Currently viewing the category: "obesity"

‘Healthy’ Foods Being Rejected in School Cafeterias

By On · Add Comment · In diabetes, health foods, junk food, L.A. Unified school district, Michelle Obama, obesity, school cafeterias, school lunch programs

The following two posts are not for school districts or their lunch programs–they are for parents. I am writing these posts for individuals, not for the mass consciousness behind government programs. Although I fully understand the utility of mass institutions, like school lunch programs, particularly for people who’d rather not think or act for themselves, I happen to know that some people prefer to take care of themselves–that is, they appreciate certain qualities of life, like what kind of foods their family eats.

I don’t necessarily mean that as an insult, since we all have areas in which we would rather just have help than personally take the bull by the horns. But I am certain that people falling into this category with regard to their children’s lunches–those that would rather subject their kids to school lunches than prepare bag lunches from home–are going to be pissed off by what I have to say. Oh well…

It appears that school kids in Los Angeles are rejecting the new “healthy” meals they’re dishing up at L.A. Unified these days. The L.A. Times reports that the new menus introduced into the public school system as a part of the campaign to combat obesity, diabetes and other health problems has been a massive flop. Not only are kids not biting into the health food fare, but underground junk food markets are popping up at most schools, some even being run by teacher that feel sorry for the starving children. Crazy, I know…but can’t say I’m surprised. I’ll explain why.

First, let’s take a look at some menu items being served at school cafeterias in Los Angeles: black bean burgers, vegetarian curries and tamales, quinoa salads and pad Thai noodles, beef jambalaya, vegetable curry, lentil and brown rice cutlets, quinoa and black-eyed pea salads, and Caribbean meatball sauce. Duh!

Who the heck would eat that stuff? I’m sorry L.A. Unified but that’s beyond stupid. Today’s children, raised on junk food, are not going to suddenly and drastically change their diets, even if First Lady Michelle Obama endorses that yuck. Wake up you brain-dead ideologues–I wouldn’t touch a black bean burger for anything, and I grew up eating healthy food. Sorry, that’s not healthy–it’s puke-inducing.  Listen to what the kids have to say about it

Iraides Renteria and Mayra Gutierrez don’t even bother to line up. Iraides said the school food previously made her throw up, and Mayra calls it “nasty, rotty stuff.” So what do they eat? The juniors pull three bags of Flamin’ Hot Cheetos and soda from their backpacks.  Yeah, no kidding. “This is our daily lunch,” Iraides says. “We’re eating more junk food now than last year.”

And it’s not just the type of foods L.A. Unified School Lunch Programs are serving, but the ways in which they are serving them. Reports are coming back from students and administrators alike of inedible food:

“The chicken pozole was watery, the vegetable tamale was burned and hard, and noodles were soggy,” said one 16-year-old

Other complaints included salads dated Oct. 7 being served on Oct. 17, although lunch program officials claim those dates were not for expiration, but instead “best used by”  dates. Either way, I don’t blame the kids—I wouldn’t buy that either. Who wouldn’t want food to be at its best?

As a result, student participation has been down–thirteen percent to be exact. And as an understandable backlash, the junk food black market has been booming. Students and teachers are coming equipped with candy, chips and even instant noodles to supply the hungry students.

So I reiterate that if children are raised on junk food, like most Americans are, and the food being served in school cafeterias is “like dog food” (according to one student), wouldn’t you expect them to reject it and go for what they know? Duh.

You can’t force drastic food changes on people, let alone children–that’s a recipe for disaster. School lunch programs could start by simply offering good quality foods. So keep the burgers and pizza, just make them with decent ingredients, and not the mass produced crap that large institutions typically purchase. I mean, my heavens, the school lunch budget increased a whopping 900% (from $2 million to $20 million)–start by buying fresh meat instead of frozen pre-made patties.

I like that L.A. Unified is attempting to make school lunches healthier, but serving Sloppy Quinoa-Joes ain’t gonna cut it. They’ve got to keep it within the comfort zone of the children. Fresh fruits and vegetables instead of canned or frozen is a good start, and I’m happy to report they have done that. But before introducing the same sort of yuck they serve at the Whole Foods hot deli counter…I’d invest in barf bags.

Some Evidence on Obesity Model

By On · Add Comment · In body mass index (BMI), drinking water, energy expenditure, fast-food, hormones, International Journal of Obesity, junk food, obesity, parents of obese children, positive energy balance, visfatin

I’ve been getting harangued for weeks by a severely wounded ego-centric proponent of the I’m-so-desperate-to-be-right approach to intellectual discourse, that I am finally giving in and providing some support for my thoughts on obesity. The blog stalker has insisted that I prove the validity of my thoughts on obesity, and so I will provide some evidence, but let it be known that this is the last response I will make to the ramblings.

