Supermarkets Should Not Legally Be Allowed to Do This

It's bad enough we have fronts of packages telling us that all manners of food-like substances are in fact healthful, and truly, there should be a law preventing front of package health claims, but check out these top of aisle health claims that an RD reader of mine found displayed at her local Ontario Metro Supermarket.

Healthy cookies?

Healthy juice?

Those of course are oxymorons.

The soups - sure soups can be healthful, but given most store bought soups contain well over 1,000mg of sodium per bowl, a healthy label is a bit of a stretch.

The onus shouldn't be on the consumer to scrutinize labels to determine if claims are true, the onus should be on the food industry, and in this case the supermarket industry, not to lie to or to deceive consumers.

Saturday Stories: Joan Rivers, Jennifer Lawrence, and Paid Trolls

Joan Rivers back in 2012, explains why Johnny Carson banned her from the Tonight Show, and the challenges of being a female comedian.

Journalist, author and friend James Fell with a great rant on the recent naked celebrity picture scandal.

And finally a fascinating Q&A with Ai Weiwei and a paid Chinese internet troll.

Joan River's Triumphant Return to The Tonight Show

I adored Joan Rivers. For today's Funny Friday here's a 7 minute clip that embodies her special genius. She will be greatly missed.

Have a great weekend!

How Much Greek Yogurt is in Tim Horton's New Greek Yogurt Smoothie?

Sure it sounds healthy.

After all, it has the words "Greek yogurt", "fruit", and "smoothie" in its name.

But what's in the smoothie?

A crapload of sugar where its 14 teaspoons of sugar (in the large) account for 77% of its total calories.

So how much Greek yogurt is in this sugar delivery vehicle? Looking at the nutritional breakdown of generic Greek yogurt and the online nutritional information provided by Tim Horton's for this large "Greek yogurt" smoothie, my best guess is that the 18oz smoothie only contains between 2 and 2.5oz of Greek yogurt as that's how much Greek yogurt you'd need to add to reach the smoothie's reported lonely 7 grams of protein.

Putting this another way, for every teaspoon of Greek yogurt in a Tim Horton's Greek Yogurt smoothie there's also a teaspoon of sugar.

Or how about this way? In every giant 18oz Tim Horton's Greek Yogurt Smoothie my math puts only half a single serve portion of Greek yogurt in it (and less than 1/4 of a single serve portion in a small).

Yum?

What I Learned By Actually Reading That Low-Carb Is Best Study

So the world is abuzz with the news that in a 1 year randomized trial, a low-carb diet led to greater losses than a low-fat diet. Anahad O'Connor covered the story and some of its implications in yesterday's New York Times and included some terrific quotes from Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, but as per my practice, I didn't want to share or tweet about it until I actually read the study itself.

Here's my take.

Firstly the low-carb diet recommended in the study was actually a low carb diet, where the recommendation was for subjects to maintain an intake of digestible carbohydrates of less than 40g daily. That's a rarity among low-carb studies, as to date many have instead focused on what might only be described as "lowish" or "lower" carb intakes - but more on this in a bit. As far as the low-fat dieters, they were told to keep total daily energy intake to less than 30% of total daily calories from fat, and to ensure that 55% came from carbohydrates. Worth mentioning too is the fact that participants in both arms received 1 meal replacement a day for the study's duration, and also received 20 hours of RD counselling and support over its course. Dietary recall was used quarterly to assess compliance and consumption.

Results wise, after a year the low carb folks lost on average 11.7lbs while their low-fat counterparts only lost an average of 4lbs.

Before we go any further, just a quick reminder, it's been known for some time that low-carb diets lead those on them to automatically consume fewer total calories. Some folks, including me, think the reasoning therein lies more with protein than carbs whereby folks on low-carb diets are usually more regular with their inclusions of protein at all meals and snacks which in turn is more sating. Consequently the lower the carbs, the higher the protein and likely the lower the total calories consumed due to increased overall satiety.

