Numbers Game: Answer

A University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health study published in the November 2007 issue of Obesity Research found that per capita total daily intake of liquid calories in the United States increased 94 percent from 1965 to 2002.

This means the average American is now getting a hefty 21 percent of his or her total calories exclusively from beverages.

Since we are talking about mostly caloric beverages (particularly sodas and fruit juices), this makes the 2002 figures 222 calories higher than those from 1965!

Add to that the fact that these 222 calories are not balanced out by a reduction in food intake (if anything, they are accompanied by an increase in calories from food!) and it becomes rather clear why rates of overweight and obesity have increased.

Let the accompanying photo also serve as a reminder that 7-11's 44 ounce Super Big Gulp and 64 ounce Double Gulp cups did not exist in 1965!

In The News: Is Fat Acceptance Acceptable?

Yesterday's New York Times Magazine ran a short piece on the "growing" fat-acceptance movement (although it's been around for approximately three decades and has yet to catch on, but I digress.)

"Fat-acceptance activists insist you can’t assume someone is unhealthy just because he’s fat, any more than you can assume someone is healthy just because he’s slim. "

In fact, this movement firmly believes that "it is possible to be healthy no matter how fat you are."

No matter how fat? Really?

So how do they explain, then, the countless research studies that have observed reductions in LDL ("bad") cholesterol, type 2 diabetes risk, and blood pressure in overweight and obese individuals who lose weight, even just five pounds?

Well, they point to a report published in The Archives of Internal Medicine this past August, which "reported that fully half of overweight adults and one-third of the obese had normal blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides and blood sugar — indicating a normal risk for heart disease and diabetes, conditions supposedly caused by being fat."

Too bad that study didn't examine levels of C-reactive protein, a marker of inflammation.

Remember, most diseases -- especially cardiovascular ones -- have cellular inflammation as a precursor.

And guess one of the factors that increases C-reactive protein levels? Overweight and obesity!

Additionally, one of those study's co-authors was quoted as saying that "among people of healthy weight in the study, elevated blood pressure, cholesterol and other factors were more common for people with larger waists or potbellies" and that "among overweight and obese adults, those in the “healthy” category tended to have smaller waists than those with at least two risk factors.

Need I say more?

The problem with this entire "movement" is that it attempts to kill two very different birds (social acceptance of overweight/obese physiques and the health consequences of being overweight/obese) with one stone.

It is one thing to denounce the media's obsession on borderline unhealthy bodies, but how anyone can believe weight has nothing to do with health status is beyond me.

All you have to do is speak to formerly obese people.

Ask them how they feel walking up a flight of stairs now as opposed to when they were carrying an additional 60 or 70 pounds on them.

Ask them how their lipid profiles have changed.

Ask them, very simply, if they miss carrying that excess weight.

Similarly, people who are extremely underweight (purposefully or not) are also at increased risk of mortality.

I point that out to show that nutrition and weight management are not inherently "anti fat," it's just that with the obesity rate doubling in the past 30 years in this country, it is not surprising that most public health nutrition efforts are concentrated on that particular problem.

Back to the Times article, I can't help but roll my eyes at the mention of "a new book out this fall, Health at Every Size, by Linda Bacon, a nutritionist and physiologist at the University of California at Davis, which is less about dieting than a lifestyle change that emphasizes “intuitive eating”: listening to hunger signals, eating when you’re hungry, choosing nutritious food over junk."

What exactly is so revolutionary? The guidelines mentioned above are precisely the same ones advocated for permanent weight loss and increased health awareness by many Registered Dietitians.

In fact, if any of you have ever been to a Registered Dietitian, you know the focus is on establishing healthy dietary patterns. It's not about six packs, fitting into size 0 clothes, or looking like the cast of the new Beverly Hills 90210.

To place the nutrition field on the same level as a celebrity diets segment on The Insider is preposterous and extremely reductive.

I don't see the damage in advocating for a healthy medium, where the end goal is to not be underweight or overweight.

In The News: The Health Police

Newly elected Chicago Police Department superintendent Jody P. Weis literally wants the force to shape up!

"Mr. Weis, an exercise enthusiast, has shocked more than a few people with talk of mandatory fitness tests and maximum body-fat allowances (only after a year’s physical education and with exceptions, of course)."

