Frankenfood: WHOLE chicken in a can

If you needed one more reason why Armageddon's a bad thing here's a food that I imagine when the world is gone you'll be willing to fight your neighbour gladiator style for the privilege of eating - Whole cooked chicken in a can!

The pictures are astounding.

I've clipped just two - you really owe it to society to click through to see the rest.

Here's the view when you open the can:



Here's the can giving birth:



No nukes!

[Hat tip to one of my favourite cousins - Ilan]

Guess the clueless Ottawan obstetrician

Apparently there is an Ottawa Civic based high-risk obstetrician who has a habit when seeing women who have gained a significant amount of weight during their pregnancy to say,

"Gained a lot of weight there eh? Oink, oink."

Horrifying.

If you're reading this and it's happened to you that a health care professional has made such a comment you really ought to complain to them and/or their Chief of Staff and/or to their regulatory College.

Unfortunately weight-bias does not elude health care.

Have you a similar story to share?

Are Smarties (Canadian M&Ms) trying to pass themselves off as healthy?

Eagle-eyed blog reader Michael Stasica sent me this shot of a Smarties box where sure enough there's a symbol that looks suspiciously like a Heart and Stroke Health Check symbol.

Apparently the symbol means that there are no artificial colours in Smarties.

Huzzah?

As mentioned in yesterday's post - the semblance of health sells and clearly Smarties are no dummies.

I'd tell Health Check to get lawyers on this right away but of course it'd be a tough case to suggest Smarties' check was hurting Health Check's credibility - they do that all by themselves (remember there are already Health Checks on Slush Puppies and frozen yogurt with more calories and sugar than ice cream).

Health Canada set to fortify junk food!

(Perhaps soon to be fortified with vitamin E and B-carotene!)

Just when I thought the decisions at Health Canada couldn't get any worse than their industry based Food Guide or their allowance of whole wheat labeling in Canada to exclude the germ, Health Canada's now preparing to allow the food industry to fortify junk food.

Yup, the corporate shills over at Health Canada are getting set to roll out new regulations that will allow the food industry to "fortify" non-nutritious, highly processed foods at Big Food's discretion with vitamins and minerals.

What's that you say? You can't understand why we need fortification at all? We don't have a public health crisis whereby there are emergency rooms stocked with Canadians with nutritional deficiencies?

Well yes, that's true.

So why is Health Canada allowing for this? Who could it possible help?

Perhaps here I should remind you of my moniker for Health Canada - Happy Corporations. You see corporate food Canada will be absolutely thrilled with the ability to "fortify" at their discretion as it will allow them to put half a penny of nutrients into a pile of highly processed, diabetes and heart disease inducing, nutritionally deficient Frankenfoods and then use the front of the package to talk about how they'll help you build your immune system, strengthen your bones and support your nervous system.

The thing is, given that we know of the "health halo" effect, consumers may well choose to eat larger portions of these highly processed, chronic disease inducing foods under the false impression that they're suddenly good for them, or worse yet, consumers may choose them over cooking their own far more nutritious versions.

Looking over Health Canada's list of vitamins and minerals that can be added at Big Food's discretion I see included B-carotene, folic acid and vitamin E. Interestingly all three have been linked to adverse health outcomes in patients taking supplemental sources. B-carotene has been linked to lung cancer, folic acid recently to prostate cancer and colon cancer, and vitamin E to all causes of mortality.

The bottom line is this - our food supply does not need fortification - it has ample amounts of nutrients. What Canadians need is the education and encouragement to actually utilize our whole food supply not our processed food supply.

Allowing for the fortification of junk food will simply encourage the consumption of junk food and will become one more shining example of just how out-of-touch, backwards, and harmful are Health Canada's food policies.

Shame on you Health Canada - what an incredibly bad joke you've become.

[Interestingly, this policy had been slotted to roll out in early March yet for some reason the launch has been delayed. One of my sources thinks it's because Health Canada's trying to figure out the best way to launch this mess on an unsuspecting public. Given the H1N1 flu monopolizing the health news my bet is that Health Canada is going to quietly slime this policy out over the next few weeks while the country's attention is elsewhere. Why not take a moment of your time and contact your MP and let him or her know what you think about this proposed policy? To find your MP click here.]

Ever buy a new gadget that you just couldn't figure out?

Have you ever bought some gadget only to be driven insane trying to figure out how to use it?

Well if you have, today's Funny Friday is for you.

That said, SEVERE PROFANITY ALERT. If swearing bothers you. If there are young ears nearby, if you're at work - DON'T watch the video.

Have a great weekend!

Sign of the Times - Ikea Video Game Playing Chair

It's called the Ikea Jesper Bench and the catalog picture above helps to explain what it's for.

I wonder when Ikea'll make an Insulin Table with refrigerated drawers, lancet dispensers and glucostrip disposal hole?

The chair can be yours for just $59.99 CAD.

[Hat tip to BMI's fitness director Rob]

Spin Doctoring: Popcorn

So last week I was contacted by a spin doctor - a representative from Ketchum, a fancy shmancy PR firm whose client list includes giants like IBM, Ikea, and apparently, Orville Redenbacher. She wanted me to know (and write) about a fantastic new study conducted by a Dr. James Rippe from the Rippe Lifestyle Institute - a place where Big Food meets science as evidenced from their partners page that includes the likes of PepsiCo, Tropicana, Quaker, and ConAgra.

So what of this earth shattering study?

Well they took 35 whole people and then divided them up into 4 groups. One group had water before an all you could eat lunch, the next 1 cup of Orville Redenbacher Smart Pop! popcorn, the next 6 cups (100 calories) of Orville Redenbacher's Smart Pop! popcorn and the last 150 calories of potato chips.

The unbelievably, amazing results?

The groups that had water or popcorn before lunch consumed 717 calories between the snack and the lunch while the group that had the 150 calories of chips consumed 803 calories combined.

The spin?

According to the email I received,

"The new research shows a snack of low-fat popcorn before a meal can help curb hunger without increasing total calorie intake at the subsequent meal"

Really?

To me the research shows that people tend to eat around 717 calories for lunch with the popcorn serving as a first course rather than a snack (snacks to me occur hours before the meal).

As to why did they eat more with the chips? Probably because chips are highly energy dense. Had they been offered a higher calorie popcorn likely they'd have the same result.

