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?
Saturday, April 23, 2011
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.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
What is The Conservative Nutritionist?
Many facets of the American way of life have been decimated by left leaning political agendas. The rugged individual, can do, get it done spirit that once was the hallmark of all of us can now only be ascribed to some of us. Sadly the same policies that were intended to help have turned out to harm. Moreover they have become a threat to the ideals that made us great.
From the New Deal to the Great Society the benevolent hand of government has done more to pull us down as a nation than to lift us up. Social Security and welfare programs have robbed otherwise able American citizens of their can do spirit. Having no motivation to excel and succeed too many have elected to be among the homogenous average looking for the next social program savior.
Those examining the evidence of failed social programs are keenly aware of the aforementioned facts. Yet our government still infected with the same leftist mentalities has not learned from these failures. Rather than learn from them they forge ahead spreading their social program disease like warm butter over a hot roll. The latest front on the freedom assault is food and nutrition.
In a country established on the idea of individual liberty, a liberty purchased with the blood of fellow citizens, the notion that some leftist bureaucrat can tell us how much salt, fat or sugar to eat defies explanation. Furthermore the notion that we should fall in line with arbitrarily established nutrition guidelines set by the government is equally as maddening. Enter The Conservative Nutritionist a “right” perspective on food and nutrition.
The most important aspect of The Conservative Nutritionist is to provide a clearly stated and correct point of view on nutrition and food that will counter the leftist nutrition establishment. Because of the slow creep of nutrition liberalism that continues to be pushed on our fellow citizens a right voice was need and thus “The Conservative Nutritionist” was born.
Now voice will be given to the fact that government established guidelines are often just wrong. For example the Body Mass Index (BMI) used to gauge risks associated with health based on a ratio of height and weight are routinely incorrect. A BMI of 20-24 is said to indicate optimal health yet studies show that those with a BMI of up to 35 are at no greater risk of early mortality. Since that is true then why does the government promote weight loss for good health? It is apparent that health is achievable at many sizes.
The Conservative Nutritionist will also promote the cause of true science. No longer should we look to so called experts claiming superior knowledge based only on their PhD. Science has unfortunately become the strivings of the academic world to make credible their own bias rather than to seek and verify the truth. How often have conservative minded people been panned by the elitists for ignoring the obvious as presented by science? The truth is that the left have been the ones guilty of this ignoring even their own findings that disprove what they believe. This is observed nowhere more vividly than in the arena of food and nutrition.
The Conservative Nutritionist will assist you in threading together the right principles of nutrition and health with the precious liberties afforded us in the still great country. For far too long we have been led to believe that what we ate and how we lived were wrong and leading to our demise. Therefore what you read may be difficult to swallow at first. Certainly though we must exercise the time honored tenet of moderation when it comes to what and how we eat. By the same token we should not allow any left leaning control freak government agent to make decisions for us.
If our Constitution guarantees that we can speak freely, worship, carry a gun and vote then does it not assure the right to eat how we choose? The same can do attitude that forged this land and set it on the path to being the greatest single nation ever established in history can be won back with the same spirit. The Conservative Nutritionist will play a part in that effort.
From the New Deal to the Great Society the benevolent hand of government has done more to pull us down as a nation than to lift us up. Social Security and welfare programs have robbed otherwise able American citizens of their can do spirit. Having no motivation to excel and succeed too many have elected to be among the homogenous average looking for the next social program savior.
Those examining the evidence of failed social programs are keenly aware of the aforementioned facts. Yet our government still infected with the same leftist mentalities has not learned from these failures. Rather than learn from them they forge ahead spreading their social program disease like warm butter over a hot roll. The latest front on the freedom assault is food and nutrition.
In a country established on the idea of individual liberty, a liberty purchased with the blood of fellow citizens, the notion that some leftist bureaucrat can tell us how much salt, fat or sugar to eat defies explanation. Furthermore the notion that we should fall in line with arbitrarily established nutrition guidelines set by the government is equally as maddening. Enter The Conservative Nutritionist a “right” perspective on food and nutrition.