There is even talk of installing kitchens in station houses, so as to lower officers' reliance on doughnuts, pizza, hot dogs, and fries.

I think that without proper nutrition education, though, installing a kitchen is virtually useless.

An officer may not frequent fast food restaurants, but could very well still eat just as poorly (think Hungry Man frozen dinners, frozen pizzas, and Ramen noodles).

I support Mr. Weis' intentions, but focusing solely on exercise -- and apparently leaving nutrition out of the equation -- leaves a vital piece out of this puzzle.

My advice? Add on a few free of charge mandatory nutrition 101 sessions for the squad.

Numbers Game: Answer

According to 2006 figures released by food service juggernaut Aramark, the average adult in the United States has a Body Mass Index of 29.

(Note: A healthy BMI ranges from 18.5 to 25. 'Overweight' is characterized as 25 - 30, and obese is marked by a BMI of 30 or more).

As I have mentioned in the past, BMI (essentially a weight: height ratio) is not the most accurate measurement of weight status when dealing with individuals.

One limitation to this formula is that it does not differentiate between muscle and fat.

Therefore, a bodybuilder will misleadingly have a BMI in the "obese" category.

When looking at large populations, though, I find BMI to be an accurate barometer, particularly when we are talking about the average adult in this country being on the verge of clinical obesity.

It is also worth pointing out that there is a clear upward trend.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the average adult in the United States had a BMI of 25 in 1960.

I very, very highly doubt that the latest figure of 29 is due to more muscle mass, especially since this perfectly corelates to the increasing amount of calories consumed per capita in the past forty years.

In The News: Dieting Off The Runway

Vogue magazine asked Kate and Laura Mulleavy -- the sisters behind the highly successful Rodarte fashion line -- if they were interested in dieting and working out with a trainer for a feature piece.

The two women, interested in shaping up and getting healthier, agreed to four months of personal training, home delivered meals, and diary entries to later be published in the fashionista's Bible.

After sixteen weeks of training six days a week and consuming approximately 1,300 calories a day, Kate lost thirty pounds; her sister, twenty.

Needless to say, controversy has erupted.

"They are perpetuating unrealistic body images," some claim.

Others think Vogue is sending out the wrong message that in order to be succesful, one must be thin.

Now look, I am by no means a fashion guru and am often horrified at the gaunt, clearly underweight bodies that march down runways at fashion shows.

In this case, though, I don't see what the problem is.

It is worth noting that in one of her diaries, Kate writes:

"Funnily enough, just before we received the call from Vogue about this story, Laura and I went to see our doctor for a physical.

Our mother was worried about out workload and lack of exercise; we wanted to be healthier and balance our stress levels."

These were not size 4 models dining on coffee and cigarrettes being told they were "too fat" to walk down a runway (you can see a photo of Kate and Laura prior to their makeover by clicking on their names at the start of this post).

The Mullavys were also never given the message that if they "wanted to make it" as designers, then they better lose weight.

They are already accomplished and successful.

The magazine featured their work -- and complimented their designs -- several times before this weight loss article was conceived.

Their present weight is a healthy one -- they are not emaciated or displaying unhealthy bodies.

I also appreciated that their plan consisted of pre-set meals (to ensure that they were nutritionally balanced, rather than just letting the two women figure out how to eat correctly on a 1,300 calorie diet) and implemented exercise under the supervision of a trained professional.

Another interesting tidbit from their diary entries:

"“We’ll have wine when we feel like it and cheat on holidays.”

In short, these are two adult women who chose to participate in something they saw as a way to improve their health.

In the same way that someone has the right to feel completely content and self-assured with fifteen extra pounds on them, it is also reasonable to expect that there are overweight people who truly want to improve their health and, why not, look better too.

This was not a challenge the sisters had to complete successfully in order to launch their clothing line.

At no point do the Mullavys mention doing this to "look hot", land significant others, or fit into a dream bikini. And, they currently report feeling healthier and more energetic than before.

I realize they went on a strict eating plan and exercise regimen, but they were not taking diet pills, cutting out food groups, or doing senseless things like subsisting on liquids concoctions made of cayenne pepper, lemon juice, and honey for a week (I'm looking at you, Beyoncé).

