Is Juice Good For You?

There's an interesting discussion about fruit juice over at Wired Berries that I've been participating in. Stop in and check it out.

I stand by my contention that fruit juice should not constitute a regular part of a healthful diet. The sugar content is too high and, being a liquid, it is quickly turned into glucose for delivery in the blood. As we all know, high glucose equals high insulin and since insulin is a storage hormone, the body won't release fat while insulin is jacked up. You'll notice in the comments that I also point out that orange and apple juice are, ounce for ounce, higher in calories than a soda. Fruit is very healthful to include in a diet, but I'm not sure fruit juice would qualify. The sugar content is sky high, regardless of how natural it is, and likely causes a commensurate rise in insulin. Natural doesn't always equal healthful. Sure, you get some vitamins and minerals in juice, but those can also be found in the whole fruit. Of course, if you are going to literally DIE of thirst and you have a choice of only juice or Coke, go with the juice.

Anyone have any thoughts on the issue? Am I on base or off in left field?

Cochrane Report on Low-Carb Diets

Check out Dr. Eades post from yesterday on the Cochrane Report on low-carb diets.

A few months ago the Cochrane Collaboration released a study showing that subjects on low-carb diets lost more weight and improved their cardiovascular risk profiles to a greater extent than did subjects following any other kind of diet. Did you read about this study in your local paper or see it on the evening news? I didn’t think so. I didn’t either.

Hop on over to his site to read the rest.

Our Growing Waistlines

Photo courtesy of MSN

This study hit the news last week: America Grows Fatter.

Mississippi has exceeded the 30% obesity rate for adults, the first time any state's population has done so, reported a health advocacy group. But 19 other states with large obese populations are not far behind.

30%! That's nearly 1 in 3 people that is obese in that state. Even Colorado, the "leanest" state is rocking a 17.6% obesity rate: more than 1 in 6 in Colorado are obese. And the other 48 states (plus DC) fall somewhere in the middle. My homestate of Kentucky is 7th with 27.5%, according to this report. And 1 in 5 of our kids are overweight in Kentucky, which in politically-correct jargon means obese, but we're afraid to call little Tommy obese.

Now, Dr. Eades has taken them to task over the methods of data collection and reporting. I don't disagree with him. The data in studies is often manipulated and massaged to produce what the authors want. And then the media reporting of it is generally geared in such a way as to create a great story, whether the report matches what the study says or not. The underlying reality is that at best, the stats are under-reported and there are even more obese folks walking around than the report says. In fact, I don't think we really even need these studies to tell us that America is getting fatter and fatter. A quick glance around you will tell you all you need to know.

Whether it's 30% or 40% is really irrelevant. It's too high of a percent. Our lack of exercise and poor eating habits are going to lead many in our nation to an early grave. But I can't get behind any kind of government intervention. As I mentioned in the comments of Dr. Eades' blog, the government foray into nutrition advice is much of what has us in this predicament in the first place, not to mention the Farm Bill and subsidies that support the prodigious amounts of cheap sugar and corn (which is turned into sugar) that keep us growing and growing. The Food Guide Pyramid is an excellent example of what's wrong with the government setting policy on our nutrition. Any new attempts will a) not stray far from the current pyramid because the government is far more concerned with saving face than with giving us proper recommendations and b) will go to the highest bidder. We don't need the government to save us. Personal responsibility is what we need. If people would focus on proper nutrition and exercise, their weight issues would miraculously disappear.

Food - America's Foe

A few days ago, Robb Wolf wrote a post about breakfast. In this post, he had one line that stood out for several reasons, not the least of which is that it's in bold and all caps. This line was: "FOOD IS NOT YOUR FRIEND, YOUR SOUL MATE OR THE ANSWER TO YOUR PROBLEMS." I've been thinking about this line a bit since reading his post. Now I know where he was going with this line of thought. Many people turn to food when they are sad or stressed or just plain having a bad day. He's saying to stop expecting food to make your life better, especially since the foods we turn to during these times rarely resemble a spinach and salmon salad. He's saying that Haagen-Dazs isn't going to fix whatever is driving you to need Haagen-Dazs. And I completely agree with him when we're talking about unhealthful foods.

Now I want to look at this quote from the opposite line of thinking. Maybe the problem in America is that we don't treat food as our friend nor as the answer to our (health) problems. In America, we have a very clear love-hate relationship with food. We love eating. We love eating a lot, and we love eating junk food, but we treat food as an adversary, a guilty pleasure, always something to be denied, denied, denied. We battle food for supremacy over our waistlines. And when we can no longer deny ourselves, we turn to foods that make us feel worse about ourselves. We think "My life sucks. I'll just have this bag of cookies and that'll make me feel better," and then an hour later, we're coming down from the sugar rush, cursing ourselves for being weak-willed and indulging, and life still sucks. Maybe it's America's Puritanical roots that force us to think any food that is remotely satisfying is "bad" and only the most bland, tasteless cardboard is "good". We have to make sure nary a gram of fat crosses our lips lest our food actually taste good and satisfy our desires.

What I propose is to start looking at food as your friend. You wouldn't keep friends that make you feel bad about yourself and constantly run you down, so why allow food to do so? Friends should make you feel good. They tell you that you're good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like you. If your friends said "Hey Stupid! There's no way you'll get that promotion. You're just not good enough," they wouldn't be your friends for long. We (hopefully) surround ourselves with people that build us up, not with those that tear us down. We should do the same with our nutrition plans. Why do all of our celebrations revolve around the absolute worst food available? Thanksgiving, Fourth of July, Christmas, the list goes on. All of our holidays are bread and sugar fests and then the sleepy feeling after eating is blamed on the turkey, the so-called "Tryptophan Coma", as if the mashed potatoes, rolls, candied yams, and pumpkin pie had nothing to do with it. We should indulge in and celebrate foods that give us energy, not those that make us want to fall asleep.