Oh, and with each group having an average of 9 people in it, this is a very far cry from a powerful study.

So did the spin work?

I couldn't find a single news article, so I'd call it a spectacular fail.

Oh, and 717 calories for lunch? Dr. Rippe is quoted in his press release as saying,

"Our findings suggest that some snack foods, such as low-fat popcorn, can be a satisfying and effective way to manage calories."

717 calories is an awful lot of calories for lunch so I'd call that a spectacular fail too - if eating popcorn as an appetizer for your meal still leads you to have 717 calories per meal it's certainly not doing much for "managing" calories.

Sorry popcorn, you're not magic.

Britain pays citizens $750 to lose weight

They're calling it the Pounds for Pounds trial and it's being put by their National Health Services in conjunction with the private "Weight Wins" program.

400 people will enroll and they'll sign up to a 13 month weight loss program. During the first 7 months they're supposed to get down to their "goal" weight and then the next 6 months keep it off.

Those who lose and keep off 50lbs will receive 425 British pounds ($750 CAD, $600USD).

My thoughts?

There has been at least one study that suggests financial incentives can help with weight loss efforts, but does that mean governments should get involved?

Personally I think if governments have money to throw at this problem they should throw it at prevention efforts rather than treatment as treatment is notoriously difficult and there is no gold standard program. If governments have money to throw at obesity throw it at developing better education in schools, public health campaigns on healthy weight management, legislation and consequent enforcement for things like posting calories on menus, proper prenatal nutrition courses, school breakfast, snack and lunch programs, etc.

My friend, colleague and co-blogger Dr. Arya Sharma goes further and on his blog has stated that,

"The idea of providing a financial incentive for weight loss reeks of weight bias and discrimination - Are we paying smokers to quite smoking and to never touch a cigarette again? Are we paying patients with diabetes to religiously measure their blood sugars and inject their insulins? Are we paying heart attack victims to exercise regularly and take their medications? Why single out patients with obesity for this kind of program?"

Can't say I disagree with him.

Spin Doctoring: Juice

Today's going to be the launch of a new feature on Weighty Matters - Spin Doctoring. Spin Doctoring posts will detail the efforts of the media or Big Food in spinning the conclusions of a study into a dramatically overblown or misleading message.

First up? Juice.

The spin doctor? A website likely paid for by Big Juice called Fruit Juice Facts.

So what'd they do?

Apparently there was a paper or an abstract presented at the 2009 Experimental Biology conference that detailed some epidemiological data on 5 years of juice consumption as documented through the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2004.

The headline to detail the findings?

"Drinking 100% Fruit Juice is Associated with Lower Risk of Obesity and Metabolic Syndrome"

The report goes on to explain how juice drinkers

"had lower mean Body Mass Index (BMI), smaller waist circumference and lower insulin resistance"

They then concluded,

"Based on the analysis, risk for obesity was 22% lower among 100% juice drinkers, while risk for metabolic syndrome (defined as the presence of three or more of the following: central obesity, elevated blood glucose, elevated fasting triglycerides, low HDL-cholesterol, elevated blood pressure) was 15% lower compared to non-consumers."

In keeping with the juice is miraculous theme the presenting author was quoted as saying,

"One-half cup of 100% fruit juice counts as a serving of fruit and, based on our analysis, 100% juice consumption is associated with some of these same benefits"

So where's the spin?

Well read a bit more and you'll find out that maybe it wasn't actually the juice after all,

"juice consumers had higher physical activity levels and more favorable dietary intake patterns (including: lower fat intakes, higher fiber intakes, lower added sugar intakes). After taking these lifestyle factors into account, the inverse relationship between 100% fruit juice consumption and metabolic syndrome was no longer statistically significant."

But apparently juice magically lowered the risk of obesity by 14% "even after the adjustment".

Yup, sugar water plus vitamins is a sure fire way to combat obesity.

So did the spin work? I could only find two articles:

Fruit Juice Lowers Obesity, Stroke Risk - Times of India

Drink to Juice - The Brisbane Times

I'd call that a fizzle.

Better luck next time Big Juice.

Is your breadmeat lackluster?

Yes, it's Funny Friday.

I love when Funny Friday and real life collide.

Today they're colliding for a product entitled, Squeez Bacon.

The best part?

It exists!

Worth noting?

According to the reseller,

"Due to the patented electro-mechanical process by which Squeez Bacon® is rendered, it requires no preservatives or other additives."

Mmmm - 100% natural Squeez Bacon!

(Remember, email subscribers to see the video you've got to click back through to the blog)



[Picture and story via Think Geek where you can buy your very own for $7.99]

Is Danone admitting Activia health claims are bogus?

Depends on your point of view I suppose.

You see the European Union has done what the United States and Canada have failed to do and that is ensure that claims made on foods purporting health benefits actually be supported by robust evidence.

So what of Danone? Well last Friday it was revealed that Danone withdrew 3 health claims for consideration from the European Food Safety Authority (I guess that poster up above isn't long for the EU).

The claims that were withdrawn?

Improves digestive comfort (Activia)

Improves slow transit (Activia)

Helps to strengthen the body’s natural defences (Actimel)

Danone now claims they withdrew the claims because,

"It is a difficult thing to find the correct wording and that has contributed to the fact no article 13.5 claims have as yet been accepted by EFSA. But we are very confident about the strength of our science."

Maybe. Or maybe they realize that when people actually apply a rigorous process to identify truthful claims that theirs will fall short, and maybe that's why Danone in the United States has decided to settle an American $300 million class action lawsuit about its yogurt-based health claims out of court.

I guess the upside for Danone is that at least they're getting their money's worth out of their in house legal and spin teams.

Irony Alert: Kellogg's named one of the "world's most ethical companies"

Or maybe I should have titled this Irony Alert: Ethisphere Edition as Ethisphere is the brain trust (and I'm not being snarky here - it's literally a brain trust) that just last week named Kellogg's to their 2009 list of the "World's Most Ethical Companies".

Want to know what else happened last week? Last week Kellogg's settled the charges laid by the Federal Trade Commission that asserted in 2008 Kellogg's violated American federal law when they falsely advertised the benefits of eating Frosted Mini Wheats in ads that I feel preyed on well-intentioned parents who wanted to ensure the best possible chances for their children - an incredibly unethical thing to do.

