Interesting items from my inbox …

The obesity epidemic is taking over the world

According to this article, one-third of the world’s population is now obese.  Hey, remember when the big concern was worldwide starvation?  I guess we overshot the mark while working on the cure.  Anyway ….

The number of overweight and obese people around the world has soared to a record high of 2.1 billion, equaling a third of the global population.

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) in Washington published what researchers called the most comprehensive study on the subject. They gathered data from surveys, the World Health Organization (WHO), various government websites, and read all academic articles about the spreading epidemic. Anyone with a body mass index (BMI) over 25 was considered overweight and anyone over 30 was considered obese.

The U.S. counts for 5 percent of the global population with about 318 million people, yet accounts for 13 percent of obese population. China and India combined — the world’s two largest populations — only hold 15 percent of the world’s overweight and obese population. According to the CDC, about a third of adults in the U.S. are obese and another third are overweight.

The U.S. was followed in order by China, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Egypt, Germany, Pakistan, and Indonesia on the list of the most overweight people.

That’s an interesting mix of countries there in the Top Ten List.  I wonder what’s causing all that obesity?

“Over the past decades the modernization of our world, with all the technology around us, has led to physical inactivity on all levels,” said Professor Hermann Toplak, at the University of Graz.

The researchers said the rates are highest in developed countries because of longer work commutes from the suburbs, sitting at computers all day, and unrestrained eating.

I see.  So that would mean Russia, China and India are more technologically developed than Germany.

The study stressed the need for “urgent global leadership” to fight against risk factors such as excessive calorie intake, inactivity and “active promotion of food consumption by industry.”

So there you have it:  the whole world is getting fat because technology is allowing them to move around less, and of course because the food industry promotes its products instead of hoping you discover them by accident.  But fear not – global leadership will fix this problem.  In fact, government has already fixed the problem …

The childhood obesity epidemic has been cured

According to an article in the New York Times, today’s little kids are skinnier:

Federal health authorities on Tuesday reported a 43 percent drop in the obesity rate among 2- to 5-year-old children over the past decade, the first broad decline in an epidemic that often leads to lifelong struggles with weight and higher risks for cancer, heart disease and stroke.

The drop emerged from a major federal health survey that experts say is the gold standard for evidence on what Americans weigh. The trend came as a welcome surprise to researchers.

A smattering of states have reported modest progress in reducing childhood obesity in recent years, and last year the federal authorities noted a slight decline in the obesity rate among low-income children. But the figures on Tuesday showed a sharp fall in obesity rates among all 2- to 5-year-olds, offering the first clear evidence that America’s youngest children have turned a corner in the obesity epidemic. About 8 percent of 2- to 5-year-olds were obese in 2012, down from 14 percent in 2004.

The article notes that sugary-soda sales have dropped since 1999 and people are eating less generally.  I suspect more and more people have figured out that sugars and refined starches will make them fat and have cut back on both.

But since this is The New York Times, you can bet the farm that if there’s a positive change in society, they’ll immediately wonder how the government made it happen.

Barry M. Popkin, a researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who has tracked American food purchases in a large data project, said families with children had been buying lower-calorie foods over the past decade, a pattern he said was unrelated to the economic downturn.

He credited those habits, and changes in the federally funded Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, for the decline in obesity among young children. The program, which subsidizes food for low-income women, reduced funding for fruit juices, cheese and eggs and increased it for whole fruits and vegetables.

Great.  Because as well know, eggs make people fat.

Another possible explanation is that some combination of state, local and federal policies aimed at reducing obesity is starting to make a difference. Michelle Obama, the first lady, has led a push to change young children’s eating and exercise habits and 10,000 child care centers across the country have signed on. The news announcement from the C.D.C. included a remark from Mrs. Obama: “I am thrilled at the progress we’ve made over the last few years in obesity rates among our youngest Americans.”