Why can't food be the answer to our problems? Food is a powerful drug. It is the original drug and one that many people (and all other animals) use to great effect for staying healthy. By taking a proactive approach and indulging in the proper foods, foods that are friendly to your body, we can make foods the answer to many of our problems. A great majority of the health ills of our modern culture are driven from poor diet. In those cases, food is most certainly the answer to our problems. Instead of seeking foods that torment our bodies by causing all kinds of hormonal wackiness (which are often the very effects that make us feel good while eating them), we should proactively seek foods that set us up for a lifetime of health, vigor, and vitality. Sure, no amount of food is going to get you out of debt or get your kids off of drugs, but it may help you feel better so you can deal with the other issues you're facing. Perhaps if we alleviated our health problems with the proper foods, we would find that our other problems are easier to deal with, cookie cake not required. At the very least, clearing away health problems will give you that many fewer things to deal with.

Unfortunately, finding foods that are good to your body necessarily means declaring some foods to be "bad". Obviously there are foods that should not be eaten at all, namely trans fats, and those that should be eaten in extreme moderation, i.e., sugars and processed junk. Since we're thinking about food as our friend, let's look at it this way. Friends should support our life goals and help us further our dreams and ambitions. If we want to have a good relationship with food, we need to pick foods that keep us on track with our goals as well. Few of us have the goal of being overweight, diabetic, and generally diseased, yet many of us continually choose a diet that promotes those very things. I posted David Seaman's Dietary Pursuit of Disease, which touched on this very subject. The foods you pick clearly illustrate your life goals just as the friends you surround yourself with illustrate your life goals.

As Michael Pollan tells us in The Omnivore's Dilemma, a problem that we have in the States is that we don't really have a national cuisine. France, Greece, Italy, Russia, Japan, and India, to name a few, all have a cuisine that guides their food choices. Sure there are regional variations in spices and flavors, but all in all, you know an Italian or Greek dish when you see it, smell it, and taste it. As a young nation of immigrants from numerous nations, we've never had a single food identity. Are pizza, chicken wings, and flavorless light beer the United States' contribution to the world table? Perhaps our lack of a food identity is why we succumb to every diet fad that comes along. Is it low-fat or all-grapefruit this week? Or was it the cabbage soup diet?

So we're left to the whim of the food processing companies that tell us what we should be eating. The newest celebrity (always a beautiful person) calls out from that colorful cereal box, "Everybody who's anybody is eating these new Sugar-coated Chocolate Bombs for breakfast. You don't want your child to be a loser that doesn't have Sugar-coated Chocolate Bombs for breakfast do you? By some breach of the laws of biochemistry, this cereal will actually make your child think clearly." Did you know that there are some 30-50,000 products in a typical supermarket? That number grows yearly as food manufacturers find new ways to combine corn and soy and give us a new taste sensation that is all the rage. And it'll probably cure your Athlete's Foot too. In 2004, the food industry spent $11.65 billion on marketing while the "5-a-day" campaign for fruits and vegetables spent a paltry $9.55 million. That's roughly 1200-fold higher. Is there any wonder that we don't have any clue what to eat? We're constantly bombarded with ads for foods that are our adversaries. We increasingly down food products rather than real foods and then wonder why all of the wonder promised on the package didn't come true for us. "I'm just predestined to be overweight. It's in my genes." And with that, we turn over our responsibility for our health and the stage is set for an adversarial relationship with food.

So how do we decide what to eat? Simple. Walk into the grocery store and pick up an item you normally purchase and ask yourself, "Does this item have an ingredient list with more than one ingredient?" If the answer is yes, put it back and keep going until you find an item that doesn't have an ingredient list or a nutrition panel. You'll typically find these items in bulk foods, produce, and the butcher section. Don't forget the olive oil, bags of nuts, and eggs (these are the "one-ingredient" labels that I was referring to). Health will never come in a package that has to tell you that it's healthful. Isn't it ironic that the most health-giving of foods - the lettuce and broccoli, chicken and beef, onions and garlic, apples and oranges - aren't the ones proclaiming to cure our every ill, yet they are the only ones that will do so? Would you believe a claim on the package for an omega-3 infused, fiber- and vitamin-enriched Twinkie that tells you it's "heart-healthy" or "a good source of fiber"? Stick to the basics: meat, vegetables, nuts, fruit, and, if you exercise intensely, some starchy tubers and squashes. Those foods are your friends. Keep them close and they'll build you up and help you take care of your problems.

How to Get Fat Without Really Trying

This video was posted on Ross Enamait's site yesterday: How to Get Fat Without Really Trying

It's 10 minutes long and a good watch. There are quite a few salient points in the video, such as:
- The typical grocery store carries 30-50,000 products, most of which are processed.
- Americans consume 3 times as much corn in the form of sweeteners (high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, etc) as in other forms, including as a side dish.
- It takes 1 hour of biking to burn off the calories in a soda. They showed a 20oz bottle, but didn't elaborate on the quantity of soda.
- A McDonald's meal (appeared to be a cheeseburger and fries) takes about 6 hours of walking to burn off.
- 25% of elementary school kids have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, etc.

All of those tens of thousands of processed products are specially packaged to entice you to make that impulse purchase. Colorful cartoon characters and celebrities call out to us, tempting us to just try a bite of the garbage they're hawking. To counter the excellent marketing of the food companies, stick to the outer perimeter of the store where you can get your meat, eggs, dairy (if you desire), and produce. If you must walk down a center aisle, pick the one with the olive oil and/or nuts or an aisle that has products you are completely disinterested in. It's hard to be tempted if you don't see the products. Another solution is to shop at farmer's markets as much as possible, venturing into the supermarket as little as possible for essentials like spices, olive oil, and nuts. And get one of the small hand baskets as we tend to want to fill whatever apparatus is at hand...smaller apparatus = less room to fill with crud.

Three times as much corn in the form of sweeteners! That is appalling. Art De Vany had a good post on the I'll run it off mentality.

All of those elementary school kids have the makings of Syndrome X. Unless their dietary intakes are changed, most of them will end up obese, diabetic, and disease-ravaged. All of that sugar depletes the immune system and destroys arterial walls.

