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.