Well, clearly that’s the correct explanation:  Mrs. Obama did it.  (She did it so effectively, her efforts worked retroactively back to 2004, five years before her husband took office.) All she had to do was push the USDA to serve lunches that are so tasteless, kids end up throwing much of the food in the trash.  Which is why this is happening …

Another school dumps the federal lunch program

We’ve been thoroughly enjoying the new TV series Fargo, and since this story is from Minnesota, I can’t help but wonder if someone said, “Aww, geez!” when those new USDA lunches came along.

Starting in the fall, a west metro high school will no longer be part of the national school lunch program.

The program has calorie guidelines and requires that every student has a vegetable or piece of fruit on their tray.

Eighty percent of kids at Wayzata High School do some sort of activity. Many of the kids do a number of activities. They are burning a ton of calories, and 750-850 is not enough to power them through their long day, according to school officials.

“You can imagine we have such activity levels here that that’s been really challenging for the students to get enough food,” said Mary Anderson, Director of Culinary Express at the high school.

After the school looked at numbers on paper, they found that kids participating in the lunch program decreased by nine percent. The district says it would be more beneficial to leave the program than stay on.

In other words, since kids don’t actually want these lunches, sales have dropped to the point where the school is losing more money than it’s getting in the form of federal subsidies.  Hmmm, I wonder if someone could figure out how to apply the same brilliant economic incentives to health insurance?

The school has also seen more waste because the federal program requires that kids take a piece of fruit or have a vegetable on their tray.

The high school will still offer healthy options and a registered dietician will help with meal planning, but they will not make a kid take something that they do not plan to eat.

Wait a minute … they’re NOT going to force kids to fill their trays with foods they don’t like and won’t eat?  Aww, geez, those wacky Minnesotans clearly don’t realize that putting a vegetable on your plate improves your academic performance, even if you don’t actually eat it.  We know that because ….

Mrs. Obama saves the U.S. from academic decline

Actually, the main point of this article is that Mrs. Obama is standing up to people who are too stupid or too evil (the only possible explanations) to follow the plans dictated by The Anointed:

First Lady Michelle Obama on Tuesday said waiving healthier standards for school meals is “unacceptable” and touted the new guidelines success in a rare foray into politics to combat Republicans who argue the initiative has been too costly.

“We’re now seeing efforts in Congress to roll back these new standards and undo the hard work that all of you, all of us, have done on behalf of our kids,” the first lady said. “And this is unacceptable. It’s unacceptable not just to me as first lady, but as a mother.”

But of course, it’s perfectly acceptable for the First Mother to tell other mothers what their kids can and cannot order in a school cafeteria.  The point here is that the mother must be a member of The Anointed for the dictating to be acceptable.

Mrs. Obama was joined by school administrators from around the country to discuss the benefits that more rigorous nutritional guidelines have had for students. Serving healthier food has aided young people’s academic performance and helped them develop better eating habits at a time when childhood obesity is at an alarming high, according the round table participants.

Kids are throwing away the (ahem) healthy foods they’re forced to take and don’t want, but those foods are nonetheless leading to better academic performance.  Wow.  I had no idea that’s how it worked.  My daughter Sara typically scores at or near 100 on math and science tests and in the high 90s on tests for other subjects, but I’d love it if she scored 100 on everything.  So from now on, I’m going to put zucchini (which she doesn’t like) on her plate, then tell her to throw it away.

Mexico takes the obesity crown

Now wait just a gosh-darned minute!  The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation just told us the U.S. is the fattest nation on earth, and then this report comes along:

Even as nearly half its people are poor and as officials launch a national anti-hunger campaign, Mexico by some accounts recently has replaced the United States as the chubbiest of the globe’s larger countries.

Diabetes and cardiovascular ills spike, plus sizes cram clothing racks and Mexicans keep eating, eating, eating. While cutting across class lines, the crisis disproportionately hits the poor and the young, malnourishment and obesity stalking them in tandem.