The New York Times article quotes Dr. Cynthia Bulik, eating disorders professor at The University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, who makes a very good point:

"“I saw more of an emphasis on healthy eating and healthy fitness than an order, ‘You’ve got to lose weight."

I do, however, absolutely side with the feminist-thinking folks at Radar magazine, who can't help but wonder that if Vogue editors are so concerned about people's health, why don't they ask a dietitian to have a chat with fashion guru Andre Leon Talley?

What are your thoughts?

Celebrity Diet Secrets: Carnie Wilson

One of my favorite parts of flying is buying a pile of celebrity tabloids at the terminal's newsstand before boarding the plane.

This week's OK! is full of nutrition-related stories. Among them? Carnie Wilson's new weight loss struggle.

To recap: at her heaviest, the former Wilson Phillips member weighed 300 pounds.

In 2000, she underwent gastric bypass surgery and slimmed down to 146 pounds.

Now, eight years later, Carnie weighs 208 pounds.

I can't say I'm surprised. Most people who undergo gastric bypass are not addressing the real issue at hand.

Controlling one's weight isn't solely about shrinking stomach capacity.

Emotional eating, ingrained food patterns, and nutrition education also play a huge role in determining what, why, and how much we eat.

This is why once gastric bypass is completed, patients tend to regain weight.

Anyhow, in this interview, Carnie "vows" to shed the excess pounds she's accumulated over the past few years.

A sidebox details her new diet. The headline? "I'm not eating carbs." Sigh.

First of all, she IS eating carbs -- as she should! -- as evidenced by the fact that she consumes broccoli, asparagus, oranges, apples, and carrots.

"Carbs" are not just donuts, Wonder bread, and cookies.

In any case, Carnie goes on to say that if she "start[s] [her] morning with a piece of toast, [she's] doomed for the day. It's like, give me carbs," she explains.

And the problem with that would be, what, exactly?

If she were to start her day with whole -- or sprouted -- grain toast, accompany her lunch with a small side dish of whole wheat pasta, and then snack on a little popcorn in the afternoon, what horrible thing will befall her?

What's most interesting is that Carnie appears to blame her weight gain on carbs, yet she admits that what made her gain weight in the past was "go[ing] through McDonalds drive-throughs and hav[ing] a Big Mac, Super Size fries, a 20-piece Chicken McNuggets, a pie and a shake" for one meal.

She also points to being able to "eat a bag of M&M's in one day".

So, really -- and clearly -- the issue was excess calories, not excess carbs.

It always frustrates me to see people unnecessarily deny themselves nutritious and tasty food when they want to lose weight.

Carnie, if you're reading this, do me a favor: have some unsweetened oatmeal for breakfast, enjoy an open-faced sandwich on whole grain bread, and munch on two or three cups of air popped popcorn if your heart desires.

Just watch your calories, get plenty of fiber, cut down on added sugars, and above all, do not fear carbohydrates.

Numbers Game: The Unhealthy States of America

According to 2006 figures released by food service juggernaut Aramark, the average adult in the United States has a Body Mass Index of _____.

(Note: A healthy BMI ranges from 18.5 to 25. 'Overweight' is characterized as 25 - 30, and obese is marked by a BMI of 30 or more).

a) 23.5
b) 27
c) 29
d) 31.5

Leave your guess in the "comments" section and come back on Thursday for the answer!

You Ask, I Answer: Gary Taubes/Low-Carb

What's funny about this whole discussion is how nutrition experts are closer to Gary's ideas than they want to admit.

When people talk about Americans eating more processed foods, no one seems to want to make the connection that these processed foods are entirely high-carb. (go to a vending machine or fast food restaurant and find more than 1 item that is low-carb)

So, by saying Americans should eat fewer processed foods is to argue for a lower-carb diet.

Based upon reading this book I chose to stop eating simple carbohydrates (anything with white flour and white sugar).

I replaced this with copious amounts of green vegetables, eggs, cheese, and meat. I quickly dropped 20 pounds without exercising or EVER feeling hunger or thinking about portion control.

-- Anonymous
Via the blog

Gary Taubes' controversial views help certainly get discussion going, which I am absolutely thrilled about.

Yes, there is a small area in which conventional nutrition advice and Gary Taubes' views intermingle.

