Saturday Stories: Too Many Links to Summarize Edition

The clearly much, much, smarter than me Andrew Stokes and why he thinks when considering the impact of weight on mortality maximum lifetime weight is crucial.

The great Gary Schwitzer weighs in on the aspirin prevents cancer story.

The delightful Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian weighs in on the saturated fat and our flawed dietary advice.

The inimitable Dr. Joe Schwarcz weighs in on the gluten-free discussion.

The I've only just discovered her Amanda Marcotte weighs in on Richard Dawkins' seeming misogyny

The indefatigable Jeffrey Goldenberg weighs in on what it might look like if the balance of power between Israel and Hamas were reversed.

There Will be no Beans on Mars

My inner 5 year old loved this fantastic Funny Friday video ad for beans.

Have a great weekend!

Is Nestlé's "Portion Device" the Stupidest Front-of-Package Program Ever Devised?

That's it up above.

It's a graphic that Nestlé is going to place on their candy packaging telling consumers what a serving is and they're literally calling it a "Portion Device" and describing it as "new" and "innovative".

As to my question of whether or not it's the stupidest front-of-package program ever devised the answer to that question is likely the same as the answer to this question - will people still eat the whole package of Smarties (for you Americans they're the same thing as M&Ms) if the front of the box says a serving is only 15 of them (meaning there are 3.7333333 "Portion Device" servings in a 50g box)?

If you're going to put anything other than a warning on the front of a package of Smarties, it should be the calories and added sugar you'd get from consuming the entire box, because that's what consumers do, and no doubt Nestlé already knows that.

(and if you were wondering, the whole box (and not the King size, just the regular) contains 230 calories and 9.25 teaspoons of sugar)

Breaking News: The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Wins the Stupid Award

Here's the ad copy. I think it speaks for itself,

"$1 from every Deep Fried Cheesecake sold will be donated to the JDRF, the leading global organization funding type 1 diabetes research. Our goal is to progressively remove the impact of T1D from people's lives until we achieve a world without T1D".

The JDRF may be hoping for a world without type 1 diabetes, but clearly not one without type 2 diabetes given their promotion here of heading to Denny's in the first place let alone consuming Deep Fried Cheesecake, or in the past when the JDRF promoted the consumption of a "Mega-Jug" of Pepsi at KFC.

And no, this is not a joke or a photoshop.

[Hat tip to Deana Ruston!]

I Shit You Not - Presenting McDonald's Summer Camp for Kids Age 6-12

Truly, it's almost beyond words.

It's summer camp. For elementary school kids. At McDonald's in the Philippines. And it's been running since 1991.

What will the campers do there?

They'll serve as free child labour for McDonald's. No, really. According to the Kiddie Crew homepage,

"During each workshop day, Kiddie Crew members will get to experience on-floor training like greeting customers and assisting the crew at the drive-thru and front counters; showcase their skills through creative art workshops; and learn the importance of hard work, discipline and teamwork, through values formation lessons."

And there'll be lots of positive branding opportunities for them as well - including this awesome camp song (really, it's so insane you have to click it):



And if you think you can stomach it, here's McDonald's own 10 minute video highlighting the the week-long, imerssive advertisement that parents actually pay McDonald's to sear into their kids' brains.

Meet the 8 Registered Dietitians Campaigning Against the Proposed National Soda Tax

So the other day saw New Haven congresswoman Rosa DeLauro introduce a national soda tax bill in the US House of Representatives.

The SWEET Act, if passed, would see every teaspoon of added sugar in a beverage you purchase cost you one additional shiny penny at the register.

And boy would those pennies add up.

The tax would raise $10 billion a year with the monies in turn being earmarked for programs to combat the diseases that high sugar intakes exacerbate or cause. Examples of such programs include subsidizing fresh fruits and vegetables in schools and for SNAP (food stamp) recipients, funding school-based interventions and policies such as farm-to-school programs, increasing access to healthy food in low-income neighbourhoods, paying for social marketing campaigns to counteract the marketing strategies used by the beverage industry to market sugar-sweetened beverages to children, and helping in establishing state-wide, comprehensive obesity and diabetes prevention programs. Not to mention the fact that the tax also might lead to a direct decrease in soda consumption as has potentially occurred in Mexico since their soda tax was implemented (I say potentially only in that causation can't be formally proven, but in the quarter since Mexico implemented their soda tax, consumption has dropped nearly 3%).

As far as burden to consumers go for all for all of this, it'll be minimal. To put the proposed tax in some perspective, even if you're chugging a litre of Coca-Cola a day, the tax would only end up costing you an additional $2 a week.

Sounds pretty amazing to me - so amazing that it's almost unfathomable that any nutrition or health professional would oppose it as after all, we're talking about an annualized $10 billion national injection of health and nutrition programming and subsidies, along with the potential bonus of decreasing sugar sweetened beverage consumption.

You'd think that RDs across the country would be rejoicing, and yet...check out these tweets from registered dietitians Jen Haugen (Greater Minnesota Media Spokesperson, Minnesota Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics), Robyn Flipse, Neva Cochran (past president of both the Texas and Dallas Dietetic Associations), Rosanne Rust, Ann Dunaway Teh, Jill Levinson, Pat Baird (the president of the Connecticut Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics), and Melissa Musiker (Chair, State Board of Dietetics and Nutrition at District of Columbia). The first 7 were posted within hours of congresswoman DeLauro's SWEET Act introduction in the House, while the last was a response to this post:

We can educate instead of regulate. Much more effective than a tax. #Client http://t.co/H9z8ngl6om
— Jen Haugen, RD,LD (@jenhaugen) July 30, 2014

People don’t support taxes & bans on common grocery items, like soft drinks. It's time to move on to real #obesity solutions.#client
— Robyn Flipse (@EverydayRD) July 30, 2014

Bill to tax sugar-sweetened drinks filed in US House today. Taxes don't change eating habits; education does. http://t.co/ne2abomGTO #client
— Neva Cochran, MS, RD (@NevaRDLD) July 30, 2014