Peter Jennings was talking to a marketer about the products that the marketer helps shill. They didn't give a name, so John Doe is our marketer so I can quit writing "the marketer". He asked John if he cares if a product is healthy when he designs the advertising. JD's reply was "I care that the product has a positive role in a child's life." What positive role could Twinkies, Pop-Tarts, Oreos, and Cocoa Puffs possibly have in a child's life? Does he think that insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome are a positive thing? When Jennings pushed him to compare his products to asparagus and broccoli, he actually used the words "so-called less healthy products" in reference to the sugary junk. "So-called"! That's marketing speak for "you're absolutely correct that I'm making a living off of pushing crap to kids, but I won't admit it in as many words." One good way to reduce your and your children's exposure to advertising is to....turn off the television.

Of course, I can't get behind the "blame the food industry" tack. It's all about personal responsibility. Granted marketers have mastered the art of using human nature against us to get us to buy things we know are bad for us. But ultimately, companies are only providing that which people are buying. If people would quit buying the junk, the companies would quit making it. It's not Kraft's fault if you're overweight. Kraft, et al, may be enablers, but in the end you and only you put the food in your mouth.

Some Fun Links

Regina Wilshire did it again with this review of the findings of the 15th Annual European Conference on Obesity. Check out those very interesting stats on fat and saturated fat. I can't wait to see the low-fatters scramble to cover their rears again. I bet they'll claim that all of those Eastern Europeans a) drink red wine/beer/creek water/fruit juice/some other common trait that amounts to absolutely jack, b) are genetically predisposed to be obese, or c) some new version of nonsensical ad-hoc hypothesis.

Ross Enamait briefly talks about food additives.

Here is a cool article about The History of Mealtimes that I found a few weeks back. I don't have any profound wisdom to draw from the article. I just found it very interesting.

Even Da Vinci knew how to live well: Da Vinci's Guide to Healthy Living. Pretty well spot on. And he doesn't advise avoiding fat or carbs; just advises using real ingredients.

Kids Like Homegrown Vegetables

Here's a good follow-up to my recent post on the growing obesity problem amongst kids: Children Eat More Fruits and Vegetables If They Are Homegrown.

The study found that preschool kids served homegrown fruits and vegetables were nearly twice as likely to eat five servings per day than those who rarely or never had homegrown produce. These kids prefer the taste of fruits and vegetables to other foods and eat a greater variety of fruits and vegetables. This is obviously a great finding. Kids that learn healthful eating habits as young'ins will tend to grow up to be healthier adults. Overweight kids tend to grow up to be overweight adults, so reducing the intake of McDonald's and Burger King in favor of meat and produce is a positive step.

I'm not sure planting a garden is necessary. I bet that much of the reason for the difference is that those that grow their own vegetables just have more vegetables readily available than those that don't. I surmise that a study comparing two groups of families, one group eating 5+ servings/day of homegrown vegetables and one group eating 5+ servings/day of store-bought vegetables, would yield very little difference in the attitudes of kids toward produce. The key is availability and familiarity rather than where the produce is grown. Granted kids are probably more excited about eating something that is grown by mom and/or dad, but I think just having a menu replete with fruits and vegetables will accomplish at least 90% of getting kids to eat their vegetables. And of course mom and dad have to eat them too.

I am working on building my own garden. I've been so busy with the new house and such that I haven't found the time yet and since we're fast approaching summer, it won't happen this year. However, I have picked a spot in my backyard and will start working on getting the soil up to snuff soon. I'm also deciding on what I would like to grow. I'm thinking about broccoli, cauliflower, cucumbers, asparagus, some sort of lettuce, perhaps onions, and squash. I'd also like to plant some herbs and maybe a chili pepper plant. As I've never really grown anything before, we'll see how my first "harvest" turns out. No kids yet, but hopefully by the time they come along, I'll have a nice green thumb and can provide them with fresh, homegrown produce.

Kids and Obesity

This article came through my RSS Reader a few days ago. It is about the significant rise in childhood obesity.

Four-year-old girls are six times more likely to have a Body Mass Index (BMI) of more than 30 than they were 20 years ago and ten-year-olds are five times more likely, according to research published in the April issue of Acta Paediactrica.

The article goes on to note that from 1982 to 2002, the Body Mass Index (BMI) of girls rose 13.3 percent, while that for boys rose 5.1 percent. I'm not a big fan of BMI on an individual basis because it doesn't take muscle mass into effect. Every NFL player and probably most other professional athletes are considered "obese" by the BMI. My BMI is somewhere between 27 and 27.5, yet I maintain a very low bodyfat percentage. Am I really overweight? Across a population though, BMI is rather telling as the muscle-bound freaks are canceled out through averaging.

So what we see is that in the last 20 years, our kids have been getting fatter. That's not news to anyone. What could be causing this precipitous rise in childhood obesity? For starters, kids today have sugar, sugar, sugar at their disposal around every turn. They start their day with sugary cereals or Pop-Tarts or some other sugar- and grain-based food; they arrive at school to vending machines loaded with soft drinks, Honey Buns, cookies, and candy bars; they eat a lunch of pizza, French fries, or some other processed food; and then head home for a snack (which I doubt includes fruits or vegetables) and a carb-o-rific dinner with pasta, bread, or some other substance. It's carbs in the morning, carbs in the evening, and carbs everywhere in between. Nary a piece of produce touches the lips of most kids today. Couple that with the rise of video games, keeping kids inside working their thumbs instead of outside working their bodies, and you have a recipe for obesity.

I have a solution. I won't even charge for it. Feed your kids a hunter-gatherer diet: copious amounts of full-fat meat, vegetables, nuts, proper oils (olive, palm, coconut), fruit, tubers, and squashes. Give them some fish oil for omega-3's. Limit their access to sugar and grain products. If you say your kids won't eat what you put in front of them, too bad. When they get hungry, they'll eat what's available and because you're in charge, it will be healthful foods. If you cave and give them pizza, guess what they'll do next time you present them with a plate of steak and broccoli? And then send them outside with a ball, a bike, or a jump rope. Tell them to find someway to enjoy themselves for an hour. Better yet, get some exercise for yourself and bond with your family at the same time: go for a family bike ride, walk, or jog. Shoot some baskets together. Throw a baseball or football. It really is that simple. Eat foods that can be killed with a stick or dug from the ground and move around.

