Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for January, 2013

Quote of the day

Adele Hite has an interesting take on Michele Simon’s recent report Are America’s Nutrition Professionals in the Pocket of Big Food?. While she applauds Simon’s efforts to hold the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics more accountable for its relationships with industry, she also points a pretty big spotlight at what she calls Simon’s “hidden agenda:”

Simon is happy to slam the health-washing, cultural insensitivity, and hidden agendas of food manufacturers and the Academy, but if the propaganda, insensitivity, and agendas are vegatarian*—well, then she’s just fine with it, thank you very much.

Note: “vegatarian” is Adele’s term for veganism disguised as vegetarianism.

I’m not so convinced it’s quite a “hidden” agenda (but I follow Michele on Twitter and read her blog), but I do think Adele is correct to highlight it. While I think one can do a LOT worse than a diet focusing “mostly” on whole plant foods, we’re no more likely to convince the larger populace to go vegan or even vegetarian than we are to convince them to go low-carb or low-fat … at least for long enough to make a difference in terms of public health.

Adele concludes:

It’s time we stop trying to change the eating habits of our fellow Americans—which is the underlying intention behind taxing soda and believing that a diet that resembles your own is best for everyone else—and start trying to change the regulatory, economic, and political framework that restricts access to both the food and the knowledge that individuals need to make their own decisions about their own health.

A quick look at Shift’s obesity influences map is all it really takes to show why this is going to be such a hard nut to crack. Coupling the multi-factorial nature of obesity (which is essentially the same as that for the lifestyle diseases) with our current political environment suggests that there is no easy answer.

That said, if I were to start working more in this space, my own inclination would be to focus on “the knowledge that individuals need to make” (I’ve written before that I’m intrigued by Rogers’ diffusion of innovation theory might apply).

Call me Polyanna, but I’m hoping that those of us with different agendas may be able to unite to fight the fights we have in common. Time will tell.

Read Full Post »

Here’s a great point re paleo frankenfoods (the subject of my Jan 18 QOTD post) from Angelo Coppola’s blog Humans Are Not Broken (emphasis his):

The major problem with elaborate Paleo(tm) foods and desserts is that they are calorie-rich and low on nutrition. This is exactly why SAD doesn’t work. And here we have Paleo folks mimicking the SAD approach! Unless you are a growing, active child or you have trouble with putting on weight, these foods should not be on your everyday menus.

While I agree with Dr. Sharma that there is no universal cause to obesity, I do think that foods that are calorie-dense and nutrient-poor are a major contributor.

So yep, a healthier version of a treat is still a treat and shouldn’t be replacing the nutrient dense foods that are essential!

Read Full Post »

Quote of the day

What Dr. Sharma said:

There is no universal causal theory of obesity … except perhaps that there is no universal causal theory of obesity.

Read Full Post »

Danny Roddy goes there re Chris Kresser’s and Robb Wolf’s new line of supplements for paleo folks (#oxymoron?):

There is no doubt in my mind that for many people, digestion, blood sugar dysregulation, and poor liver function are common problems that can be trickier to overcome than adhering to an arbitrary diet.

But at the same time, I doubt a wild mix of pills is the best way to go about treating these problems.

I’m a little biased wrt supplements (prefer real food). You’re welcome to disagree, but for my money, all of this feels a lot like the wild wild west of diet and nutrition. At the risk of mixing metaphors, caveat emptor!

Read Full Post »

Quote of the day

Kamal Patel’s response to a reader asking about bread was 1) terrific and 2) funny! A highlight:

I wholeheartedly support “paleo frankenfoods” for those that can eat them without getting gluttony (not gluteny). Whole9 wrote an article called “Sex With Your Pants On” about not eating such foods during a Whole30. Great, excellent, very very good. Whole30 is about strictness, makes for a great baseline, and reliably leads to weight loss. But for someone who has been experimenting with foods and nutrients for a while, sex with your pants on (aka paleo-izing pizza or dessert) is more like sex with a condom. It’s not really that bad, and it can be decent for long term health. Maybe even better than celibacy!

Myself, I am far, far from a paleo purist (we can’t all be Kurt Harris wrt candy cigarettes). I’m also a fan of Ragen Chastain’s underpants rule and think people should make their own choices.

So while I find the idea of “paleo-izing” cinnamon rolls or French toast or cake or even pizza just a bit of a mental gymnastics exercise myself, ultimately I think it’s best to keep Yoni Freedhoff’s maxim in mind: live “the healthiest life that you can enjoy, not the healthiest life that you can tolerate.”

Bon appétit!

Read Full Post »

Friday cat blogging

10 Helpful Non-Kitty Uses for Cat Litter

Click image to get large version.

Who knew? There are 10 helpful non-kitty uses for cat litter!

Read Full Post »

Annoyed woman Here’s the difference between a blog and a medical journal. After publishing a free full-text meta analysis — Dietary sugars and body weight: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies — the journal (the BMJ) can summarize the research as:

Reducing sugar intake has a small but significant effect on body weight in adults, finds a paper published on bmj.com today.

Although the effect is relatively small (an average reduction of 0.8 kg), the findings provide some support for international guidelines to cut sugar intake to less than 10% of total energy to help reduce the global obesity epidemic.

Relatively small?! You’re killing me! Chalk it up to blog vs journal, but for me, 0.8 kg (aka ~1/3 pound 1.76 lb*) is far, far from significant no matter what the p-value.

A corresponding editorial by Walter Willett and David Ludwig notes that:

[The study’s] results suggest that sugar increases body weight mainly by promoting overconsumption of energy

A ha! I guess folks just need to eat less and move more.

I’m quite sure that the literature review/analysis was extensive and thoughtful. And I’m also of the opinion that total sugars should be limited. But yee gads. This feels like it’s evidence FOR the food industry. All things in moderation, right?

* Update: Stupid math error on my part. A ~2 pound loss over the duration of the studies (tho some were as much as 8 months long) may or may not be as inconsequential as I originally got fussy about.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 258 other followers