Here are more “this is what we’re up against” items from the news sent to me by readers:
The Diabetic Diet
By the diabetic diet, I of course mean a diet that will help you become a diabetic … even though that’s not quite what the National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse had in mind when designing it.
In case you somehow overlooked it among the many other federal health agencies, the National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse (NCD) is a division of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK), which is a division of National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is a division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Ya know, I think what would really improve the nation’s health (NH) would be to add a few more layers (FML) to the federal government’s health bureaucracy (FGHB). After all, they’ve done such a bang-up job (BUJ) reversing obesity and diabetes over the years.
Anyway, here’s how NCD (a division of NIDDK) is telling people to eat to manage their diabetes:
Healthful eating helps keep your blood glucose, also called blood sugar, in your target range. Physical activity and, if needed, diabetes medicines also help. The diabetes target range is the blood glucose level suggested by diabetes experts for good health. You can help prevent health problems by keeping your blood glucose levels on target.
So far, so good. But what exactly is the target glucose level suggested by experts?
Target Blood Glucose Levels for People with Diabetes Before meals: 70 to 130 1 to 2 hours after a meal: less than 180
Well, there you have it, folks: Diabetics should aim for post-meal glucose levels that are well into the “diabetic” range. I guess that “if needed, diabetes medicines also help” statement is more like a prediction than a suggestion. Of course, you pretty much have to set high blood sugar targets when your recommended diet looks like this:
Choose this many servings from these food groups to have 2,000 to 2,400 calories a day:
10 starches
4 vegetables
5 to 7 ounces meat and meat substitutes
2 milks
4 fruits
up to 5 fats
Ten starches and four fruits. Good luck keeping your blood sugar below 180 if you’re already battling diabetes or pre-diabetes. For the diabetics who are more visually oriented, the NCD (a division of NIDDK) provided this helpful graphic as well:
Well, I can see why they grouped fats and sweets in the same category. They have nearly opposite effects on your blood sugar, but the important thing is that they both have an S and a T in their names. Put a couple more letters in between those, and you can spell out what I think of the advice handed out by NCD (a division of NIDDK).
Heart UK’s Ultimate Diet Plan
Britain’s equivalent (I guess) of the American Heart Association refers to itself in press releases as Heart UK – UK’s leading cholesterol charity. I was of course pleased to see that description. There are millions of people around the world who can’t afford foods high in cholesterol, and I’m all in favor helping them out. I’ll happily donate 100 dozen eggs.
Unfortunately, it turns out the cholesterol charity is anti-cholesterol, and they’re promoting a diet to lower cholesterol levels. Here’s their plan to “revolutionize heart health in the UK”:
Step 1 – Motivational behaviour strategies to drive dietary success and reverse negative consumption patterns.
Here’s the behavior strategy you need to adopt: go to the pantry and throw out everything that includes sugar or white flour. Then walk to the fridge and find some meat and eggs. Cook the eggs and meat and eat them. Then you’ll feel motivated.
Step 2 – Reducing saturated fat without compromising on treats and taste. Swapping a chocolate éclair for a hot cross bun is not life changing but the 93% saturated fat drop makes the life-saving recommendation to drop our saturated fat intake so much more achievable.
So a chocolate éclair is the key to avoiding heart disease, is it? Next you’ll be telling me to eat soy.
Steps 3, 4, 5, 6 – A pick ‘n’ mix of four cholesterol-busting foods!
Soya foods e.g. soya milk and yogurt alternatives
Products with plant sterols/stanols e.g. Alpro soya plus milk alternative, cholesterol lowering spreads, cholesterol-lowering yogurts.
Nuts
Soluble fibre from oats, other whole grain foods and beans and pulses.
They should’ve listed “nuts” last -– as a polite commentary on everything above it. Still, one out of four ain’t a bad hit-to-miss ratio for the typical do-gooder health charity. (I’m assuming the nuts weren’t roasted in some horrible vegetable oil.) As for the soy, absolutely, go for it … because what the world needs now is more men with boobs –- they’ll be more understanding when their daughters start puberty.