The most important aspect of The Conservative Nutritionist is to provide a clearly stated and correct point of view on nutrition and food that will counter the leftist nutrition establishment. Because of the slow creep of nutrition liberalism that continues to be pushed on our fellow citizens a right voice was need and thus “The Conservative Nutritionist” was born.
Now voice will be given to the fact that government established guidelines are often just wrong. For example the Body Mass Index (BMI) used to gauge risks associated with health based on a ratio of height and weight are routinely incorrect. A BMI of 20-24 is said to indicate optimal health yet studies show that those with a BMI of up to 35 are at no greater risk of early mortality. Since that is true then why does the government promote weight loss for good health? It is apparent that health is achievable at many sizes.
The Conservative Nutritionist will also promote the cause of true science. No longer should we look to so called experts claiming superior knowledge based only on their PhD. Science has unfortunately become the strivings of the academic world to make credible their own bias rather than to seek and verify the truth. How often have conservative minded people been panned by the elitists for ignoring the obvious as presented by science? The truth is that the left have been the ones guilty of this ignoring even their own findings that disprove what they believe. This is observed nowhere more vividly than in the arena of food and nutrition.
The Conservative Nutritionist will assist you in threading together the right principles of nutrition and health with the precious liberties afforded us in the still great country. For far too long we have been led to believe that what we ate and how we lived were wrong and leading to our demise. Therefore what you read may be difficult to swallow at first. Certainly though we must exercise the time honored tenet of moderation when it comes to what and how we eat. By the same token we should not allow any left leaning control freak government agent to make decisions for us.
If our Constitution guarantees that we can speak freely, worship, carry a gun and vote then does it not assure the right to eat how we choose? The same can do attitude that forged this land and set it on the path to being the greatest single nation ever established in history can be won back with the same spirit. The Conservative Nutritionist will play a part in that effort.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
I am what I am
“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 and they give that mindless line “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!
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 and they give that mindless line “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!
Saturday, March 19, 2011
If you can't beat'em demonize'em
If you can’t beat em’ demonize em
Perhaps it is only urban legend but I have heard that Coca Cola executives believe if they were to suspend advertising for one week the company would go out of business. True or not this statement alludes to the power of advertising. To get a product in front of a mass audience and entice them to follow through to make a purchase is as much art as science and to be sure it is big business.
Coca Cola has had some great jingles through the years. Just a few bars of “I’d like to teach the world to sing” from the early seventies and instantly Coke comes to mind. That ad and countless others like it speak to the power of advertising. It is no wonder that companies pour billions into marketing their products. To most the art and science of advertising is a natural exercise in capitalism. Since companies exist to make profits this makes sense. However many in public health consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction wielded by the enemy.
No doubt most in public health from dietitians to doctors have the best of intentions. At heart their advice is aimed at helping others be as healthy as possible. While I have no issue with their goals their methods to reach those goals often leave me scratching my head. When those methods are scrutinized and described the left leaning stripes of the public health establishment are revealed. According to what I read from a considerable number in public health it isn’t enough to peacefully coexist with big food companies in the marketplace of ideas. Rather than compete the public health establishment often seems to want to demonize and destroy big unhealthy food producing companies.
One example often cited by those in public health is breakfast cereal. They insist that cereal makers such as Kellogg and Post because of their deep advertising pockets have an unfair advantage. This advantage they claim is used to push unhealthy sugar laden cereals on children packaged in colorful boxes with cartoon characters. Furthermore they rant grocery stores are complicit in the conspiracy because the colorful unhealthy cereal boxes are placed on lower shelves in plain view of the unsuspecting, uneducated children. Their conclusion is children void of the high and lofty knowledge of what they really need to be healthy nag their parent into buying the unhealthy breakfast cereal. So the mean old food companies with those deep pockets lure children in and get them hooked on an unhealthy diet from a young age and that per the public health elitists is the wrong.
So rather than allow free people to make choices public healthists look to the government to level the playing field through higher taxes on unhealthy foods, laws restricting certain foods served in schools and out right banning some foods they just don’t like. In other words since public funds to promote healthy diets is dwarfed by the likes of well financed Kellogg and Coca Cola they resort to using the talons of government regulation to make things fair. In a country founded on the principle of freedom this is what is unfair.
