Triumph the Insult Rabbi Dog?

Today's Funny Friday is a double what were they thinking (and is also not for the easily offended).

Firstly how unbelievably self-absorbed do you have to be to go out of your way to try to throw, "the world's most expensive dog wedding"? Secondly, if you are that self-absorbed, what could possibly have possessed you to invite Triumph?

Have a great weekend!

(Email subscribers, head to the blog to watch)

Book Review: Andrea Curtis' What's For Lunch?

[Full disclosure – I was provided with a free copy of this book by the author]

Andrea Curtis is a Toronto based writer and teacher, as well as a fresh whole foods activist. At her son’s school, she initiated a garden program, and she volunteers regularly at a community food centre.

Months, and months, and months ago Andrea kindly sent me her children’s book, What’s For Lunch? How Schoolchildren Eat Around the World. I’m not sure why it took me so long to get to (sorry Andrea), but I’m glad I finally did.

The book’s simple to explain. Exploring 13 different countries’ school systems Curtis knew,

“Whether their school is under the vast umbrella of a banyan tree, in a dusty tent held up with poles, or in a sturdy brick structure in the heart of a bustling city, all children need a healthy lunch to be able to learn and to grow”,

and she set out to highlight global school lunches, and at the same time, some of the political social and cultural issues that they underscored. With beautiful photographs and stories, Curtis takes young readers across the globe: From the incredible school food of Japan, to a scoop of dal served on paper on a chalkboard in India, to America’s highly processed no-name fast food pizza, to Canada’s bagged lunch as we here in Canada share the dubious honour of being the only G8 nation without a national school meal program.

Aimed at children aged 8 and up, Curtis’ book will definitely open young eyes – both to the juxtaposition of our processed North American school fare with just how lucky those of us living in North America truly are, as well as to different cultural, political and ideological attitudes surrounding food. Each school lunch is photographed and used to briefly explain that country’s issues and food attitudes.

The book’s truly lovely, but I have two important considerations for Curtis’ next print run. The book perpetuates a few myths about obesity. Firstly the book explicitly explains obesity as a consequence of “unhealthy” food (in two locations, and just in passing), and while no doubt the foods we eat are part and parcel of our growing waistlines, and that obesity is a highly complex issue beyond the scope of a children’s school lunch book, I wonder, especially with younger readers, how the book’s simplified linkage of obesity to unhealthy food might lead them to judge people with obesity. Secondly, and this runs somewhat contrary to the last point, when discussing Shanghai, China’s school lunch (which looks amazing by the way), Curtis notes,

“To combat obesity, compulsory folk dancing classes have been introduced as some schools; elsewhere provincial governments require students to run 1km (0.6mi.) a day during breaks”

While I don’t doubt whether or not China has attributed obesity to a lack of exercise and believes short runs or folk dancing will help, the fact of the matter is that inactivity is neither the cause, nor the cure for obesity – in fact I think that message is part of the reason society is struggling so dramatically with dealing with weight. So while I’ve no doubt those two erroneous messages are hammered home to kids everywhere, it’d be great if they weren’t part of this school lunch story.

As to whether or not I’d recommend What’s For Lunch? I would. It’s fascinating and I think a great introduction to the issue of food activisim and I’ve given the book to my 8 year old to read. And as for those messages that concerned me up above – they’re few and far enough between that I think they’ll afford me the opportunity for a teachable moment with my daughter where we can discuss those issues in greater detail.

[If you'd like you can order Andrea's book via this Amazon affiliate link.]

Badvertising: Belvita Breakfast Cookies Are Filled with "Sustained Energy"

Thanks to Alison Thomas for sending these my way.

They're Belivta's new "breakfast biscuits" and they're being marketed as a great accompaniment to breakfast as they apparently provide, "sustained energy".

If you're a regular reader here I'm guessing you'll know what "sustained energy" is usually a euphemism for. Sugar.

Eat a 4 pack and you'll be packing in just over 3 teaspoons of "energy" with a smattering of fibre and protein. Sugar wise it's the same amount you'd get if you ate a 4 pack of Oreos.

And of course you'll be buying into the notion that health and nutrition short cuts exist.