The ads by Kellogg's laid out in this complaint, a company who Ethisphere has put on their most ethical list for the past 3 years running, boasted:

"a clinical study showed kids who had a filling breakfast of Frosted Mini Wheats cereal improved their attentiveness by nearly 20% when compared to kids missed out on breakfast."

Great job Ethisphere, what incredible champions of ethics you are!

The Canadian Diabetes Association's Staggering Omissions

Some strange omissions over at the Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA).

The first strange omission was noted by my friend Dr. Arya Sharma who pointed out on his blog that despite bariatric surgery being a cure for nearly 80% of type 2 diabetics there's not a single mention of it on the CDA's website.

The second omission was noted by my friend Dr. Jeff Lipsitz, one of Canada's foremost sleep medicine experts, who noticed that despite the incredibly high percentage of type 2 diabetics who are obese and despite the incredibly high association of sleep apnea and obesity, that there was not one mention of sleep apnea screening or treatment in the CDA's 215 page 2008 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Diabetes in Canada

While some may not want surgery to cure their diabetes, certainly at least a mention of surgery on the CDA's website would be warranted given the 80% cure rate and the lack of public knowledge of that fact.

Regarding sleep apnea, the International Diabetes Association certainly thinks it's worth mentioning as they point out that estimates put nearly a quarter of all diabetics as having obstructive sleep apnea and therefore made this recommendation,

"the International Diabetes Federation Taskforce on Epidemiology and Prevention strongly recommends that health professionals working in both type 2 diabetes and sleep disordered breathing adopt clinical practices to ensure that a patient presenting with one condition is considered for the other."

So here we have the CDA with a cure that's not mentioned and a comorbid condition that's not being screened for. I wonder what's up with the CDA and these staggering oversights?

Is obesity responsible for the recent rise in youth cancer?

Last week the Canadian Cancer Society released its report Canadian Cancer Statistics 2009. In it they report that between 1996 and 2005 the incidence of cancer among Canadian 15 to 29 year olds rose 0.8% per year in males and 1.4% per year in females.

So the question of course is why? Why are cancer rates rising?

While I don't want to jump on the bandwagon of blaming obesity for all of society's woes certainly given the established link between obesity and cancer in adults it doesn't seem a stretch to me to wonder if it's the rising weight of Canadian youth that's leading to this rapid rise in cancer.

The Canadian Cancer Society may think weight's possible culprit too given that along with the obvious recommendations of "not smoking", "eating a healthy diet", "exercising" and "wear sunscreen", is "maintaining a healthy body weight".

I imagine time will tell as data from surveys that include variables such as weight may help shed some light on this disturbing trend.

If these clips don't give you goose bumps, you're dead.

Wow!

Never judge books by their covers.

It takes some truly inspirational videos to get me not to post juvenile humour on Fridays on my blog. Today's Feel Good Friday is proof that sometimes dreams can and really do come true.

Have a great weekend!

"Gravitaphobia" - The Irrational Fear of Weighing

This might be the last post in what's turned out to be a mini series on how to use scales.

This one's about scale avoidance or as I'm calling it, "gravitaphobia".

Gravitaphobia tends to happen when folks who believe weight management involves strict control (often to the exclusion of using food for pleasure or comfort) have a difficult time (go figure) living their overly strict lifestyles and then consequently indulge.

Suddenly the scale that they had been stepping on multiple times daily due to their scale addiction - suddenly they want nothing to do with it. Going into the bathroom many will even avert their eyes rather than glance in its direction. Certainly they didn't consume enough calories to make a dent. A piece of chocolate cake, even a rich piece, probably doesn't even contain a quarter pound of calories, yet it's often enough to trigger gravitaphobia.

For some gravitaphobia lasts a day or two. Others it can be weeks and some months or years, and often scale avoidance goes hand in hand with giving up on many or all healthy living strategies.

Let me be clear. The scale isn't your friend or your enemy. The scale is just something to provide you with another piece of information with which to help inform your decisions.

If you're trying to lose weight - weigh weekly.

If you're trying to maintain your weight - weigh daily.

But either way, never ever let the scale push you around and remember that life is dynamic and so too is your weight and your healthy living efforts.

Sometimes life is worth more calories. Sometimes it just happens that way and sometimes it's for great reasons, but at no time should you let that scale have the power to push you around. Don't spend your emotional energies on overt avoidance or guilt - they're certainly not going to help you any they might even hurt.

Frankenfood: Passover Edition

Yes it's Passover - no leavening agents of any kind and I would venture a higher incidence of bowel obstructions among the Jewish population.

Of course food for Passover often involves pretending it's normal food. Case in point these, Streit's "Blueberry Flavoured" Pancakes.

What's "Blueberry Flavoured" you ask?

Apparently it's translucent pieces of blue candy.

So how bad are they?

Bad enough that both my 4 and 2 year old daughters insist the "berries" be removed from their "pancakes" prior to eating.

Click the picture to appreciate their lovely blue glow.

Chag Sameach!

Badvertising: Pomegranate Brain Juice

"HELP NOURISH YOUR BRAIN"

Yup, not only will pomegranate juice improve your immune system, now it will "nourish" your brain.

So how much omega-3 "nourishment" is your brain getting? 50mg of DHA per 250ml.

Per serving of salmon there's roughly 1,610mg.

So if you drink 8 litres of the stuff (32 glasses), you'll get as much DHA as having a single serving of salmon.

Of course you'll also get over a pound of calories and almost 5 cups of sugar.

That's some "nourishment".

Irony Alert: Dunkin' Donuts

Thanks to Andrea from one of my favourite non-nutrition/weight/food related local blogs A Peek Inside the Fishbowl who has noticed that Dunkin' Donuts' new slogan is, "America runs on Dunkin".

Here's Dunkin' Donuts' official explanation,

"What are the keys to getting things done? A can-do attitude, of course. And a quick stop at Dunkin' Donuts. Whether you need a delicious cup of coffee, a quick snack on the go, or an icy cold beverage, Dunkin' Donuts helps you tackle any task at hand.

Mom and dads. Students and senior citizens. Blue collar, white collar, and every collar in between. Dunkin' Donuts is how everyday people get things done, every day.

