accident? No that is because we all share similar genetic building blocks. In fact those same people also share several common temperament and emotional traits. Again is this accidental?
What if weight and health are not as closely correlated as is currently thought? Sure extremes of weight on either side of the scale can have negative consequences but many studies show that a little around the middle is actually protective of health rather than destructive.
The truth is that a true science should not and cannot make a once for all definitive claim about anything. If they do they cease to be followers of true science which is the discovery of knowledge. To willingly close ones self off to other hypotheses seems quite unscientific.
What if the health community announced that they will no longer look at us with disdain for our weight or diet or lifestyle choices? Such might border on the miraculous. Science and the health establishment too often cross the line from reporting findings to binding personal beliefs on others. Such should not be the case since there are obvious alternative explanations for things in the real of health.
Some flesh out this hypothesis with the anecdotes of a Norman Rockwell portrait. They opine that when they were young they rode bicycles and ran around rather than sitting for hours in from of a television or computer screen playing games while piling on the pounds. Add to this their notion that all of their meals were home cooked and therefore healthier than what kids get today. What if there are other explanations for the so called obesity crisis?
Is it possible that what we eat or how much we eat has little effect on our girth? Could we not open up to the theory that no matter how much or how little we engage in physical activity our weight is little affected? These are distinct possibilities deserving of serious scientific inquiry because we all have different genetic makeups. No one of the over 6 billion people on the planet is alike. Consider that our hair colors and textures, eye colors and shapes, height, shoe size and so on are all different. Yet all of us in order to be healthy are supposed to have a similar weight set within a very narrow range.
What if it is just the case that some are naturally thin and some are naturally plump? What if it is our genetic makeup that determines this? For example I could assemble images of 4 or 5 members of my family all of who share the same basic body type and build. Is that a fluke? Is that an accident? No that is because we all share similar genetic building blocks. In fact those same people also share several common temperament and emotional traits. Again is this accidental?
What if weight and health are not as closely correlated as is currently thought? Sure extremes of weight on either side of the scale can have negative consequences but many studies show that a little around the middle is actually protective of health rather than destructive.
The truth is that a true science should not and cannot make a once for all definitive claim about anything. If they do they cease to be followers of true science which is the discovery of knowledge. To willingly close ones self off to other hypotheses seems quite unscientific.
What if the health community announced that they will no longer look at us with disdain for our weight or diet or lifestyle choices? Such might border on the miraculous. Science and the health establishment too often cross the line from reporting findings to binding personal beliefs on others. Such should not be the case since there are obvious alternative explanations for things in the real of health.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
The Unsaid
Have you ever noticed how the health literature is littered with words like tend to, can lead to and may cause? When you read those phrases what comes to mind? Other such words such as plays a role and may put you at risk should give you pause to consider if there is any concrete understanding of the relationship between health and how we eat.
Just as important as what is said in a piece on health is what is unsaid. Such phrases leave the impression that there is no dependable one size fits all health information. Might, may and could cause leave lots of wiggle room when it comes to health messaging. What is not stated in most articles is the fact that there is no one model of health or diet that can be held up for everyone to follow.
Why because we are all individuals. Consider that there are over 6 billion people alive on this planet right now and not one of them is exactly like another. Even identical twins have differences. Therefore to even attempt to coral into a one sized fits all model of health seems strange to say the least.
Not only are we different genetically we are vastly different in what we value in terms of health. Some who place a high value on their appearance will engage in many activities that get them toward their goal of that image they set for themselves. Others place a high value on being happy no matter what their outward image happens to be. Both are legitimate points of view and ought to be lauded.
The truth is that much of what passes for health literature praises the former while casting a scornful eye on the latter. Yet to read between the lines of what is written about the relationship of health and nutrition it is not hard to come away with the impression that the experts are not at all clear on what the perfect prescription for the right diet, weight or BMI is.
If it were the case that eating a low fat diet rich in fiber and vegetables was a panacea of health there could be no detractors. On the other hand was it the case that eating a diet high in fat and protein was a sure path to health there would be no way to argue against it. Yet the debate is not that black and white.
What is true is that health is an individual choice and it is solely based on individual values. What and how much anyone chooses to eat is only their business.