The same mindset and tactic is used against Coca Cola, Pepsi and any other soft drink maker or food producer the public health types deem unhealthy. With their tax, ban and regulate mentality they seek to bring down these giants of industry on the basis that they because of their success wage an unfair war. In truth those who see themselves doing the pure work of protecting public health couldn’t compete on the same playing field as these companies. The reason is simply that they don’t know the rules.
We the public when faced with making a food or beverage choice make that choice based on how food tastes. Though there are exceptions taste is the main reason we choose one food over another. Issues of healthy choice have an influence but the way a food tastes is the determining factor. Public health types want to pretend that all food choices should be made on the basis of health. If a food is too high in fat or sugar or cholesterol we should nobly omit it as a choice. It is not that simple.
What we do as a free people is influenced by attitudes and values. If one appreciates the taste of a plate of French fries and eating them will not contradict their values then that person will have no qualms about enjoying every last fry. What the public health establishment seeks to do is impose their attitudes and values on the rest of us from their high moral health perch. Yet when we talk about other moral issues we are told “you can’t legislate morality”. I guess what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Moreover health is a deeply personal decision. Some value it highly while others are content to let the potato chips fall where they may. Given as a truth some drink sugar laden sodas while others do not. Some parents give their children sugary breakfast cereal and others do not. Who can dictate what is right or wrong on such personal matters.
At the end of the day big food and drink companies can spend all they want on advertising but the decision to purchase their product is ours to make. The encouragement to eat healthy from those in public health is also a message we can take to heart or ignore. What we eat and how healthy we are and will be is up to you and me.
Perhaps it is only urban legend but I have heard that Coca Cola executives believe if they were to suspend advertising for one week the company would go out of business. True or not this statement alludes to the power of advertising. To get a product in front of a mass audience and entice them to follow through to make a purchase is as much art as science and to be sure it is big business.
Coca Cola has had some great jingles through the years. Just a few bars of “I’d like to teach the world to sing” from the early seventies and instantly Coke comes to mind. That ad and countless others like it speak to the power of advertising. It is no wonder that companies pour billions into marketing their products. To most the art and science of advertising is a natural exercise in capitalism. Since companies exist to make profits this makes sense. However many in public health consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction wielded by the enemy.
No doubt most in public health from dietitians to doctors have the best of intentions. At heart their advice is aimed at helping others be as healthy as possible. While I have no issue with their goals their methods to reach those goals often leave me scratching my head. When those methods are scrutinized and described the left leaning stripes of the public health establishment are revealed. According to what I read from a considerable number in public health it isn’t enough to peacefully coexist with big food companies in the marketplace of ideas. Rather than compete the public health establishment often seems to want to demonize and destroy big unhealthy food producing companies.
One example often cited by those in public health is breakfast cereal. They insist that cereal makers such as Kellogg and Post because of their deep advertising pockets have an unfair advantage. This advantage they claim is used to push unhealthy sugar laden cereals on children packaged in colorful boxes with cartoon characters. Furthermore they rant grocery stores are complicit in the conspiracy because the colorful unhealthy cereal boxes are placed on lower shelves in plain view of the unsuspecting, uneducated children. Their conclusion is children void of the high and lofty knowledge of what they really need to be healthy nag their parent into buying the unhealthy breakfast cereal. So the mean old food companies with those deep pockets lure children in and get them hooked on an unhealthy diet from a young age and that per the public health elitists is the wrong.
So rather than allow free people to make choices public healthists look to the government to level the playing field through higher taxes on unhealthy foods, laws restricting certain foods served in schools and out right banning some foods they just don’t like. In other words since public funds to promote healthy diets is dwarfed by the likes of well financed Kellogg and Coca Cola they resort to using the talons of government regulation to make things fair. In a country founded on the principle of freedom this is what is unfair.
The same mindset and tactic is used against Coca Cola, Pepsi and any other soft drink maker or food producer the public health types deem unhealthy. With their tax, ban and regulate mentality they seek to bring down these giants of industry on the basis that they because of their success wage an unfair war. In truth those who see themselves doing the pure work of protecting public health couldn’t compete on the same playing field as these companies. The reason is simply that they don’t know the rules.