In the most recent issue of the International Journal of Obesity [Volume 35, Issue 10 (October 2011)], no less than every article supports my position:

Overweight and obesity are the results of an enduring positive energy balance, that is, when energy intake is larger than energy expenditure. Hence, overweight and obesity prevention requires effective intervention programmes targeting behaviours that contribute to both sides of this energy balance. These so-called energy balance-related behaviours include dietary behaviours (for example, consumption of fruit and vegetables, or sugar-sweetened beverages), sedentary behaviours (for example, television (TV) viewing or computer use) and physical activity behaviours (for example, sports or active commuting to school).

Interesting, calories in vs. calories out (boldface emphasis mine), and not one thing about hormones or genetics. That’s because it’s science, stupid.

The PA of children seems to compensate in such a way that more activity at one time is met with less activity at another. The failure of PA programmes to reduce childhood obesity could be attributable to this compensation.

Duh!  Parents are responsible for their children especially when they see them blowing up.

Lower insulin sensitivity at childhood may predict subsequent total and central adiposity gain at adolescence. These findings enhance the role of insulin sensitivity as a target of obesity prevention already from the first decades of life.

Or in other words, don’t let your children eat junk food.

Children whose both parents were overweight or obese both before pregnancy and after 16-year follow-up had a strikingly high risk of overweight at age 16 years…parents’ long-term overweight (BMI greater than or equal to25 kg m−2 before pregnancy and after 16-year follow-up) was the strongest single predictor.

I almost can’t believe that anyone would need proof of this.

Consuming the recommended daily amount of water for children could result in an energy expenditure equivalent to an additional weight loss of about 1.2 kg per year…water drinking could assist overweight children in weight loss or maintenance, and may warrant emphasis in dietary guidelines against the obesity epidemic.

Too much abdominal (visceral) fat increases an individual’s risk of developing insulin resistance and other metabolic disorders. In a Perspective, Hug and Lodish discuss the unexpected finding that blood levels of a hormone produced by visceral fat, called visfatin, correlate with obesity.

Okay, that particular study is from a different journal, but I couldn’t resist (and one more from same journal)

But back to the International Journal of Obesity:

Conclusion: Hormone (serum visfatin) levels are influenced by body fat content in obese children

An association between children’s body mass index (BMI) and overeating has been established…overeating, impulsivity and reward responsiveness were significantly associated with childhood BMI. Mediation analysis revealed that impulsivity and reward responsiveness equally and significantly predicted BMI indirectly through overeating.

The single most idiotic argument I’ve heard is that overeating is not a cause of obesity–precisely why this will be my last response to such nonsense. I cannot discuss an idea with someone if we don’t speak the same language.  Denying the most basic knowledge we have about physiology puts us on different planets.  Conversation over.

The teenagers who ate at FF restaurants consumed more unhealthy foods and were more likely to have higher BMISDS than those teenagers who did not eat frequently at FF restaurants.

  • That prosperity leads to obesity:

Ethnic minority groups in Western European countries tend to have higher levels of overweight than the majority populations for reasons that are poorly understood. ..Conclusion: Contrary to the patterns in White groups, the Dutch ethnic minority women were more obese than their English equivalents.

It’s only poorly understood because the right questions aren’t being asked.  Essentially the study shows that culture alone isn’t definitive.  However, I propose that it’s the change in culture, particularly entering an environment where conveniences abound.

…higher preferences for sweet and fatty foods compared with the other two groups. Food preferences were also related to all overeating measures, which in turn accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in BMI…The associations reported in this paper are important from a public-health perspective because of the abuse potential of sweet-fat foods and their strong relationship with obesity.

And that’s that. As I’ve said before, Mr. Stalker, I don’t do peoples’ research for them. But because you showed such diligence in asserting yourself, I thought I would finally accommodate. I didn’t have to go far for supporting articles–one journal, sir, was all I needed. That’s because what we know about obesity isn’t in need of an overhaul, therefore most of what I put forth is BASIC. What is needed is a halt to the notion that the individual isn’t responsible for his or her own weight, and that they are powerless because of their genetics or hormones.

So as I said, I’m done. I will post a few more promised pieces on obesity in the future, and then I move on.

Hate to be the One that Tells You, but…

By On · Add Comment · In American Beverage Association, children, obesity, Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, soda, soft drinks, sugar, teens

In my recent obesity debates, I noticed a disturbing trend among many proponents of fantastical new theories on obesity, which included some doctors: They were adopting a “obesity is far too complex to blame a singular (or few) product/action” position. As I remarked in an earlier post, I think this poorly thought out opinion only perpetuates the problem.  No less erroneous than the genetic theory of obesity, denying the obvious simply gives the obese person a reason to pull themselves, and their lifestyle habits, out of the equation. As a result, it ensures that obesity will remain a lucrative disease entity in need of a cure (à la cancer).

Case in point: In response to a recent report coming out of the Yale University Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, that has showed soft drink manufacturers to be stepping-up advertising to children and teens, particularly blacks and Hispanics. The American Beverage Association, whose members include soft drink companies, disputed the study’s findings. Said the group’s Chief Executive Officer Susan Neely in a statement,

“This report is another attack by known critics in an ongoing attempt to single out one product as the cause of obesity when both common sense and widely accepted science have shown that the reality is far more complicated.”