Just as important as what is said in a piece on health is what is unsaid. Such phrases leave the impression that there is no dependable one size fits all health information. Might, may and could cause leave lots of wiggle room when it comes to health messaging. What is not stated in most articles is the fact that there is no one model of health or diet that can be held up for everyone to follow.
Why because we are all individuals. Consider that there are over 6 billion people alive on this planet right now and not one of them is exactly like another. Even identical twins have differences. Therefore to even attempt to coral into a one sized fits all model of health seems strange to say the least.
Not only are we different genetically we are vastly different in what we value in terms of health. Some who place a high value on their appearance will engage in many activities that get them toward their goal of that image they set for themselves. Others place a high value on being happy no matter what their outward image happens to be. Both are legitimate points of view and ought to be lauded.
The truth is that much of what passes for health literature praises the former while casting a scornful eye on the latter. Yet to read between the lines of what is written about the relationship of health and nutrition it is not hard to come away with the impression that the experts are not at all clear on what the perfect prescription for the right diet, weight or BMI is.
If it were the case that eating a low fat diet rich in fiber and vegetables was a panacea of health there could be no detractors. On the other hand was it the case that eating a diet high in fat and protein was a sure path to health there would be no way to argue against it. Yet the debate is not that black and white.
What is true is that health is an individual choice and it is solely based on individual values. What and how much anyone chooses to eat is only their business.
Friday, May 6, 2011
18 Inches
Dietitians and other health professionals often speak out on the need for everyone to choose a healthy diet. In what often comes across as condescension these health elitists speak about the food choices of the general public very negatively. In essence they miss the real issue by 18 inches. That is the distance from the head to the heart. The head or the heart can help formulate a response to something but the nature of either of the two is vastly different.
The head responds in an all too linear fashion to many choice related matters. For example it may be objectively true that eating too much butter can lead to certain diseases but that will do little to stop people from consuming it if they like it. It might also be true that too many sugary foods can impact health negatively. However constant finger wagging and the reciting a litany of scientific data will do little to turn folks from their favorite sugary foods.
The heart on the other hand understands the why behind the choices a person makes. This perspective considers the feelings that a person has toward a food or manner of eating. Though mortality rates and other scary data can motivate some it will never get to the heart of an issue. In truth the heart of the matter may just be “I like that food and I intend to eat it despite the consequences”.
So if you are a health professional bent on changing the world remember that unless you win the heart you’ll never change the mind. The way we eat is much more closely tied to the heart and than it is to the mind. So instead of berating people for what they eat or how much they weigh and what their cholesterol level is just give some good information and beyond that let it go.
The head responds in an all too linear fashion to many choice related matters. For example it may be objectively true that eating too much butter can lead to certain diseases but that will do little to stop people from consuming it if they like it. It might also be true that too many sugary foods can impact health negatively. However constant finger wagging and the reciting a litany of scientific data will do little to turn folks from their favorite sugary foods.
The heart on the other hand understands the why behind the choices a person makes. This perspective considers the feelings that a person has toward a food or manner of eating. Though mortality rates and other scary data can motivate some it will never get to the heart of an issue. In truth the heart of the matter may just be “I like that food and I intend to eat it despite the consequences”.
So if you are a health professional bent on changing the world remember that unless you win the heart you’ll never change the mind. The way we eat is much more closely tied to the heart and than it is to the mind. So instead of berating people for what they eat or how much they weigh and what their cholesterol level is just give some good information and beyond that let it go.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Three Inches!
Because of a lousy three inches I am obese? Because of just three inches I am at risk of a host of health problems and probably early death. At six feet three inches tall and 255 pounds I am classified as obese according the government’s body mass index calculator. If I had the genetic good fortune of being six feet six, merely three inches more I would have a BMI of 29.5 and have a bright future full of health and longevity. But alas I have missed the mark by three inches.
If that sounds absurd that’s because it is. Furthermore it is just one of the many issues I have with generic government imposed standards of health measurement. That term generic could not be more appropriate in discussing the BMI as that is exactly what it is.
The Body Mass Index was devised by Belgian mathematician Adolphe Quetelet in 1832 as a measure of a “normal man”. The arbitrary calculation became the accepted formula for health when it was adopted into wide use in the 1970’s by famed obesity researcher Ancel Keys. If not for a growing body of contradictory objective evidence the BMI might be an acceptable calculation but that is simply not to the case.