About 70 percent of Mexican adults are overweight, a third of them very much so. Childhood obesity tripled in a decade and about a third of teenagers are fat as well. Experts say four of every five of those heavy kids will remain so their entire lives.

Since the authors of the IHME study told us that technology and sitting at a desk are major causes of obesity, obviously Mexico is now more technologically advanced than both the U.S. and Germany.  Perhaps we should grant immediate citizenship to all obese Mexicans so they can bring their technology and tech-related jobs to the U.S.  Otherwise, we may see the day when Americans are sneaking over the border looking for desk jobs.

The better option, of course, would be for fat people around the world to adopt a diet that helps them lose weight.  If only some documentary filmmaker would try to get the word out about that.

No, I’m not talking about me …

Morgan Spurlock goes low-carb

The subject apparently came up while he was being interviewed about his new reality show:

When Morgan Spurlock shot to fame, he was gorging himself on McDonald’s three times a day to see what happens if he lived off only that — and he ate the largest size that workers pushed — in “Super Size Me.”

The workers only “pushed” super-sized meals nine times in 30 days, and yet he somehow managed to consume more than 5,000 calories per day.  But I digress …

No shock that Spurlock could have inflicted permanent damage had he not stopped. In his CNN documentary series, “Morgan Spurlock Inside Man,” Spurlock quaffs supplements and exercises.

In “Futurism,” airing Sunday, April 20, Spurlock focuses on those striving for immortality. Since shooting that episode, Spurlock has lost 25 pounds.

“I am still losing weight,” he tells Zap2it. “I am not eating carbohydrates, no bread, no pasta, no sugar. I feel better than I ever have. Last night I had wine at dinner. You have got to enjoy yourself.”

He goes low-carb and feels better than he ever has – apparently even better than when consuming his ex-wife’s vegan meals.  (Of course, she’s now an ex-vegan herself.)   So when Inside Man wraps up, I have an idea for Spurlock’s next production:  he should do another all-fast-food diet that features lots of fatty cheeseburgers, sausage patties and eggs while restricting carbohydrates, then see what happens with his weight.

Wait … I think that’s been done already.

Share
67 Responses to “From The News …”
  1. Curtis says:

    Wonderful and funny post Tom,

    Ever wonder if any government is ever going to get the fact you can’t force people to do anything and it really work?

    • Tom Naughton says:

      It’ll never happen. Government is based on force.

      • Tom Welsh says:

        Yes indeed, Tom. Furthermore…

        “Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”
        – George Orwell (O’Brien to Winston Smith, “1984”)

      • Boundless says:

        And you’d think that people posturing themselves as being highly suspicious of government would be eager to act on the nutrition mess.

        “Hey, Ms Anarcho-Tea-Partier, are you aware that the government is fostering falsehood on a serious issue, but in this case it’s an issue you can do something about?

        Yes, the USDA MyPlateOfMetabolicSyndrome (formerly the Pyramid Scheme), parroted by all government drones, is an upside-down mistake that is causing the growing healthcare crisis (almost all of the non-infectious diseases). It was an unnecessary crusade to begin with, based on politics and lobbying, which brazenly discarded the scientific input to the process.

        To fix this, you only need to take personal initiative and responsibility to discover what is true about human nutrition, then shop accordingly. No problem, right?”
        —–
        If this message doesn’t resonate with them, it’s probably because changing aisles at the supermarket is just so darn inconvenient, compared to ranting on FaceBook.

        • Tom Naughton says:

          I think that’s why (as many people have noticed) there’s a disproportionate number of libertarians in the paleo crowd. Libertarians are more easily persuaded that government health advice is nonsense.

  2. I predict… the day will come, soon, when enlightened parents, bucking “conventional wisdom”, send their children to school with a good healthy (as we know it) meal, and then get taken to task for criminal actions, perhaps involving Child Protective Services, for “abusing” their kids, by not following the official USDA guidelines.