Doubtful tax will go to proper nutrition education. #Sodatax won't curb consumption, nor obesity. @AmeriBev (#client)
— Rosanne Rust, RDN (@rustnutrition) July 30, 2014

Soda tax introduced in Congress today. Education, not regulation. Taxes don't work. http://t.co/A0cL3zGTcn #nosodatax #client
— Ann Dunaway Teh (@anndunawayteh) July 30, 2014

Ntl #SodaTax introduced in Congress today. Not solution to #Obesity. Need education, not taxation http://t.co/gx67056ZUe #client
— Jessica Levinson (@jlevinsonrd) July 30, 2014

Talks of soda tax yesterday. An old idea that's gotten no traction in federal government, states and cities across the U.S. #cl
— Pat Baird, RDN (@PatBairdRD) July 31, 2014

I'm an #RD & #MPP, I do not support a #sodatax. Why? Bc elasticity of demand means no beahvior change only revenue http://t.co/Fz52e9B8FH

— Melissa Musiker (@MMusikerRD) August 6, 2014

So on what planet would an RD feel so strongly about a soda tax that he or she would not only privately think to him or herself that it won't work or isn't wise but also broadcast their opposition to it to the world via social media? On the planet where tweets from RDs can be purchased or so it would seem.

Have a peek at the ending of each of those first 7 tweets. The first 6 end with #Client disclosures, while the last (from the president of the Connecticut Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) ends with the totally insufficient and undecipherable (and likely illegal) #client short form of #cl. Those hashtags are meant to inform readers that the authors' views therein are paid for or influenced by their clients - presumably arms of the food industry that would be unhappy if a soda tax ever passed (which in the case of the first 7 RDs include PepsiCo., Coca-Cola, The American Beverage Association, and the Corn Refiners Association, among many others). That last tweet? Well it's from an RD who is employed by APCO Worldwide - Big Beverage's PR firm of choice - and given she identifies self as RD in tweet, I'd think disclosure should require her to identify as working for the food industry as well.

But maybe I'm assuming too much. Maybe lots of RDs are opposed to taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages and are also, on their own volitions, actively speaking out against the proposed health promoting soda tax. So I asked Colby Vorland if he could scan his database of 197 RDs on Twitter for tweets that included the word "soda" or "tax" posted on July 30th and 31st (day of, and day after, bill introduction). And while clearly not a complete sampling of RDs on Twitter it's telling that the only negative sentiments expressed among the 197 RDs on Colby's list came from among those folks listed up above.

Putting all questions of tax efficacy at changing consumer behaviour aside, it certainly appears from their tweets that for them, the $10 billion a year for health and nutrition programs and promotion that a soda tax could raise, is outweighed by the $s directly or indirectly paid to them by their #clients.

Saturday Stories: Natural News, Worlds that Are, and Syrian Advice

Nathanael Johnson via Grist explaining why you should never trust anything that comes from Natural News.

Great piece regarding the Middle East that's sure to upset everyone regardless of their allegiances that explains the root of the problem preventing rational discussion being, "everybody wants to deal with a world that they want rather than the world as it is".

Syrian activist Aboud Dandachi reminds Europe that, "when a Syrian tells you that you are in deep shit, you may rest assured that the shit you are in is deep indeed."

(And because one or both of these arguments may well come up in the comments let me pre-emptively mention that if you argue that one horrifically racist and genocidal blog post represents all Israelis, or that the horrifically racist and genocidal Hamas charter represents all Palestinians, please reconsider your ability to have an intelligent discussion on pretty much anything. Similarly, if the blog post (written by a loathsome and idiotic American teenager who lives in his parents' New Jersey basement and was posted by him without editorial oversight only to be hastily removed and renounced by the Times of Israel and soon thereafter to be recanted by him) outrages you, but the (official since 1988 and still current) charter doesn't.)

[And if you don't follow me on Twitter or Facebook, here's a podcast I did with U of T's Dr. Greg Wells on some of the most straightforward changes that you can make to help with health and/or weight.]

44s of Crazy Cuteness to Start off Your Day

Today's Funny Friday is delicious.

Have a great weekend!

More Staggering New Statistics, This Time Regarding Kids' Food

A recent study out of PLoS One aimed to quantify the percentage of calories coming from various sources in kids' diets.

And while no doubt dietary recall sucks, the authors looked at calories from,

"grocery stores, fast food restaurants, full-service restaurants, school cafeterias, and "other". The “other” category included foods or beverages from someone else or as a gift, child-care centers, sports/recreational facilities, and vending machines"

The results are awful.

According to the paper, 35%, or just over every third calorie consumed by an average American kid between the ages of 4-19, comes from foods not purchased in a grocery store.

And given what's being sold (and purchased) in grocery stores these days I think it's safe to say that as far as the quality of kids' calories go these days, the kids are most assuredly not all right.

If True, This New Soda Stat is Staggering

Wow.

According to this new Gallup poll, nearly 2/3 of Americans aren't drinking any soda whatsoever. Yet according to the soda industry itself, the average American is getting nearly 7% of their total daily calories from soda.

But if 2/3 of Americans don't drink any soda, and if the per capita soda industry reported 7% average is correct, that would suggest that actual soda drinkers are consuming truly insane amounts of the stuff as the 7% average is per capita - which includes in it the 2/3s of Americans who don't drink any of the stuff! Consequently it may well be that among actual soda drinkers the average percentage of calories in their diets coming from soda may be as high as 25%.

Holy crap!

Of course there is another very real possibility - maybe those polled are lying about avoiding soda consequent to the hugely negative press on soda and their feeling ashamed to admit they're drinking it. Though even were that true it's always important to remember that per capita consumption data doesn't give you the most useful data when it comes to the consumption of an intrinsically unhealthy product.

There's No Fruit in Glaceau fruitwater.

Here are the ingredients for Glaceau's orange mango fruitwater:

Seems to me that missing from this "orange mango fruit water" are actual freaking oranges and mangos!

If this is legal, no doubt it shouldn't be.