Uh huh…listen up obesity enablers: Aspects of obesity may have some complexity to them, but how it originates physiologically in the individual isn’t complex. Any right-minded person not driven by profits or ego (doctors…) simply cannot deny that imbibing ten teaspoons of sugar (contents of one can of soda) will lead to metabolic and hormonal changes that ultimately cause obesity.  If you’re this person, forgive me but…you’re an idiot.

Obesity Causes Imbalance

By On · Add Comment · In anabolism, autonomic nervous system, calories, catabolism, exercise, fight or flight response, homeostasis, hormones, obesity, parasympathetic nervous system, sympathetic nervous system

Continuing on with obesity, you know, I’ve been hearing quite a bit about hormones and their role in weight gain. It is an indisputable fact that the concentration of some hormones goes haywire as people gain weight. But listen up o’ seekers of truth: Hormone imbalances are a consequence of weight gain (though I am certain they are also maintainers of such), but in and of themselves they are not the cause.

Hormones are chemicals messengers that have a number of functions, one being regulation or homeostasis. Homeostasis is a control mechanism that maintains the balance in a system—it is a universal principle. The peripheral nervous system is made up of the somatic and autonomic nervous systems (ANS), the latter controlling functions that are on auto pilot–the one’s we don’t have to think about.

The ANS has two branches that act in continual oscillation under normal conditions—the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. The sympathetic nervous system is responsible for our fight or flight responses; the parasympathetic for our rest and digest. In other words, each branch of the ANS is responsible for various functions that support either build-up (parasympathetic) or breakdown (sympathetic) processes. Energy utilization is one such process.

During energy buildup and storage or anabolism—when we extract and store our energy molecules—our parasympathetic system is the driver, controlling various hormones and chemical messengers. During breakdown and utilization (fuel burning) or catabolism—it’s our sympathetic nervous system that’s the driver, with it’s own hormones and neurotransmitters. Parasympathetic prepares the body for build-up (rest and digest), which includes slowing molecular breakdown and energy utilization (sympathetic), increased blood flow to the digestive system, and decreased blood flow to the muscles. When this system is in full force, we often feel relaxed, lazy, maybe even sluggish. Our bodies are ripe for energy storage or weight gain when we are in rest and digest.

On the flip side, our sympathetic nervous system prepares the body for energy utilization, especially under stressful conditions. Remember it’s the fight or flight system. During sympathetic stimulation, our metabolism speeds up so we burn fuel more efficiently, blood flow to the digestive organs decreases (less food coming in and being distributed to tissues, thus less stored), and muscles perfuse with blood (getting ready to work). It’s what makes you shake and tremble when you are stress or excited, although I am certain some people rarely feel it so strongly.

I say that because, no doubt, obese people are in a state of parasympathetic imbalance. That is, their parasympathetic system is kicked in more often than their sympathetic system. As a result, it has been observed in obese people that certain parasympathetic processes are acting normally while their sympathetic system is depressed. The effects of such an imbalance is that obese people have difficulty burning fuel efficiently, while they are quite proficient at packing it in.

Okay, we’ll no sh#%…we all know that: It’s harder for obese people to lose weight. No kidding…that doesn’t mean they cannot. The reason this happens is that when fuel keeps coming in as food, the body, in its profound intelligence, does what it’s proficient at: stores it as fat for leaner times, for survival. The body doesn’t understand gluttony; it doesn’t understand prosperity—it doesn’t know 24-hr pizza delivery exists. All it understands is, “Influx of food—store it.” Period. And so that’s what it does.

As a result of overeating, excessive weight gain and very likely low physical activity, the body is forced into this autonomic nervous system imbalance between parasympathetic and under-active sympathetic systems. And a vicious cycle ensues.

Yes it’s the reason obese people don’t see the same gains non-obese people see from short-term exercise…that’s why they’ve got to make it lifestyle, and see what happens after two years of continued activity. Too many obese people quit when they don’t see result within three months.

And, yes, decreasing calories too quickly can lead to a stress that is both mental and physical, one that the body interprets as a need to store even more (“Starvation!”). That’s why I always recommend keeping weight loss to realistic and healthy goals of one pound per week. It’s one thing I like about the Weight Watchers program—they do it slowly and steadily, advocating lifetime wellness and not just a crash-diet (literally and figuratively).

But here’s the skinny: In the end, it still comes down to calories in (and stored) versus calories burned. It’s just that the hormonal changes that DO occur—the ANS imbalance—slow things down that much more for the obese person. In the end, though, part of the answer is still to exercise regularly and effectively, as well as change eating habits (see last post).  There is, however, one more obstacle that is probably the biggest hump when it comes to losing and keeping off weight, and one which I will be discussing in the next post—the human mind.

Shocking Revelation: Chips Make You Fat!

By On · Add Comment · In dietary habits, exercise, French fries, Harvard University, obesity, potato chips, soda, weight gain

When it comes to weight gain, is one food-like substance worse than another?  Yes, say Harvard University researchers, and the biggest offenders are potato chips!  Whaddayaknow–worse than sodas, worse than fries, worse than candy?  Yup, chips were more than four times more fattening than sweets or desserts.  Dang!  I’d say, “Who knew,” but isn’t it kind of obvious?