That being said, I ultimately consider his conclusions to stem from faulty logic.

It is indeed true that most processed (or "junk") foods consist of nutritionally void refined carbohydrates (mainly overly processed grains and sugar).

The bottom line, though, is that these processed foods are ultimately adding extra calories to people's diets.

A lot of these same processed foods (donuts, cookies, brownies, etc.) are also high in saturated fat and sodium.

They are not pure carbohydrates. So why isn't Mr. Taubes placing the blame on those two nutrients? Why just carbohydrates?

Allow me to present an analogy.

Imagine that I decide to study the health effects of strawberries.

For ten years, I have a group of people eat two cups of strawberries every day. The control group, meanwhile, doesn't eat any strawberries.

A decade later, I analyze the results and see that the strawberry eaters clearly had higher rates of cancer than the non-strawberry eaters.

Based on those statistics alone, a researcher might conclude, "strawberries increase your risk of developing certain cancers!"

Except it's not that simple.

What if it wasn't the strawberries themselves that had harmful health effects, but the fact that these strawberries had incredibly high levels of pesticides on them?

That is how I interpret Taubes' beliefs. I feel he is coming to a conclusion without considering all the information.

Mind you, the issue here is not "refined carbohydrates are chock full of nutrition" vs. Gary Taubes.

Dietitians are not saying -- and have never recommended -- "eat as much white flour, sugar, and processed food as you want!"

Glance through my blog and you will see numerous recommendations for whole grains, vegetables, legumes, and other high-fiber foods.

I distinctly say that nutrition isn't solely about calories, but also about nutrients. I also, though, think that sugar and white flour have a place in the diet as long as they are an exception to the rule and not the bulk of anyone's eating pattern.

That being said, keep in mind that many of the foods I suggest people consume often (chickpeas, kidney beans, oatmeal) are not low-carb; Gary Taubes believes they make you fat!

I also do not agree that calling for a diet "low in processed foods" is advocating a low-carb lifestyle. Legumes, fruits, vegetables, sprouted grains, and whole grains are not considered processed foods and are certainly not low in carbohydrates.

My main concern about refined carbohydrates is that, because they are low in fiber and protein, they do not satiate as well. The result? It takes more CALORIES to make you feel full.

Eating 400 calories of white rice, soda, and white bread for lunch will leave you feeling hungry, whereas 400 calories of steak will not have you raiding the pantry for a snack an hour later.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to calories. The 400 "empty carb" calories do not satiate you, so you end up eating more (consuming more calories).

There are two particular statements Gary Taubes make that raise my blood pressure, though.

The first is including potatoes in the same category as "processed foods."

As I have explained before, when cooked a certain way (ie: baked, with the skin on), a potato is highly nutritious. It is not junk food.

Second, his belief that fiber is overhyped tremendously weakens his stance for me. How anyone can ignore the health benefits of fiber is truly beyond me.

Numbers Game: Answer

The average United States citizen consumes 56 gallons of soda per year.

(Source: 2007 What America Drinks report, carried out by the Milk Processor Education Program)

That equals 106 two liter bottles of soda in one year -- or twenty ounces of the sugary drink every single day!

In 1980, annual per capita soda consumption totaled 35 gallons. In 1970? 24.3 gallons.

The reason for today's shockingly high figure is clear -- availability of increasingly larger sizes!

For example, 7-11 launched the 32 ounce Big Gulp in 1980, and the 64 ounce Double Big Gulp in 1988.

These are, undoubtedly, a large portion of the extra calories contributing to rising overweight and obesity rates.

You "Ask", I Answer: Gary Taubes/Low-Carb

The low carb movement did not evaporate as suggested above. Just Google "low-carb" and visit some blogs and forums.

You'll find that there is a vigorous discussion taking place among numerous participants.

While many [people] seem to thrive on the low-fat diet that Tom Blogical is so enthusiastic about, a significant portion of the population cannot tolerate high carbohydrate intake no matter how much exercise they get.

These are the ones that Gary Taubes' book was wrote his book for.

So, to suggest that Taubes recommends the same low-carb approach for everyone seriously misrepresents his message.

-- David Brown
Via the blog

Keep in mind that a "low fat" diet can include up to 30 percent of a day's calories purely from fat.