No, I Won't Debate Whether or Not Jell-O Cures Cancer

It's simply too stupid to discuss.

I guess that's the impolite way to explain the "burden of proof" fallacy in which someone, usually a cranky Twitter or Facebook troll, challenges you to prove that their particular position of nonsensical stupid isn't true.

The onus isn't on you to prove that they or their position is idiotic, the onus is on them to prove that it (or they), aren't.

Saturday Stories: Shalom, Motherf***er, Letters and Crossfit

Shalom, Motherf***er - an amazing visceral and heartfelt piece by Eitan Chitayat that jumped from being a personal posting on his Facebook page on Wednesday, to a blog piece in Times of Israel that as of Friday (when I'm writing this) has been shared over 60,000 times.

An amazing tale of love and lost letters via Abigail Jones in Newsweek

Is Crossfit a religion asks Jon Gugala in his piece exploring the craze.

[And for those who don't follow me on Twitter or Facebook, below's a segment I did with the globe and mail on dietary sugar reduction, and here's a segment I did with CTV's The Social on digestive health, bloating, FODMAPs, detox, salt, and poop.]

Mornings a Misery without Coffee? This Ad Nails That.

Today's Funny Friday is an old commercial for Folgers coffee.

They nailed it.

Have a great day!

Guest Post: A Response to Fruits are NOT Vegetables

Last week saw a guest posting from RD Rob Lazzinnaro who is concerned that by lumping fruits and vegetables together we give marketers the ammunition to sell us fruit-washed junk food as well as risking personal dietary caloric excess. Today's guest posting come from RD Jennelle Arnew who is involved in the Aim For 8 Everyday campaign that inspired Rob's post.

Wow! We were surprised that our Aim for 8 everyday! messaging campaign made it to your blog site. In fairness to our campaign, we are hoping to put the Aim for 8 everyday! messaging into context for you and your followers.

Firstly, we agree with much of Rob Lazzinnaro’s argument of why he thinks it’s important to differentiate between fruit and vegetables. However, amongst many initiatives including our Aim for 8 everyday! campaign we believe by increasing the consumption of fruits and vegetables regardless if it’s one or the other will likely translate to better health. The research tells us that replacing foods of higher caloric density with foods of lower density, such as fruits and vegetables, can be an important weight management strategy (1, 2). Our hope is that if people increase their consumption of fruits and vegetables they are more likely to decrease consumption of high caloric density foods.

Additionally, as many of your followers know, fruits and vegetables offer more important nutrients compared to high density foods (e.g., packaged foods and fast food options). Unfortunately, much of our population is consuming high density foods on a daily basis.

Unfortunately in Chatham-Kent, 70% of our adult population eat fruits and vegetables less than 5 or more times a day (3), AND we are the lowest consumers compared to other regions in Ontario (3). Among youth grades 9-12 (4):

• 40% consume soft drinks at least once daily;
• 27% consume drinks such as aides and cocktails at least once daily;
• 13% are consuming potato chips one or more times per day;
• 18% are consuming chocolate bars at least once daily;
• 20% are consuming cookies at least once daily;
• 60% are not eating breakfast on a daily basis.

The objectives of the Aim for 8 everyday! strategy are mainly to increase awareness about the health benefits of eating fruits and vegetables, and to teach people how to plan meals, cook, and prepare fruits and vegetables. We believe these types of health promotion strategies provide a specific targeted approached based on local needs.

We know that a messaging campaign on its own will not necessarily translate into behaviour change and we’ve incorporated a variety of other strategies to complement the Aim for 8 everyday! campaign. Our current food state is complex; however, amongst many other government and community initiatives we are striving for a standard whereby we can focus on community based promotion strategies which emphasize the importance of vegetables and fruits as exclusive, but important, components of healthy eating. However, considering Chatham-Kent’s current low consumption of both fruits and vegetables, the Aim for 8 everyday! strategy, while not necessarily differentiating between fruits and vegetables, aims to get people eating healthier through eating more fruits and vegetables.

Jennelle Arnew, RD, MSC

References:

1. Tohill BC, Seymour J, Serdula M, Kettel-Khan L, Rolls BJ. What epidemiologic studies tell us about the relationship between fruit and vegetable consumption and body weight. Nutr Rev. 2004;62:365-374.
2. Rolls BJ, Ello-Martin JA, Tohill BC. What can intervention studies tell us about the relationship between fruit and vegetable consumption and weight management? Nutr Rev. 2004;62(1):1-17.
3. Statistics Canada. Table 105-0502 - Health indicator profile, two year period estimates, by age group and sex, Canada, provinces, territories, health regions (2012 boundaries) and peer groups, occasional. (Accessed 2013).
4. CCI Research Inc. Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit 2007 School Health Assessment Grades 9-12 Summary report. October 2008.

Fear the Nutrition Guru Whose Opinions Don't Change

Nutrition is anything but a set-in-stone science. It's staggeringly difficult to study as it's near impossible to control for the myriad of confounding variables that might influence outcomes, study durations are too short, and dietary self-reporting is abysmal.

As a consequence attitudes and opinions change.

It's not an academic crime to have a mind open to change, on the contrary, it's an academic crime if you don't.

Did You See the One About Low-Carb Diets Being No Better than Others?

There is a study that has been making the rounds the past few days. It touts itself as a meta-analysis designed to answer the question of whether or not low-carb diets are better for weight loss, and also whether low-carb diets are safe.

I'll cut to the chase. The study concludes low-carb diets are no better for weight loss and yes they're safe.....but, the authors bizarrely used a carb cutoff of 45% to define "low".

A diet with 45% of calories coming from carbs is not a low-carb diet and certainly isn't usefully comparable to one containing 20% carbs (and yet the authors did).

So sadly this paper doesn't help with the questions it set out to answer, but for what it's worth, my non-objectively quantifiable take on low-carb diets is that if they help you to control your intake, and you enjoy living that way, I wouldn't waste a moment worrying about safety. Of course if you don't enjoy low-carb life, please don't think there's no other way to go.

Reading this piece I could help but wonder, where, oh where, is peer review?