Dunkin' Donuts. America Runs On Dunkin'"

Word of advice America (Canada too, we're not doing so well ourselves) - perhaps it's time to stop running on Dunkin'.

Things you don't say to your wife

The title says it all and it's today's Funny Friday.

Have a great weekend!



[Hat tip to blog reader Kristine out in Edmonton]

Should we tax sugar sweetened beverages?

In this week's edition of the New England Journal of Medicine is an editorial written by public health crusaders Drs. Kelly Brownell and Thomas Frieden exploring the idea of taxing sugar sweetened beverages.

Unlike putting calories on menus, this would no longer simply be about passing on more information it would be about charging more money.

Basically there are two ways to approach this: Incentive taxation whereby a nominal tax would be applied with the proceeds then going to public health/obesity related initiatives or disincentive taxation whereby you put enough of a tax on the drinks so as to discourage their consumption (or of course a combination of the two).

This wouldn't be an entirely new plan. You may be surprised to know that 40 American States already have small taxes on sugared beverages and snack food and that in Canada there are many different tiers of food taxation.

The argument for taxation is simple. Sugar-sweetened beverages are strongly linked to the obesity epidemic and some argue that they are in fact the single biggest driver of societal weight. They're marketed extensively to children and in the mid 1990s their intake in children surpassed that of milk. Shockingly calories consumed from beverages now account for 10-15% of all the calories consumed by children and adolescents and for every glass consumed per day the likelihood of a child becoming obese increases by 60%. That's one hell of a big gulp.

The authors report that with regards to disincentive taxation, for every 10% increase in price, consumption decreases by 7.8% and estimate that a penny per ounce excise tax would reduce consumption by 13% or two servings per person per week. In turn the tax would generate literally billions of dollars ($1.2 billion in New York State alone) which if used to promote health and better dietary options could have further impact on health and obesity.

Opponents state that food taxes are regressive and unlike tobacco, we need food to live therefore taxation would be unfair, especially when singling out a single food.

Well I've got news for them - we don't in fact need sugar sweetened beverages to live.

As I keep hammering home, to put a dent in rising rates of obesity requires action on a societal level, not an individual one. We need to change the toxic environment itself and taxing one of the main drivers of the epidemic is one way to do that.

This is a war. Sometimes war calls for tough decisions and personally I think this would be a good one.

Badvertising: Pomegranate Immune Juice

"Loaded with antioxidant vitamins C and E to help support a healthy immune system"

I guess going with the study that reported that vitamin E seemed to increase all causes of mortality wouldn't have been a smart option.

You know what else isn't very good for your immune system? Diabetes. Biggest cause of diabetes? Obesity. Big time contributor to obesity? Sugar. So how much sugar in this "enhanced" beverage - 7 teaspoons of it per glass (more drop per drop than Coca Cola).

I wonder when we'll see beer touting it was made with the goodness of whole grain barley which has been shown to reduce the risk of diabetes?

Breaking News: OMA calls for posting of menu board calories!

As you're reading this, I'm probably answering questions at the press conference as I was invited by the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) to help roll out their call to have calories posted on chain menu restaurants and in school cafeterias.

I'm thrilled with the call to action and honoured to help out.

Here's the OMA's press release on the matter:

Ontario’s doctors call for calorie labelling on fast food and cafeteria menus

Toronto, April 7, 2009 – In a move to help combat obesity, Ontario’s doctors are calling for calorie counts to be shown prominently on chain restaurant and school cafeteria menus and menu boards province-wide. The Ontario Medical Association (OMA) says that by revealing the caloric content of fast foods, consumers will be better equipped with the information they need to make healthier choices.

“People lead busy lives and it’s not always convenient to prepare food at home,” said Dr. Ken Arnold, President of the OMA. “Ontario’s doctors are not telling people what they can and can’t eat, but when you do eat out, you should know how many calories you are consuming.”

The OMA wants to see:

• Early action on menu labeling from leaders in the restaurant field.
• The provincial government enact legislation that would require calorie contents to be listed adjacent to the items on menus and menu boards at chain restaurants and school cafeterias across the province.
• An education campaign to help inform Ontarians about the impact of caloric intake on weight gain and obesity.

The OMA is focussing on labelling calories due to common misconceptions surrounding the caloric content of many chain restaurant meals. An OMA policy paper entitled An Ounce of Prevention or a Ton of Trouble shows that most people consume more food than they are aware of and that they do not keep track of caloric intake.

“We’re hoping that when consumers see calories posted while ordering they may choose to order something lower in calories, or eat higher calorie meals less often,” said Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, Medical Director at the Bariatric Medical Institute in Ottawa.

A new OMA report, Treatment of Childhood Overweight and Obesity, highlights the increasing epidemic of childhood obesity and the need for action. It shows that:

• A quarter of children are obese, almost half are inactive and television and computer screen time is their pastime of choice.
• There is evidence linking type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, certain types of sleep apnea and the development of chronic kidney disease later in life to children who are overweight or obese.
• Over 75% of obese children become obese adults.
• Overall, the health impacts of overweight and obesity are estimated to cost Ontario $2.2 to $2.5 billion per year.

Ontario’s doctors want to see menu labelling enacted to help parents and children make informed choices about the foods they eat. A recent survey by the OMA shows that over 80% of Ontarians support such an initiative.

“As physicians, we know that Ontarians want to lead healthier lives,” said Dr. Arnold. “Ultimately, knowing and understanding calorie intake can help patients make healthy choices for themselves and that’s empowering.”

- 30 –

For further information: OMA Media Relations at (416) 340-2862 or toll-free at 1-800-268-7215 ext. 2862.

Important news for Ontarians considering US based weight loss surgery

Given the exceedingly long wait times in Ontario for bariatric surgery (up to 3 years) OHIP has been routinely footing the bill for more procedures to be done in a timely manner in the United States.

Last week Ontario's Ministry of Health put a bit of a crimp on this process by publishing a list of "preferred providers" which has allowed the Ministry to negotiate with them packages of services and discounted prices. The price to Ontarians is simple - OHIP won't pay for a provider that has not entered into a preferred provider agreement (PPA).

This is all effective April 1st, 2009. All applications for non-PPA providers received before then are not affected.

Drinking Fountains Prevent Childhood Obesity?