Thereby, if you consume 2,000 calories a day, you can consume approximately 65 grams on a daily basis (roughly 600 calories' worth).

I understand that, due to a variety of reasons, one particular style of eating can not be applied universally.

In fact, this is precisely why I find Gary Taubes' ideas to be particularly narrow-minded and a product of tunnel vision.

He doesn't beat around the bush. In his mind, carbs are evil and they cause weight gain. Simple as that.

This is a man who places refined white flour and potatoes in the same category.

As I have mentioned in the past, potatoes can be eaten in many different ways. Peel off the skin and deep fry them and, sure, you're not getting much nutrition.

Leave the skin on, pop it in the microwave, and top it off with a teaspoon or two of olive oil and you have a nutritious side dish containing fiber, potassium, and vitamin C.

I am not sure what you refer to when mentioning that "a significant portion of the population not being able to tolerate" a high carbohydrate intake.

How many people are we talking about, and how is their intolerance defined?

As far as Gary Taubes not recommending a low-carb approach for everyone, I'll let his quotes speak for himself.

From a December 12, 2007 interview with AlterNet:

"Atkins almost assuredly had it right -- that we get fat because of the quantity and quality of the carbohydrates in the diet."

When asked what he believed were the three biggest myths about obesity, his response was:

"That the difference between calories consumed and calories expended tells us anything meaningful about why we get fat. That eating less or exercising more are viable treatments for obesity and overweight. That all nutrients -- fat, carbohydrates and proteins -- have equal effects on our propensity to gain weight -- in other words, that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, as nutritionists are always telling us."

There still are -- and always will be -- followers of low-carb diets.

From a business and popularity standpoint, however, the low-carb movement has significantly tumbled from its 2003-2004 peak.

Let me make something very clear. I do not advocate that people subsist on refined grains and added sugars. I also do not think drinking two liters of soda a day is "harmless."

However, I am not going to oversimplify things and blame one single nutrient for rising obesity rates. That shallow tunnel vision does absolutely nothing but keep everyone in the dark.

You Ask, I Answer: Whole Grains/Diabetes

Why are whole grains regarded as good? Sure, they break down into sugar more slowly than white bread, but they do break down to the exact same sugar which provokes the exact same insulin reaction, just over a slightly longer period of time.

Yes, there are more nutrients in whole grains than refined, but you can get these same nutrients in higher quantities in meats and other non-grain foods. Even when whole, grains appear to be foods deficient in necessary nutrients and full of risk.

I consume mostly plant-based foods, and a large portion of my diet consists of whole grain and sprouted grain breads, whole grain cereals (Nature's Path Heritage Flakes and Nature's Path Raisin Bran), oatmeal, etc.

I don't know if there's any scientific validity to low-glycemic diets, but is there any cause for concern that insulin resistance could increase if a diet relies "too heavily" on whole grains?

-- Steve W.
Boston, MA

Whole grains are a healthy choice because they contain higher levels of fiber, vitamins, and minerals than products made with refined white flour.

Fiber is of significance here, as it helps regulate -- and stabilize -- blood sugar levels. Whereas munching on pretzels while watching television will spike blood sugar very quickly, replacing that with a high-fiber snack like whole grain crackers or almonds will prevent a sharp increase -- and subsequent decrease.

As far as them breaking down to glucose ("the exact same sugar which provokes the exact same insulin reaction") that is irrelevant to whether or not a food is healthy or not.

Why? Anytime we eat -- no matter what it is -- our pancreas secretes insulin. There is no way to have a meal or snack and NOT have this occur.

You could completely shun any kind of grains and your body would still need to release insulin after a meal to control blood sugar levels.

Also, I am not sure what you are referring to when you say whole grains are deficient in necessary nutrients. Which ones? They are a great source of B vitamins, fiber, protein, iron, and phytonutrients.

Additionally, studies have shown a correlation between diets rich in whole grains and lowered risks of stroke, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes.

As for them being "full of risk", I don't see how or why. They don't pose a threat to human health in any way (unless someone has a wheat allergy and is eating wheat products).

Insulin resistance is not going to be developed as a result of too many whole grains because, quite simply, your blood glucose levels are being more controlled than when you eat heavily processed grains. There is no need for you to be concerned.