Pregnant? Dead Simple Healthful Eating Life Hack for When Baby's Born.

And it's dead simple. Buy a freezer (used chest freezers on local buy and sell websites are often under $100), freezer storage containers, and freezer bags.

Well, there's a tiny bit more.

3 months before the baby's due date start cooking and freezing your family's favourite meals. Aim for 3 full months of home frozen dinners and lean on them heavily during those exhausting first weeks and months. And if you also cook on those rare days where you've got some time, you can stretch your pre-emptive home cooking even longer.

Way better than take out and dry cereal.

Saturday Stories: Language and War, Dr. Oz, Health Literacy, and Physical Inactivity.

"And so it happens. Without one’s being aware of it, it happens. A gradual habituation to the language of loathing." - Written in 2009 during the last war in Gaza. It may as well have been written today.

The wonderful Julia Belluz introduces the world to the medical student who's trying to take down Dr. Oz.

"Would you take fitness tips from a mouse?", the Globe & Mail's Adriana Barton covers health literacy for health news readers.

The Incidental Economist's Dr. Aaron Carroll saw those news reports last week that covered obesity as if it were purely caused by physical inactivity and he calls bullshit.

[And if you don't follow me on Twitter or Facebook, Had a nice chat with CTV Ottawa Morning yesterday about "refueling" or "recovering" post exercise]

The Blues are the Same in any Language

Don't believe me?

Watch today's Funny Friday video.

Have a great weekend!

Guest Post: Newsflash! Fruits are NOT Vegetables.

Today's guest post comes from our office's own RD Rob Lazzinnaro and why he thinks it important to differentiate between fruit and vegetable.

The title of this post may seem like an obvious observation, yet a surprisingly important one. I’m not talking plant taxonomy, no, I want to explain why fruits and vegetables are essential to differentiate nutritionally.

How many times have we heard the saying “eat your fruits and vegetables!” They have become synonymous with one another, and often translated to mean they are one and the same. The idea is so entrenched that fruits, like vegetables, should be eaten in abundance that it is a common recommendation like “half your plate campaign” and Weight Watchers new fruit doesn't count (zero points) system. It started with Canada's Food Guide (CFG), and to be fair most every government food guide. Fruits and vegetable recommendations are provided as a single categorical entity without any serious distinction between the two.

It needs to stop, and here's why - most food guides recommend a minimum number of servings for the category of fruits and vegetables. CFG recommends 8-10 Fruits and veg for a male 19-50. They do not specify how to get this minimum recommendation in on the basic form, and on their detailed instructions simply recommend a minimum of one dark green vegetable every day.
Here are two scenarios:

Scenario 1
I eat 1 cup of cooked greens, 2 apples, 2 oranges, 1 banana, 1 pear.
= 8 servings of fruits and veg.
= ~700 calories (Potentially an underestimation considering I used large fruit while many of the Frankenfruit found in today's supermarkets actually way in far larger than large).

Scenario 2
I eat 1.5 cups of cooked greens, 2 cups of bell peppers, half a cup of carrots
= 8 servings of Fruits & veg
= ~100 Calories.

That is a potential difference of ~600 calories between two examples that would both allow me to meet the CFG recommendations. You might ask who in the heck is scarfing down all that fruit, and you might be correct in thinking not many are, however, it's easy to substitute four of those servings with two cups of say apple and/or orange juice (as many do) leaving a person thinking they were making healthful choices. Most Canadians do not follow food guides, but many have had its recommendations established in their thinking in some shape or form from institutions that use it as a guiding principle - primary/elementary/high school, hospitals, day care, etc.

Fruit or whole fruit anyway is certainly not “bad” or the crux of any major nutritional issue, but using it interchangeably with vegetables is nutritionally misleading and a serious error. An error that has been manipulated by advertisers for years; how?: 1. Fruit is much more palatable than vegetables 2. It comes with high recommendations by health professionals. Virtual gold for marketers! Gather round and get your 5-10 fruit or vegetable servings easily from “healthy” fruit muffins, juice, fruit gummies, fruit leather, fruit filling, fruit ice cream, fruit bars, dried sweetened fruit, fruit filled granola bars; hooray!

Here’s to an abundance of vegetables.

No, Artificial Sweeteners Won't Make you Gain Weight

Of course that doesn't mean you should abuse them either.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. First the meta-analysis. Out of the gates, it looks like it was funded by the food industry and no doubt, industry funded studies have been shown to be industry positive. That doesn't mean the results are bunk, but definitely something to consider when evaluating.

The study did what others studies on artificial sweeteners should have done - it looked at them in the context of populations actively involved in weight management and in this case the authors looked at both randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies that utilized low calorie sweeteners (LCS). What they didn't include were broad sweeping studies that aimed to tie LCS consumption to weight and I've argued about why this is important before but briefly, if you simply look at all comers when it comes to artificial sweeteners you run the risk of including folks who justify their Mega-Combo by ordering a diet beverage and/or high consumption may represent a greater reliance on restaurant and processed foods as a whole.

So what did the researchers find? Overall of the 15 randomized trials and 9 prospective cohorts identified, the use of LCS did not lead to weight gain, and in the case of the randomized trials, the use of low-calorie sweeteners in place of high calorie ones did in fact lead to weight reduction.

At the end of the day less sweet from all sources should be the goal as regardless of source, sweet affects our palates and conditions us to foods that likely we ought to be minimizing, but if you're trying to manage weight, and you can use LCS to replace their fully-leaded counterparts, I'd say the evidence would suggest LCS products are the lesser evil.

The Crucial Question Regarding Canada's Nutrition Facts Panel Changes

Will fruit juices, evaporates, purées and concentrates be considered sources of added sugar? Health Canada doesn't consider them to be now, and there was no suggestion yesterday that there were any plans for change.

No doubt juices, evaporates, purées, and concentrates should all be considered sources of added sugars as ultimately that's what they are. Pulverize, extrude, concentrate, and/or evaporate fruit, and sugar is predominantly what you're left with. And if juices, evaporates, purées, and concentrates aren't formally considered added sugars by Health Canada, get ready for a huge increase in nonsensical food-like items with claims of "no sugar added" and "made with real fruit" to hit the shelves.