Chalk up another victory for changing the environment (rather than the individual)!

This study appeared in the most recent edition of the journal Pediatrics and it details the outcome of a very simple environmental change - the installation of water fountains in elementary schools.

The fountains were installed in 17 schools and 1,641 children received 4 class based educational sessions surrounding the importance of drinking water and its substitution for sugary beverages (juice included). Meanwhile 15 other control schools with 1,309 children didn't get the fountains or the education.

The results?

Water consumption was 1.1 glasses more per day per child in the intervention group vs. the control, but more importantly,

"After the intervention, the risk of overweight was reduced by 31% in the intervention group, compared with the control group"

Interestingly no significant intervention effect on juice and soft drink consumption was found (though there was an insignificant decrease in juice consumption) so how this intervention affected its changes is still unclear.

One thing's for sure however - the study needs to be repeated. We've longed for a "fluoride in the water" style solution to preventing childhood obesity, and while I doubt the solution will simply be water, seeing studies designed to change the environment is certainly heartening.

Weekend viewing: My Canada's Food Guide talk

If you've got some time this weekend and you're interested in hearing about some of my concerns surrounding Canada's Food Guide, feel free to head over to the First Canadian Healthcare Conference who are showcasing a talk I gave this past January in St. John, New Brunswick.

To watch the talk, click here.

What's up with Disney's DVD "Vaults"?

Does anyone understand how the Disney "Vaults" work?

I keep seeing ads saying that if I don't buy the DVD now, I'll never get a chance.

Today for Funny Friday is one such ad for Disney's the Lion King.

Have a great weekend!

Badvertising: Brain Bread

Yup, give your kids Wonder Bread to make them smart.

Recommendations generally are for children to have 2 servings of fish weekly for them to consume enough healthy fats (DHA) which may have benefits in brain development.

So how much bread would you have to eat to get the DHA of two weekly serving of fish?

Well my friends over at CBC Marketplace in their most recent show figured that out for us (and it's well worth a watch - only 6 minutes).

Want to wager a guess?

My guess is you'll be wrong, unless of course you guessed 428 slices of bread.

How nice of Wonder Bread to prey on parents wanting to help their children.

Shouldn't there be laws against this type of badvertising?

Are you being seduced by your scale?

Further to my post yesterday on scale addiction, today I'll be writing about scale seduction.

Scale seduction is often an insidious problem. You start your "diet" and begin to lose weight and bolstered by the sweet nothings the scale whispers in your ear you slowly get stricter and stricter with your dietary and/or exercise regimes. Basically watching those numbers go down seduces you into thinking you've found a lifestyle when in fact you've just on a diet.

Overly restrictive diets, regardless of weight loss, are generally doomed to fail when you finally get sick of the restrictions you don't particularly enjoy. When does that happen? Usually when the scale stops whispering its sweet nothings.

Remember, it isn't really about what you weigh, it's about what you're doing about what you weigh. Getting sucked into using the scale as your arbiter of success is risky business.

For the Star Wars fans out there consider the scale the "dark side" of the force. Powerful, seductive, but ultimately very dangerous.

Repost: Do you have Scale Addiction?

[Sorry for the repost - 6 hours yesterday of flight delays and over 100 emails in my inbox and I decided a repost would save me some extra stress]

It's certainly not a condition written about in medical textbooks.

I'm talking about scale addiction. An affliction that causes the sufferer, usually someone in the midst of a weight loss effort, to step on the scale multiple times a day whereupon if the scale does not go down or goes up, they suffer mild to severe mental anguish.

I've met many folks who are scale addicts.

They tell me that rationally they understand that getting on the scale multiple times a day won't make a difference, but that they just can't help themselves.

For those folks I usually offer to babysit their scales in my office or I recommend that they turn them over, take out the batteries or put tape on the solar strip.

The thing is scales are truly frustrating devices because they don't simply measure caloric intake vs. caloric expenditure. They measure clothing, water retention, constipation and time of day differences.

Folks who do weigh frequently will know that weight fluctuates both day by day and within a day.

So for scale addicts out there, here are two things you need to know.

Firstly, there's 3,500 calories in a pound, and while bodies are not mathematical instruments whereby if you do or don't eat 3,500 calories you'll see a pound change on the scale, bodies do obey the laws of thermodynamics and if you step on a scale on a Wednesday and it's 3 pounds heavier than Tuesday, unless you consumed at least 10,500 calories more than you burned, the scale is weighing something other than true weight.

Secondly, your weight doesn't matter. What do I mean by that? To put it simply, what moves the number on the scale is not the act of standing on the scale, it's what you're doing and choosing during the times you're not standing on the scale. It's your lifestyle and your choices that change your weight. You need to determine how you're doing by how you're doing. What have your dietary choices been like? How's your fitness? Are you being thoughtful? Are you organized and consistent?

Scales can be helpful to illustrate trends, but weight fluctuation, both inter and intra day fluctuations are normal.

At the end of the day, it's your life that can change the scale, not the other way around.

My recommendations? During a weight loss effort weigh yourself once a week, stark naked Wednesday morning before breakfast. During a weight maintenance effort weigh yourself daily and get to learn your body's weight fluctuations and more importantly, use the scale to nip any weight regain in the bud.

Break the habit, stop the weighing.

(P.S. Those aren't my feet, just a scary picture from the internet)

Pretty much nobody checks fast food calories.

One of the arguments that Big Food puts forward against mandatory calorie labeling is that many restaurants already have in-store brochures or online listings of calories.

Ever wonder how many people look at them?

Well wonder no more as a study published in the American Journal of Public Health set out to answer that very question.

The study was pretty straight forward. Researchers observed 4,311 people buying food at McDonald's, Burger King, Au Bon Pain and Starbucks to see how many of them looked at those respective restaurants' in-store (but not on menu) nutritional information. In order to be counted all you would have had to do is, walked up to a nutritional information poster and turned their head toward it, picked up a pamphlet, or touched the screen of the computer in Au Bon Pain that displays nutritional information.

So out of 4,311 people want to guess how many checked?

6.

6 out of 4,311 people - 0.1%.

Guess the argument that so long as it's in-store it doesn't need to be on-menu's out the window.

"I just twoted all over the place"

Some of you may have noticed that on my sidebar there's a section that states that, "I Twitter".