The study (actually three studies combined) looked at more than 120,000 people over a twenty year period, analyzing their dietary and lifestyle habits.  The subjects were all health professionals and not obese at the start.  Their weight was measured every four years, and they detailed their diet on questionnaires.  On average, participants gained nearly 17 pounds over the 20-year period.  For each four-year period, food choices contributed nearly 4 pounds, while exercise–for those who did it–cut less than 2 pounds.

This is how foods broke down into the fattening quotient (pounds gained/4 years):

  • Potato Chips — 1.69
  • French Fries — 1.28
  • Candy — 0.41
  • Alcohol (drinks) — 0.41
  • Watching hour of TV a day — 0.31
  • Recently quitting smoking, 5-pound increase
  • People who slept more or less than six to eight hours a night gained more weight.

The researchers conclude that diet is more important than exercise when it comes to gaining or losing weight.  Although I definitely agree with this statement in context of today’s western society, I wouldn’t say that’s a physiological fact, thermodynamically speaking.  Today’s foods may just be harder to burn, but I don’t know that it is true for all foods (and can’t one, technically, get fat from an excess of any food?).  Okay, different subject, I know, but I will agree that our current obesity epidemic ain’t from eatin’ too many carrots.

This is a decent study, but I would say we should put things into perspective.  Many people believe that as long as they work out, they should be able to eat whatever they want…within reason.  Problem is, people grossly underestimate how many calories they are eating at any given time.  A great piece came out in Scientific American last year discussing a study which showed most people, oddly, miscalculate total calories when high-calorie items are accompanied by ‘healthy’ side dishes.  Subjects overwhelmingly assigned less calories to plates with cheeseburgers and celery, than they did to cheeseburgers alone.  Doh!  Think that might happen regularly in real life?

Listen, crap is crap is crap is crap.  Chips are crap, period.  Eat them more than a few times a year (seriously) and expect fatness.  Same for sodas, canned ravioli, frozen tater tots and doughnuts–sorry to break-up the party, but…

Do we really need a study to tell us chips and fries are not Jenny Craig material?  I wish not, but sadly…we do.  So now you know.  Do with it what you will.

Obesity Paradigm Wrong

By On · Add Comment · In behavioral approaches, epidemic, magic bullet, mental patterns, metabolism, obesity, Scientific American

Just finished reading an article that was as good an analysis on obesity as I think you’ll find today.  The latest issue of Scientific American featured a piece titled, How to Fix the Obesity Crisis, and it does a great job of explaining the multi-factorial complexity of today’s obesity epidemic.

The article discusses the numerous metabolic, genetic and molecular process that might be involved in the mechanism of developing obesity, but it focuses on the behavioral approaches to breaking mental patterns involved in overeating and poor food choices.  The history on the obesity epidemic is pretty good, too.

Where I think the article fails is that it still approaches obesity from the same mechanistic thinking that has been unable to figure out the malady to begin with.  This sentiment can be summed up by the line,

“Maybe someday biology will provide us with a pill that re-adjusts our metabolism so we burn more calories or resets our built-in cravings so we prefer broccoli to burgers.”

Continuing to hope for a magic bullet that will allow us to live a faulty life style consequence-free is foolish. That IS the problem!  I’m going to leave my full assessment for a later time, because I think the article is worth reading.  But stay tuned.

Biggest Loser’s Biggest Problem

By On · Add Comment · In body mass index (BMI), diets, exercise, obesity, The Biggest Loser, weight loss

I like The Biggest Loser–it’s good T.V. And I certainly see some value in the show. Saying that, however, it is not necessarily the best approach to weight loss.

According to some experts, The Biggest Loser is counterproductive and dangerous. The show takes obese contestants through extreme exercise conditions and carefully monitored diets, as they compete against each other for the greatest weight loss. The winner at the end of the show wins $250,000.

Last year’s season 8 saw two of the contestants collapse during a one-mile (1.6 km) foot race. And this year’s season 9 began with two contestants having complications during a 26.2 mile (42 km) race on stationary bikes. One of the contestants had to be dragged off the bike under her protests due to severe cramps, while a second, who weighed in at a massive 526-pounds, was treated for exhaustion.

Some criticisms of the show include that they take a group of people falling to the extreme side of obesity, or the largest people in society, the severely obese (BMI greater than 40) as contestants. Whereas the majority of obese Americans have a body mass index (BMI) of 30+, people with BMIs above 40 represent only 6% of the population. The show, however, uses mostly severely obese contestants. In fact, 17 of the 22 contestants (~80%) this season have BMIs over 40. The problem, critics say, is that it does not accurately represent the population and is, therefore, removed from real world conditions.

Another criticism is that the program is too strenuous and that weight loss happens too quickly, neither of which is healthy. Not only can this pose a danger to contestants but can also be discouraging for those viewers at home trying to lose weight. When people can’t match the numbers posted on the show, some being record weight losses (fastest 100-pound weight loss in seven weeks, and most weight lost in one week–34 pounds), people are bound to get discouraged.