The corollary of that too of course is that existing such nonsensical food-like items will still be allowed to make their nonsensical, predatory claims.

[I do have other minor suggestions and issues with the proposals, but overall I have to say, assuming the above issue is handled properly, it's a big improvement over what we've got now. The other major concern I have is that there's not a value for a package's total calories - useful given many of us treat entire packages as serving sizes.]

Should Religion be Used to Sell Junk Food?

Coca-Cola sure thinks so.

Of course we're all familiar with Coca-Cola's conscription of Christmas.



I guess selling on the back of religion must be a great way to do business because Coca-Cola's just launched a new Ramadan themed campaign.

Here's Coca-Cola's description of their Ramadan centric campaign in Indonesia,

"In honor of Ramadan, Coca-Cola Indonesia is holding a series of unique activations to inspire a reconnection. The program is named, “Sampaikan dengan Coca-Cola” which means, "Say it with Coca-Cola".

During the month of Ramadan, 1 and 1.5-liter Coca-Cola plastic bottles will feature a special design that includes the names of loved ones like Ayah (father), Ibu (mother), and Sahabat (best friend). The special packaging is intended to encourage family, colleagues, friends and companions to reconnect.

"The holy month of Ramadan is about reconnecting and forgiving each other. Yet over time, it often becomes a routine and loses the real meaning. This year, through a bottle of Coca-Cola, we want to bring positive inspiration to people to ensure that we have a good and close relationship with them by continuously reconnecting,": says Esther Tanudjaja, Senior Integrated Marketing Content & Connection Manager Coca-Cola Indonesia."

And here are some videos from the campaign:





And if you're a practicing Hindu rather than Christian or Muslim, no worries, your holidays' emotions are also conscripted by Coca-Cola as seen in this Diwali ad



To be fair, this practice isn't unique to Coca-Cola. Virtually all fast and junk food makers use religion to sell food. And now I'm not a religious man, so I truthfully don't know the answer to this but for those who are religious, is Coca-Cola's (and others') usage of your religion's holiday joy and spirit to brand undeniably unhealthy products not a touch repugnant?

Saturday Stories: War, Genetics, and a Must Read

Slate's William Saletan covers the war in Israel.

My friend Tim Caulfield explains why we shouldn't be looking to genetics to solve societal weight woes.

And an absolute must read by an Anonymous author on breakfast. Trust me, it's not what you're expecting, and be forewarned, it hits very, very, hard.

How Can I Not Jump on the Hedgehog Birthday Cake Bandwagon?

It's just too cute not to share for Funny Friday.

Have a great weekend!

7 Nutrition Hashtags You Need to Be Aware Of - #Sp #Cl #Cli #Spon #Spons #Client #Ad

That's not to say that tweets with any one of those hashtags should be dismissed, or that the person who is putting them out doesn't believe in their content, or that the content isn't 100% true, but please take them for what they are - advertising - as those hashtags are there to make you aware that the tweeter involved is getting paid by the industry/corporation/product referenced in the tweet.

And while I think those folks using those hashtags are doing the right things with their disclosures (and sort of obeying the law as the FTC has ruled that RDs who receive compensation by companies must disclose - but the FTC feels only #Ad right up front does the job), and by no means should someone reading this post think I've got it out for folks getting paid to tweet, I do wonder how many regular folks reading those tweets would recognize those hashtags' significance (especially #Sp, #Cl, #Cli, #Spon, and #Spons)?

I also have to wonder what percentage of directly or indirectly compensated RD tweets actually include disclosures as from my tweet stream at least, it would seem that percentage is very small, and the percentage of those that disclose with #Ad up front is even smaller still.

Examples of each (including those that use those far less obvious hashtags and the FTC's required #Ad up front):

Taking away sugar to fix bad diets is like saying you can make ppl more active by removing their chair. #energybalance #healthyliving #cli
— Robyn Flipse (@EverydayRD) May 12, 2014

We're too quick to blame the food industry rather than telling consumer to take responsibility for their eating habits #F3K #spons
— Mindy Hermann (@MindyHermannRD) February 15, 2014

Food fortification plays a role in meeting nutrient needs of Americans. Processing helps enhance & preserve food quality.#F3K #spon
— Connie Diekman (@CBDiekman) February 15, 2014

Concerned about the safety of low cal sweeteners? Just remember they've been in use much longer than cell phones. #keepingperspective #cl
— Robyn Flipse (@EverydayRD) April 24, 2014

Q2 any f/v/wg that they will actually eat (&drink - 100%juice counts #client). Not nutrition unless it's eaten! #rdchat
— elana natker (@elanaRD) February 2, 2012

Sooo cute Dr Olivia http://t.co/1QlEeGRcsd I just showed this @SunMaidRaisins #sp #cute #sweet #children #rdchat #nutrition #food #special
— Jim Painter PhD, RD (@DrJimPainter) December 9, 2013

#ad We LOVE eggs in our house! Learn our favorite ways to eat them: http://t.co/axavpwLdaK #teameggs #rdchat #food
— Katie Heddleston, RD (@KatieHeddleston) September 12, 2013

High School Phys-Ed Horror Story Demonstrates Risk of "Energy Balance"

Thanks to Jonathan Clow for sharing this story with me.

So last year a PE teacher at Huron Park Secondary School in Woodstock, Ontario had their Grade 10 co-ed class use scales and measuring tapes in front of one another to calculate their body mass indices. Why? Because his gym class for the semester was to include once weekly circuit training that consisted of ten 90 second stations of burpees, weighted squats and other squat variations, mountain climbers, with no breaks, then a water break then 2 more circuits at 60 seconds and 30 seconds each without a break in between. At the end of the semester the kids were to once again publicly re-weigh and measure themselves in order to see how much weight their once weekly circuit training helped them to lose.

Oh, and he also allegedly informed the kids whose BMIs were elevated to begin with that they would likely develop diabetes.