I must say, though, I can’t help but wonder why Heart UK – the cholesterol charity is so high on soy milk.
The UCLP Ultimate Teaching Tool is available to all health professionals free of charge. The UCLP has been funded by an educational grant from Alpro soya UK.
Boy, it’s really generous of Alpro soya UK to provide health professions with free literature recommending Alpro soya UK products to their patients. But if they were really smart, they’d team up with whichever company finally manufactures the manssiere.
Selling a version of the drug to consumers without a prescription would allow Pfizer to retain some of the $11 billion in annual revenue that Lipitor has been generating.
However, a nonprescription version would not be available immediately after the patent on Lipitor expires because Pfizer would first have to convince the Food and Drug Administration that consumers could take the drug without a doctor’s supervision.
That’s a bit like worrying that heroin addicts may shoot up without a drug-dealer’s supervision.
An over-the-counter version of Lipitor would no doubt be welcomed by insurers because it would cost less.
I can see the advantage there. Ruining your muscles and your memory shouldn’t be expensive. You’ll need to save as much money as possible to pay for the walkers and the Alzheimer’s care.
In the past, the F.D.A. advisers have been concerned that over-the counter versions of statins could not be used safely, that some patients who did not need the drugs would take them.
I’d be worried about that too. It’s much better to have doctors prescribe cholesterol-lowering drugs to people who don’t need them.
Since high cholesterol is a symptomless condition, consumers would not know whether the drug was working without having their cholesterol checked periodically.
Don’t be silly … of course consumers will know if the Lipitor is working. They’ll wake up in the morning and say, “Holy crap, my muscles and joints are killing me! It must be the … the … Honey, what’s the name of that stuff I’ve been taking?”
5. Double cholesterol whammy. Dietary cholesterol can elevate your blood cholesterol levels, but saturated fat has an even worse effect. However, the two are often found in the same foods, including meat, butter and full-fat dairy. So by limiting your intake of foods rich in saturated fat, you’ll also help reduce your intake of cholesterol.
Even Ancel Keys, the Grand Poopah of Lipophobes, admitted that dietary cholesterol has no effect on the cholesterol level if your blood. As for saturated fat, yes, it will raise your cholesterol … specifically, your HDL and your large, fluffy LDL. Those are both beneficial.
9. Check for tropical oils. Lots of products are now “trans-fat free” but in some cases, these fats are being replaced with saturated fats, such as palm and coconut oils. You may have heard that palm and coconut oils do not negatively affect cholesterol levels, but the research isn’t conclusive and palm kernel oil contains 80 percent saturated fat. Instead, look for products that use polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, which help lower LDL cholesterol.
Hey, now there’s a technique all the bad scientists can applaud: if a study doesn’t show what you want it to show, simply label the results as “inconclusive.” I’ve got news for you: if palm kernel oil and coconut oil did raise cholesterol, the results of those studies would be conclusive.
When a Victoria’s Secret runway model confesses her beauty secret, women will undoubtedly listen. Coconut oil is the new buzz in the beauty world, and now it’s been revealed that supermodel Miranda Kerr swears by it. She says that her shiny hair, perfect skin, and svelte body are the results of healthy living and daily use of this good oil.
Miranda Kerr, who famously bounced back to her pre-baby body just weeks after giving birth to her first child with actor Orlando Bloom, confesses in Daily Mail that her beauty secret is coconut oil. The supermodel says she dilutes the oil either in green tea or drizzles it over salads to keep her glowing. “I’ve been drinking it since I was 14 and it’s the one thing I can’t live without,” she tells Daily Mail.
For everyday beauty, coconut oil can be used as an all-over moisturizer, hair conditioner, and as a gentle eye make-up remover.
We’ll just pause here for a moment so the men in the audience can enjoy the idea of a Victoria’s Secret model using coconut oil as an all-over moisturizer.