One of the main risk factors for type-2 diabetes is being overweight, NOT eating a certain food group. The main theory is that fat cells are less receptive to the insulin being secreted by the pancreas. In turn, the pancreas keeps producing more and more, until it finally wears itself out.

This is why weight management -- not "carb" management -- should be everyone's focus.

In The News: Overweight = Healthy? (Part 2)

The controversial new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association has the blogosphere talking.

Here is Marion Nestle's brief, yet illuminatingly concise, take on the entire thing.

By the way, Marion's 2002 book Food Politics is out on paperback with a new foreword. More than ever, it is a relevant, eyebrow-raising look at the rampantly absurd state of food marketing, consumption, and confusion in the United States. Highly recommended!

In The News: Overweight = Healthy?

Want to create a web of confusion and misunderstandings? Allow the media to report on a controversial scientific study, sit back, and enjoy the ensuing hijinks.

Today's New York Times reports on a study published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association which concluded that overweight people have lower death rates than their obese, "normal weight", and underweight counterparts.

"Some who studied the relation between weight and health said the nation might want to reconsider what are ideal weights," reads one excerpt.

Many media outlets are giving this a rather troubling spin, rhetorically asking if people should worry about losing those extra five or ten pounds.

I have several concerns with this study.

Firstly, the study used body-mass index rates to determine what category participants fell into. For those of you who aren't familiar with it, BMI is a number acquired by inputting your weight and height into a formula. A BMI between 25 and 29.9, for instance, is considered "overweight".

One very limiting factor of this calculation is that fat and muscle mass are seen as equals. So, a sedentary 5'7" male with little muscle tone weighing 180 pounds has the same BMI as a muscular, athletic male of the same height and weight.

However, these two men have very different health profiles. The sedentary male has a higher risk of developing diabetes, high blood pressure, and atherosclerosis than his muscular counterpart.

For all we know, the "overweight" people (with high BMIs) in this study were athletic people with high muscle mass levels.

Additionally, I hope it is not news to anyone that being underweight is not healthy. Falling below your ideal weight compromises your immune system, raises your risk of osteoporosis, and is linked to low consumption of vital nutrients.

Lastly, this article exemplifies why it is problematic to equate our weight with our health. There are many people who do not consume excessive calories (and, therefore, do not gain weight), but do not make nutritious choices.

It is certainly possible for someone to fall into the "normal weight" category while shunning fruits, vegetables, and whole grain and not gain weight. Meanwhile, an athletic person with healthy eating patterns can be considered "overweight".

Let's not complicate matters further. If you are sedentary, ten pounds overweight and eat mostly processed foods, do not kid yourself into believing that you are healthier than your friend who eats healthy and is at a "normal weight".

Extreme circumstances not withstanding, the WAY you eat is more important than what you WEIGH.

Instead of obsessing over the scale, eat close to nature, limit processed foods, include a variety of fruits and vegetables in your diet, make most of your grains whole, and pay attention to portion sizes.

Food for Thought: Will Diet For Money (Update)

Turns out the BBC article I linked to yesterday didn't tell the whole story of Italian mayor Gianluca Buonanno's health initiative of paying his overweight residents to lose weight.

One of my critiques was that this concept seemed like a cheap reality show stunt -- lose six and a half pounds in one month and you'll get $70. Where was the nutrition education, I asked? The outreach to get people to exercise?

Well, Dr. Domingo Pinero of New York University's Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health dug up some more information and was kind enough to share it with me.

Guess what? This health initiative is better than I thought!

First of all -- once these overweight patients get a note from a doctor verifying they do need to lose weight, they are provided a personalized diet, rather than left to their own accord.

And, even better -- the town offers free exercise lessons in local parks.

Interestingly, I also learned that women get the cash if the lose six and a half pounds, but men need to lose eight pounds in one month in order to "win".

That is the one part of this initiative I still have a problem with. If a man loses six pounds in 4 weeks, that should still be commended and rewarded, especially if it is the result of a personalized meal plan and regular exercise.

I say take away the cash prize and subsidize these people's initial consultations with a dietitian. As for the $15,000 budget put aside for this initiative, look into implementing nutrition education in schools. It's never too early.

Public health nutrition authorities agree.

Earlier today I e-mailed the always resourceful Marion Nestle and asked her if she knew of any thorough studies on external motivators in relation to weight loss and management.