No doubt the PE teacher was well-intentioned and felt that both public shame and just a bit of moving around would help his students because as far as he was concerned weight is an "energy balance" issue between in and out and that if he just had the kids up their "out", the problem would be solved. I've no doubt too, that his sentiments represent the societal norm rather than an exception.

I'm told the kids mounted a boycott and letter writing campaign to the school but am unsure on how it all shook out. Fingers crossed for the kids.

I'd imagine there are many more such PE based horror stories out there, and if the teacher or school is reading this, perhaps he might have a peek at this meta-analysis of school PE programs which demonstrated yet again (and yes I know I'm a broken record), that kids aren't going to outrun their forks, or this study that suggests negative experiences in high school PE may well discourage the adoption of a commitment to lifelong exercise.

Bottom line for all of us - exercise should be cultivated and promoted on the basis of health and fun, and fat shaming has no place (or utility) in society let alone in a high school's curriculum.

9 Weekly Hours of Vigorous Exercise Didn't Help These Kids Outrun Their Forks

This from a small Portugese study involving 12 pre-teen boys with overweight or obesity who were assigned to participate in a structured 5-month soccer program. The program was rather intense and consisted of four weekly 60-90 min sessions designed to get the boys' heart rates up to > 80% of their HRMax (and confirmed by heart rate monitors). In addition to their 4-6 hours of soccer (the average boy in the study played nearly the full 6 hours weekly), the boys also participated in 1.5-3 hours of regular PE at school for a total of 5.5-9 hours of weekly exercise, the bulk of which was undeniably vigorous. The soccer playing lads were compared with a control group consisting of eight boys of equivalent age from an obesity clinic located in the same area as the school and who also received the schools' standard 1.5-3 hours of PE.

As far as what was measured, along with some psychological testing was body fat percentage (by means of DEXA), and of course weight.

The results? After 5 months of genuinely heroic amounts of exercise,

"no significant changes were observed for the BMI and percentage of body fat"

The good news is that the kids felt better about themselves with improvements to their body image and self-esteem, and I've no doubt, they also likely improved their health (blood pressure, lipid profiles, exercise capacity, etc.).

If your kid's weight is a concern, help it with your kitchens, and then when you're done washing the dishes, head outside with them to play.

Another Ridiculous "Psst, Kid, Wanna Have Some Candy?" Example

Chalk up another win for McDonald's as well as for the normalization of junk food and the use of sugar as a reward, and chalk up another loss for public health.

Thanks to Twitter's Bill Back for sending along a photo of the coupon for soft serve ice-cream his daughter received from a Spokane Washington police officer as a reward for wearing her bike helmet.

Our communities need to be working to provide children with fewer opportunities for junk, not more.

Saturday Stories: Pitchforks, Facebook, and Statins

Really great long read in Politico by Nick Hanauer to his fellow zillionaires on how the pitchforks are coming for them.

Thoughtful piece by Matthew Herper in Forbes where he asks Facebook to kindly continue experimenting on us.

Dr. Ben Goldacre on his own blog (and the BMJ) with what I can only describe as the best short read on statins ever written.

An Honest McDonald's Commercial

If you can put aside the chemophobia and the fact that correlation and causation aren't one in the same, today's Funny Friday McDonald's commercial is definitely good for a giggle.

Have a great weekend!

Will Mucking with our Microbiomes Help to Manage Obesity?

Right out of the gates I need to tell you I'm not anywhere near an expert in gut flora, and so maybe I'm completely misinterpreting the implications of microbiome papers, but here's my concern.

If diet does, as this and other papers suggest, rapidly and reproducibly alter the human gut microbiome, if we're considering mucking with our microbiomes to help manage weight, how will our mucking with it ever stick? Meaning it sounds like permanently changing our microbiomes would require permanently changing our diets - but isn't that the struggle inherent to dieting in the first place? Or would the plan be daily permanent pre/pro-biotic supplements?

I know I have at least a few readers who know a great deal about this topic - would love it if you could weigh in.

Should Ontario Provincial Police Really Be Handing Out Candy to Children?

Since 2010 the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) have partnered with Mac's Milk convenience stores in what the OPP call a "positive ticketing program".

The gist of the program is simple. Police give out "positive tickets" to reward good behaviour and/or influence desired behaviour - and generally they give them to children. Since 2010 they've given out somewhere in the neighbourhood of 500,000 such tickets.

Sounds good so far, right?

But they're not really tickets, they're junk food advertisements. Only they're not just junk food advertisements, they're also junk food coupons. They're junk food coupons that entitle the recipient to a free 710mL Mac's Milk Froster (their version of a Slurpee) which in turn packs 444 calories and 26 teaspoons of sugar - the same number of calories as you'd find in 1.1 litres of Coke and the sugar of more than 10 Krispy Kreme original glazed doughnuts.

I completely understand the concept of "positive tickets", but the further normalization of junk food (and especially liquid candy) in Ontario's children's lives simply isn't positive.

And honestly, how difficult would it be for the OPP to partner up with Ontario's municipal governments and instead of rewarding kids with sugar, instead reward them with free skates and swims at local arenas and pools?

Ontario Parks' "Official Beverage" is a Pepsi?

Both eco and health washing in one clean swoop.

Sigh.

[Hat tip to Eileen Mortimer for sending this along.]

Saturday Stories: Science Reporting, Eggs, and Fronts-of-Packages

Health News Review's Gary Schwitzer on science reporting, "We’re losing people, drowning them in a sea of questionable or downright useless health information."

Foodist and Summer Tomato's Darya Pino with an incredibly easy and quick egg recipe that I hope to try this weekend.

Yale and Disease Proof's Dr. David Katz, in lieu of Canada's Heart and Stroke Foundation's decision to end their Health Check program, talks about my favourite front-of-package labelling program - his creation - Nuval.

[And if you don't follow me on Twitter or Facebook, below is the segment I did with Australia's Studio 10 morning show where I was asked to weigh in on Dr. Oz' predatory sale of hope.]