The final criticism is that the rapid weight loss seen on The Biggest Loser is not likely to be maintained. Several former Biggest Loser contestants have regained some or all of the weight they lost while contestants on the show.

Well I’ve got to say…I couldn’t agree more. I do like The Biggest Loser, mostly because it shows that for any person to lose weight, one simple physiological principle must be satisfied: More calories must be burned than taken in. This principle is true whether one has the “obesity” gene, an underactive thyroid, or whether one just likes to eat. To lose weight you’ve gotta burn more than you bring in, period. I think the show demonstrates this princilple quite nicely.

But as I’ve said in a recent article, losing more than one pound per week is unhealthy. And if you are trying to lose weight for any other reason than your own inspiration, forget it–it will never happen, not with any permanence, that is.

If you really want to lose weight, you’ve got to set realistic goals, and do it over the long haul. Making some lifestyle changes will be a necessity, and getting over the mental barriers that attach you to eating will be of the utmost importance.

So as far as The Biggest Loser is concerned, it’ll keep on its game plan of getting the fattest people to lose the most extreme amount of weight in the shortest period of time, healthy or not. Even if they lose a couple contestants one year to heart attack or dehydration, they’ll keep going for one simple reason: It makes good T.V.

Bout Time

By On · Add Comment · In aspartame, calories, diet soda, health reform, lifestyle behaviors, obesity, soda, sugar
Finally, a useful suggestion for health reform–tax sodas! Well, by golly…I think they’ve got something there: Tax the nutritionally inert liquid sugar that Americans are severely addicted to, and yes, a solution. One solution. Small solution. But a great start.

Here are the facts. Sodas are the number one consumed beverage in the United States. They contain about 100 calories and ten teaspoons of sugar. Diet sodas add their own twist. While having zero calories, a large study conducted at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio showed that people who drink diet soda regularly are 41% more likely than regular soda drinkers to become obese. What??? You heard right, the zero calorie drink actually makes people more susceptible to obesity; and it’s because of aspartame, the artificial sweetener, that people pack on the pounds.

According to researchers, aspartame fools the body into thinking it will be receiving sugar–an energy source–but that sugar never comes; so the body is left wanting. What happens next is that our diet soda drinkers reach for something to satisfy that sugar urge, and they overindulge. Not convinced? Then ask yourself why the discrepancy in physicality. Why are diet soda drinkers anything but emaciated? Hmmmmm….

Since soda–diet or regular–is garbage, and it’s contributing enormously to the obesity problem (and consequently, outrageous health care costs), then why not tax it? We tax tobacco, alcohol, and mary jane (oh yeah, not yet), why not the simple syrup? Americans drink enough soda that a tax would generate an estimated “100 to 200 billion dollars over a 10-year time frame.” Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Listen, health care cost are significantly related to lifestyle behaviors. If you want to socialize health care, then don’t just punish everybody across the board; tax those most negligent. Tax the smokers (I’ll pay my share), the boozers, and the junk food junkies. My position has always been, “Don’t just single out the fast food restaurants; nail the soda manufacturers too.” That’s fair–and accurate. Bingo.

And I’ll be pleasantly surprised if they ever get how much the chronic pharmaceutical drug users cost us–you know, people who prophylactically or habitually take statins, antidepressants, or any other drug that doctors are pushing on the public like the sky’s the limit. Yeah, tax all those negligent people involved in making our system “broken”.

Soda and Weight Loss

By On · Add Comment · In diet soda, Eddie Pence, gastric bypass, obese, obesity, soda, The Biggest Loser, weight loss

My wife was reading my earlier blog on government funded gastric bypass surgery, and while looking at The Biggest Loser before and after pictures, noted that many of the people submitting photos had cut out soda.

Ah, soda–the lowest common denominator in obesity. If someone is obese, I’ll bet the farm they drink soda. And diet soda is no healthy alternative, yet I’m sure many people think it is.

Without a doubt, my lovely wife was astute in picking out that common act–quitting soda–that leads to dramatic weight loss. I’ve said it again and again and again: Cut the soda or you’ll never lose weight. And if you do kick the habit, you’ll see the pounds shed quickly and permanently–that is, as long as you remain permanently abstinent. Read the interview I conducted with comedian Eddie Pence. He lost 15 lbs like that (finger snap), just by kicking Diet Coke.

It’s up to you: Lose the soda and lose the pounds, or keep drinking that crap and settle for a stomach staple.

Ockham’s Razor**

By On · Add Comment · In diet, epidemic, exercise, gastric bypass, obesity, Ockham's Razor, The Biggest Loser, universal health plan

What’s the best way to combat an obesity epidemic? Have insurance companies–or better yet, the government–pay for gastric bypass surgeries. You heard me right, let somebody else pick up the tab for one’s disregard. At least that’s what some crackpot lawmakers want to do.