Now back to this data. Looking at it a bit more closely it turns out that 88% of the extra weight loss enjoyed by the low-carb folks was accumulated during their first 3 months on their diets - their honeymoon period if you will where participants would likely be paying more care and attention to their diets' details. The honeymoon concept is definitely borne out by the data as well, as looking at the initial daily dietary composition data reporting it would seem that during those first 3 months the low-carb folks were consuming 80g of digestible carbs daily representing 28.9% of their calories but by the end of the study these numbers had increased to 112g and 34% respectively.

And what of protein? The low carb folks started at 25.6% of total daily calories which fell to 23.6% by study's end, while the low-fat folks stayed around 19% throughout.

Looking at calories (because yes, they still count), calories were lowest during the first 3 months for both study arms, but especially so for the low-carb folks where during those first 3 months they reported consuming 190 fewer daily calories than the low fat folks. That difference decreased as the study went on. In fact compared with their first 3 months' reporting, by year's end the low-carbers had upped their total daily calories by 15%, while the low fat folks had only upped theirs by 7.5% with the gap between them now being fewer than 100 calories. Consequently I'd also have loved to see longer term outcomes as I don't think it's a given that there'd be any real difference 2 years out given the more rapidly rising calorie (and carb) counts of this study's so called low-carb arm.

But is this really a low-carb diet study?

Nope. This simply isn't a low-carb study. It's not a low-fat study either by the way.

It's plainly not a low-carb diet study as the low-carb folks, though they were certainly prescribed a low-carb diet, never adhered to one, where even during their diets' honeymoon phase they were consuming over 25% of their total daily calories from carbs, a percentage that rose to 34% by year's end - both far higher than a true low-carb diet would require. Similarly for low-fat where participants weren't even prescribed a low-fat diet, as a diet with 30% of calories coming from fat by definition isn't low-fat. All that said, I'd be willing to wager that the protein distribution among the low-carb diet folks was in fact markedly different from the low-fat folks, as during those 20 hours of RD counselling I've little doubt that the utility of consuming a protein source with every meal and snack in helping to stick to a low-carb approach was emphasized.

It's also important when considering this study and participants' losses not to forget the meal replacement they were provided daily.

So for me this study's overarching take home messages are firstly that our overly saturated-fat phobic national dietary guidelines that still steer people to diets consisting of 55% carbohydrates probably aren't necessary. Secondly, it would seem that for individuals, if you're not planning on tracking calories, having a daily meal replacement while reducing carbs somewhat may well be a viable way to go for a modest amount of weight loss, and perhaps more importantly, for improvements in many metabolic parameters. And thirdly, if the aforementioned approach only leads you to lose a little bit of weight (remember, in this study the average loss for the so-called low-carb dieters after a full year of dieting was only 11.7lbs) I'd encourage you to start keeping a food diary (with more on that from me here), to ensure you include protein with every meal and snack, to markedly reduce liquid calories, to make a concentrated effort to include more produce than products and to re-relegate restaurant meals to special occasions only.

Lastly, it's important to note that if the question is whether you personally should go low-carb, low-fat, or in-between this study certainly doesn't answer that. Ultimately the best diet for you is the one you actually enjoy enough to keep living with, as merely tolerable diets won't last, and any and all can work so long as you enjoy them enough to sustain them as seen in this meta-analysis published yesterday in JAMA.

Putting this all another way it's important not to forget that one person's best diet is undoubtedly another person's worst, and that folks who are stuck dogmatically promoting only one "best" diet can be safely ignored.

Coca-Cola's Latest Campaign Is Specifically Targeting Your Teens

At least that's what this Bloomberg article surmises, and I don't disagree:

"This summer the company printed the 250 most common names of U.S. teens on Coke bottles, hoping that millions of kids will want to buy drinks with their names on them. So far it seems to be working: In the last three months, sales of Coca-Cola have inched up 1 percent in North America."

Moreover, do you really think that these cans and bottles won't target your preteens too?