US experts yesterday warned against consuming large amounts of coconut oil after Australian supermodel Miranda Kerr said the high-fat oil was the key to her clear skin, shiny hair and trim figure.
The World Health Organization has also warned the oil could contribute to an increased risk of coronary heart disease if taken to excess.
Keith Ayoob, director of the nutrition clinic at the Children’s Evaluation and Rehabilitation Center at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, said the oil will not give you the body of a supermodel.
It won’t? Rats! I’ve been sitting here spreading coconut oil all over myself hoping to look good in a bikini next summer.
“I can’t say I’d want people consuming lots of coconut oil. You should use it sparingly,” Ayoob said. “You want to cut back on saturated fats in your diet. I don’t know what benefit it would have for weight management because it has just as many calories as any other fat.”
Well, allow me to explain to you, Ayoob the Boob: the type of fat in coconut oil –- medium-chain triglycerides – is actually difficult to store in your adipose tissue, so you tend to burn it off instead. It’s also good for your mood and helps curb your appetite.
Kerr’s dose of four tablespoons a day adds up to about 460 calories, which Ayoob said was too much saturated fat for most people. “She’s getting two and a half times the amount of saturated fat I would recommend for a person consuming 2,000 calories per day,” he said.
Ah, well, if you don’t recommend saturated fat, that proves it’s bad for us. Sorry I didn’t recognize the logic in that sooner. I must’ve been distracted by the Ayoobs.
Several readers sent me links today to various articles about a new study that blames potatoes for making us fat. Here are the headlines with some quotes:
Consuming an extra helping of potatoes each day — French fried, baked or otherwise — can add an average of 0.8 of a pound to body weight per year, researchers find. Over time, that can result in substantial weight gain.
Everyone knows that people who chow down on french fries, chug soda and go heavy on red meat tend to pile on more pounds than those who stick to salads, fruits and grains.
But is a serving of boiled potatoes really much worse than a helping of nuts? Is some white bread as bad as a candy bar? Could yogurt be a key to staying slim?
The answer to all those questions is yes, according to the provocative revelations produced by a big Harvard project that for the first time details how much weight individual foods make people put on or keep off.
The edict to eat less and exercise more is far from far-reaching, as a new analysis points to the increased consumption of potato chips, French fries, sugary sodas and red meat as a major cause of weight gain in people across the United States.
I have mixed feelings about the media coverage of this study. It’s encouraging to see something other than sugar or fat getting the blame for all our ills:
The problem, said study coauthor Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, is that “we don’t eat potatoes raw, so it’s easier [for the body] to transform the starch to glucose.”
Since spuds prompt a quick increase in blood sugar levels, they cause the pancreas to go into overdrive trying to bring levels back down to normal. As blood sugar spirals down, people usually experience hunger, which leads to snacking. Over many years, this cycle can result in drastic weight gain and a fatigued pancreas, possibly contributing to the development of Type 2 diabetes.
It’s also encouraging to see the message getting out that weight loss isn’t as simple as counting calories:
The findings add to the growing body of evidence that getting heavier is not just a matter of “calories in, calories out,” and that the mantra: “Eat less and exercise more” is far too simplistic. Although calories remain crucial, some foods clearly cause people to put on more weight than others, perhaps because of their chemical makeup and how our bodies process them. This understanding may help explain the dizzying, often seemingly contradictory nutritional advice from one dietary study to the next.
“Our take-home message is what you eat affects how much you eat,” Mozaffarian said. “It’s not just a blanket message about reducing everything. Each individual lifestyle factor has a pretty small effect by itself, but the combined effect can explain that gradual weight gain.”
That’s why I don’t eat potatoes anymore, in spite of dire warnings from strange people who seem emotionally invested in convincing me I’m in mortal danger of permanently losing my tolerance for them: starches ramp up my appetite, period. They also spike my blood sugar. That may not happen to everyone, but it sure happens to me.
So I’m happy to see media articles warning people about consuming chips, fries, and other glucose-bombs. On the other hand, the study itself isn’t exactly what I’d call strong evidence. The researchers extracted their data from three large, multi-year observational studies. We all know what that means: food-recall questionnaires, which are notoriously inaccurate.