    It’s… inevitable. Unless we can turn the tide on the 2015 food guidelines. I’m not optimistic.

    • Tom Naughton says:

      I’m not either, at least about the dietary guidelines. I am optimistic that we can convince people to ignore them.

    • LyndaF says:

      Umm…something close to it already happened at a preschool in Manitoba in 2012 (reported Nov. 2013), Canada (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/daycare-gives-kids-crackers-fines-mom-for-unhealthy-lunch-1.2432039 ).Someone sent her children to daycare with a very healthy lunch that was missing a grain. The daycare policy was that each meal had to have something from all four food groups (initially to avoid just junk food), and since the included potato was not a grain, the daycare gave the child some Ritz crackers and then fined the parent! Now the daycare does a hot lunch program. Go figure.

    • Charice says:

      Randal you are not alone in that sentiment.

      Also worrying about how they will just supplement anyway (i.e. take away what the parent sent in and replace with a heart healthy whole grain birdseed cracker that tastes worse than the cardboard it came packaged in, and washed down with a large swash of sugary apple juice. (Sarcasm here). Kid will be bouncing off the walls and the parent gets the note sent home their kid is a “problem”.

  3. lupo says:

    “While cutting across class lines, the crisis disproportionately hits the poor and the young, malnourishment and obesity stalking them in tandem.”

    This phenomenon is called “double burden” and exists in various African regions. Again, I concur with your “chemistry over character” narrative, because if it was about calories, then extremely fat mothers would eat away the little stuff that their children needed. I shout nonsense – obesity is another form of malnourishment.

    • Tom Naughton says:

      Yup, exactly the point Taubes has been making in his books and speeches. Low-quality food is both fattening and malnourishing.

    • Jill says:

      What you say is correct but what I find astonishing is the lack of acknowledgement that stress also causes obesity, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly.

  4. Wayne Gage says:

    I am currently reading The Vision of the Anointed by Thomas Sowell and I find it an intellectual challenge but it is worth it. Self congratulations by the anointed is now easy to recognize. The self congratulations is still there even after total failure of policies.

  5. Catherine says:

    I thought that this news story, which broke this morning on British TV, was well in keeping with your blog, Tom:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-27730696

    Astounding. Allegedly, the boy weighs around 15 stones or 210lbs. I’m not sure that criminalising parents is the answer to the issue, though!

    • Tom Naughton says:

      Criminalizing parents and seizing the kid is a great solution if you want a psychologically traumatized child.

  6. Walter Bushell says:

    Is it possible that children are getting thiner on average because we are driving them to diabetes? Do doctors routinely check skinny kids for diabetes and how many kids don’t see doctors hardly at all, except for really acute care?

  7. SB says:

    Low carb pet peeve re: Spurlock – when people say “I’m not eating carbs” but they are still eating vegetables and fruit. Or, when I tell someone that I eat “low carb” and they say “You needs carbs, you can’t cut out all carbs!” Yeah I know. low != no. *gets off soapbox*.

    Re:Mexico – not terribly surprising, there are pop and sugary baked goods in abundance when I visit Mexican grocery stores (big case full of cakes and cookies, all pretty cheap).

    • Tom Welsh says:

      As you point out, Gary Taubes has some very detailed and convincing explanations of why very poor people, who can only afford the cheapest food – processed carbs and sugar, mostly – begin as slender youths but turn into grossly fat middle-aged adults. Hence the fat mother with the emaciated child – both victims of the same malnutrition. (Which our governments advocate and try to enforce).

      Throughout history, royalty and aristocrats have pursued the “noble sports” of hunting and fishing, and have dined (at the end of a long day filled with hard exercise) on game, fish, and wildfowl with some vegetables. For dessert, they traditionally prefer cheese. It is amazing to one brought up in a middle class family how even young children of rich families turn up their noses at sweet, starchy food. Even after 10,000 years, these people insist on remaining unaffected by the farming revolution and carefully abstain from the nasty inferior food it inflicted on 99 percent of people worldwide.