I'm sure the nutritionists are blaming fat intake though.

Mr. Wanjek Responds

I recently wrote an email to Chris Wanjek for his article on Live Science titled "The Atkins Paradox?" A few days ago, I received a response to my email. This is a copy/paste, so all typos are his.

Greg,

Thanks for your message. You make many good points. I don't write the titles. I hate paradox. But I don't think I was promoting the impossible-to-follow Ornish diet. I just recapped what the study said, almost to the word, that long-term weight management on Atkins is questionable.

My (tainted) experience goes back to the early 1990s at Harvard, where as a student my department was among the first to study the Med diet of fish but little other meat. So that's what got me going on this. Back then, Dr. Atkins posed regularly for teh camera in front of bacon, pork chops and, yes, lunchmeat. There was much talk about "eat the kind of foods you love..." We thought is was kind of funny back then and never dreamed his diet would be so popular.

I'm in Japan this week, where the Atkins diet sounds very funny to the folks here. Obesity is lower than 5%, and the diet is largely (white) rice and vegetables with some fish. Heavy people here confess to eating to much pork and beef.

From a public health view, Argentina has the highest beef consumption and the highest rate of colon cancer. Japan has high salt intake and high rates of stomach cancer. The U.S. has a high rate of fat consumption and the highest obesity rates by far in the world. When you step back to see the whole world as one big study, these kinds of things are revealed.

Again, thanks for your message.

-chris

I'd like to first make note that he addressed me as Greg, rather than Scott. Also, he didn't really address many of my points and still doesn't back anything up with facts. But I would like to address the few statements he does make. I'm not returning them to him via email because I'm not sure he read the first one.

Dr. Atkins advises avoiding processed meats. If he truly did pose with lunch meats (and I have no reason to doubt that he did), it is a shameful marketing ploy. It's the same marketing ploy used by Nutri-System and their "I can eat chocolate every day." Every diet has to pass itself off as "eat all the foods you love" even though eating all the foods you love is probably why you need Nutri-System/Atkins/Ornish/etc in the first place. It is an unfortunate fact of our dietary world. However, if he attracted just a few people to read his book and see that processed meats are taboo, perhaps it was worth it. So many people think any low-carb diet is Atkins. My low-carb diet would not be described as Atkins. It probably fits within the macronutrient ratios, but many foods that Dr. Atkins would allow are rarities for my hunter-gatherer diet.

I always question those studies that show fat to be responsible for a society's ills. For instance, citing that Americans eat more fat and are more overweight seems very short-sighted. The American diet isn't characterized only by more fat. It's also characterized by more sugar, more processed carbs, fewer fruits and vegetables (and therefore, fewer vitamins and minerals), more highly processed packaged food, and more fast food. These studies never tell whether the meat that was eaten was grass-fed or grain-fed, fresh or in the form of a salami. Did the people eat alot of pepperoni and the authors just classified it all as "meat"? What types of fat were eaten? Trans fats are killers and polyunsaturated fats (which we're told to eat in abundance) are known for their ability to suppress the immune system and their propensity for attack by free radicals.

The heavy people in Japan confess to eating more pork and beef. But what else do they confess to eating? How is the pork and beef cooked? Is it breaded, fried, and thrown into a sugary sauce? Have they adopted a standard Western diet, rife with fast food, fried junk, sugar, and processed carbs? If so, it is irresponsible science to blame pork and beef. And then there are the cultural confounders. Americans move little and sleep little, both of which are known factors in obesity. Can we attribute the low obesity rate in Japan solely to diet? Okinawans live long healthy lives - is that solely attributable to diet? No; it is also attributed to their low stress, family-oriented life. Americans are nomadic. We leave our families and live a fast-paced, stress-filled life, cranking out loads of cortisol in the process. It's not black and white. I see too many studies that have numerous variables, yet they only make a decision about one of them and it's always conveniently the one that supports their hypothesis. Remember that correlation doesn't equal causation.

As for Argentinians and "the highest rate of colon cancer," I'm not sure that's true. According to The Weston A. Price Foundation, the US has a higher rate of colon cancer and lower consumption of red meat. According to colon this site, the "main factors that initiate colorectal cancer are consumption of cooked red meat (due to heterocyclic amines) (Gerhardsson de V et al 1991; Reddy S et al 1987), high intake of refined carbohydrates (Franceschi S et al 2001), poor vitamin and mineral intake, alcohol consumption, smoking, bile acids, fecal mutagens (DNA-damaging agents), fecal pH, and compromised detoxification enzymes (Winawer SJ et al 1992)." S o it's not necessarily red meat, but cooked red meat or, more appropriately, overcooked red meat. Meat should be cooked slowly and not well-done. (Why would you want it well-done anyway? All of the flavor cooks out.) Also note "high intake of refined carbohydrates" and "poor vitamin and mineral intake," two factors which most surely affect the US. A 1975 article in Cancer Research mentions Finland, a country with a high-fat intake and a low colon cancer rate. And then there are the meat-eating Mormons with similar or lower colon cancer rates compared to the vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists. It isn't as cut and dry as so many nutritionists would have us believe. Humans have eaten red meat, and lots of it, for hundreds of millenia, yet they weren't dropping dead from colon cancer until relatively recently. Again, a look to our genetic roots points us in the right direction - sugar and refined carbohydrates are not part of the diet that shaped our genome.

When you step back to see the world as one big study, what is revealed is that there are so many confounding factors across groups to destroy most any hypothesis. That doesn't stop people from arriving at the conclusions that they want to see though. "Oh look at those Americans eating all of that fat and look at how big their waistlines are. Let's disregard the baked potato and bread they had with their steak and focus on the butter and animal fat. And then there's the fat in the cake they ate." So keep that in mind when you read reports that fat (or any other single nutrient) is responsible for all of society's ills.