The message, at least as it’s being reported in the media, is also inconsistent. The news stories mention a plausible mechanism for how potatoes might encourage weight gain – potatoes spike glucose, which raises insulin, which drives fat storage – but then note that red meat was also associated with weight gain, while whole grains weren’t. If insulin-spiking potatoes are fattening, why isn’t insulin-spiking whole-grain bread?
Worst of all (though hardly surprising), the study is being reported as if the researchers have pinpointed cause and effect:
The researchers did find other culprits. For each additional sugary soft drink consumed per day, participants in the study gained an average of 1 pound over four years. Extra servings of red meats and processed meats did only slightly less damage.
Meats doing damage … yup, that sounds like cause and effect to me.
“I think it’s an important study,” said Kelly D. Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, who co-wrote an accompanying article. “It’s based on a large number of people followed over time, and it shows there are particular types of food that are contributing more than others to the obesity problem — and that some are protective against weight gain.”
No, Dr. Brownell, the study merely shows that some foods were associated with weight gain and some weren’t. We can’t conclude what’s actually protective and what isn’t from this kind of observational data. Fortunately, one expert quoted in the media made that very point:
“To attempt to isolate the effect of specific foods on weight changes is fraught with problems,” said Lawrence J. Cheskin, who heads the Johns Hopkins Weight Management Center. “One is that people may conclude that if they simply stop eating X, they will reduce the chance of weight gain. This is unlikely, and a false conclusion. Similarly, it is likely more a result of people who eat fruit being more health-conscious than fruit per se causing less weight gain.”
Bingo. Health-conscious people are different. They’re more likely to exercise, more likely to get enough sleep, less likely to eat potato chips, less likely to drink sodas, and – because they’ve been warned about it for 30-plus years – less likely to eat red meat, which is probably why red meat was associated with weight gain.
Yes, I believe potatoes and sodas make insulin-resistant people fatter. But I wouldn’t hold up this study as proof.
Pretty scary, huh? There you are, trying to lose weight on a low-carb/ high-fat diet, and now media headlines are warning that you may be damaging the part of your brain that controls weight. Two of the articles were also accompanied by photos to represent the brain-damaging high-fat diets. Here they are:
A cheeseburger, fish and chips. Just keep those images in mind.
If you actually read the articles, you’ll quickly discover that the subjects of the study were mice and rats, not humans:
Thaler and his colleagues studied the brains of rodents for the short-term and long-term effects of eating a high-fat diet. After giving groups of six to 10 rats and mice a high-fat diet for periods from one day to eight months, the researchers performed detailed biochemical, imaging and cell sorting analyses on the animals’ brains.
If you keep reading, you’ll also discover that the brain-banging diet wasn’t exactly what you or I would consider high-fat:
Researchers studied rats and mice fed a high-fat diet – that is, one with a similar fat content to the average American diet – for periods varying between one day and eight months
Within the first three days of consuming a diet that had a similar fat content to the typical American diet, rats consumed nearly double their usual daily amount of calories, Thaler reported. Rats and mice fed the high-fat diet gained weight throughout the study. These rodents developed inflammation in the hypothalamus, the part of the brain containing neurons that control body weight.
So “high fat” in this case means “similar fat content to the typical American diet.” That would put it somewhere around 40%, which also happens to be around the same percentage of fat in many traditional diets around the world — diets that somehow failed to induce obesity or brain damage among the populations consuming them.
When readers began sending me links to articles about this study, I remembered that somewhere in my folders of downloads and bookmarks, I had a PDF document listing the ingredients in the “typical American diet” fed to laboratory rodents. Took some time, but I located it. The lab-animal diets are produced by TestDiet.com. This description is from their own literature:
Western Diet For Rodents
A “Western” diet for rodents based on AIN-93G, providing 30% of fat from lard, 30% from butterfat, 30% from Crisco (hydrogenated vegetable oil), and for EFA, 7% from soybean oil and 3% from corn oil. Approximate energy from fat 40%, carbohydrate 44%, protein 16%.