According to a recent story, the obesity epidemic may throw a wrench in President Barack Obama’s universal health plan. I couldn’t agree more. Throw in a few professional patients, and a few more prescription drug addicts, and I think the President’s plan is in for a world of hurt. How do I know? Because that’s exactly why health care costs are currently out of control. We’re all paying for the “sick care” of the relatively few.

But fear not–one New Hampshire politician has it all figured out. Turns out all of State Senator Bob Clegg’s health troubles went away following his gastric bypass surgery in 2007. The surgery helped him deflate from a whopping 380 to a respectable 240 lbs. Not bad, Senator, not bad. So he believes this must be the answer: Government funded gastric bypass–or at least have the surgery covered by private medical insurance. He’s so convinced of it’s effectiveness, that he authored a bill in January 2008 requiring New Hampshire insurers to offer surgery as a treatment option, just as the state’s Medicaid program for the poor does. Apparently other states are looking at the “Live Free or Die” credo of New Hampshire and taking it literally. But to take it one step further, some think that the law should be extended federally.

All I can say is, “Oy vey!” Senator, Senator, Senator…you are wrong, dead wrong. Why should taxpayers pay for an elective surgery? Let me be frank, sir: Obesity–despite what some enablers in the medical and psychology field may wish us to believe–is not a disease. Not. It’s a condition. One that is mainly the result of lack–lack of information, lack of understanding, lack of discipline, lack of responsibility, and lack of accountability.

In my book, The Six Keys To Optimal Health, I say very clearly to people battling their weight, “You have the power to overcome obesity; it’s in you.” I also say run–don’t walk–away from anybody who tells you that you are not in complete control of your weight. Run! Run from New Hampshire, and run from Senator Bob Clegg cuz’ that man’s dangerous. Implying that obesity is a disease that needs surgical intervention* (paid for by you and me in taxes and insurance premiums) is the road to hell. Here’s the laugh: Clegg’s impetus to pull the wool over New Hampshire’s eyes was that he had to pay $20,000 out of his own pocket. His rationale: he’s saving the state $3,000 per month in doctor’s visits.

Hey, I’ve got no beef with that…if it were reality. But it’s not. Clegg could have lost the weight himself through diet and exercise. No? Don’t think so? Sorry, The Biggest Loser proves it. That T.V. show has single-handedly buried any hope for the “I just can’t lose weight no matter what I try” set…definitively. Have you seen the show, Clegg? It’s incredible. Slap in the face of perpetual victims. If anybody reading this hasn’t seen Biggest Loser yet–one of the best shows on T.V. as well as an unexpected public health phenomenon–you simply must. If you can’t stomach T.V., then at least check out the website, especially the before and after photos. Disease my arse. The contestants of the show do it purely with diet and exercise–the only way to lose weight effectively. I hope the former Senator’s dangerous bill gets no farther than New Hampshire.

*I’m not against gastric bypass surgery, at all. I just don’t want to pay for yours, as I’m sure you don’t want to pay for my penis enlargement.

**Thank you to a great client and regular reader, Kelly D.

Not the Answer

By On · Add Comment · In calorie counts, childhood obesity, commercials, fast-food, obesity, television, TV advertising

Some medical experts are so perplexed by the obesity epidemic that they are now grasping at straws. Take the latest study looking at the effects of fast-food advertising on childhood obesity to get a glimpse of the newest far-fetched fantasy–blaming businesses for people’s poor decision making, and then trying to regulate them. That’s what happened in New York City this year with mandated calorie count menus, and we may now see Federal regulation of television advertising for fast-food restaurants.

The study on childhood obesity–afflicting nearly one third of all American children–will be published this month in the Journal of Law & Economics. It looked at TV advertising, finding that as much as 23 percent of the food-related ads kids see on TV are for fast-food restaurants. Some estimates have children seeing tens of thousands of fast-food commercials every year. The study then used a statistical test which assumed fast-food ads lead to obesity, but made calculations to address other influences such as income and the number of nearby fast-food restaurants. They also took into account that some children might be obese despite their television watching habits. The conclusions of the study were that banning fast-food TV ads would reduce childhood obesity by 18% in young children and 14% in older children–basically five to six out of every hundred kids.

Oh heavens. OK, these kinds of studies make my stomach turn. What a bunch of nonsense motivating and perpetuating this type of research. Do television ads drive people toward consumerism? No doubt. Do television ads geared toward children influence their buying habits? Absolutely. Does eating fast-food repeatedly make people fat? Without question. Does banning fast-food TV ads really make sense in our pro-commerce society? Not to me it doesn’t. Another recent study showed that watching television in general increases the risk of childhood obesity. Should we ban television? As a matter of fact, plenty of studies point to television as a source of idiocy in its worshipers. Should we ban television to reduce idiocy? Should we ban alcohol because of the numerous deaths it leads to, or the violence, or the promiscuity, or the running naked through sporting events? Yeah, they tried that once–it was called Prohibition. It didn’t work.