And it's not just a theory they're going after your children with this campaign. According to promomedia, one of Coca-Cola's many marketing agency partners noted,

"The heart of this campaign was the physical customization of Coca-Cola cans (Brand Experience) for TEENS."

No surprise though as this quote from Michael Moss' fabulous Salt, Sugar, Fat - How the Food Giants Hooked Us (which I reviewed here) explains, where the quote is from a Coca-Cola executive discussing Coca-Cola's (rather empty) promise not to target kids under 12,

“magically, when they would turn twelve, we’d suddenly attack them like a bunch of wolves."

[And just in case you're tempted to try, the online Share a Coke generator won't let you design a bottle for "Diabetes". I know because I tried.]

Saturday Stories: History, Mammoths, and the Most Important Story on Earth

Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker asks if it helps to know history?

Wait But Why with a great piece on taming your inner mammoth.

And Matti Friedman in Tablet with a fascinating piece that in 3 days has been shared over 50,000x on how and why the media made Israel the most important story on earth.

[And if you don't follow me on Twitter or Facebook, here's my US News and World Report column that aims to answer whether or not you should skip breakfast, here's the Twitter debate I had with Bryce Wylde regarding proof vs. promise and red palm oil benefits, and here's a quick Q&A I did with the Charlotte Observer on nutrition, dieting and public policy.]

The Onion Reports on Subway's New Footlong Marketing Campaign

Stay with today's Funny Friday video right until the end to ensure you don't miss the amazing dig at Taco Bell.

Have a great weekend!


Horrified Subway Execs Assumed People Were Buying Footlongs To Share With A Friend

Coca-Cola Never, Ever, Markets to Kids - Scholar's Choice Edition

You know Coca-Cola would never ever target kids with their advertising, right?

I mean that's what they told me in a medical journal once, and no doubt Coca-Cola branded Barbie dolls aren't meant for children, nor was this rated for ages 4 and up Santa's Helper Coca-Cola iPhone app, nor these Coca-Cola comic book ads, nor this Coca-Cola Dr. Seuss soda dispenser at Universal studios, nor this Coca-Cola baby rattle.

Nope, Coca-Cola never targets kids.

That's why this product my wife spotted for sale at Scholar's Choice (a store for teachers to buy gear for their classrooms) must be mislabeled.

You see it's a 3D puzzle of a Coca-Cola can and according to Scholar's Choice it's meant for 10 year olds and 11 year olds:

But clearly that's just plain wrong because remember, Coca-Cola never, ever, markets to kids.

Guest Post: The Fitness-Industrial-Complex is Deceiving You!

A short while ago science journalist Patrick Mustain wrote to me detailing a new initiative of his called New Body Ethic. After taking some time to look at it, I asked Patrick if he'd be willing to write a guest post to introduce this worthy initiative to Weighty Matters readers. If your job involves working with clients to help improve their health, fitness, or lifestyle, please take a moment to read through and then consider signing up.

The Fitness-Industrial-Complex Is Deceiving You.
A Group Of Fitness Professionals Is Setting Out To Change That.
Patrick Mustain, MPH, MA

Chances are, at some point in the last few days, you have been lied to about health. It’s a safe bet that some magazine or TV show has told you (yes, you!) that you can lose weight easily and quickly. This blatant lie is constantly being debunked by health and obesity experts, yet it persists, and people seem to continue to believe it.

More insidious, perhaps, is a not-so-obvious deception that permeates the language from the fitness industry--that dieting and exercise are things that you should be doing in the first place, and that failure to do either stems from a lack of personal responsibility, or some moral deficit.

Let’s put this notion to rest. Dieting and exercise are crazy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people who fail to do either, and the sooner we can all acknowledge this, the happier and healthier we’ll all be.

For most of the history of life, the most important thing, for most people, was obtaining and conserving energy from food. Feeling guilty about eating food, and burning energy just for the sake of burning energy would have made no sense to our ancestors.