Game of Thrones Meets The Brady Bunch

Warning, there are a few Game of Thrones spoilers in this week's Funny Friday video (though not for this current season).

Have a great weekend!

Successful Proof of Concept for an Obesity Vaccine?!

File this under weight is a complex amalgam of dozens, if not hundreds, of individual, environmental and societal contributions as here is a proof of concept paper that, at least in mice, speaks not only to a viral contributor to obesity, but also to a vaccine for same.

In the study mice were either injected with either a vaccine derived from purifed AD36 (a virus shown to contribute to weight gain), or with saline. Both groups of mice were then exposed to the live virus.

The results were dramatic. 14 weeks after exposure to AD36 the vaccinated mice were 17% lighter than the saline injected controls.

While the translation of mouse research to clinical human utility is statistically speaking, hugely unlikely, it doesn't make this study's results any less fascinating.

Ugly, Ignorant, Fat-Shaming, American Academy of Pediatrics, Childhood Obesity Ads

Thanks to Eating Rules' Andrew Wilder for sending me this photo of the fat-shaming, American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) endorsed ad that he snapped last week in Oakland International Airport.

Not only does this AAP campaign embrace the gluttonous sloth causes obesity narrative, an erroneous narrative that no doubt fuels bullying, it also demonstrated incredible ignorance in its clear suggestion that the primary reason children have obesity today is because they no longer play.

Never you mind that objective studies on the impact of physical activity on childrens' weights reported that even a ten fold difference in physical activity didn't protect children from weight, or that a meta-analysis of school PE programs involving over 18,000 students showed that no amount of PE had a significant weight impact - no - if that boy on the bottom of the see-saw just picked up a damn basketball instead of a bag of chips, no doubt he too would be slim.

So incredibly disappointing to see the AAP having gone down such an ugly road. Kids who struggle with overweight and obesity aren't likely to have any shortage of weight related guilt, shame and embarrassment in their lives and it's beyond awful to see an organization such as the AAP adding to their piles.

I reached out to the AAP who reported that they had thought the campaign, which begun in 2012, had run its course, but that confusion aside, it still begs the question of how it was approved in the first place, for if guilt, shame or simple play helped with childhood obesity, it wouldn't exist. And so I have to ask, how is it possible that the AAP didn't/doesn't already know that?

I Was Going to Write a Dr. Oz Post but then I Saw this John Oliver Video

No need to ever write about Dr. Oz again as every time I have an urge I can just post this spectacularly brilliant, hilarious, and troubling video from Last Week Tonight and John Oliver.

Thanks to all those who sent this my way.

Ottawa City Councillor and Parkinson Society Push Month Long Milkshakes

As a society, the use of sugar and junk food as drivers of fundraising has become the norm. No doubt if we want to see reductions in the prevalence of diet and weight related diseases we need to actively strive to provide fewer opportunities for junk consumption, and when it comes to food based fundraising, no doubt the charitable cause provides both incentive and permission to eat junk. Consequently, when I see the sorts of partnerships like the one described in the email below sent out by Ottawa City Councillor Diane Deans, I think it's worth pointing out that however well-intentioned it might be, it's not in public health's best overall interest.

Good Afternoon,

I would like to invite you to the Parkinson’s Shake Up! on June 26th at noon at KS on the Keys Restaurant located at 1029 Dazé Road.

For the entire month of July, KS on the Keys Restaurant will donate $4 from the purchase of every milkshake to Parkinson Society Eastern Ottawa to help provide programs and services in support of those living with Parkinson’s and those caring for them. To help kick off this month-long campaign; I will be handing out free milkshake samples next Thursday between noon and 1:00 p.m.

For every milkshake purchased, or $5 donation during the event, patrons will be entered into a draw to win a prize! Please stop by, enjoy a milkshake, and together we can help support members of the Ottawa community who are coping with this disease.

For more information please contact me at 613-580-2480 or diane.deans@ottawa.ca

Kind Regards,

Diane Deans
Councillor, Gloucester-Southgate Ward

Assuming the Keys Restaurant's milkshakes are average in their caloric and sugar punch, I'd expect each charitable shake to contain the calories of nearly two Big Macs and a literal half cup of sugar (for instance a medium Baskin-Robbins chocolate milkshake contains 930 calories and 24.5 teaspoons of sugar).

[Thanks to Sally Collins for sharing Ms. Deans' email]

Cancer hospital approves free cigarette give away fundraising!

Somehow I doubt it.

I mean, accepting donations or funds raised by corporations whose very products contribute to the burden of disease in your hospital would be anathema to your responsibility as a hospital to promote public health and combat disease, wouldn't it?

But what if your hospital really, really needed the money?

Um, it's a tobacco company handing out free cigarettes and simultaneously asking for hospital donations.

Yeah, there's not too much debate there. It's not good, right?

So why do our hospitals, specifically our children's hospitals, regularly partner up with the purveyors of sugary treats to raise money in their names?

These photos, taken by an anonymous tipster from Toronto, show a recent Dairy Queen Guinness Book of World Records attempt at making the world's largest ice cream cake. Stamped right on the sign, "donations to Sick Kids Hospital will be accepted" in lieu of course of free ice cream cake.

And the same happens here in Ottawa where CHEO regularly partners up with Dairy Queen to raise funds.

I wonder what the HALO team at CHEO think about these partnerships - they're the folks who are busily researching means to try to help combat the rapid rise in childhood obesity in Canada.

Guessing they might think that children's hospitals probably shouldn't be in the brand polishing business for Dairy Queen.

That same tipster did some quick calculations.

The cake?


Through it, Dairy Queen distributed 5,000lbs worth of calories, 4,276.8lbs of added sugars and 44.5lbs of trans fat all with the blessing (they used Sick Kids' logo - they had their explicit blessing) of the Hospital for Sick Children.

These partnerships have got to stop.

I know, I know, fast food's not going away, and children definitely still need to enjoy cake from time to time, but that doesn't mean it's ethical or responsible for hospitals to help in its sale or promotion.

Hospitals used to sell cigarettes too you know.