"Mostly on social factors -- strong family and peer support. Recent studies of single interventions don't show much (how could they?) although some school interventions look promising," she replied.

Food for Thought: Will Diet For Money

I found this article from BBC News to be rather interesting.

The mayor of Varallo Sesia -- a small town in Northern Italy -- is offering his overweight citizens (they need a doctor's note identifying them as such) $70 if they lose six and a half pounds in one month.

Those who can keep the weight off for an additional five months will receive $140.

The purpose behind this? Motivation, the mayor says.

He even has the Italian Health Minister's support, commending him for starting an initiative other towns should follow.

I'm not so sure.

Motivation is key, no doubt, but it needs to be self-produced.

An overweight person can read every magazine article under the sun about weight control, watch endless reruns of The Biggest Loser and be told by countless doctors that their weight puts them at risk for a myriad of health complications, but until they are ready to manage their weight, they'll very likely go on two or three-week-long diets that are quickly abandoned.

I'm glad the mayor wants to do something about his overweight residents (he himself is one, and is dieting, although not expecting to pick up any cash prizes for doing so), but why not attempt to offer some nutrition education in schools, or subsidize fruits and vegetables? Even better -- how about subsidizing visits to nutritionists?

Whenever I hear of bets or contests concerning weight loss, I fear people will do anything to "win", whether it's consuming very few calories, eliminating necessary food groups, or even developing binging-purging behaviors.

I also don't like having a specific number attached to this goal. What if someone loses five and a half pounds? Should this effort not be recognized?

Making any sort of concerted effort towards a healthier lifestyle should be commended, and it should be taken into account that some people might take it off slowly. After all, shedding three and a half pounds a month for six months adds up to twenty-one pounds -- no small feat!

I see this as a case of good intentions with less than favorable execution.

Numbers Game: Answer

According to research by the American Cancer Society, 14 percent of cancer deaths in men and 20 percent of cancer deaths in women could be prevented simply by weight maintenance.

Being overweight needs to be viewed not from an aesthetics angle, but as a health hazard.

From a nutrition standpoint, I cringe when I hear obese people proudly stating they are at peace with their bodies and have no desire to conform to society's standards.

Although I find the pressure on women to be a size zero (while men can tip the scales at any weight without much disapproval) absolutely heinous, a healthy weight goes beyond vanity. Keeping off the pounds significantly decreases your risk of developing strokes, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and certain cancers.

Shame on You: Kevin Trudeau (Part 3)

Chapter 2 of Natural Cures “They” Don’t Want You To Know About is titled “What’s Wrong with Health Care in America?”

Kevin Trudeau sets up his argument that the medical community is basically worthless by throwing out the following vague statements (which are not cited, sourced, or backed up with any evidence). My comments follow each one.

“More people get cancer than ever before.”

Define “ever before.” If you are comparing today’s cancer rates to 1750, when no one even knew what the disease was, then yes, we currently have millions more people diagnosed with it.

“More people have acid reflux, ulcers, and stomach problems than ever before.”

So what? Getting food poisoning from eating undercooked kitchen has nothing to do with how healthy you are. Also, ulcers are caused by a bacteria named H. Pylori (the whole “ulcers from stress” explanation is a myth) which is currently being researched by gastroenterologists. It is not yet known how people get it in their systems, or why some harbor it without displaying symptoms.

“More women have menopause problems than before.”

No, the symptoms are now understood . In 1875, women with menopause symptoms were declared insane and locked in attics.

“More people have bad skin and acne than before.”

Proof? Additionally, the majority of teenage acne is caused by the surge of hormones that accompanies puberty. Completely irrelevant to what Trudeau’s book claims to address.

“More people suffer from depression, anxiety, and stress than ever before.”

Yes, because all the above can now be identified and diagnosed. It’s not that suddenly people are more depressed, it’s that now people with any of the above can be understood and helped, rather than be told they are witches and burned at the stake.

Strangely, Trudeeau finishes his laundry list of bizarre and unfounded claims with this bullet point:

“There are more surgeries performed than ever before.”