Instead of perpetuating this victim mentality that seems so pervasive in our culture, why not be honest with ourselves and say it like it really is: children are obese because their parents are either ignorant or child abusers. No way a child learns to eat McDonald’s every day on his or her own. They learn from, and are enabled by, their parents. You know it’s true. I know it’s true. So why the hell is the federal government funding a study to find blame with the fast-food industry? Where’s the personal responsibility? I don’t like pop music; and I think much of today’s rap music teaches kids poor life lessons; but I don’t want to ban it. And any attempt to do so is usually met with massive resistance.

So why this attack on fast-food restaurants? Simple. Because when people (adults) have no self-control of their own–they overeat, eat crap, don’t exercise–they can’t fathom forcing self-control upon their children. So instead they blame. Blame everybody but themselves. OK, post calories on menus; then people will have nobody to blame but themselves, because posting calories won’t give people self-discipline. Printing warning signs on cigarette packs hasn’t stopped people from smoking, nor has printing warning signs in bars kept people from drinking. So banning TV commercials won’t lower the childhood obesity numbers. Only banning fast-food altogether will do that. Throw in a ban on Coca Cola and television, as well as mandating five days of exercise for every child, punishable by jail time for failure to sweat sufficiently, and maybe…just maybe…childhood obesity will decline. But is that really the world we want to live in?

Older Americans Living Longer

By On · Add Comment · In education, exercise, life expectancy, living longer, National Institute on Aging, obesity, Older Americans 2008, poverty

Older Americans are wealthier and living longer than ever before. So says the National Institute on Aging’s report titled, Older Americans 2008. According to the report, the number of older people in the U.S. living in poverty has gone down, education has increased, and life expectancy has increased.

Americans today are living on average to 84 years old–that’s seven years older than the generation that turned 65 in 1900. Despite this, some problems exist. For instance, obesity has risen significantly in the last 10-15 years. In the 2005-2006 study period, 37 percent of women aged 65 to 74 were obese, and 24 percent of women age 75+ were obese. This is up from the 1988-1994 study period, when 27 percent of women age 65 to 74 and 19 percent of women age 75 and over were obese.

Despite evidence showing exercise to improve and prolong life, older Americans are just not jumping on the bandwagon. Only 25% of people 65 and over are exercising or participating in leisure-time physical activity on a regular basis. No bueno. And no surprise that health care costs rise significantly every year following peoples’ 65th birthday

So some good news and some not so great news about areas that can definitely use improvement. Overall though, I think quality of life is improving for people as they get older, and I think as health and wellness becomes more ingrained into the public consciousness, these numbers will only get better.

Lean Toward Breakfast

By On · Add Comment · In blood sugar, body mass index (BMI), breakfast, diabetes, fat, habit, lose weight, obesity, snacking, teenagers

Want to know one simple habit that can reduce snacking, increase activity, and help you lose weight? Eating breakfast regularly is what: A study conducted at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health showed that teenagers who ate breakfast regularly had lower body mass index (BMI) relative to their breakfast-skipping peers. And they weighed about five pounds less on average too. Nice.

Although conducted on teens, I believe we can extrapolate the the research finding to adults as well; I mean, the conclusions make sense. According to Mark Pereira, lead author of the study, breakfast eaters probably have better control of their appetites throughout the day, and they are less likely to pick up sugary snacks, like doughnuts, muffins, or scones–items many of us grab on our run through Starbucks.

Think about this for a minute: Who’s more likely to gain weight–people who eat an early morning meal or people who skip it? Duh. It all has to do with blood sugar. Let yours get too low–easy to do if you don’t get fuel first thing in the morning–and your body will surely convert much of your first meal into fat. But guess what? It’ll be the least of your worries. That volatility in blood sugar concentration can lead to diabetes. Diabetes+weight gain/obesity=big problems.

Don’t do it to yourself: Eat a hearty breakfast. Skipping any meal, in my opinion, is a poor dietary practice; but breakfast, especially, should be eaten every day. If the risk of disrupting your blood sugar isn’t enough to get you noshing first thing in the morning, then the thought of packing on the pounds unnecessarily should. In a culture and society prosperous enough for us to even have this choice, we should never take our early morning meal for granted–breakfast truly is the most important meal of the day.

More Reasons to Give Up Liquid Sugar

By On · Add Comment · In diabetes, diet soda, energy drinks, heart disease, high blood pressure, juice cocktails, metabolic syndrome, obesity, soda, uric acid, vascular disease, water
If it ain’t enough that sugary drinks (read: soda, diet soda, juice cocktails, and energy drinks) contribute to obesity, a new study shows that they may also increase the risk of high blood pressure, heart and vascular disease, as well as metabolic syndrome – all of which may lead to diabetes and heart disease.
A new study shows that sugary drinks can lead to higher uric acid levels, which, in turn, can lead to disease. It is no surprise that soda is the number one drink Americans choose, even ahead of water, but here go some more interesting statistics. People who drink more than one soda a day have:

  • 31% greater risk of becoming obese.
  • 30 percent increased risk of adding belly fat.
  • 25 percent higher risk of developing high blood triglycerides or high blood sugar.
  • 32 percent higher risk of having low HDL (good cholesterol) levels.
And now, as we are learning, higher uric acid levels. Uric acid is the body’s natural breakdown product of protein. When blood levels of uric acid are high, it can lead to disorders such as high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, kidney stones, gout and more.
These conditions don’t happen over night, so if you are a soda drinker, you can halt their progression by cutting down or quitting soft drinks altogether. The reality is that soft drinks provide nothing by way of nutrition – and they certainly don’t get you drunk – so my question is: Why?
“Well they taste good.”
They taste good?
“Yeah. They taste good.”
Sheesh. At the risk of standing on a pulpit, here. Aren’t good tasting things supposed to be occasional treats. We’re drinking this stuff more than water. Did you know that without water there would be no life at all? Anywhere?
How can we drink more soda than water? I’m sorry but it’s beyond me. Please enjoy a soda now and again, but, well, we all know at least one person who drinks three, four, even six cans of soda per day. Is anybody still perplexed as to why obesity is epidemic in this country? Still scratching your heads over America’s world health rankings? I promise you’ll be hearing more about soda’s ill effects on health in the years to come. But fear not Coca-Cola shareholders – soft drink companies will not be going out of business anytime soon. Heavens no. They’ve already firmly established themselves in the next big market – bottled tap water. Stay tuned for more.

What The Heck’s Going On Here?

By On · Add Comment · In conventional wisdom, health, heart bypass surgery, obese, obesity, Parkinson's disease, preventative, smokers, smoking
Am I seeing this right? Are studies now showing that smoking and obesity might have some benefits after all? Researchers are reporting that smokers are at a lower risk for developing Parkinson’s disease, while obese people who have heart disease live longer than their non-obese counterparts. What!?!? Now let me get this straight, two pillars of conventional health wisdom might be partial truths? Whaddaya know.

Check this out: 11 studies conducted between 1960 and 2004, looking at over 11,000 people, showed that current smokers had the lowest risk of developing Parkinson’s disease, while former smokers, some having quit as long as 25 years earlier, showed the next lowest risk. Scientists are not quite sure what provides the preventative effects, but they extend to cigar smoking, pipe smoking and chewing tobacco as well.

Regarding obesity: among 6,900 men with symptoms of heart disease, researchers found that those who were obese were less likely to die over the next seven-and-a-half years compared with normal-weight men. Some studies also hint that obese people may survive heart bypass surgery better.

Now this doesn’t mean that we should all pick up a pizza, beer and Marlboro lifestyle habit, but it does bring up a very important point. We still know very little about the workings of the human body. According to one of my former professors, we probably know about 40%, and I think this might be a generous estimate.

What’s the significance? Nothing we know today is 100% definite, so proceed with caution. Don’t just accept health information as it comes; think about it, be discriminating. As I like to say: today’s conventional wisdom is tomorrow’s obsolescence. You’ll be the safest if you practice the basics – The Six Keys To Optimal Health. These are tried and true principles, which haven’t changed for thousands of years – they’re timeless. So, instead of banking on Viagra, Lasix or Botox, how about caring for your health as your most important asset? You simply can’t go wrong that way.

Oh the Irony…

By On · Add Comment · In adverse drug reactions, calories, fast-food, fat, health, junk food, nutrition, obesity, saturated fat, trans fat, unnecessary surgeries
The American Medical Association has said it wants fast-food restaurants to post nutritional factson their menus as a means to combat obesity. These facts should include calories, grams of fat, grams of saturated fat, and grams of trans fat in each fast food item.You probably already know how I feel about this notion if you’ve read my June 18th post, Barking up the Wrong Tree. Not only do I think it’s ludicrous to penalize fast-food chains (what about pizza parlors, ice cream shops, candy stores, Chinese restaurants and burger stands, like Fat Burger and every other junk food supplier?), it ain’t gonna do diddly if people don’t value there health to begin with.

“No, you’re wrong Campos. People will make better choices if they can see how many calories they’re consuming.” Poppycock! This information has been on food packaging for years at our country’s biggest supplier of junk food – the good ol‘ fashioned grocery chain. That’s right, the American institution known as the grocery store is the largest pusher of junk food in the world, and they’ve been advertising calories and fat counts for ever. It hasn’t stopped people yet from stuffing their faces full of Dinty Moore Beef Stew. And neither will it help people choose between the Double Quarter Pounder and the MacSoy Melt.

I find it especially hysterical that the AMA is promoting this idea. Wait. I’ve got a better idea. Why don’t fast-food restaurants include this information on the back of their receipts in technical language and with the smallest print the human eye can distinguish – just like they do with prescription medications? That’ll at least put them up to par with the medical/pharmaceutical industries as responsible informers.

And here’s another good idea: why not have medical offices post the number of deaths associated with adverse drug reactions (also see here) and unnecessary surgeries (and here, and here) in their waiting rooms so that people know just what they’re in for. Think the AMA will push for that kind of responsible advertising anytime soon?

More links on unnecessary surgeries:
Life Extensions Magazine,
Dr. Joeseph Mercola
New York Times

Google unnecessary surgeries or adverse drug reactions and get blown away.

Copyright © 2013 Dr. Nick Campos - All Rights Reserved.