That’s not a high-fat diet by my standards — I probably get 60% of my calories from fat– but it’s certainly a high horrible-fat diet. Of the fat calories, 40% come from hydrogenated oil, corn oil, and soybean oil. In other words, oils that wouldn’t exist without the wonders of industrial extraction. That may indeed represent the fat content of a typical American diet, but it sure doesn’t represent anything close to what typical low-carbers or paleo dieters would consume. Nor does it represent the fat content of a cheeseburger. (I don’t know about the fish and chips in Australia. One of you down-under types can fill me in.)
The protein in this “typical American diet” comes almost entirely from casein. That’s the isolated dairy protein T. Colin Campbell fed to rats to induce cancer, which inspired him to take an extreme leap in logic and declare that animal proteins (all of them, mind you) are bad for human health. Rats, of course, don’t naturally consume dairy products … and they certainly don’t isolate one dairy protein and eat it. They’re too lazy.
The carbohydrate in the lab-rat diet is nearly all corn starch, with the remainder consisting of sugar. Other than that poor soul featured on Freaky Eaters who’s addicted to corn starch, I don’t believe this in any way represents a typical American diet.
So the headlines warn us a “high-fat diet” injures the brain cells that control weight. In reality, it’s a diet in which nearly half of the calories come from sugar or corn starch, the protein is nearly all a single isolated dairy protein already known to cause cancer in rats, and 40% of the fat is industrial-grade vegetable sludge, most of it hydrogenated.
Sounds just like a cheeseburger, doesn’t it?
p.s. — I looked up the ingredients for the “Atkins diet” the company produces for rodent experiments as well. The breakdown on the fats is the same: 30% lard, 30% butterfat, 30% Crisco, 7% soybean oil, 3% corn oil. The protein is nearly all casein, all the carbohydrate is nearly all corn starch. Same junk, different proportions.
I’ve come up with an idea to solve the nation’s obesity issue: outlaw all newspapers and magazines, including their online versions.
As the experts behind Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move!” campaign have informed us, too many Americans are fat because they spend too much time just sitting around — and let’s face it, reading newspapers and magazines is a sedentary pursuit. Those greedy publishers, thinking of nothing but their own profits, are encouraging people to sit on their fat butts when they should be outside taking a walk or playing with their kids.
Predictably, the publishers will condemn my plan and insist that I haven’t produced any proof whatsoever that taking away newspapers and magazines will solve the obesity problem. That may be true, but any measure that incentivizes consumers to spend less time reading and more time moving can only help.
I came up with my plan while reading an online article from TIME magazine explaining how some nanny-state politicians in New York City plan to follow the lead of nanny-state politicians in San Francisco by banning Happy Meal toys. (I was, of course, jogging in place while reading the article, but I know better than most magazine readers.)
Well actually, they’re not banning all Happy Meal toys — only toys accompanying Happy Meals that don’t meet with the nanny-state politicians’ approval:
New York City Council member Leroy G. Comrie Jr. of Queens is leading the charge to ban kid-friendly toys from any fast-food meal that doesn’t meet certain nutritional standards, arguing that the plastic playthings serve to reward children for making poor food choices and undermine parents’ attempts to steer kids toward healthful options.
Mr. Comrie’s bill, which he is to introduce in the City Council on Wednesday, would restrict toys to meals that contain fewer than 500 calories and 600 milligrams of sodium, and in which less than 35 percent of the calories come from fat (making exceptions for nuts, seeds, peanut butter or other nut-based butters). In addition, the meal would have to contain a half a cup of fruit or vegetables or one serving of whole-grain products.
Awesome. Fabulous. Terrific. Let’s use the coercive power of government to remove more brain-building saturated fat from Happy Meals and replace them with more gluten and lectins — and of course, some vegetables the kids can enjoy throwing in the garbage.