    • Firebird says:

      They also eat a lot of corn.

      • Pierson says:

        The Mexicans of yesteryear also ate loads of corn, but were (comparatively speaking) lean and healthy. The processed junk is probably the culprit here

        • Nowhereman says:

          You also have to keep in mind a few variables as well here. First off, corn, like its grain cousins wheat and rice, were not available year round, they had to be grown in their proper season, which meant going for months on end without it or making due rationing what you had stored, and hence less of it was consumed on average.

          Second is that unlike today’s corn, their corn was not genetically modified, either through hybridization, nor through lab gene manipulation, leading to who knows what consequences.

          • Tom Naughton says:

            I’d guess one goal of the hybridization was to make a sweeter corn.

            • Walter Bushell says:

              And the tortillas are made with “vegetable” oil and not lard etcetera along with the rest of the food having “vegetable” oil replacing lard.

              And more high sugar soft drinks and so forth, for the more affluent.

  8. James H. says:

    I don’t pay as much attention to politics as some people but when did Her Highness become an elected official? Every time I read something about her, she seems to have taken upon her shoulders the actions and responsibilities of someone with actual authority. (Not to mention her self-elected authority on nutrition.)

    • Tom Naughton says:

      That seems to be the trend in recent decades, giving the First Lady some public mission.

      • Verimius says:

        First Ladies have adopted causes going back to Dolly Madison in 1809.

        • Tom Naughton says:

          True, although back in the day it seems they were more involved with private charities and causes, as opposed to promoting The Big Legislation To Fix Our Problems.

    • Walter Bushell says:

      Delegated authority. She has no formal power, but a lot of _influence_, just like any crony of the President. And a bigger bully pulpit than most cronies.

  9. Interesting that the only group (2-5 yr olds) that showed real improvement over the last few years is the one Ms. Obama hasn’t gotten her mitts on yet.

    Of course, that 43% decline is relative, reflecting the drop from 14% to 8% obesity in the group.

    Also interesting is that the gains (losses?) didn’t appear to be uniform. Although the overall rate dropped from 14% to 8% (hence the 43% relative decline), POOR preschoolers where at 15.2% in 2003, plummeting to 14.4% in 2011 (per CDC and JAMA data).

    So, poor preschool kids — who have their nutrition largely supplied by the government — have barely had a change in obesity rates, while those whose parents actually make feeding decisions are starting to benefit from the paradigm shift.

    Once they all start getting exposed to The Elite’s school lunches, tho, all bets are off and the giant Pottenger’s Cats experiment continues apace.

    Cheers

  10. JT says:

    The rise in obesity in America seems to correlate with the rise in the number of the Food Stamp recipients. Next time you are in the grocery store, check out what the obese folks have in their carts… Chips, Pop-Tarts, Frozen dinners. They can eat for a week without ever pulling out a cutting board and knife. Nine times out of ten, they are on Food Stamps, believe me, I have been a cashier. And as I have said before, as long as the first lady has two butts and I have one, I am not listening to her nutrition advice.

    • Tom Naughton says:

      That’s probably partly a matter of what they’re allowed to buy. I’m reading “Big Fat Surprise” and learned that the feds prohibit some high-fat foods from being purchased with food stamps.

      • Walter Bushell says:

        Do you have a page number for that? I found a reference for restrictions for WIC, but not for food stamps on the bottom of page 158 top 159, soy foods, only 2% max milk for women and children over 2, fewer animal products except canned fish.

        • Tom Naughton says:

          I thought they were same thing. This is what’s on the WIC site:

          WIC provides Federal grants to States for supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education for low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and non-breastfeeding postpartum women, and to infants and children who are found to be at nutritional risk.

          Most State WIC programs provide vouchers that participants use at authorized food stores.