Now I wasn't at all surprised to learn that Kraft was using slick marketing to try to not only sell cookies for breakfast but to suggest they're healthful. I was however surprised to find a video featuring registered dietitian and author of The Sonoma Diet Dr. Connie Guttersen telling viewers that yes indeed,

"Belivita is perfect for your on the go lifestyle because it's convenient and nutritious."

Diet Book Review: The 8-Hour Diet

[Full disclosure: I was sent a free review copy by the publisher]
There's a good reason why The 8-Hour Diet reads like a Men's Health magazine article - it was authored by David Zinczenko, former Editor in Chief of Men's Health magazine. The hyperbole begins even before the book does. Here's the jacket cover (Caps lock and bolding theirs),

"In just 6 weeks you're going to have your best body ever. You'll be LEANER, HEALTHIER, MORE ENERGETIC. You'll have the flat, firm belly you've always wanted. You'll sleep better, think more clearly-and have much better sex. You'll look younger, feel younger, and dramatically cut your risk of the major diseases of our time.

You'll lose weight faster than ever-as much as 5 pounds a week-without restricting calories OR giving up your favourite foods."

The promise of the book is simple. Here's Zinczenko's version of it taken from the very first 3 pages of the book,

"Imagine the freedom that would come from being able to do whatever you want, eat whatever you want and know - not think, not hope, but know for certain - that you'll never gain another pound."

"Eat whatever you want as much as you want. But only eat during an 8-hour period each day (with a few cheats thrown in here and there!).

"And the most remarkable thing of all: You only have to follow the diet 3 days a week. Three days a week!"

And that message of eating as much as you want of whatever you want (who wouldn't want that in a weight loss plan?) is reinforced over, and over again throughout the book,

"In fact the only challenge to the 8-Hour Diet is finding time to eat lots of delicious food. Heck, you should probably put your favorite barbecue joint on speed dial - just so you can satisfy your most gluttonous cravings at the touch of a button!"

Of course there a tiny bit more to it, and I'll get to that in a bit, but first the science.

There is science backing up intermittent fasting (fast intermittently for 16 or more hours and then eat). Like all areas of research, some of the science is stronger than others, some is weak, and some is crippled by poor methodologies or statistics, however unlike most of the diet books I've recently read, Zinczenko doesn't provide us with his actual references (so if you were interested you could check out the data for yourself) despite virtually every page concluding on the basis of one uncited study or another that certain foods are "Fat Busters", or "Health Boosters", or that fasting improves every last aspect of your life, weight and metabolism. I wonder if part of his reticence to include his sources is the fact that much of the research that has been done on fasting has been done on fasts that are longer, and hence perhaps not applicable, to his 16 hour recommendations, or that the studies themselves while interesting, may not be as conclusive as he's suggesting.

What's also upsetting is the fact that Zinczenko makes no mention of a man named Martin Berkhan. Martin is a Swedish bodybuilder who as far as I'm aware, is the first person to lay out The 8-Hour Diet. Here's an excerpt from Martin's first blog posting from June 15th, 2007,

"the protocol consists of a fasting period, lasting 16 hours. This means you initiate your first meal 16 hours before eating the last meal on the night before (which is easily done by skipping breakfast and lunch). Thus, ideally all eating is done within an 8 +-1 hour timeframe."

Pretty much identical to the protocol Zinczenko is promoting. It's almost inconceivable that Zinczenko wasn't aware of Martin's work as Martin's a very well known guy in the fitness/body building world. I think I first came across Martin's work on intermittent fasting back in 2008 and of course I'm nowhere near as keyed in to the fitness scene as Zinczenko, for as he himself notes,

"I've been working as a health journalist for more than half my life. You name an issue - absorption rates of minerals, causes of metabolic syndrom, funding for prostate cancer research, omega-3 versus omega-6 ratios - and if it has something to do with health or wellness, I'll usually have the background on it. I'm not the world's top expert on everything, but chances are, I know the world's top expert"

Which in the case of the The 8-Hour Diet is almost certainly Mr. Berkhan.