For example consider the findings of Dr Steven Blair at the Cooper Institute for Aerobic research in Dallas Texas. Since 1970 Dr Blair has studied the effects role physical fitness in reducing mortality rates in over 30,000 men and women. Findings from those years of ongoing studies have shown that being heavy did not increase the risk of dying early and in test subjects with adequate levels of physical fitness being overweight seemed better than being underweight. In other words a high BMI is not a death sentence as we are so often told.
My real issues with generic broadly stated health measurements are one they do not account for individual markers of health. Two they illogically assume that because someone is born short they are doomed to poor health and an abbreviated lifespan. And three in the face of clear contradictory evidence no amendment to those markers is made.
As usual our government with its minions in the health establishment continually attempt to look at us as nameless and faceless statistics. The truth is that we are individuals in every way. Although based on the generic BMI measure I am classified as obese and at risk I have no health issues. I assume that issues are coming in the future but will they be directly related to those three inches that I don’t have? Could it simply be the case that people get sick not matter what they weigh or how tall they happen to be?
If that sounds absurd that’s because it is. Furthermore it is just one of the many issues I have with generic government imposed standards of health measurement. That term generic could not be more appropriate in discussing the BMI as that is exactly what it is.
The Body Mass Index was devised by Belgian mathematician Adolphe Quetelet in 1832 as a measure of a “normal man”. The arbitrary calculation became the accepted formula for health when it was adopted into wide use in the 1970’s by famed obesity researcher Ancel Keys. If not for a growing body of contradictory objective evidence the BMI might be an acceptable calculation but that is simply not to the case.
For example consider the findings of Dr Steven Blair at the Cooper Institute for Aerobic research in Dallas Texas. Since 1970 Dr Blair has studied the effects role physical fitness in reducing mortality rates in over 30,000 men and women. Findings from those years of ongoing studies have shown that being heavy did not increase the risk of dying early and in test subjects with adequate levels of physical fitness being overweight seemed better than being underweight. In other words a high BMI is not a death sentence as we are so often told.
My real issues with generic broadly stated health measurements are one they do not account for individual markers of health. Two they illogically assume that because someone is born short they are doomed to poor health and an abbreviated lifespan. And three in the face of clear contradictory evidence no amendment to those markers is made.
As usual our government with its minions in the health establishment continually attempt to look at us as nameless and faceless statistics. The truth is that we are individuals in every way. Although based on the generic BMI measure I am classified as obese and at risk I have no health issues. I assume that issues are coming in the future but will they be directly related to those three inches that I don’t have? Could it simply be the case that people get sick not matter what they weigh or how tall they happen to be?
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Is it ok to ask these question?
Our own Centers for Disease Control states that there has been a “Dramatic increase in the prevalence of obesity over the last 20 years”. This sure sounds alarming and gives the impression that we are rapidly approaching the end of our existence.
A little more reading from the CDC website tells me that obesity is measured by the Body Mass Index or BMI and that a BMI greater than 30 indicates obesity. Furthermore the BMI is said to be a reasonable indicator of body fatness and weight categories that may lead to health problems. Such verbiage seems to leave a certain amount of gray area in the obesity discussion.
The spike in obesity numbers as measured by the BMI is as reported by the CDC an estimate based on phone interviews where random people self report their height and weight. This estimated obesity epidemic based on self reporting causes the Centers for Disease Control to dole out millions of tax payer dollars each year to fight the self reported problem.
The reasons for the prevalence of obesity across various ethic groups are per the CDC complex and not well understood. Despite being not well understood 25 of the fattest states are given funding to provide evidence based programs to combat the “growing” problem. How you can have an evidence based program for a problem that is not well understood is a mystery to be addressed in a later post. Meanwhile based on what I have learned I have a few questions of my own.
In addition to the issue of obesity the subject of hunger is purported to be one of the major issues we face as a nation. Some statistics say that 1 in 8 people have issues related to food security or not having adequate food on a daily basis. At the risk of sounding cold and uncaring what is the obese group doing that the hungry group isn’t?
If there is a growing epidemic of obesity in the United States shouldn’t we be hearing of less and less hunger? At some point shouldn’t hunger be a thing of the past if in fact more and more are becoming obese? One of the primary reasons the CDC cites as contributing to the obesity epidemic is over eating of calorically dense foods. At some point in the future it only seems logical that these two issues will intersect, obesity will triumph and hunger will disappear once and for all.