We the public when faced with making a food or beverage choice make that choice based on how food tastes. Though there are exceptions taste is the main reason we choose one food over another. Issues of healthy choice have an influence but the way a food tastes is the determining factor. Public health types want to pretend that all food choices should be made on the basis of health. If a food is too high in fat or sugar or cholesterol we should nobly omit it as a choice. It is not that simple.
What we do as a free people is influenced by attitudes and values. If one appreciates the taste of a plate of French fries and eating them will not contradict their values then that person will have no qualms about enjoying every last fry. What the public health establishment seeks to do is impose their attitudes and values on the rest of us from their high moral health perch. Yet when we talk about other moral issues we are told “you can’t legislate morality”. I guess what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Moreover health is a deeply personal decision. Some value it highly while others are content to let the potato chips fall where they may. Given as a truth some drink sugar laden sodas while others do not. Some parents give their children sugary breakfast cereal and others do not. Who can dictate what is right or wrong on such personal matters.
At the end of the day big food and drink companies can spend all they want on advertising but the decision to purchase their product is ours to make. The encouragement to eat healthy from those in public health is also a message we can take to heart or ignore. What we eat and how healthy we are and will be is up to you and me.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Confidence Lost
Two years ago I purchased a laptop from a leading computer retailer in the country. I had purchased a computer from this company before that functioned very well so I had a high level of confidence with this one. Since the day I first took that laptop out of the box I have had nothing but problems with it. In fact there I have had to call the company five times in the last two years to have the machine repaired.
Having paid the full asking price for the lemon laptop up front and calling customer service too many times for service I decided to take a different tact. This time instead of requesting another service call I politely and sternly asked that they provide me with a new laptop and take the piece of junk off of my hands. Thankfully this computer retailer decided to see things my way and provide me with a new laptop. Hopefully this one will work properly.
The last thing I said to the customer service representative of this major computer retailer is how much I had lost confidence in their products and their willingness to stand behind them until the problem was resolved. Similarly I have lost confidence in much of what is called science in the arena of health and nutrition as well. Like the aforementioned computer company I hear fat promises but see thin results.
Almost daily scientific studies are published touting the latest findings that will guide us toward better health. Yet my confidence wanes because many of these studies are seemingly contradictory. One set of findings promotes the benefits of eating a low fat diet while the next study off the press finds that a high protein diet is more beneficial. One group of scientists encourages less sugar intake while others find no association between sugar intakes an ill health. Stop the insanity already.
Trying to digest all of these conflicting studies can cause a severe case of mental indigestion. Which ones are right and how would we really even know. Can it not be that someone rises above all of this biological back and forth to provide us a clear set of useful guidelines? Or should it be the case that we simply ignore what the scientific community “finds” and go our own way?
A prime example or the scientific malpractice is the theory that eating fat especially saturated fat causes heart disease. First postulated by the famed Ancel Keys as a result of his seven countries study in the middle part of the last century the diet heart idea has been at the foundation of nutritional science ever since. The problem is that the link between fat and heart disease has never been clearly established and his findings never replicated.
Moreover what has been revealed about the Keys findings is that the seven countries that appeared in the final report of his research were those that supported his hypothesis and the rest of the data was discarded. Therefore is what has stood for solid science over the last seventy years is built on one mans bias then is it any wonder why I and others have lost confidence in science?
Another scientific stronghold over the last century is that being thin is on par with having a high level of health. To think otherwise in some circles can really get you in trouble. Yet time and time again this theory had been shown to be false. In fact those who are heavier tend to have a better level of health and lower mortality rates than those who are thin. This is another reason to question our confidence level in science.
So what should we do? Can I eat whatever I want? Yes. Should I get plenty of physical activity? Sure. Is it a good idea not to over do it at the dinner table, of course? Trying to jump all of the hurdles of science is nearly impossible because once you nail one idea down and put it into practice something else comes along to take its place. Here are two rules I have come to depend on when it comes to nutrition, health and science.