Eat like a caveman and you won't experience the debillitating diseases of our modern culture. Eat meat, vegetables, nuts, healthful oils (like olive, palm, and coconut), fruits, tubers, and squashes. Earn your carbs by exercising intensely. Avoid processed foods, grains, sugar, polyunsaturated oils, and fast food. It's really rather simple.

Statins for Kids?!?

Heart Association Recommends Statins for Kids with High Cholesterol

From the AHA comes this little gem:

When diet and exercise fail to lower cholesterol in children with high-risk lipid abnormalities, statins should be first-line drug therapy, declared the American Heart Association in a new scientific statement.

Yes, statins. For kids. I guess the pharmaceutical companies have turned enough adults into pill-popping zombies for life and are now turning their attention to kids over the age of 10. That's one way to make sure you have a customer for life. Why go for 65 year old folks with only 10-20 years to live when you can get a 12 year old with 60 years to live?

Note that this is treatment for high cholesterol, which hasn't been proven to be the dangerous element in heart disease. What would I recommend to ensure today's kids stay happy, healthy, and heart disease-free? Exercise, something that kids used to enjoy, and a diet based on food, rather than on food products: meat; vegetables; nuts; olive, coconut, and palm oils; fruits; sweet potatoes; and squashes. Exercise doesn't have to be weight lifting at a gym; just send them outside to shoot hoops or play tag or kick a rock like kids do. Don't let them eat bags of chips and drink soft drinks all day long just so they'll like you. Parents are responsible for doing what is in their children's best interests, not for being their children's friends. And believe me, as a child of a mother that ensured her children ate plenty of good stuff and only enough bad stuff to keep us normal, they will appreciate it one day. No child is going to grow up and say "Boy, I wish mom had let me drink more Cokes and eat a few more Swiss Cake Rolls."

And let's not forget the real killer: high blood sugar. So we have overweight kids feeding on sugar all day and we're treating them for cholesterol. Hah! It's a sad day in America when our doctors focus on drugs to treat kids rather than on letting kids maintain their health in the normal ways that kids do. I'm surprised they didn't advise a "healthful" low-fat diet too.

When All Else Fails, Blame Genetics

I was involved in a conversation this past weekend that turned to genetics and how overweight people are genetically inclined for such because, in this case, they are missing the brain's ability to respond to leptin. First, I pointed out that the person misunderstood last week's report on leptin. It's not that the obese genetically lack sensitivity to leptin. It's that they have become leptin resistant. But my real beef was the overall theme of the discussion: genetics. Genetics is all through the news. Science's discovery of the workings of genetics and DNA has been both positive and a negative. Genetics has helped us to understand our evolutionary lineage and how certain diseases develop. It has also become the crutch du jour of most everyone that has any problem. Pick which of the following you're heard (or used) a variation of:
- "It's just not in my genes to be thin."
- "My parents were big."
- "(x disease) runs in my family."
- The list goes on ad nauseam

The problem with such thinking is that it removes the actor from any responsibility and places the blame solely on the actor's genes, or more appropriately on their parents, their parent's parents, and their parent's parent's parents. It is the latest in dodging personal responsibility to blame someone or something else - in this case DNA, which is invisible (to the naked eye at least). How can you avoid your genetic fate if you can't even SEE your genes? And if you can't avoid your fate because "it's in your genes," what point is there in trying? Your parents were overweight and their parents were overweight. You might as well eat bon-bons with an ice cream chaser all day because you're destined to be overweight, right? WRONG!

I can't relay to you how much it grates me to hear someone invoke genetics for their situation. I'm a huge proponent of personal responsibility and genes are nearly always used as a cop out. Sure, there are certain things that you cannot overcome genetically. I blame my genes for my inability to get a tan. That is something that will never change. In fact, no matter how hard I try, I will never have the olive skin of an Italian nor the dark skin of someone of African descent. I will also not have blond hair without hair dye and I'm unlikely to ever reach 6' tall. Oh, and my eyes will always be blue. However, my weight will always be my responsibility. I hear people say "Diabetes runs in my family." Now, I have no doubt that certain people are predisposed to certain illnesses. Everyone doesn't process food as efficiently as others. Some people have a slow metabolism and have to be judicious with their eating to avoid becoming overweight. Some people may be genetically inclined to become insulin resistant, IF they abuse their body with processed, sugary foods. Note the caveat there: "IF they abuse their body with processed, sugary foods." You don't become overweight and diabetic without misusing food (discounting the very small percentage of people with glandular disorders).

See, genetics aren't a roadmap to your life. They are more like the direction posts that we see in movies and cartoons. You're traveling down your life's Route 1 and come upon a sign post that says "Donuts and obesity, 3 miles" pointing to the right and one that says "Healthful living, 10 miles" to the left. You determine which road you take, your genetics determine what happens to your body at that point. So you see that if you choose healthful living, you can drastically reduce the negative effects of your genes. If you eat meat, vegetables, nuts, healthful oils (like olive, coconut, and palm), fruit, sweet potatoes, and squashes, you are probably not going to become overweight and diabetic, regardless of your genetics. Of course, some genetic diseases are a roadmap to your life. Down Syndrome, neurological disorders, other birth defects, Lou Gherig's disease, etc are genetic disorders that no amount of healthful living is going to fix. But you are not destined to be obese. You are not destined to be diabetic. You determine your destiny by the foods that you consume and a sedentary lifestyle.

This brings me to another minor quibble that I am guilty of. I didn't go back through my old posts to see how many times I've said this, but I know I have made the error that I am about to point out. One does not "have" Type II Diabetes. Rather, one "is" diabetic. "Having" a medical issue connotes that you caught it somewhere. You "have" a cold or you "have" the flu. You "are" diabetic, meaning you can become "not diabetic". To "have" an illness means you had little to do with getting it, other than perhaps not washing your hands properly. To "be" something says "I am responsible for this." If you "are" a doctor, you didn't just accidentally become a doctor. If you "are" a banker, you probably did something to become a banker; it wasn't an accident. When you "have" diabetes, you remove your responsibility for the disease, whereas when you "are" diabetic, you acknowledge your responsibility in becoming such.

