Is there an area of life that is more all or nothing than dieting and weight management?
Truly everything else in our lives we'll happily accept our personal bests as great, and more importantly, we're realistic about them. We appreciate that while we can no doubt always do better or try harder that there are fair limits to how hard we can try.
I remember trying to get into medical school. Boy I spent a lot of time in the library and when I didn't get in to medical school on my first try, following my rejection I didn't wish I'd truly eliminated every last ounce of my social life to study - I was disappointed, but I was sure that I had done my best knowing full well that at the expense of real life no doubt I could have done more.
Bests aren't perfection. Bests are affected by real life. Bests need flexibility. And bests change depending on circumstances.
Those folks who head into weight management thinking their bests need to be perfect, that they need to always be on? No doubt in my mind for the vast majority it's just a matter of time before they've frustrated and disappointed themselves often or badly enough that they'll quit trying altogether.
Today's Funny Friday video had me scratching my head as I'm certain I've met many people who I presumed breathed through their anuses, and yet they weren't sea pigs.
Have a great weekend!
(email subscribers you need to head to the blog to watch)
Among this year's sponsors of the Canadian Obesity Network's Scientific Summit are Dairy Farmer's of Canada ($30,000), McDonald's ($10,000), Coca-Cola ($10,000), food industry front group Food and Consumer Products of Canada ($10,000), and the Canadian Beverage Association ($5,000). I'm sure it won't come as a surprise to any reader here that I think these partnerships are ill advised.
But first a bit in CON's defense. To be fair and clear, the Canadian Obesity Network was born out of industry and for industry, where CON's actual stated mission is,
"to act as a catalyst for addressing obesity in Canada and to foster knowledge translation, capacity building, and partnerships among stakeholders so that researchers, health professionals, policy makers, industry and other stakeholders may develop effective solutions to prevent and treat obesity."
Where I struggle today is that CON is no longer simply a networking tool. Due to the tireless hard work of its team and members, over time, CON has become so much more than a network. Today CON serves the public, the media, and policy makers as Canada's go-to organization for opinions, ideas and support on matters pertaining to obesity's treatment, prevention and policy interventions. CON has very much become the public face of obesity in Canada, and events like the Summit and the many practical workshops CON puts on throughout the year are not simply geared for networking, but rather for education, and do undoubtedly help to steer this country's course in dealing with this issue. As a further testament to just how important CON has become to obesity policy in Canada and just how far it has grown from a simple network, if there were a federal or provincial program focused directly or indirectly on obesity that CON was not somehow involved in as an adviser or participant, I'd honestly be shocked. It's these hard earned roles outside of networking that give me pause with CON's food industry partnerships,.
While there's a great chance that most CON members would never think that they themselves might be influenced by taking money from industry or by attending food industry sponsored events, research on both food and drug industry involvement and sponsorship suggests the contrary to be true. Remember too that conflicts of interest are defined simply by the potential or the perception of a conflict. Among the many potential risks of the food industry sponsoring CON's Scientific Summit, consider whether or not reliance or acceptance of food industry dollars might impact upon CON or CON's members abilities to speak forcefully and critically on issues such as mandatory menu board calories, soda taxes, advertising bans, or cup size bans, or whether consciously or unconsciously food industry partnership and reliance will water down, limit or influence opinions therein? Unfortunately, there's no doubt these conflicts of interest sully CON and its members' reputations and scientific authority - a fact made clear to me by the many emails of concern and disdain that I've received from both individuals and organizations who independently discovered the Summit's sponsorship page and Coca-Cola and McDonald's involvement.
As for what this will buy industry - well it will literally buy them entry into the, "we're not part of the problem, we're part of the solution" club, and in turn their partnership and support of CON will be wielded to help deflect scrutiny and industry unfriendly legislation, as well as provide them with access to CON's hard earned emotional, scientific and ethical capital with which to associate their brands. In Coca-Cola's case an additional $16,000-$24,000 (numbers dependent on how many seats they're renting) their sponsorship dollars are buying them them a 90 minute infomercial to be delivered to the country's leading obesity related policy makers, researchers and clinicians by Coca-Cola vice president and chief scientific and regulatory officer Dr. Rhona Applebaum. Her talk is entitled,
"Can a Beverage Company Make a Positive Difference in the Fight Against Obesity?".
As to what Dr. Applebaum's going to say, I'm confident it'll include the position she regularly champions, that singling out sugar sweetened beverages - the largest sole source provider of calories in North America - is misguided in the fight against obesity as she states so clearly here,
"If we are really honest with ourselves, we know that no one group or sector can solve this problem alone and searching for a silver bullet that miraculously stops obesity is just not realistic. Targeting scapegoats or pointing fingers is simply a waste of energy."