This is relevant how? Yes, thanks to surgery, malignant tumors can now be removed, impaired vision can be restored to 20/20, and knees and hips can be replaced. Besides, plastic surgery alone has increased dramatically in the past 20 years, so in comparison to surgery statistics from 1960, today’s numbers will obviously be higher.

Trudeau attemps to dismiss nutrition by starting that:

“More people are on diets than ever before.”

Yes, FAD diets. The ones all nutritionists tell people are just gimmicky and not a smart way to lose weight.

“More people take more diet products than ever before.”

Seriously, what is with this “ever before” business? Has Trudeau found records showing what prehistoric cavemen did to lose the flab? Anyway, the reason why people purchase and consume more diet products is because there are now thousands of them out there, as opposed to a small handful in 1945.

“Yet more people are fat than before.”

Yes, Mr. Trudeau. Although you don’t believe in calorie control, may I suggest you look into the explosion of portion sizes in the United States? People are being fed larger amounts and, thus, eating more calories. Its as simple as that.

Trudeau finishes this chapter by letting us know we are a doomed species, since we are the only ones to get sick. He exclaims, “animals in the wild… do not get sick!”

Really? How does Mr. Trudeau explain bird flu, gorillas infected with ebola, or millions of rats dying as a cause of the Bubonic plague? Or, closer to home, rabid skunks and raccoons?

The back cover of Natural Cures… claims Trudaeu “provides hope, provides answers, provides solutions.” How about providing refunds for the millions who own this book?

Say What?: The (Completely Ridiculous) Secret

If you haven’t read it, I am sure you’ve heard about it. The Secret -- a book revealing the "ancient secret" that, surprise, optimism and believing in yourself are more likely to get you the life you want than negativity and anger -- has been topping best-selling lists all over the globe.

Thanks to its overproduced wannabe Da Vinci Code feel, it is initially thought-provoking and inspiring (largely due to its glossy marketing until you realize, “Well, yeah, of course I’m more likely to be successful if I believe in myself and utilize opportunities rather than think I’m doomed for failure and give up on myself.”

In essence, "The Secret" is to make the masses believe you hold the key to their happiness, and ask them to pay for your "wisdom".

Anyway, I recently came across the following passage in the book version of The Secret that had me completely flabbergasted.

“The most common thought that people hold, and I held it too, is that food was responsible for my weight gain. That is a belief that does not serve you, and in my mind is complete balderdash! Food is not responsible for putting on weight. It is your thought that food is responsible for putting on weight that actually has food put on weight.”

Why this is under "self-help" and not "science fiction" beats me.

The author goes on to write:

“Food cannot cause you to put on weight, unless you think it can. You most likely know of someone who is thin and eats like a horse, and they proudly declare, “I can eat whatever I want and I am always the perfect weight.” And so the Genie of the Universe says, “Your wish is my command.”

The Genie of The Universe??

Wait, there’s more!

“Write out your perfect weight and place it over the readout of your scale. If you see people who are overweight, do not observe them, but immediately switch your mind to the picture of you in your perfect body and feel it.”

I had to pick my jaw up from the floor after reading that. In fact, I read it five times to make sure I was reading this correctly. Then, I just got very angry.

Apart from the disturbing notion that you should shield your eyes from overweight people (gee, because being overweight isn’t hard enough), this book completely discredits nutrition.

I certainly hope the millions of people who have bought into “the secret” aren’t fooling themselves into thinking they can eat whatever they want as long as they truly BELIEVE they can fit into their Size 2 jeans next month.

No matter how hard you wish, a Starbucks chocolate chip cookie will always add 400 calories to your day (that’s more than a medium order of Fries at McDonald’s, by the way). And, no, it is not possible to not give a second thought to what goes into your mouth and expect to be a walking image of perfect health.

I don’t know what’s worse – the implied “blame the victim” subtext (if you gained weight after eating pizza every night it’s because you just don’t truly believe in yourself) or the fact that the author, Rhonda Byrne, is making millions spreading such delusional concepts.

PS: Here is a great deconstruction of this massively popular book.

Numbers Game: Answer

20,500,000: The number of overweight and obese children in the United States.

That's right. Twenty-five percent of children ages 2 - 19 in the United States are clinically overweight or obese.

In 1975, approximately 10,000,000 (or 12.5%) of children ages 2 - 19 fell into these two categories.

Let's hope our current number won't double by 2035....