First question everything. We used to be quite adept at scrutinizing authority so that we were certain that the information we were getting was right and then we became grown ups. I am convinced that we should never lose that willingness to ask why and how. Otherwise we are destined to buy in to things and believe things that are just not the truth. The second rule is equally important trust yourself.
We must be willing to trust our own good common sense when it comes to matters of our own health. As the saying goes if something sounds too good to be true it probably is. If a news headline promises the world just keep in mind it probably cannot make the delivery. You know yourself better than anyone on earth so listen. If you are full then stop eating. If you are eating too many hamburgers then choose something else once in a while. If you are a couch potato then mix it up a little.
The truth is science can only tell us so much. Furthermore scientists carry bias that influence how and what they find. To rely on the white coats for all of the answers is not in keeping with the old can do American spirit. Finally don’t let them make you worry because the wisest of all once said who can add to his stature by doing that. And that should give you lots of confidence.
Having paid the full asking price for the lemon laptop up front and calling customer service too many times for service I decided to take a different tact. This time instead of requesting another service call I politely and sternly asked that they provide me with a new laptop and take the piece of junk off of my hands. Thankfully this computer retailer decided to see things my way and provide me with a new laptop. Hopefully this one will work properly.
The last thing I said to the customer service representative of this major computer retailer is how much I had lost confidence in their products and their willingness to stand behind them until the problem was resolved. Similarly I have lost confidence in much of what is called science in the arena of health and nutrition as well. Like the aforementioned computer company I hear fat promises but see thin results.
Almost daily scientific studies are published touting the latest findings that will guide us toward better health. Yet my confidence wanes because many of these studies are seemingly contradictory. One set of findings promotes the benefits of eating a low fat diet while the next study off the press finds that a high protein diet is more beneficial. One group of scientists encourages less sugar intake while others find no association between sugar intakes an ill health. Stop the insanity already.
Trying to digest all of these conflicting studies can cause a severe case of mental indigestion. Which ones are right and how would we really even know. Can it not be that someone rises above all of this biological back and forth to provide us a clear set of useful guidelines? Or should it be the case that we simply ignore what the scientific community “finds” and go our own way?
A prime example or the scientific malpractice is the theory that eating fat especially saturated fat causes heart disease. First postulated by the famed Ancel Keys as a result of his seven countries study in the middle part of the last century the diet heart idea has been at the foundation of nutritional science ever since. The problem is that the link between fat and heart disease has never been clearly established and his findings never replicated.
Moreover what has been revealed about the Keys findings is that the seven countries that appeared in the final report of his research were those that supported his hypothesis and the rest of the data was discarded. Therefore is what has stood for solid science over the last seventy years is built on one mans bias then is it any wonder why I and others have lost confidence in science?
Another scientific stronghold over the last century is that being thin is on par with having a high level of health. To think otherwise in some circles can really get you in trouble. Yet time and time again this theory had been shown to be false. In fact those who are heavier tend to have a better level of health and lower mortality rates than those who are thin. This is another reason to question our confidence level in science.
So what should we do? Can I eat whatever I want? Yes. Should I get plenty of physical activity? Sure. Is it a good idea not to over do it at the dinner table, of course? Trying to jump all of the hurdles of science is nearly impossible because once you nail one idea down and put it into practice something else comes along to take its place. Here are two rules I have come to depend on when it comes to nutrition, health and science.
First question everything. We used to be quite adept at scrutinizing authority so that we were certain that the information we were getting was right and then we became grown ups. I am convinced that we should never lose that willingness to ask why and how. Otherwise we are destined to buy in to things and believe things that are just not the truth. The second rule is equally important trust yourself.
We must be willing to trust our own good common sense when it comes to matters of our own health. As the saying goes if something sounds too good to be true it probably is. If a news headline promises the world just keep in mind it probably cannot make the delivery. You know yourself better than anyone on earth so listen. If you are full then stop eating. If you are eating too many hamburgers then choose something else once in a while. If you are a couch potato then mix it up a little.
The truth is science can only tell us so much. Furthermore scientists carry bias that influence how and what they find. To rely on the white coats for all of the answers is not in keeping with the old can do American spirit. Finally don’t let them make you worry because the wisest of all once said who can add to his stature by doing that. And that should give you lots of confidence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)