Though it would seem that so long as the finger pointing isn't directed at sugar sweetened beverages and that instead it's pointed at some drop in energy expenditure, that pointing is just fine by her,
Dr. Applebaum's talk will also undoubtedly include Coca-Cola's overarching message - that the answer lies in "balancing" energy-in vs. energy-out (and likely too the purchase of artificially sweetened beverages) - that consuming their sugar laden products is dandy so long as a person exercises, and that "all calories count", meaning an oversized can of nutritionally bereft, sugar-spiked, Coca-Cola's is no better or worse for health or weight than anything else. And how Coca-Cola is spinning that message publicly is noteworthy too. Check out this recently released advertisement that details how drinking a can of Coca-Cola buys you 140 "Happy Calories" and then shows you all the fun things you'll be able to do consequent to drinking them,
Were CON simply a networking organization, while I still would be unhappy with food industry sponsorship, I likely wouldn't have felt compelled to pen this post. But given the important and substantial role CON has so rightly earned for itself as a leader in Canadian research, policy, education and discourse on obesity, I think these sponsorships sell short CON, its membership and the public.
[When writing this post I emailed CON's scientific director and hopefully still my friend Arya Sharma and invited him to write a post on why he supports food industry sponsorship. I'd encourage you to read his posting too so you can hear the other side to this argument. Click here to read Arya's thoughtful post.]
It's the Pizza Pizza partnership with children's hospitals and their Foundations that literally raises money by means of selling pepperoni pizzas. The flyer posted up above (which arrived in my mailbox a few days ago) reports the partnership includes the Children's Miracle Network, SickKids Foundation, Raising Hope Children's Health Foundation, the CHEO Foundation and the McMaster Children's Hospital.
As I've blogged about before, associating Pizza Pizza with fundraising helps to elevate Pizza Pizza's brand a number of ways: The insanely low prices for pizza coupled with children and charity drive customer loyalty and increase frequency of fast food consumption, while the explicit provision of support for fast food's purchase by children's hospitals furthers the normalization its consumption which in turn help to drive the ever increasing pace of diet and weight related diseases in kids. Moreover the tie in with such an incredibly heart felt charity generates an emotional feeling that gets bound to Pizza Pizza's brand.
So do the hospitals at least make a killing by selling the seeds of illness?
Today's Parental "No" comes from mom and blog reader Shari Kneen whose 9 year old son received the coupon for Pizza Pizza fries from his coach for playing a game of "penalty free" hockey. Is there anything a child does in an organized manner these days that isn't rewarded with junk food or candy? Wouldn't simple praise from coaches and parents suffice for "penalty free" hockey played by a group of 9 year olds?
What's in it for Pizza Pizza of course is a whole fresh crop of young customers who will hopefully associate Pizza Pizza with fun, sport, a job well done and reward - messaging they'll potentially carry with them for life and potentially pass on to their own kids.
What's in it for the Ontario Minor Hockey Association and the Greater Toronto Hockey League is undoubtedly money.
Good business for Pizza Pizza, but a real shame both the OMHA and the GTHL seem to value money more than kids' health when one might argue that healthy kids are their primary businesses.
Here are Shari's thoughts,
"Just when I thought I hadn't seen food rewards lately on my kids sports teams - here we go again! I hate the message we are sending to our kids. Companies shouldn't be allowed to do this. I blame OMHA for even accepting this sponsor!"
Me too Sheri, though to be fair, the OMHA and GTHL probably didn't give a second though to the promotion - society has so normalized this sort of practice that no one even thinks to question it.
And therein lies the problem.
[Update: Thanks to @teacherace for pointing out that in order to get the free fries you need to purchase a slice of pizza and a can of soda]
[For past Parental "No"s and Canadian Hockey click here, here, here, and here.]
I'm a big fan of Jamie Oliver's, and in case you're not into the food or nutrition scene, Jamie's a ballsy British chef who has used his celebrity status and cooking talents to further the improvement of school lunches and attitudes towards real food and actual cooking worldwide.
What I was only recently made aware of was that Jamie has set up a nonprofit in the US - The Jamie Oliver Food Foundation - and its aims are so perfectly in line with what I think we as a society ought to be doing, that I'm writing this post today to promote its most recent fundraising drive.
Before I get to the drive, here's what the Jamie Oliver Foundation is all about,
"The Jamie Oliver Food Foundation is Jamie’s US non-profit that campaigns to bring food education to schools and youth groups, businesses and communities. It offers hands-on training to teach food skills and instil knowledge, and founds partnerships that enable us to grow nationally and spread the word. The charity fulfils this ambition by raising awareness in the media to promote changes in food policy at a local and national level."
The fundraiser's great too. It's a Prizeo campaign which means your contribution to the Foundation also enters you into a draw where the grand prize includes an all-expense paid trip from wherever on the planet you happen live over to England to meet and cook with Jamie.