As a parent, I still haven’t figured out how including a toy with a Happy Meal undermines my attempts to steer my kids toward healthful options. When my girls whine for a treat I don’t think they should have, I employ a technique passed down from my grandparents, to my parents, to me: I say no. I thought that’s what most parents do. But apparently I was wrong about that:
“I think it’s important to find a way to make a healthy lifestyle palatable and exciting,” Comrie told the New York Times’ City Room blog, acknowledging that he was motivated to write the bill out of guilt for “grabbing Happy Meals” for his own kids.
Ah, I see. Mr. Comrie wasn’t intelligent or disciplined enough to make smart choices for his own kids, so naturally this qualifies him to make decisions for mine. Clearly the best way to prevent McDonald’s from undermining my parental authority is to have the government beat them to it. Please, Mr. Comrie, stop me before I engage in another voluntary exchange.
The proposed law is a tribute to the idiocy of nanny-state politicians, but the article itself is also a tribute to the idiocy of the rah-rah journalists who cheer them on. As evidence, I present these closing sentences:
Predictably, McDonald’s condemned the proposed measure. An executive for the company’s New York region said: “Taking away toys from kids’ meals won’t solve childhood obesity.”
That may be true, but any measure that incentivizes food makers to offer healthier options for consumers can only help.
Got that? Taking away toys may not solve childhood obesity, but it can only help. That’s all you have to say to convince a rah-rah journalist that restricting freedom in a supposedly free country is a good idea: By gosh, it might just help … even if it probably won’t.
Outlawing newspapers and magazines may not make people leaner, that’s true … but anything that incentivizes them to be more active can only help. Let’s get ‘er done!
While reading the article (and trying very hard not to bang my head on my desk), I followed a link to another article about a new report that ranks the nation’s counties in terms of health. Here are some choice paragraphs:
A comprehensive survey of overall health county-by-county in the U.S. confirms a few things we already know to be true: being poor is bad for your health. So is having low education, not having a job and having less access to grocery stores and farmer’s markets for fresh food.
The County Health Rankings report, available online, ranks the health of more than 3,000 counties based on a wide variety of social, physical and environmental measures including but not limited to: adult smoking and obesity, premature death, numbers of uninsured, violent crime, car accident deaths, single parenthood, mammography screening rate, sexually transmitted disease, air pollution, numbers of low-birthweight babies born, income and education.
“It’s hard to lead a healthy life if you don’t live in a healthy community,” Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), which collaborated with the University of Wisconsin’s Population Health Institute on the report, said in a statement. “We hope that policymakers, businesses, educators, public health departments and community residents will use the Rankings to develop solutions to help people live healthier lives.”
Oh, I see … people engage in unhealthy behaviors because they live in unhealthy communities. Glad we got the cause and effect straightened out. Now the policymakers and public-health departments can jump in there and develop solutions to help people live healthier lives. Maybe they’ll start by outlawing Happy Meal toys.
Out of curiosity, I followed the links to the county-by-county rankings in California and Tennessee. In California, we lived in Los Angeles County, which is ranked number 26 out of 56 in the state. Well, that explains a lot … I still have painful memories of my mediocre health back then. Fortunately, we now live in Williamson County, which is ranked number 1 out of 95 counties in Tennessee. Man, has my health ever improved. As soon as we moved here, I started adopting the healthy habits of my new neighbors.
Strangely, though, there’s no shortage of McDonald’s restaurants around here that sell Happy Meals. We’d better do something about that. I’d hate to lose our number 1 ranking.
When I was a junior in high school, I was 5’9” and weighed around 155 pounds. That would put my BMI at 22.9, which is near the center of the “normal” range. Man, I must’ve been in some kind of good shape, right?
Wrong. I weighed 155 pounds because I had a 35-inch chest, skinny arms, and skinny legs. I also had a belly, love handles, and boy boobs. I was a skinny-fat guy.
I occasionally played pick-up basketball (not especially well, mind you) with a classmate named John, who was on the football team. John had six-pack abs, and the veins popped on his muscular arms and legs. He was about 5’8” and weighed around 180 pounds. That would put his BMI at 27.4, which would classify him as overweight.