          And this is from Wikipedia:

          Participants of WIC receive checks, vouchers, or electronic cards to purchase food at participating retail markets each month to supplement their diets. The program food package is designed to address the specific needs of low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum non-breastfeeding women; infants; and children up to five years of age who are nutritionally at risk.

          The food purchased with WIC vouchers must be on the approved list of approved foods.

          • PJ (RightNOW) says:

            The only time in my life when I was sick and unemployed and starving was when I was very pregnant (my husband was a Canadian immigrant and unemployed, I had pre-eclampsia {didn’t know this was low magnesium at the time} and high blood pressure). I would have starved if not for WIC. Every bit of dairy they allowed me to buy, I did.

            It’s a shame if they’re reducing that. That’s surely the most nutrient-dense stuff outside meat.

  11. Brian says:

    Wait… Morgan Spurlock… Low carb… ???

    My goodness, Tom… Does this mean… Does this mean you- … won?

  12. Don in Arkansas says:

    I work at an elementary school, Pre-K – 2. The percentage of overweight and obese children is very low, I would estimate <5%. That in spite of the fact that the food served in the cafeteria is laden with processed carbs and sugar. Vegetables are mostly tossed and the cafeteria fruit is normally in heavy syrup.Whole fruit snacks are given out in the afternoon and are pretty much eaten. I believe that young children's systems can handle the sugar and carbs but the more of them they eat, the more damaged their metabolism is damaged. The difference between the elementary school obesity ratio and the ratio at the middle school and high school is much higher..

    • Tom Naughton says:

      I see that around here too, even though rates of obesity are low. I worry about the kids developing protruding bellies by sixth grade.

    • PJ (RightNOW) says:

      When my daughter was in school, we were eating whole-foods low-carb and all her friends ate literally nothing but junk food yet they were thin and she was not. (She was doomed from before birth, I’m afraid, if genetics and natal environ matter.) She used to be so upset that it seemed so unfair.

      Yet now she is 17 and guess what? A fast growing % of those same people who grew up on fast food are becoming huge, and those who aren’t huge, are already at that young age having issues with arthritis, diabetes, IBS and more. Whereas she is heavy but otherwise seems healthy. And mind you that doesn’t count the staggering number of people she went to school with who had “learning disorders” and “attention disorders.” As if living on processed no-nutrient foods and soda and TV has nothing to do with that or something.

      I don’t think the crappy un-food we feed children is “ok” for them. In fact I think our bodies are BUILT OUT OF what we eat and so they are literally using as construction materials all those crappy ingredients, and getting more and more long-term nutrient deprived. And then their bones and brains and livers will be inferior versions of what they could be, because their building materials were inferior.

      It will just seem like it fell out of the sky on them when they eventually start ballooning in weight, or get diabetes or cancer or arthritis or many other conditions. The fact that years of eating toxins and NOT eating sufficient nutrients went on first, our medical system basically ignores. Do they ply people with a full-spectrum of aminos, lipids and enzymes and minerals for a year to try and get restitution for the body long-deprived? Of course not. But that is probably the first and most reasonable thing to do for anybody with a health condition. Including children.

      • Tom Naughton says:

        I knew lean jocks in high school who lived on sugary carbage too. As the reunions came around every five years, more and more of showed up looking huge. Apparently some of them changed their eating habits.

      • B35 says:

        What really gets them in the end is soda, per 12 ounce serving about 30grams of carbs and 30grams of sugar, no wonder this is happening

  13. tony says:

    We need an information and truth commissar to reconcile these differences.

    • Walter Bushell says:

      Not from the Government we don’t. Mayhap the Swedish government. (Bork, Bork, Bork) I can’t help it I’m a nerd.

  14. Harold says:

    Listened to Jimmy’s and Cassie’s latest Low Carb Conversations this morning. They had a story about cynics having a higher rate of dementia. I think we all better double up on our coconut oil, but then again maybe we have hope that the crowd will wise up and change even if the anointed refuse.