[If you enjoy Weighty Matters you might want to subscribe via email, follow me on Twitter or join the Facebook page]

Saturday Stories: Pranks, Aliens and Cheap Eats

Slate's Rebecca Schuman covers the absolutely brilliant stunt that 56 professors pulled to protest pay gaps in academia.

Wait But Why covers The Fermi Paradox and provides a number of different answers to the question of why we have yet to speak with aliens.

And lastly, here's Leanne Brown's "Good & Cheap" cookbook for healthy eating on the cheap. Many meals for less than $1.50 a serving and the most expensive, with side and dessert, likely under $5.

Perhaps the Funniest Commercial I've Ever Seen

I genuinely laughed out loud - multiple times - watching today's Funny Friday video, and with 3 young daughters of my own, there's always the remote chance I can recreate it one day were the circumstances in the video to take place in my home.

Exercising To Lose Weight Might Lead You to Gain Instead

File this study under reality.

Researchers were curious whether or not labelling exercise "fat-burning" (as many exercise machines do) would have an impact on how much food a person ate post exercising.

The protocol was simple. Subjects were brought individually to a lab and were told they were there to evaluate newly developed training software for bike ergometers. They were then equipped with a heart rate monitor and completed a 20 minute low-moderate intensity cycle. Participants were randomly assigned to have one of two posters tacked to the wall in front of them while they rode. The first had a poster stating, "Fat-burning exercise – developing training software for exercise in the fat-burning zone.", and the second, "Endurance exercise – developing training software for exercise in the endurance zone." Following their rides subjects were told they could help themselves to snacks while completing a survey and were offered water and pretzels. Pretzels consumed were measured by means of a scale before and after each participant.

The results?

"Fat-burning" labels did have some impact, but I'm not going to dwell on it. Instead I want to point out that across both treatments participants burned on average 96 calories during their rides and they then proceeded to eat 135 calories (41% more calories than they burned) of post-exercise pretzels.

Combine these results with those from a study published a few weeks ago that people who went for a walk and told they were "exercising" consumed 41% more calories from indulgent desserts and drinks following a post-walk lunch than those who were told they were walking for "fun".

We do eat because we exercise and I think in large part it's because we've been taught that we're supposed to - both by the food industry (see up above) and sadly too, by public health departments (see down below with the "Less Sit, More Whip" City of Ottawa bus poster) and health professionals who have markedly overplayed exercise's role in weight management.

If you are interested in weight loss, make sure that regardless of how much you're exercising, you're paying attention to to food as well.

Lose weight in the kitchen, gain health in the gym.

BREAKING: Heart and Stroke Foundation Disbanding their Health Check Program

Readers here will know I have long been critical of the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check program. Born in 1999, Health Check was incredibly well intentioned and truly ahead of it's time. Unfortunately, as the years went by, the program didn't evolve with our changing understanding of both nutrition and consumer psychology, and by the mid 2000s, I think the evidence was clear that Health Check was not fairly guiding Canadians' choices, or representative of the good work and trust for which the Heart and Stroke Foundation itself was known.

In a move demonstrating real responsibility the Heart and Stroke Foundation has today decided that the right move for Health Check is to wind it down. I am hopeful that doing so will allow the Foundation to become a far more vocal proponent of produce over products, and in so doing help to steer Canadians out of restaurants and supermarkets' middle aisles and back into the loving embrace of their own kitchens.

Here is their formal announcement.

Guest Post: Since When Did School Become All About The Food?

Cartoon by Politico's Matt Wuerker

Received an email the other day and reached out to the sender to ask if I could share. It's so frustrating that the institutions that are supposed to care about our kids the most (schools, coaches, camps, etc.) contradict their caring by being promoters and providers of junk. Sadder still that these sorts of occurrences are more often the norm than the exception:

Love your blog & book, wanted to let you know the struggles of a frustrated mom of 2 boys, 10 & 11 in Ontario who is trying to teach her kids healthy eating and moderation. Are we perfect? Not even close but we try.

True events over the last 5 weeks for one grade 6 boy.

Week 1 – hot lunch day at school – Mac & Cheese, there were leftovers so my child had 5 helpings. Hence a discussion that night about moderation.

Week 2 – EQAO testing. The tests are about 1-2 hours long. The teacher allowed the kids to bring in snacks. Then, another discussion about food choices and your performance. Plus the fact that I thought he could go 2 hours without eating. We agreed he could bring in plain popped popcorn no toppings. Did I mention the testing lasted 3 days. By the third day he asked if he could bring chips and pop because that is what everyone else was bringing in. I caved and chips could be purchased only if he bought them with his money. He woke up early the next day just so he could ride his bike to the store to purchase them.

Week 3 – Hot lunch again at school. Our school has 1 hot lunch a month plus a pizza lunch. A discussion at the beginning of the year about finances & food choices allows them to have one or the other but not both. Today it was hot dogs, cookie and drink box.

Week 4 – School fun day at lunch time. What was on the menu? Pizza, pop, jumbo freezies, chips and ice cream sandwiches. Another discussion the night before about how much money they could bring & what could be purchased. Each took $5, my youngest returned with $2 change, by oldest spent it all. 3 pieces of pizza, jumbo freezie, pop ,chips and ice cream. (He received $2 extra when a boy gave him money if he could cut in front of him in the pizza line) Hence a discussion about gluttony. And the fact that he didn’t eat any dinner and had a stomach ache.

Week 5 – School dance in the afternoon for grade 6,7 & 8. No interest in girls yet but the snack table of pop, chips and sour keys was a huge success .

Next week – Year-end trip to the movies. The note home said

“the concession stand will be open if you child would like to purchase refreshments”

Did I mention they are going at 9:00 am in the morning? Then another discussion about how you don’t NEED popcorn or pop in the morning. That’s OK mom he said because afterwards when we get back to school we are having a pizza party & everyone will be so full from the movies there will be more pizza for me. Then, like a broken record we repeated our discussion about moderation.

Since when did school become all about the food?

Frustrated Mother,
Melissa Parsons