Of course, 10,000 years ago, we didn’t have cars, escalators, and office jobs. We didn’t drink refined sugar with every meal, we didn’t eat dessert every day, we didn’t shape our children’s food preferences with billions of dollars in marketing, and we didn’t have an industrialized food system dominated by hyper-palatable, energy-dense, nutritionally devoid, highly-processed products.

Clearly things are quite different now than they were 10,000 years ago, and in lots of good ways--we don’t have to chase down and kill our food. Thankfully, most of us will not be chased down and become meals ourselves. And we have plumbing. But, along with these advances, we’ve inherited a growing burden of obesity and chronic disease, soon to overtake tobacco as the leading cause of preventable death worldwide.

Enter the fitness industry.

As obesity and its associated health problems have reached global pandemic levels, the fitness industry has flourished. According to franchisehelp.com, the number of fitness centers in the U.S. went from roughly 17,000 in 2000 to almost 30,000 by 2008, and this growth is showing no signs of slowing down. A cursory glance at fitness websites, reality shows, magazines, gym literature, et cetera will tell us that the fitness industry is here to save us from being fat.

But being fat is not something that we need to be saved from. What we need to be saved from is an environment unlike anything any living thing has experienced in 4 billion years of evolution. A report from the Lancet concluded:

“Obesity is the result of people responding normally to the obesogenic environment they find themselves in.”

Let me repeat: responding normally.

It is no surprise that we hear very little from the fitness industry about fostering an environment that prevents weight gain. Weight gain is the fitness industry’s bread and butter, so of course the focus is going to be on the quick fixes, the anecdotes about extreme weight loss “successes,” and the false sense of ease and speed—very little that actually has a meaningful impact on health. All these things keep people striving for that unattainable goal, and coming back for that next issue of Shape, the next insanity workout, and the next belly-fat-busting miracle supplement. But the brilliant thing about all these products is that when they don’t work, it’s because you didn’t work hard enough to make them work. You failed at the diet. You didn’t exercise quite enough.

There are many health and fitness professionals out there who want to change this culture of fitness. They understand that health and wellness and come from a lifelong process of learning how to take care of one’s body, for the long-term, not the quick fix. They seek to understand the environmental and cultural contexts in which we make our health decisions. They avoid focusing mostly on aesthetic outcomes. Rather, they try to help their clients learn to appreciate their bodies the way they are in the moment, but also to realize the wonderful potential each body holds for overcoming challenges, adapting, and learning new skills and movements.

At New Body Ethic, we’re bringing these health and fitness professionals together to speak with a unified voice. We’ve had personal trainers, fitness instructors, physicians, physical therapists, gym owners, dieticians, health writers and more, from all over the world, sign our pledge to help make the culture of fitness more responsible, inclusive, and hype-free—to make fitness work for everyone.

Are you one of these professionals? Do you know one? If so, please visit NewBodyEthic.org, and spread the word. You can follow along on our blog, or keep up with us on social media. We’re here to kill diet and exercise with good food and natural movement. We hope you’ll join us.

Patrick Mustain, MPH, MA, studied kinesiology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, public health at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, and medical and science journalism at the University of North Carolina School of Journalism and Mass Communication. He is currently a Communications Manager at the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, and a writer and multimedia producer for Scientific American’s Food Matters blog.

Patrick started his personal training and fitness career after catching the fitness bug in the U.S. Navy. He spent eleven years asking the question: “How can we make it easier for all people to live healthier lives?” This is the best answer he’s come up with so far. He likes climbing on things, running around outside, and sandwiches.

You can see Patrick’s writing and multimedia work at his website, patrickmustain.com, and you can follow him on twitter @patrickmustain.

Visionary Quotes from 1929 Obesity Textbook - On Sugar, Corn Syrup and Refined Carbs

Plainly prescient.

"Meanwhile our sugar consumption continues to increase. Has it reached the maximum? Are the advent of highly refined glucose and the growing consumption of corn syrup, in addtion to other refined carbohydrates, about to make the proportion of sugar calories in the daily diet of our people even larger? These are questions that deserve careful consideration in a candy loving nation."