    • Tom Naughton says:

      If cynicism about government causes dementia, I’m already demented.

    • Walter Bushell says:

      Cynics have a more accurate view of social reality and bang their heads on their desk more often, thus casing (eventually) dementia.
      Not to mention reading Misses Minger and Teicholz has a tendency to raise blood pressure.

  15. mister worms says:

    Maybe researchers should also look at antibiotic usage in those countries most affected by obesity. My hunch is that overuse of antibiotics and antimicrobial agents plays a role in obesity rates via damage to the gut microbiota.

    Apparently, in countries like Mexico and Russia, it’s relatively easy to get antibiotics without a prescription and there is a lot of uncontrolled self-treatment going on. And then we have the rampant use of antibiotics in livestock production. This might be a worthy arena for governments to intervene. A population decimating species of beneficial microbes while cultivating drug-resistant pathogens becomes a serious public health risk.

  16. Chris says:

    A bit late, but just wanted to point out that while you correctly summarised the linked article about the obesity epidemic, the article wrongly reported the study in terms of the ‘top 10 obese countries’.

    The study actually found that 50 percent of the world’s 671 million obese people live in 10 countries: the United States, China, India, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, Egypt, Germany, Pakistan and Indonesia. So the top 10 in terms of absolute numbers, not in terms of percentage of population.

    Why this is a relevant statistic I dont know, since probably at least 50% of the worlds population as a whole live in those countries and so you would expect 50% of obese people to live there. Still, its a different conclusion to the one you picked up and made several comments about.

    It also found that rates of overweight and obese children worldwide rose by nearly 50 percent between 1980 and 2013 – thought I would throw that in given the comments being made.

  17. Kristin says:

    I have to take a gleeful moment in the middle of all this to share that a friend of mine has just become an enthusiastic fathead. She and another friend of mine who have both steadfastly stuck with the low fat restricted calories move more model recently both went on a weight loss campaign on their Facebook feeds complete with posting pictures of their ‘healthy’ meals and calorie counts. I just gritted my teeth. I posted a recent article from this blog on my own feed which I do periodically. I think one of the women read it and suddenly she was PMing me and asking questions. I gave her some basic info and a link to Fathead. A week or so went by.

    Suddenly two days ago she started asking more questions about a high fat low carb diet and concerned about her heart. I asked if she had watched Fathead yet. No not yet. It was a few hours later that she had posted the link to Fathead to her own feed with a comment full of completely superlative praise as the best thing she had ever seen and has changed her life. In the last two days I’ve been seeing her swan dive into good fat and declare she does not miss bread. I’m having a ball with this. She has also stated she has lost five pounds in the last week and her energy is through the roof. So she has been on the diet for a week but it was only seeing Fathead that finally convinced her it was a good idea. There is plenty of great information out there but still nothing as approachable as Fathead. Thanks again, Tom.

  18. Moreorless says:

    Here’s an interesting post.
    http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/calorie-intake-and-body-fatness-on-high.html

    You may not like or agree with it. But if you’re low carb guru’s had a say in the dietary guidelines, the health of the nation would most likely be in a much worse position.

    • Tom Naughton says:

      What you meant to write was “But if your low-carb gurus had a say …”

      Go get some good fats into your diet and maybe you’ll be able to grasp fourth-grade grammar rules.

      Meanwhile, he’s talking in circles in his article. He cites studies showing that people spontaneously eat less on a low-carb diet, then explains it away as a matter of eliminating the bread and thus subtracting calories. But since the people in those studies were allowed to eat as much as they wanted, they could have simply grabbed another burger patty or slice of cheese to make up for those calories. But they didn’t. Something about the diet reduced their appetites. His argument makes no logical sense.

  19. B35 says:

    The federal lunch program really is a waste. Did any of you check out the video “We Are Hungry”. On YouTube?

  20.  
Leave a Reply