Today for Funny Friday I bring you a short clip that will help explain exactly what that means.

If you already Twitter, prepare to be amused.

If you don't already Twitter....look at me, look at me....

Have a great weekend!



[Via Addicted to MedBlogs]

Why Isn't Canada Banning Canned Soft Drinks?

Hypocrisy on the Hill continues.

In April of last year the Canadian government banned the sale of bisphenol-A containing baby bottles.

Their rationale was despite agreeing that the levels were below those which scientists generally worry about BPA,

"due to the uncertainty raised in some studies relating to the potential effects of low levels of bisphenol A, the Government of Canada is taking action to enhance the protection of infants and young children."

My blog post at the time pointed out the unbelievable hypocrisy of a government that banned BPA with admitted "uncertainty" as to its risk yet was quite comfortable giving trans-fats a two year free pass despite the head of the government's own task force in 2007 labeling trans-fats,

"a "toxic" killer that need to be removed from the food chain as soon as possible"

Well the hypocrisy continues as a few weeks ago a report from Health Canada came out that found BPA in 69 of the 72 cans of pop they tested - a sample that was representative of 84% of the market share of soft drinks sold in the country.

Of course there's not been so much as a governmental peep about banning them. Shouldn't they? Nursing mothers drink canned pop. So do pregnant women and unfortunately so too do far too many children. If indeed they felt taking action on the baby bottles was in order, why isn't it in order here?

The answer of course is simple.

Banning canned drinks (or trans fat) would be decidedly bad for Canadian industry, whereas banning BPA containing baby bottles only affects a small market share and certainly gives warm fuzzies to the electorate.

Just goes to show you - Health Canada's is as much (or more) a political and industry pandering body than one that serves the public's or science's best interests.

Eat Red Meat - Die?

That's what a new study from the Archives of Internal Medicine suggests is more likely to happen to you if you eat lots of red meat.

The researchers followed more than a half million adults aged 50 to 71 who completed food-frequency questionnaires for a decade during which some 48,000 men and 23,000 women died.

The study controlled for confounding variables including: Weight, smoking, physical activity, education, age, marital status, family history of cancer, race, total energy intake, alcohol intake, vitamin supplement use, fruit consumption, vegetable consumption and menopausal hormone replacement therapy.

So after controlling for everything what did they find?

"There was an overall increased risk of total, cancer, and CVD mortality, as well as all other deaths in both men and women in the highest compared with the lowest quintile of red meat intake in the fully adjusted model."

"There was an overall increased risk of total, cancer, and CVD mortality, as well as all other deaths in both men (Table 2) and women (Table 3) in the highest compared with the lowest quintile of processed meat intake"

"When comparing the highest with the lowest quintile of white meat intake, there was an inverse association for total mortality and cancer mortality, as well as all other deaths for both men and women"

Translation?

People who at the most red and processed meat had higher rates of total deaths, cancer deaths and cardiovascular deaths while white meat seemed to confer some protection.

The authors conclude that these results further bolster the call to reduce red and processed meat consumption.

According to an article written by Sharon Kirkey from Canwest the Canadian Cancer Society has already responded by reportedly lowering their recommendations for red meat consumption to 500grams weekly.

Constrast that rapid response with that of the Heart and Stroke Foundation whose spokesperson's quote suggests she didn't even bother reading the study saying,

"But the biggest meat eaters in the study were also more likely to be "out of shape and overweight."

despite the fact that the study adjusted for the obvious confounders of weight and fitness.

And yes of course the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check misinformation program still happily sells their seal of approval to red meat and Canada's Food Guide still allows for women to consume 1,050grams weekly and men 1,575grams weekly - facts that I'm sure the Beef Industry press releases and letters to the editor are bound to mention in the coming days.

CBC Marketplace Bashes Health Check (Again)

I know most of my readers know that I'm far from fond of the Heart and Stroke Foundation's misinformation program "Health Check", and in my discussions with allied health professionals involved in nutrition and chronic disease prevention I can tell you my sentiments are widely shared.

CBC Marketplace, Canada's award winning investigative consumer affairs show has also rightly targeted Health Check as being deceptive and a program that may well be misleading consumers into buying less healthy choices. Last year they did a feature on Health Check (where I made a few brief appearances) and last Friday they hit them again in their "Busted" segment.

This time they were looking at the sodium content in restaurant foods such as the ones I've made fun of in the past at Boston Pizza.

To be honest at this point I really can't fathom what's going on inside the heads of the Health Check folks. Their program is maligned by anyone who bothers to take the time to really look at it (even Chatelaine magazine bashed it), the food industry itself has proposed a more rigorous front-of-package labeling program, and I have to imagine the controversy has affected donations. Why they persist in hanging onto it is beyond me. Isn't it time to hang up the gloves? Either completely revamp the program (or better yet, license Nuval) or just let it go. It's not helping Canadians and it's hurting the increasingly fragile integrity of the Heart and Stroke Foundation.

The segment's brief (5 mins) but well worth a look.

Check it out for yourselves by clicking here.

Eat red meat - go blind?

Probably not.

Much as you might think that I only like to criticize red meat (for things like increasing the risk of cancers and death and such), here's a study that doesn't worry me too much.

It was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology and it details a cohort study of 6,734 people aged between 58 and 69 and compared their incidence of age related macular degeneration (ARMD - a condition that can lead to central blindness) versus their consumption of red meat and chicken.

The findings?

People who ate more red meat were more likely to develop ARMD.

So why am I not concerned?

Because the group at risk was the group that reported red meat consumption greater than 10 times weekly.

10 times a week?

Who eats red meat 10 times a week?

You think maybe the folks who eat red meat at least 10 times weekly might in fact have some rather unique lifestyles that in turn may be responsible for the finding?

Cause and effect are tough things to suss out of a cohort study.

Breaking News! The Holy Grail of Deep Fryers Found!

This is a deadly serious post.

I, like most, enjoy French fries. I even "buried" two deep fryers in my pre-med days of bachelorhood.

Now of course I know French fries are not good for me (potatoes not so good either), but that said, sometimes they're worth the risk though usually my "fries" take the form of home-made, oven baked fries.

The days of fake fries may soon be over! Soon I may be back to "real" fries.

How?