(This is the last of this series - hope you enjoyed).

Visionary Quotes from 1929 Obesity Textbook - On Processed Food

On sugar and processed foods. I think the authors were wizards. BTW, another quote on both again tomorrow.

"The fact that one-fifth of our diet, nowadays, consists of this vitamin-free food (sugar) is especially important because the other four fifths have also lost much of their vitamin potencies in the refining processes to which so many modern foods are subjected. If we continue to refine more and more foods, and to include in our daily calorie ration an ever larger proportion of pure sugar, the time may come when we shall feel a serious lack of one of these food "accessories". Our diet will have become dangerously diluted by the substitution of pur sugar for some of the old-fashied vitamin-bearing or mineral-bearing foods."

Saturday Stories: So Many Links!

Michael Specter with a longread in The New Yorker covering anti-GMO crusader Vandana Shiva.

Alex Parker in Mother Jones with the killer headline question, "Should we regulate poop as a drug?"

Benjamin Breen with a delightful piece in The Appendix about the King of the Islands of Refreshment (it's not a fast food piece).

A fascinating video by JT Singh that unveils a little bit about life in North Korea.

Brendan O'Neill in The Telegraph calls to question the ability of the UK to still label itself civilized or democratic.

Gillian Bennett posts her own suicide note online - and it's a must read (note the "Next Page" button at the bottom of each page of the note - total note's 4 pages).

Investigative journalist Richard Behar with a deep dive in Forbes on the media's reporting on the war in Gaza.

And if you don't follow me on Twitter or Facebook, below are the two pieces I did with TVO's The Agenda. I can't tell you how great it is to have the luxury of time to really have a discussion.

Deep Thoughts with Ron Swanson (Nick Offerman)

Of all the male TV personas out there, there's none I'm more fond of than Park and Recreation's Ron Swanson, and while this isn't technically a Ron Swanson Funny Friday video, I'm pretty sure everything Nick Offerman ever says will for me be spoken by Ron Swanson.

Have a great weekend!

Visionary Quotes from 1929 Obesity Textbook - On BMI and Ideal Weight

Why don't doctors and other health professionals know this yet? This is the concept that both underlies Dr. Sharma's EOSS staging system and plagues BMI's individual application.

"It is often difficult to answer the question: How much ought I to weight? It is far more important to know how the weight is changing. If a person's weight has long been stationary, and he is able to do effective work; if he has no obvious disease, and, if, especially, his build is like that of other members of his family, he may conclude that his weight is normal for him.".

Visionary Quotes from 1929 Obesity Textbook - On Dr. Oz (Sorta)

The FTC and Health Canada should take note of this next quote from way back in 1929. Bang on the money I'd say.

"An intensive study of medical frauds and fads made over a period of nearly twenty years has convinced me that in the whole realm of quackery there is no field that is more easily worked nor one that offers greater financial returns to the medical swindler than that devoted to the exploitation of "cures" for obesity".

Visionary Quotes from 1929 Obesity Textbook - On "Freak" Diets

Visionary Quotes from 1929 Obesity Textbook - On Quackery.

Saturday Stories: Must Watch on ISIS, Pastafarians, Ebola, and Health Care.

VICE and their must watch full length story on ISIS. As one of the comments on my Facebook page put it, this is the stuff of World War 3.

CTV's Josh Elliot covers the story of a British Columbia man who is citing his right to religious freedom as rationale for not taking off the colander he wears on his head when having his driver's license renewed (which by the way is something you are legally allowed to do in a number of countries including the United States and the Czech Republic (as seen up above)).

The Toronto Star's Jennifer Yang and her harrowing story of Ebola in Sierra Leone.

Journalist Matthew Herper with a fabulous piece on what he learned about health care when his cat died.

[And if you don't follow me on Facebook or Twitter, here's a piece I did for The Globe and Mail on embracing imperfections as a path to success.]

He Will be Missed

Today's Funny Friday video - Robin Williams and a full standup special - watch it before it gets taken down (but not with kids).

Have a great weekend!