Take responsibility for your life, as so many others have, and stop blaming your genes. When you blame your genes, you are effectively shifting all responsibility to your ancestors. Many, many people have taken responsibility for their health and began eating proper foods to lose the weight and essentially stop being diabetic. All it takes is personal responsibility and fortitude.

Americans Skimping on Fruits, Veggies

Most U.S. Adults Not Getting Recommended 5 Daily Servings, Says CDC

This WebMD article points out what we already know; very few Americans are eating enough of the proper foods, namely fruits and vegetables.

People should eat at least five daily servings -- two or more servings of fruit, and three or more servings of vegetables -- as part of a balanced diet, says the CDC.

But today the agency reported that in 2005, fewer than 33% of U.S. adults reported eating at least two daily servings of fruit and barely 27% claimed to eat three or more daily servings of vegetables.

I found an odd coincidence about the last paragraph. Fewer than 1/3 of Americans eat the recommended 2+ fruit and 3+ vegetables servings and more than 2/3 of Americans are overweight. The really incredible part of this finding is that a the standards for "a serving" are paltry. A medium apple or orange, 12 grapes, 1 cup of spinach, or 6-8 carrot sticks is all it takes to get 1 serving. In essence, 1 serving is tiny and few people get enough of those, much less go over and above the call of duty.

I surmise that the culprit is our huge intake of displacing foods. Displacing foods are the processed crud that we fill our plates with that displace more healthful choices like vegetables and fruits. Bread and pasta displace broccoli and apples. Ice cream for dessert displaces a bowl of berries with coconut and cinnamon. A single moderately-sized salad can fulfill your entire daily requirement for these nutrient-rich plant foods. In the summer, I eat a family-sized serving bowl full of salad. This is a 10" round, 3-4" deep bowl heaped with spinach, lettuce, cucumbers, carrots, broccoli, celery, radishes, walnuts, pecans, salmon or chicken, and homemade balsamic vinagrette or sesame dressing. According to the CDC's values, I probably eat 4 or 5 servings of vegetables in that one meal, not counting the fruit that follows as dessert. And to top that off, my other meals feature heaps of steamed vegetables, probably bringing my daily total to 12-15 servings of fruits and vegetables according to CDC guidelines.

If you really need justification for eating more vegetables, how does a reduction in risk for an enlarged prostate (men only obviously!) and improved brain function sound? Here's another one: it is virtually impossible to get fat from eating vegetables and nominal amounts of fruit.

Children and Sleep

We have a triple-whammy on articles regarding kids and sleep. The first is
"Children who sleep less more likely to be overweight".

The researchers used time diaries, in which the parents or caregivers of young children or children old enough to keep diaries themselves recorded all activities -- including bedtime, time asleep and wake time -- over the course of a weekday and weekend day. In analyzing the diaries, they found troubling age-related trends in sleep behavior.

By age 7, children were sleeping on average less than 10 hours on weekdays. By age 14, weekday sleep time fell to 8.5 hours. A full 16 percent of adolescents aged 13 to 18 were found to sleep fewer than seven hours on weekday nights. The National Sleep Foundation recommends children aged 5 to 12 years get 10 to 11 hours of sleep and adolescents get eight to nine hours.

Basically, lack of sleep causes hormonal imbalances that lead to overconsumption of sugary processed carbohydrates, which leads to obesity. If you've read my previous posts on the book Lights Out: Sleep, Sugar, and Survival, you know that 9+ hours per night is important for adults. It is even more important for kids and their growing bodies. Turn off the TV and put the kids to bed.

The next article is "Children's sleep problems can lead to school problems". No surprise here; it is difficult to concentrate when tired. Put the kids to bed and help them learn better in school to increase their chances of a productive career.

So putting your kid to bed at a reasonable time reduces their chances of obesity and increases their learning abilities. It may help keep them from needing weight loss surgery.

Unfortunately, a great majority of parents are blind to their child's weight.

The study of more than 1100 families found that 89 per cent of parents of overweight 5—6 year-olds and 63 per cent of parents of overweight 10—12 year-olds were unaware their child was overweight. It also revealed that 71 per cent of parents of overweight 5—6 year-olds and 43 per cent of parents with overweight 10—12 year-olds did not think their child's weight was a problem.

Perhaps the problem is our perception of normalcy. "Normal" is now overweight rather than truly healthy. I think a big part of the problem is that parents don't want to admit that their child is overweight, so they choose to ignore the issue. The major issue there is that ignoring it won't make it go away.

Kids and Weight Loss Surgery

Ross Enamait on Kids and Weight Loss Surgery

Ross Enamait made an excellent post today about kids undergoing surgery for their obesity. Kids!! It is incredulous that a parent would put a kid under the knife for a lifestyle disorder. These are the same parents that couldn't turn Junior away from the Ho-Hos but probably think they're doing him a favor. Be a parent and do what's best for your kids. That doesn't always mean being their friend. They may curse you for not giving them a Twinkie today, but they will thank you tomorrow. Feed your kids the same things that you eat, which is hopefully a diet of meat and seafood, vegetables, nuts, oils (olive, coconut, and palm), fruits, tubers, and squashes. Grains and dairy have little place in a healthful diet. And maybe turning off the TV and PS3 once in awhile and having them go out and ride a bike or play some basketball would be a good thing too.

Unhappy Meals by Michael Pollan

An excellent article by Michael Pollan. He discusses (in 12 pages...a long read) how America went from a land of food to a land of nutrients. Because of our turn to eating nutrients instead of food, we must rely on experts. It is in these experts' interest to keep us confused about what to eat. One day low-fat diets are all the rage, the next, it's low-carb. The following day, low-carb is unhealthy again. I disagree with Pollan's take on meat, but he's mostly spot on with this article.