Apparently T-fal has figured out how to make a deep fryer that fries 2.2lbs of potatoes using only one measly tablespoon of oil!

T-fal folks, if you're reading and want to send me a machine to try out (they're not yet available for purchase in Ontario) I won't complain and will happily review.

Bliss doesn't come cheap however.

$350 and apparently ready for market late this year.

X-Rated Turtle vs. Hiking Boot

I debated about posting this clip.

Then I decided that for Funny Friday everyone ought to hear the sound a turtle makes when he's getting busy.

I guess he forgot to put a sock on the frat room doorknob.

The internet is one strange place.

Have a great weekend!

Newsflash - Weight's not good for your health!

Published this week in the Lancet.

A meta-analysis summarizing 57 studies on the effects of BMI on mortality.

900,000 subjects in total and they excluded deaths in the first 5 years to eliminate the bias of death from subjects already dying (and consequently in many cases often quite skinny due to the wasting associated with many chronic illnesses).

The results?

All-cause mortality was lowest among those with BMIs in from 22.5 to 25.

Above a BMI of 25, every 5-unit increase in BMI translated to a:

30% increased risk for all-cause mortality;

40% higher risk for death from heart disease or stroke;

60% to 120% increase in renal, hepatic, or diabetic mortality;

10% increased risk for cancer-related deaths.

I wonder how folks who make their livings as contrarians to the risks of weight are going to spin this one?

Badvertising: Slenderizing Juice

"4 slenderizing vitamins and minerals"

So what are these 4 miracle vitamins and minerals?

Chromium, vitamin C, L-carnitine and something called "Super-citrimax" (an extract of garcinia cambogia.

So here's what I know.

None of those ingredients have been shown to be significantly beneficial to weight loss but all have been significantly beneficial in selling misleading products like this one.

Watch the world's best ever rendition of Danny Boy

I know it's not Friday but today's video is certainly funny.

I've been saving this one since I found it surfing youtube with my daughters over 6 months ago.

There's no doubt in my mind it's the world's best rendition of Danny Boy.

(And this one's definitely worth a click through to the blog for my email subscribers (just click the title and it'll take you there)).

Have a great St. Patrick's Day and remember, green beer has the same number of calories as regular!

Busted: President's Choice Blue Menu On Track Plus Protein Cereal

As some of you may know, my wonderful wife is pregnant with our third child and for some reason she's been much hungrier this time around. Consequently she's been focusing on eating frequently and including protein with every meal and snack.

A few weeks ago she came home with a bunch of high protein cereals. The one she was most excited about was the President's Choice Blue Menu On Track Plus Protein. She was excited because its nutrition facts panel reported that she'd get 13 grams of protein and 210 calories in 1.25 cups of the stuff. That excited her because it was a lot of protein and more importantly compared with the other high protein cereals, it was a large volume of cereal.

It actually sounded too good to be true.

Well, like most things that sound too good to be true, it's not.

My wife decided to weigh the cereal as its nutrition facts panel reported that the 1.25 cups of cereal ought to weigh 54grams.

When she weighed it, 54grams filled up 0.75 of a cup.

That means that when measured by volume President's Choice Blue Menu On Track Plus Protein provides 40% more calories than reported on its label.

That means if you decided to have the box's recommended 1.25 cup serving every day for breakfast in a year you'd consume 30,000 more calories than you bargained for.

Given that the cereal is being marketed to folks as assisting in "maintaining a health body weight" and keeping them, "On Track" that's an incredibly off-track deception.

Shame on you President's Choice.

UPDATE 17/3/2009: Just heard back from President's Choice who report that indeed there was a labeling error that they are trying to remedy. They report 54grams being 7/8s of a cup and while not quite the 3/4 we measured, certainly close enough for me not to quibble.

Do you have what it takes to be a great marketer?

Ok, so here's your dilemma.

You're a marketing executive and you've been hired to market a device that women can use to pee standing up.

What do you do?

Today's Funny Friday is proof (for me at least) that I'm not creative enough to be a marketing executive.

Have a great weekend!



[Hat tip to my friend Naz]

Follow up on Ayala's Herbal Water

Long term readers may remember my post from almost a year ago about pediatrician Ayala's Laufer Cahana's herbal water.

I was particularly irritated by Ayala's representation of her water as a potential healing tonic in her products' original press release given her clear understanding of evidence-based practice (as seen in her blog).

Well, I just took a trip around Ayala's Herbal Water website and I've got this to say - other than that original press release she's done a bang up job of not in fact making ridiculous, non-evidence based claims.

Ayala, while what I think clearly doesn't matter, I'm going to give you my thoughts anyways. Why not remove the September 18th, 2007 press releases? You've had plenty of great media and reviews since then and as noted, your subsequent press releases have never strayed into making nonsensical pseudo-medical claims. Clearly you care about your ethics and I think the Sepetember 18th press release besmirches the message you're currently trying to promote (and allows loudmouth bloggers like me to a year ago get all huffy).

Kudos to you Ayala for abandoning the miracle-in-a-bottle path.

Want cheap prescription weight loss drugs? Buy a "natural" product.

Some people swear by their "herbal" remedies.

You know when I opened my offices I scoured the medical literature hoping I could convince myself that there was a herbal supplement that I could sell patients that would help them lose weight and help me pay salaries.

Guess what?

I don't sell any products.

Oh, yours works? Maybe it's because its got prescription weight loss drugs mixed into the "natural" pills. At least that's what a recent FDA sting operation found out when they found prescription weight medications (including some not sold in the US) in 68 different "natural" products.

Why put these into the "natural" products? Because the expensive part of coming up with medications isn't manufacturing them, it's the research and development behind them. Spend pennies a pill on making a herbal weight loss product work by putting in drugs that actually affect weight and now you've got a "herbal" product that people will keep buying.

So what drugs did they use to taint the pills?

Sibutramine (can have fatal interactions with certain types of antidepressants)

Rimonabant (pulled from the weight loss market due to adverse effects of depression and suicidal ideation)

Phenolphthalein (a laxative no longer sold in Canada due to its potential contribution to getting cancer)

Phenytoin (an anti-seizure medication)

Bumetanide (a diuretic)

If weight-loss in a bottle existed the world would be skinny.