Another thing I wonder about how the Centers for Disease Control is addressing the issue of obesity is when will they conclude that what is being done is not working? Since the late 70’s the USDA, CDC and many other government agencies have promoted the idea of eating a healthy diet spending millions of dollars in the process. Given the amount of time and money used to educate the population most could have a PhD level education in the finer points of nutrition and health. In fact most I talk with do have a good working knowledge of what it means to eat a healthy diet according to government recommendations. Yet there is an epidemic of obesity among the same population that should be fairly well versed in how to eat right.
Could we conclude based on this observation that knowing and doing are two very different things? Just because someone knows how to eat right doesn’t necessarily mean they will always desire to eat that way. This of course wades into the pond of freedom of choice, the very freedom we value as American citizens. For example what to eat, how much to eat, body image et al are largely determined on an individual level. At least they are determined by norms acceptable to ones own family or cultural heritage. In other words just because someone is obese based on the CDC BMI measurement may be irrelevant to certain people.
If weight, body image and diet are individual choices almost naturally then why should the CDC spend untold millions to cure what is a non issue to many people? Bear in mind that those are our dollars first and could be spent in smarter ways all too often.
What also strikes me as obvious in the discussion of health and nutrition is that no matter what your weight or BMI is illness and disease is a part of life. Then following that for 100% of us is death. Forgive me for sounding macabre but these are the facts of life. Given the facts wouldn’t it be simpler to just be left alone and live as we choose rather than always having some ominous government statistic stalking us? Assuming that the employees and staff of the Centers for Disease Control and every other health related government agency have the best intentions and motives I still want to live my life on my terms fat or thin. Is that too much to ask?
A little more reading from the CDC website tells me that obesity is measured by the Body Mass Index or BMI and that a BMI greater than 30 indicates obesity. Furthermore the BMI is said to be a reasonable indicator of body fatness and weight categories that may lead to health problems. Such verbiage seems to leave a certain amount of gray area in the obesity discussion.
The spike in obesity numbers as measured by the BMI is as reported by the CDC an estimate based on phone interviews where random people self report their height and weight. This estimated obesity epidemic based on self reporting causes the Centers for Disease Control to dole out millions of tax payer dollars each year to fight the self reported problem.
The reasons for the prevalence of obesity across various ethic groups are per the CDC complex and not well understood. Despite being not well understood 25 of the fattest states are given funding to provide evidence based programs to combat the “growing” problem. How you can have an evidence based program for a problem that is not well understood is a mystery to be addressed in a later post. Meanwhile based on what I have learned I have a few questions of my own.
In addition to the issue of obesity the subject of hunger is purported to be one of the major issues we face as a nation. Some statistics say that 1 in 8 people have issues related to food security or not having adequate food on a daily basis. At the risk of sounding cold and uncaring what is the obese group doing that the hungry group isn’t?
If there is a growing epidemic of obesity in the United States shouldn’t we be hearing of less and less hunger? At some point shouldn’t hunger be a thing of the past if in fact more and more are becoming obese? One of the primary reasons the CDC cites as contributing to the obesity epidemic is over eating of calorically dense foods. At some point in the future it only seems logical that these two issues will intersect, obesity will triumph and hunger will disappear once and for all.
Another thing I wonder about how the Centers for Disease Control is addressing the issue of obesity is when will they conclude that what is being done is not working? Since the late 70’s the USDA, CDC and many other government agencies have promoted the idea of eating a healthy diet spending millions of dollars in the process. Given the amount of time and money used to educate the population most could have a PhD level education in the finer points of nutrition and health. In fact most I talk with do have a good working knowledge of what it means to eat a healthy diet according to government recommendations. Yet there is an epidemic of obesity among the same population that should be fairly well versed in how to eat right.
Could we conclude based on this observation that knowing and doing are two very different things? Just because someone knows how to eat right doesn’t necessarily mean they will always desire to eat that way. This of course wades into the pond of freedom of choice, the very freedom we value as American citizens. For example what to eat, how much to eat, body image et al are largely determined on an individual level. At least they are determined by norms acceptable to ones own family or cultural heritage. In other words just because someone is obese based on the CDC BMI measurement may be irrelevant to certain people.