A couple of sentences that stuck out in my mind:

Once, food was all you could eat, but today there are lots of other edible foodlike substances in the supermarket. These novel products of food science often come in packages festooned with health claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if you're concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it's not really food, and food is what you want to eat.
....
Of course it's also a lot easier to slap a health claim on a box of sugary cereal than on a potato or carrot, with the perverse result that the most healthful foods in the supermarket sit there quietly in the produce section, silent as stroke victims , while a few aisles over, the Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms are screaming about their newfound whole-grain goodness.

See, you never see a health claim on lettuce because everyone knows lettuce is healthy. So many other foods in the aisles of the grocery are adorned with health claims such as "Good source of fiber" and "Eating a diet low in saturated fat is known to..." That these recommendations are based on pseudo-science is irrelevant. The government has deemed them to be correct.

I'll make it easy: Eat meat and vegetables, nuts and seeds, some fruit, little starch, and no sugar (from What Is CrossFit?). There's nothing more simple than that. Grains, pasteurized dairy products, soy, and anything in a brightly colored package with nutrition information and a list of ingredients are not good food. If there is a cartoon character or celebrity pushing it, it's most likely a food product, not food. There is no such thing as "junk food"; there is junk and there is food. It really is as simple as following the maxim in the first sentence to be healthy. You really won't even have to worry much about quantity as long as you're eating mainly meat and vegetables with nuts, seeds, and oils for fat; a bit of fruit for dessert; some starch from sweet potatoes and squashes; and limiting sugar to virtually none.

Eating a colorful variety of plant foods - vegetables, fruits, and tubers - ensures that you receive wide-ranging amounts of different vitamins and minerals. Meat is the most nutrient-dense food item available, and the one that has allowed the human race to evolve to such high standing. Within meat you'll find several important vitamins that are unavailable elsewehere, along with good saturated and mono-unsaturated fats (especially if it's grassfed meat). And nuts, seeds, and oils provide the fat that is necessary for proper metabolic functioning and absorption of vitamins and minerals.

Another notable:

Today, a mere four crops account for two-thirds of the calories humans eat. ... It's hard to believe that we can get everything we need from a diet consisting largely of processed corn, soybeans, wheat and rice.

Two-thirds of our calories come from foods that the human animal has not evolved to eat. Soy must be highly processed to be consumed safely and unfortunately the soy industry doesn't do this when turning out soy burgers, soy dogs, and tofu (the Chinese do when eating miso, natto, and tempeh). Corn, wheat, and rice are grain foods that must also be soaked and fermented to neutralize antinutrients and be usable by the body. Again, this isn't done by food processors. Is there any wonder why we're so unhealthy?

Happy Thanksgiving and Obesity in America

That's two seperate thoughts there. Happy Thanksgiving! Today is a good day for "cheating" on your nutrition plan. And enjoy the company of your family and friends while you're at it.

Thought #2: I've seen this before and just came across it again today. It's a rather interesting and disturbing look at the rise of obesity in America. It's mind blowing to watch the year-by-year changes in obesity throughout the nation. I have only glanced over the rest of the article and wouldn't really trust my nutrition advice to come from MSN, but maybe you'll find a nugget of wisdom buried in their articles following the map.

Men's Health and Type II Diabetes

Men's Health on The Cure for Diabetes

This article was posted on The Performance Menu Forum run by Robb Wolf and Greg Everett. Even Men's Health is starting to get it, or maybe they're just publishing what sells. Regardless, this five-page article has some very excellent information regarding why a low-carb diet is healthier than a low-fat diet.

A few excerpts that stood out when I read it:

Even with all the accumulating evidence, there's no doubt that the high fat content of low-carbohydrate diets is worrisome for many people. And this may be why more physicians don't advocate the approach, even though many follow it themselves: A University of Pennsylvania study reports that doctors prescribe a low-fat diet to their patients 67 percent of the time, yet when it comes to their own diet, they more often go low-carbohydrate.

When it comes down to it, doctors are following a much healthier diet than what they are prescribing to their patients. One reason is that people are so indoctrinated with thinking that fat is bad for them that it can be futile to push a low-carb diet. And even when people believe that low-carb is healthier, getting them to give up their beloved pasta, bread, and chocolate can be impossible. Giving up unhealthy foods is far more uncomfortable than being overweight and unhealthy.

"We're not saying it's okay for people with diabetes to eat lots of sweets," says Franz. "But they deserve the right to eat all types of carbohydrates, just like any other person."

"The right"? People have the right to put whatever they want in their bodies. People have the right to drink antifreeze if they want to. It doesn't mean they should exercise that right very often. The Diabetic Food Pyramid is a carb-heavy, starchy and sugary mess. It proposes a diet that is at odds with the biochemical workings of the body, especially that of a diabetic.

Wrong, says Jeff Volek, Ph.D., R.D., a nutrition researcher at the University of Connecticut. "Our research indicates that replacing carbohydrates with saturated fat has a beneficial effect on cardiovascular health," he explains. "A low-carbohydrate diet decreases the body's production of saturated fat and increases its ability to burn the incoming dietary fat." In fact, says Volek, more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies published since 2003 show that a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet is more effective at reducing overall heart-disease risk than a high-carb, low-fat regimen. And, just like the diet that Dr. Vernon prescribes, each of these meal plans ranged from 50 percent to 70 percent of total calories from fat.

WHAT?! They're even talking good about saturated fat? Hell hath frozen over. Saturated fats from grassfed animals and coconut and palm oils are every bit as good for you as olive oil, all of which are many times better for you than polyunsaturated fats with their immunosuppressing characteristics. But it's rare to see a mainstream publication take that side. Next thing you know they'll be talking about how cholesterol isn't the killer it's made out to be.

The tide is turning. One day people will look back and see humor that fat in general and saturated fat in particular were considered health demons while bread and pasta were looked upon as a health panacea. The work of Drs. Atkins, Eades (Michael and Mary), and Sears, along with many, many others will one day be appreciated for setting human nutrition back onto the pathway that our genes have determined for us.