From the "What were they thinking?" file

Because there isn't enough temptation in your children's lives to eat cookies and chocolate here are more stupid kid games (like the ones I blogged about back here).

I wonder who awarded the chocolate game the "Best Games Award 2008"?

Hershey's?

Oy.

Overweight? Your dietitian probably doesn't like you.

At least not if the results from a recent study are in fact applicable to the profession as a whole.

Dr. Rebecca Puhl, one of the Rudd Center's researchers (and bloggers I might add) published a study in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association whereby she polled 200 dietitian students about their attitudes towards the obese.

Her findings were frightening.

Only 2% of those training to be dietitians had positive (and she included "neutral" as positive) attitudes towards the obese with the remaining 98% being moderately biased against prospective heavier patients.

Of course the same could be said of many health professionals (including doctors). Similar to the dietetic students in a comparable study medical students held almost universally negative beliefs while a study with practicing family physicians showed roughly 50 of them cultivating negative stereotypes.

I'm sure real-life dietitians with real-world experience are likely far less judgemental than the wide-eyed students in Rebecca's study (hint - here's a ripe study for the picking for someone with resources).

Clearly all health professionals have a long way to go at eliminating their own weight-related biases.

Altruistic Boy Scouts to Offer Free Breast Exams

Ever wonder who thinks up this stuff for the Onion?

Today's Funny Friday is their Today Now report on some clearly selfless boy scouts.

(For extra giggles make sure to read this captions)

Have a great weekend!

Guess what? You're probably not fated to be fat.

Genes.

People like to blame genes.

Now there's no doubt whatsoever that genes affect weight, but given the fact that genes haven't changed in the past 100 years and obesity rates have, it's tough to suggest that if you've got an unlucky deck you're fated to be fat.

Recently there's been some work done on the FTO gene. Readers of my friend Dr. Arya Sharma's blog may have come across his post that detailed research published in the New England Journal of Medicine that suggested kids with a particular version of the FTO gene were more likely to choose higher fat (and hence higher calorie) foods.

So are they fated to be fat? Is there nothing they can do?

Of course not.

In an article published yesterday in the PLoS Laura Johnson and colleagues looking at a sampling of 2,275 children found that those children with the higher calorie version of the FTO gene who consumed lower energy dense diets did not find themselves at an elevated risk of obesity.

Translation?

Regardless of your genes, if you're not eating more calories than you burn you're not likely to gain.

This doesn't mean that life isn't more challenging for folks with genetic contributors to weight gain - it just hammers home the fact that like those towns I blogged about in France, without tremendous education and a focus on changing the actual environment, this problem's probably not going away.

Remember too 100 years ago obesity was an incredible rarity - the world back then was truly a phenomenal behavioural weight loss program as it was a program that worked not on an individual level, but rather a societal one.

As always talks about genetics and weight bring me back to Dr. George Bray's famous quote,

"Genes load the gun, the environment pulls the trigger"

Reality Weight Loss Lies - Biggest Loser Edition

So at the end of last week's show the exiled player was shown completing one of his dreams - running a marathon with his wife. It was an idyllic ending - running hand in hand past the finish line. The somber text following the shot, complete with Biggest Loser music in the background, read that Dane finished the 26 mile marathon with his wife in 3 hours and 53 minutes - a pace that if true would have had Dane placing 14th overall.

Inspirational or impossible?

Dane, though much slimmer than his starting Biggest Loser weight, weighed in on race day at 280lbs. A sub-four hour marathon for someone who's only been training for 6 months who weighs 280lbs to me sounded impossible.

Imagine my lack of surprise when the truth actually hit the net. According to a report out of Runner's World magazine's blog, not only did Dane not complete the marathon in under 4 hours, he didn't actually complete it at all. Apparently when it became clear that he would be unable to complete the marathon in the 6 hour time limit of the Arizona Desert Classic Marathon a Biggest Loser show SUV picked Dane and his wife up and gave them a lift.

Oh, and even with the lift they didn't finish in 3:53, they finished in 5:53:48.

The Biggest Loser's production company Reveille LLC reportedly put out a press release detailing their "error" (I can't find the press release) suggesting there was a problem with the time readout. Certainly I can read 5:53 in the video below and you think that maybe, just maybe the camera guys knew how long it took and that Dane's run included an SUV ride?

Looking at the Biggest Loser website I couldn't find anything that suggested they lied to their viewers, nor did I see mention of it last night.

Dane, the guy whose incredible weight loss and commitment to changing his life I'm not knocking, isn't planning on giving back his finisher's medal because "in his mind" he finished the race.

Now as you might imagine, I don't espouse the ridiculously non-sustainable approaches the Biggest Loser broadcasts as helpful, but that said I've always felt the show was useful for that last two minutes. That's the two minutes where the incredibly dramatic weight loss is juxtaposed with the incredibly dramatic lifestyle changes that contestant has made. I've often said, "the more weight you want to permanently lose, the more things in your lifestyle you'll have to permanently change". I guess I'll have to take some of those changes with a grain of salt too as clearly lying is something the show espouses.

To watch a video of last week's last two minutes, click on below.

[Hat tip to Twitter's @stepank ]

This is not the best response to childhood obesity

Bigger clothes.

That picture up above is of British school uniform supplier Nadeem Ahmed holding the size 44inch waist trousers he's been selling to kids as young as 13.

In fact a recent report describes how some of Britain's largest retailers of childrens' clothing are joining together to fund a study into just how big Britain's children have gotten. They're going to use high-tech scanners to measure shapes and sizes with the aim to roll out better fitting clothing for ever-larger children.

Yet you'll still find folks vehemently denying increasing rates of childhood obesity.

I guess the clothing industry is in on this giant public health conspiracy.

Shocker - Calorie Burning Tea Doesn't Actually Burn Calories

Long time readers of my blog may remember my post from 2007 where I made fun of the claims being made by the Coca Cola company in the marketing of their "calorie-burning" tea Enviga.

Well guess what? On Friday Coca Cola agreed to pay $650,000 in penalties for their misleading Enviga advertisements and change them to include disclaimers that Illinous attorney general Lisa Madigan states will provide,

"clear and conspicuous disclosure that the product does not produce weight loss without diet and exercise"

I guess the,

"perfect partnership of science and nature"

doesn't actually break the laws of science and nature.

Shocker that.