Now of course if you enter (as little as a $3 donation puts your name in the hat) I'm hoping you'll be in line for the runner up prize because I'm also hoping that this Jamie fan boy's going to win.
"Enhanced with Vitamins B2, B6, B9, B12, C, D, E, Calcium and Iron and made with less sugar, NESQUIK PLUS is ideal for moms who are concerned about their kids’ diets as it adds even more nutrients to a glass of milk"
Because what could be healthier than multiple daily "doses" of Nesquik Plus where each "dose" contains 3 teaspoons of vitamin-fortified-sugar goodness?
Click on the image to see the "Recommended Dosage" and the "Medicinal Ingredients"
What's also fascinating is that the product is currently being sold on Canadian supermarket shelves. My understanding was that the discretionary fortification of food (the addition of vitamins and minerals to foods at the discretion of the food manufacturer) wasn't in fact legal in Canada, let alone the discretionary fortification of frickin' chocolate syrup.
A few days ago the Canadian government launched a new healthy living program. In the launch video Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq states,
"Today I am pleased to announce that we are building on the momentum of the national Eat Well campaign that helps parents and children adopt healthier eating habits"
Carla Ventin the VP of Federal Government Affairs for the food industry's representative organization Food and Consumer Products of Canada in that same presser stated,
"This is a really important campaign for Canadians because what it does is improve the awareness and provide tools to consumers so that they can make better choices at the grocery stores for their families"
Thanks to blog reader Chris for sending along a photo and the nutritional breakdown for what Wendy's is calling the "Ultimate Canadian Combo".
To save you the trouble of clicking or magnifying the photo this "Ultimate Canadian" combo of a Baconator, poutine and a medium Coke weighs more than a kilogram and contains a cool 1,860 calories, 3,380mg of sodium and thanks primarily to the "medium" Coca-Cola, 17 teaspoons of sugar.
Wow.
Makes me wonder whether or not a day will come when politicians will try to ban the advertisement (not the sale) or the discounted bundling of combos containing more than a predetermined amount of calories or other nutrients?
Meet Dr. Sandra Fryhofer. According to her website she's a board certified doctor of internal medicine in Atlanta and a Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at Emory University School of Medicine. She's also the past President of the American College of Physicians, a former committee member with both the Centers for Disease Control and the Institute of Medicine, and through 2015 she's the Chair of the American Medical Association's Council on Science and Public Health.
Dr. Fryhofer is also a seasoned top-notch medical journalist writing a regular column for WebMD and having been a correspondent for CNN between the years 2001-2005 with appearances on NBC’s Today Show, CNN, CNN Streetsweep, CNN Talk Back Live, FOX News Network, NBC Nightly News, ABC World News Tonight, and ABC News NOW.
So what does this undeniably talented MD with an illustrious career who currently holds a terrifically influential public health position with the AMA have to do with Coca-Cola? Well it would seem as if she's their new ace reporter.
In a series of 4 videos paid for by Coca-Cola and posted last week on their YouTube channel, Dr. Fryhofer champions the Coca-Cola friendly ideas that all calories count, that intake can be "balanced" by output, that non-nutritive sweeteners are awesome, and that high fructose corn syrup is just plain misunderstood. The videos are all embedded down below (email subscribers you'll need to head to the blog to watch), but my favourite by far was the one on high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) where Dr. Fryhofer explains how sugar's sugar. Now to be clear, for most intents and purposes I agree with her. The science to date suggests sugar is sugar -both HFCS and sugar are worth minimizing in our diets - and while there may be some unique properties to HFCS as they pertain to the development of fatty liver disease do have a peek at the language Dr. Fryhofer uses to explain HFCS vs. sugar to viewers,
"They're both about half glucose - brain cell fuel - and half fructose, the sugar in fruits, honey and root vegetables
HFCS is popular because it's less expensive than regular table sugar, has nicer texture and color, and stays fresher longer"
There you have it. HFCS is brain cell fuel akin to what you'd find in fruits and root vegetables but it's more popular than sugar because it looks and feels nicer and is fresher. Funny, that's not quite how I'd have described it.
So what do you think? Do you think there's a potential conflict of interest for the Chair of the American Medical Association's Council on Science and Public Health to be working with Coca-Cola, or are the interests of the AMA and Coca-Cola aligned?
The AMA has clear guidelines on conflict. I'll post them here for Dr. Fryhofer's benefit. Perhaps she's forgotten about them.
"A Member would be unable to act in the best interests of the AMA and another company if the fundamental goals of the two organizations were in conflict. Acting in the best interest of one organization would necessarily mean breaching the duty of loyalty owed to the other organization. In these situations, the Member should resign from one of the organizations."