If anyone had seen us side-by-side with our shirts off and was told John was overweight but I wasn’t, I’m pretty sure the reaction would’ve been a big chuckle. BMI is laughable as a measurement of who’s fat and who isn’t. Unfortunately, busybodies in government still take it seriously, including Michelle Obama:
In an exclusive post published on Shine today, First Lady Michelle Obama offers some advice, drawn from her own experience, about the Affordable Care Act and how parents can get the most out of visits to the pediatrician. One of her suggestions: Learn about your child’s BMI.
The First Lady was surprised to learn that her daughters’ BMI numbers were “creeping upwards.” “I didn’t really know what BMI was,” she writes. “And I certainly didn’t know that even a small increase in BMI can have serious consequences for a child’s health.
Yes, I remember how unhealthy my classmate John was, thanks to his high BMI … although now that I think about it, his height-to-weight ratio did cause some serious damage. In a playoff game, a punt-returner from the opposing team neglected to call for a fair catch as John was bearing down on him. A few seconds later, one of our players had recovered the fumble for a touchdown, and the punt-returner was flat on his back, unconscious.
A small increase in BMI does not produce serious consequences for a child’s health. Getting fatter thanks to a lousy diet can certainly have serious health consequences. Consuming a lousy diet without getting fatter can, too — just ask any of the thousands of skinny type 2 diabetics in the world. When I was a senior in high school, I joined a Nautilus club and ended up putting on 10 pounds of muscle over the next several months. My arms finally had a bit of shape to them, and my chest filled out. My BMI went up, but I was healthier.
But as Dr. Susan J. Woolford explains, despite the medical jargon, BMI (Body Mass Index) is actually a very easy way to answer a very difficult question: Is my child overweight?
No, BMI is a very easy way to answer this difficult question: What is the mathematical result of multiplying my child’s weight in pounds by 703, and then dividing that number by my child’s height in inches squared? That’s all BMI will tell you. The easy way to determine if your child is overweight is to look at him when he’s not wearing a shirt. Is his belly protruding? Is he developing love handles? If so, he’s probably on his way to being fat. If he’s got a flat belly with some definition around the abs, he isn’t.
If Mrs. Obama is going to start obsessing with her kids’ BMI scores, I feel sorry for them, but that’s her business. Unfortunately, Mrs. Obama is now in charge of the latest federal effort to combat childhood obesity, which means she’s also making it her business to hand out advice to the rest of us. Watch this interview with the chairwoman of Mrs. Obama’s taskforce:
So the taskforce is recommending the same old “eat less, move more, fill your plate with fruits and vegetables” blah-blah-blah nonsense. It hasn’t worked for the past 30 years, but apparently it will work now. Why? Because (as the First Lady explained) for the first time, they’re setting really clear goals and benchmarks!
Well, that ought to do it, then. If the federal government says we’re going to reduce childhood obesity to 5%, then by gosh, it’ll happen. I set a really clear goal of earning $500,000 this year. I’m not actually doing anything to achieve that goal, but I’m pretty sure setting clear goals and benchmarks is all it takes.
Well, that’s not entirely fair; the task force is doing something: they’re spending $400 million to bring fruits and vegetables to neighborhoods where people have already demonstrated they’re not particularly interested in buying and fruits and vegetables:
The Healthy Food Financing Initiative will promote a range of interventions that expand access to nutritious foods, including developing and equipping grocery stores and other small businesses and retailers selling healthy food in communities that currently lack these options. Residents of these communities, which are sometimes called “food deserts” and are often found in economically distressed areas, are typically served by fast food restaurants and convenience stores that offer little or no fresh produce.
Here’s a simple economics lesson: businesses don’t determine what consumers will buy. Consumer behavior determines what businesses will produce and sell. If fast food restaurants thrive in poor neighborhoods while stores that sell fresh fruit and vegetables don’t, there’s a good reason for it. Using tax dollars to bring more fruits and vegetables to areas where people don’t buy fruits and vegetables isn’t going to reduce childhood obesity. It’s just going to lead to a lot of rotten fruits and vegetables.