The PC Machine Strikes Again

Police Chief fired for telling his officers to shape up

Winter Haven, FL police chief Paul Goward was fired for an email that he sent out to his department telling them that they need to lose weight. Unfortunately, his choice of wording in the subject line included the words "Jelly Belly", which hurt some of his officers little feelings. Now, he didn't actually single anyone out and only used an "offensive" name in the subject, but apparently the words struck awfully close to home for a few officers. It seems the department was looking to get rid of him anyway and this was a pathetic excuse for "the straw that broke the camel's back."

Part of the memo:

"Take a good look at yourself. If you are unfit, do yourself and everyone else a favor. See a professional about a proper diet and a fitness training program, quit smoking, limit alcohol intake and start thinking self-pride, confidence and respectability. And stop making excuses for delaying what you know you should have been doing years ago. We didn't hire you unfit and we don't want you working unfit. Don't mean to offend, this is just straight talk. I owe it to you."

I'm sure you don't have to think very hard to come up with a list of several overweight police officers that you know. It's also not too hard to imagine everyday situations that require an officer to be in good physical condition - they can't just shoot everyone with a taser. There is no question that a fit police force is a more effective police force. And if these poor fellows can't handle "jelly belly", what will they do when a criminal is calling them so many other names? Maybe they'll just cry.

I find the results of the poll telling however. 72% of respondents don't think the memo was inappropriate and 97% think he should not have been fired for such an offense. Obviously an Internet poll is not a representative sample (self-selection and all that jazz), but it does show that alot of people are not down with all the political correctness flying around these days. Maybe people realize that coddling the obese is not going to do anything to help them. We shouldn't make fun of them, but calling someone obese is not an insult, it's the truth. And doctors, police chiefs, and others should be able to inform people of the danger to their health and their community (especially in the case of police officers and firefighters).

Experts Debate Labeling Kids Obese

I was directed to this article yesterday. Basically, doctors and parents are debating whether or not to call obese kids obese. Current guidelines are that overweight kids are called "at risk of overweight" and obese kids are called "overweight". An "obesity task force" is now proposing calling the first category "overweight" and the second category "obese".

My opinion on this matter is to call a spade a spade. We can sugarcoat the truth all day long, but it isn't going to help anyone. The choice boils down to:
a) protect Little Johnny's self-esteem and make him think he is only "at risk of overweight" (when in reality he is between the 85th and 95th percentile for his age group), but set him up for huge health problems later in life, or
b) hurt Little Johnny's feelings, show him that he is overweight and that, if he continues on this course, he will become obese, with all of it's attendant health problems.

The only thing that is going to make a kid change his/her habits and hopefully improve his/her life is to give it to them straight. Kids aren't as stupid as we would like to believe they are. Kids know if they are fat because their peers make sure to let them know. It isn't hard for Janey to look around in gym and see that she's carrying an extra 50% of girth compared to most classmates.

Frankly, all of this ridiculous political correctness infuriates me. As Dr. Reginald Washington says in the article, if it were cancer, anemia, or an ear infection, this topic wouldn't even be up for debate. Is someone with a mild ear infection told they are "at risk for ear infection"? Is full-blown cancer labeled as "a small tumor"? Until we face the truth that our nation is fat and getting fatter and that this problem is starting in adolescence and before, we will not find a way to address it. The PC-mongers are going to drive us to a happy state where everyone is free to blame their genes for every problem that affects them.

People that I know that have changed their lives and lost significant amounts of weight have mentioned that the thing that got them on their horse was someone telling them "you're fat!" A parent, sibling, or other relative at one point in time told these people what they needed to hear. We need to wake up and realize that we aren't going to run an end-around on obesity. This problem requires a focused, direct effort to ensure today's youth aren't the first generation that has a shorter lifespan than their parents.

The Epitome of America's Obesity

Make Way for the Sidewalk SUV

I discovered the reason for America's burgeoning waistline yesterday. This quote right here sums up this article: "Now waiting on line at the buffet is no problem," she says. "You just sit there."

On the one hand, I am amazed and appalled by people's lack of desire to do something as simple as walking around a store. On the other hand, the laziness of my fellow Americans rarely surprises me anymore and is generally apparent when I go anywhere. Considering that 2/3 of our population is overweight, it's not a stretch to assume that most of our population avoids physical activity. But this one takes the cake! People that are perfectly able to walk are willing to give up that trait to sit in a motorized scooter, while there are people confined to motorized scooters that would love to be able to get up and walk. Upright walking, one of the traits that seperates humans from the "lower" primates, isn't really all that difficult or exhausting.

A few other quotes that really stand out in the article:
- Some entrepreneurs are starting to push the vehicles as bicycles without the pedaling. (We wouldn't want anyone to actually have to expend energy to get around)
- In the last year, Pride has super-sized models like the Maxima and introduced the Celebrity-X, to keep up with the increase in obesity. (The irony is thick here)
- Ms. Starr and some other advocates for the disabled say able-bodied riders can rile pedestrians, creating a negative image of scooter use that could hurt those who really need assistance. (That would require someone too lazy to walk to actually think of others)

If you can't walk, use a scooter. If you have other disabilities, use a scooter. If you're just lazy...well, I can't print the thoughts I have for you here (I aim for a family-friendly atmosphere). It's a positive feedback loop...you get tired when walking because you are out-of-shape or overweight. So you stop walking which only makes you more out-of-shape and overweight. If your only disability is being out-of-shape/overweight, that should be incentive NOT to use a scooter. You certainly aren't going to improve your quality of life that way. What happened to people actually using their bodies for what they were made for? If your disability is just being lazy, you should be ashamed of yourself. There are people that would do anything to be able to just walk again, and all you want to do is sit.

Frankly, it matters little to me how you live your life. You are the one that pays the price in terms of health and quality of life. I could care less if you use a scooter at the store so that your only energy expenditure is reaching out for a box of Ring Dings and then head home to sit on the couch eating said Ring Dings. But let's not pretend that we can't figure out why America keeps getting fatter. And if you're not in a scooter for health reasons, keep it out of my way.

Disclaimer: This is in no way directed at those who need a scooter for daily living. It is directed at those that would use a scooter to appease their laziness, possibly using a scooter that our grandparents have a justifiable need for.