I think perhaps it's safe to say that WhoNu? are the world's most healthwashed cookie giving us a lesson in both badvertising and proof that corporations aren't people because I can't fathom a person who wouldn't be ashamed to market Oreos with the following sales pitches,
"As much Fiber as a bowl of Oatmeal
As much Vitamin C as a cup of blueberries
As much Vitamin A as an 8oz glass of tomato juice
As much Calcium and Vitamin D as a glass of milk
As much Iron as a cup of Spinach
As much Vitamin E as two cups of Tomato juice
As much Vitamin B12 as a cup of Cottage Cheese and Fruit
Excellent source of Calcium, Iron, Vitamins A, B, C, D, E.
17 Essential Vitamins and Minerals"
Conspicuously absent is this statement,
"As much sugar as 4.7 Oreos"
Or this one,
"It's just a frickin' cookie we've injected with vitamins to pretend it's good for you"
Sadder than the fact that this cookie and advertising campaign exists is the fact that WhoNu? are likely legally allowed to make these claims, and in so doing, dupe a desperate populace.
Shouldn't the Jelly Bean Law apply to this nonsense?
[h/t to blog reader RD Susan MacFarlane for sending my way]
Looking at elementary school menus like this one I wonder how it's possible there are any healthy kids out there.
Honestly. If this is what schools can rationalize serving elementary school aged kids - in Illinois in this case - well then clearly society as a whole is broken.
But it's worse than just Bosco sticks (stuffed bread sticks from local pizza place) with pizza dipping sauce, BBQ ribs on a bun, Nachos Supreme, stuffed crust cheese pizza, hot dogs, mini corn dogs, cheese burgers and meatball subs. This particular photo was kicked my way by a concerned dad. He's been allowing his kids to have one hot lunch a week and this month their school initiated "Treat Thursdays" where hot lunch was accompanied by cookies, Rice Krispie squares and other treats.
Here's what he had to say, but before you read it, consider that treats aside, by means of what's being served to children in their cafeteria, that school is teaching those kids that fast food is normal and healthful and that it should be consumed daily. With "Treat Thursdays" they're also suggesting that treats just because it's Thursday make total sense. Even for parents who care, like the dad who emailed me, even if they do exercise their "parental no" power, this undermines their authority and teaching on healthful eating on a daily basis and that undermining comes from a place that the children inherently trust to teach them what's what.
I'm a blog follower and concerned father of two young boys. They're constantly bombarded with messages that encourage them to eat more junk food. Imagine my disappointment when they showed me their April school lunch menu (bad enough as is) that has the new feature of a "TREAT THURSDAY" every Thursday in April. Ugh. They get to select one day a week to eat hot lunch and I'm constantly redirecting their choices as it is. Now, you can see their first choice this week- pick the meal with the cookie. Sometimes I feel like for every step forward, we take two back.
Last Thursday saw a guest post from a student who had applied to the University of Western Ontario's Brescia College for a nutrition program who along with her acceptance letter, received candy to mark her "sweet offer" of admission.
Well this story has a happy ending as the food and nutrition faculty at Brescia, when they heard about these "sweet" offers, immediately set out to rectify them. The fact is, a small handful of M&Ms in and of itself isn't the problem but rather the problem is the societal normalization of candy and junk food at every turn.
Kudos to Brescia College for sorting this out and here is the letter that I received from them on the very day the original guest posting went live,
Brescia’s Food & Nutritional Sciences faculty have heard the message from the guest blogger on Dr. Freedhoff’s website, and we strongly agree that sugary treats are a common and unnecessary reward that needs to addressed in all policies. Providing a “sweet offer” to prospective students is a new practice Brescia’s Registrar’s office implemented during the Valentine’s and Easter mail out and while it meant no harm, it was unfortunately a decision that was not communicated in advance to the staff and faculty in Nutrition & Dietetics.
At Brescia, we teach our students to think boldly, lead passionately, and make positive changes in our communities by taking action and leading by example. In particular, our nutrition faculty teach our students to consider the food environment and its impact on individual food behaviours. Drs. Dworatzek and Matthews, together with food services, have even implemented a peer nutrition education program called FRESH which aims to change the food environment on campus.
The comments made by this prospective student mirror the values we try to instill in our learners, and it would be an honour for Brescia to accept such a bold young leader who is working hard to make a difference. Her comments have not fallen on deaf ears; Brescia’s Division of Food & Nutritional Sciences immediately addressed this issue internally and have committed to work closely with the rest of the College to ensure that both our environment and our communications are health-promoting. Thank you for bringing this to our attention so that we can take the lead, in practicing what we teach!
Respectfully,
Dr. Paula Dworatzek (on behalf of ALL the food and nutrition faculty at Brescia)
Associate Professor
Division of Food and Nutritional Sciences
Brescia University College, at the
University of Western Ontario