Part of the federal taskforce’s plan for “empowering” parents to make better decisions for their kids is to require schools to record and report BMI scores for schoolkids. Fabulous.
“Hello, this is the nurse from Lakewood Elementary calling to let you know we’ll be measuring your child’s Body Mass Index tomorrow.”
“I don’t want you measuring my kid’s BMI. It’s none of your business.”
“But I’m afraid it’s required by law.”
“Oh. Boy, I feel really empowered as a parent now. Thanks for the call.”
Once schools start identifying kids with a high BMI, what exactly are they going to do about it?
“Johnny, your BMI score tells me you’re overweight.”
“Gee, Nurse Finkelstein, what should I do?”
“Well, uh … get some exercise and then go eat your USDA-approved lunch. I believe today’s menu features chicken nuggets, mashed potatoes, rolls, chocolate milk and some peaches in a sugary syrup.”
If Mrs. Obama is 1) convinced that BMI is a useful measurement, and 2) believes her task force knows enough about the biological mechanisms of weight gain and weight loss to justify making dietary recommendations and spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars to implement them, then here’s what I want her to do:
I don’t know Mrs. Obama’s BMI, but based on pictures of her, I’d be surprised if it’s 25 or below.
Don’t get me wrong … I think she has an attractive figure. But she’s on the thicker, more muscular side of the curve, especially in the hips and legs, so it’s highly likely her BMI puts her in the overweight category. I’d prefer she look at herself in the mirror, compare what her eyes are telling her with her BMI score, and then declare BMI a useless measurement. But since she’s now extolling the virtues of BMI scores and supporting requiring schools to gather them, I want her to declare hers publicly. Then I want her to follow the USDA dietary guidelines and show us how those guidelines helped her achieve a BMI of 24. Prove the advice she’s handing out actually works.
If she does that, then she can worry about my kids’ BMI scores.
You can’t make this stuff up: an online article from SELF magazine claims that women are unhappier today than they’ve been for the past 35 years, and considerably less happy than men. The article offers some explanations for the “happiness gap,” including this one:
We talked to life coach Kiki Weingarten, co-founder of DLC Executive Coaching and Consulting in New York City, to get to the bottom of what’s making women sad, and what we can do to protect our own happiness.
“As women expect more from themselves and spread themselves thinner, they become overwhelmed and exhausted by it all,” she says. “You’re supposed to look stunning, work out and be physically in shape, have a wonderful relationship and family, be psychologically in the best shape at all times no matter what’s going on, then head off to work and succeed there and come home and be a perfect mate, cook and parent and on and on… it’s impossible.” Damn straight it is!
I agree. The “you can have it all” pitch has done women a disservice – especially that “look stunning” part, since stunning looks have more to do with genes than anything else.
Like many online articles, this one includes links to related topics. So after telling women they’re unhappy because they expect too much of themselves, what did the editors decide would serve as useful related topic? Why, a video of a supermodel on a cover shoot, of course. No, I’m not kidding. Follow the link, and this is what you get (after the ad):
So there you have it, ladies … you’re unhappy because you put too much pressure on yourselves to have it all. And speaking of having it all, how about this supermodel! Don’t you wish you were just like her?!
"This movie is funny and entertaining and amazingly informative."
"Contradicts everything you've ever been told about diet and heart disease with true science to back it up."
"Funny and smart, you'll be hard pressed to spend a more enlightening 100 minutes, and you'll come away with more practical knowledge than a whole college course in 'convential' nutrition."
When a Victoria’s Secret runway model confesses her beauty secret, women will undoubtedly listen. Coconut oil is the new buzz in the beauty world, and now it’s been revealed that supermodel Miranda Kerr swears by it. She says that her shiny hair, perfect skin, and svelte body are the results of healthy living and daily use of this good oil.
Entries (RSS)