Visionary Quotes from 1929 Obesity Textbook - On Society

Given society's never ending unhealthy and toxic focus on weight, the "reducing craze" isn't all that difficult to understand today but that doesn't make ideal weights or BMI based goals any less crazy.

Visionary Quotes from 1929 Obesity Textbook - On Weight Loss

A patient of mine brought in this fantastic 1929 medical diet book. Over the next few days I'm going to post some of my favourite quotes, starting with the best of all:

"The movement to prevent unwise and fanatical reduction in body weight must be considered as an activity of preventive medicine worthy the consideration of every intelligent man or woman".

About that "Powerful" New Obesity Video Everyone's Sharing

I wasn't going to comment as I didn't want to call attention to it, but having been sent this video over a dozen times now I realize I'd better add my voice.

I'm not a fan.

It's everything that's ugly about society's attitudes towards weight boiled into a 2 minute video treatise on how gluttony and sloth are to blame for obesity....oh, and add in lazy parents.

Presumably the point of the ad is to cause viewers with weight, and parents of kids who may be struggling, to feel sufficient guilt, shame and self-loathing that they finally decide to change their ways.

Well I've got news for the Children's Healthcare of Atlanta folks who produced this ad (and that equally misguided one up above) - if guilt or shame had any lasting impact on weight or behaviour the world would be skinny, as guilt and shame are the two things that the world bends over backwards to ensure that people with weight never run short of.

And yes, parents have a real role to play in all of this, but fear and shame aren't likely to get them there.

As I've said before, childhood obesity is a symptom of a broken environment, kids haven't changed, the world around them has, and part of the world's changes (but by no means always the lion's share) include what are now considered to be normal parental feeding behaviours. Shaming the symptom without tackling the cause is likely only to add to the belief that fat shaming has a role to play in fixing the environment, and yet fat shaming is anything but helpful.

The Not So Sweet Reality of Health Canada's Proposed New Sugar Policy

My American readers may have missed this, but Health Canada, has proposed that on Canada's future nutrition fact panels there'll be guidance surrounding "total" sugar, rather than "added" sugar. Health Canada is advising a 100 gram cap on "total" sugar and so if something you eat has 25g of sugar, that'll be reflected as 25% of your total daily maximal recommendations.

What does that mean? I think Health Minister Rona Ambrose explained it pretty succinctly,

"we're treating sugar as sugar, whether it's from an apple or it's from a yogurt or it's from a cookie."

Why is this a problem?

Try this on for size.

If you had just 2 apples, a banana, a serving of carrots and 2 cups of milk you'll hit this nonsensical total sugar maximum with none of the sugars involved being added by anyone other than mother nature.

Perhaps that's why Marion Nestle was quoted in the Globe and Mail as stating if Health Canada sticks with this plan Canada will become "a laughing stock".

As to how these recommendations could have made it this far, aside from these recommendations appeasing the food industry, perhaps it's because as Minister Ambrose reported,

"The way we approached it - the way I approached it, is from a parent's point of view."

Here's a thought. How about we approach it from the point of view of science and consider the impact of diet on chronic disease which in turn suggests "added" sugar as the type we should limit, and instead of providing Canadians with the wrong message of capping "total" sugars at 100g, provide them with the guidance that "added" sugars be capped at somewhere between 25-50grams?

Please consider sharing this. Perhaps with enough noise this can still change.

[I'd tell you to go to head to the online consultation on the new Nutrition Facts Panel, but having completed it myself, it's clear Health Canada isn't interested in formative feedback. Instead they're wondering what you think of the size of the fonts they've chosen, whether you look at the %DV and if you think being told 5% is a little and 15% is a lot is useful, which of 3 approaches looking at total and not added sugars you like best, whether or not you think uniform serving sizes are helpful, if you like the new layout of the ingredient listings, and finally what you like most, what you like least, and any additional comments you might have....but not more than 500 words please. As far as I'm concerned, the online consultation is just a lip service exercise and far from a formative one.]

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.]