If weight, body image and diet are individual choices almost naturally then why should the CDC spend untold millions to cure what is a non issue to many people? Bear in mind that those are our dollars first and could be spent in smarter ways all too often.
What also strikes me as obvious in the discussion of health and nutrition is that no matter what your weight or BMI is illness and disease is a part of life. Then following that for 100% of us is death. Forgive me for sounding macabre but these are the facts of life. Given the facts wouldn’t it be simpler to just be left alone and live as we choose rather than always having some ominous government statistic stalking us? Assuming that the employees and staff of the Centers for Disease Control and every other health related government agency have the best intentions and motives I still want to live my life on my terms fat or thin. Is that too much to ask?
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Science has been wrong before....
On September 6 1492 the Nina, Pinta and the Santa Maria along with their crew and captain Christopher Columbus set sail from the Canary Islands. Some scientists of that day warned that Chris would sail off the edge of the flat earth, they were wrong.
In the mid 1800’s Louis Pasteur posited his germ theory to the leading scientists and doctors of the day. Pasteur insisted that tiny invisible microorganisms were causing the spread of death and disease. His solution to this problem, wash your hands, he was right and the great scientific minds of the day were wrong.
Today scientists tell us all sorts of things. For example it has been thought for many years that high cholesterol was a major contributor to heart disease. In fact a recent review of patient records admitted to the hospital for a first time cardiac event revealed that nearly half had LDL or bad cholesterol levels well within the normal range. In other words these people had no indication that a heart attack was coming solely based on cholesterol level.
Ignoring these findings which are not the first to indicate that cholesterol is not a major risk factor for heart disease the scientific community continues to push medication to solve the problem. Statin drugs are used by over 13 million Americans as a means of lowering cholesterol and reducing the risk of heart attack. However of all those who take this type of medication only a fraction benefit in fact one study showed that a sugar pill was just about as effective as the cholesterol lowering medication in preventing heart disease.
Another popular scientific theory is that losing weight can lead to better health and a reduction in risk factors for heart and other diseases. As one who works in this area of nutrition science I heartily agree that this is in fact true weight loss can lead to better health. However 95% of those who lose weight gain it back within five years with a little extra on the side. Moreover this yo-yo type dieting and weight loss then gain can have a negative impact on the body especially the heart. So what then?
Accepted science does not always have the correct answer and this has been true throughout history. Perhaps time will reveal that the whole issue of high cholesterol as related to health has more in common with the flat earth theory that actual truth. Perhaps it is time for us the patients and targets for these scientific interventions to apply a little critical thinking when it comes to our own health. We may find a New World of health far beyond what the mad scientists of the day tell us is possible.
In the mid 1800’s Louis Pasteur posited his germ theory to the leading scientists and doctors of the day. Pasteur insisted that tiny invisible microorganisms were causing the spread of death and disease. His solution to this problem, wash your hands, he was right and the great scientific minds of the day were wrong.
Today scientists tell us all sorts of things. For example it has been thought for many years that high cholesterol was a major contributor to heart disease. In fact a recent review of patient records admitted to the hospital for a first time cardiac event revealed that nearly half had LDL or bad cholesterol levels well within the normal range. In other words these people had no indication that a heart attack was coming solely based on cholesterol level.
Ignoring these findings which are not the first to indicate that cholesterol is not a major risk factor for heart disease the scientific community continues to push medication to solve the problem. Statin drugs are used by over 13 million Americans as a means of lowering cholesterol and reducing the risk of heart attack. However of all those who take this type of medication only a fraction benefit in fact one study showed that a sugar pill was just about as effective as the cholesterol lowering medication in preventing heart disease.
Another popular scientific theory is that losing weight can lead to better health and a reduction in risk factors for heart and other diseases. As one who works in this area of nutrition science I heartily agree that this is in fact true weight loss can lead to better health. However 95% of those who lose weight gain it back within five years with a little extra on the side. Moreover this yo-yo type dieting and weight loss then gain can have a negative impact on the body especially the heart. So what then?
Accepted science does not always have the correct answer and this has been true throughout history. Perhaps time will reveal that the whole issue of high cholesterol as related to health has more in common with the flat earth theory that actual truth. Perhaps it is time for us the patients and targets for these scientific interventions to apply a little critical thinking when it comes to our own health. We may find a New World of health far beyond what the mad scientists of the day tell us is possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)