As far as the diet itself goes, when you get to that section suddenly there are a few more rules than simply an all-you-can-eat buffet of whatever you want for 8 hours a day. Zinczenko wants you to, at each meal or snack, eat two of his eight "Powerfoods" which include lean sources of protein, nuts, yogurt and other dairy, legumes, berries, fruit, green leafy vegetables, and whole grains. Looking at his meal plan I crunched calories. Because his recipes include calories (I wish every diet book's recipes did, kudos to Zinczenko) I crunched every day. If you follow his 7-day meal plan, you'll average 1,595 calories. From a low of 1,222 to a high of 1,805. Breakfast perplexed me some. After all breakfast is literal here - you're breaking your 16 hour fast and presumably you're rather hungry which is likely why Zinczenko notes of his,

"I tuck into my fast-breaking meal - whatever time of the day it falls in with gusto - Ditto the other major meal I have during my 8-hour eating time. But there's only so much one stomach can hold, so I make sure I plan my foods carefully",

Clearly Zinczenko is suggesting his breakfasts are rather large as, "there's only so much one stomach can hold", yet his suggested meal plan includes breakfasts that are at once incredibly low in both calories and volume. For instance he has you "tucking in with gusto" to smoothies with less than 200 calories, or to a few lonely blueberry pancakes clocking in at 315.

In the 8-Hour Diet, the conjecture, ridiculous metaphors and hyperbole, like a sweaty, red-faced, whistle-wearing, 1950s gym teacher on an overweight boy trying to climb the rope, come at you hard and heavy throughout (see, I can write that way too), but my favorite stretch had to be when Zinczenko backs up his 8-Hour Diet by means of suggesting Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammed, were big fans,

"Maybe that's why eating the 8-Hour Diet way has been popular with the great minds of the last many millennia. The scientific evidence for this diet is new, but wiser men than me have been following a similar type of eating for eons. The Big Four of religion - Moses, Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammed - all practiced and promoted fasting, and chances are they knew a thing or two more than we do."

If you read the 8-Hour Diet's reviews on Amazon you'll see quite a mixed bag with many of the negative reviews talking of the diet's lack of efficacy. Truly, if you take Zinczenko at his word and treat the diet as an eat whatever you want for 8 hours a day lose weight diet, I think you'll be disappointed. Our environment doesn't lend itself to being blindly indulgent. Single meals out can easily contain over 3,000 calories and even while eating in, if not doing the cooking and thoughtfully navigating your choices, the calories can add up incredibly quickly. And if you struggle controlling calories on the 8-Hour Diet, I'm not sure the book will be much help. While it does have a section on 100 ways to cut out the calories they include such things as, "Watch a funny YouTube video", "When a craving strikes, make a fist", "Call your Mom", "Just breathe", "Read a thriller", "Flip through old photo albums", "Play "Words with Friends"", "Chew ice", "Light up candles scented with peppermint, banana, green apple and vanilla", "Watch traffic on the highway", and my favorite by far, "Clean the toilet".

To sum up, there is indeed some young science, much of it still theoretical, behind fasting as a means to improve health, and some studies too suggesting it may be useful in weight management. That said, I've yet to see any long term studies which given the fact that fasting is in and of itself, for many (though certainly not all), a form of suffering, I wonder about the attrition rate over time for fasting approaches. If you're interested in trying a 16 hour a day fasting style diet certainly you can pick up The 8-Hour Diet....or you could head over to Martin Berkhan's Leangains and read through the reams of freely available information he's been posting on his 8 hour diet since 2007, and a good place to start would be his Leangains Guide.

Diet Book Review: Wheat Belly

[Full Disclosure: I was sent a free review copy by the publisher.]
You know I've been blogging now for 8 years, and while diet books have come and gone, I've never had more requests to review one than I've had to review Wheat Belly.

So last week, while I was on vacation, I hauled Wheat Belly with me.

So before my review, here's what I'm not going to do. I'm not going to reinvent the wheel and criticize the science or lack thereof. Not because there's nothing to explore, but rather because others have already done so, and they've done so well. Here’s Melissa McEwen of Hunt, Gather, Love on some of Wheat Belly's many claims, here's Professor Julie Jones' academic's take, here's psychiatrist and blogger Dr. Emily Deans on Dr. Davis' claims regarding wheat and mental illness, and here's my good friend Tim Caulfield and Dr. Davis debating Wheat Belly on CBC's Q.

What I'd like to discuss is the diet itself.

So is it really, "Lose the Wheat Lose the Weight" like the book jacket says? No. It's lose the wheat - and also most other carbs and a bunch of other foods - and lose the weight, because according to Dr. Davis, if you lose the wheat but replace the wheat with the "wrong" foods (bolding mine),

"you've achieved very little. And you may indeed become deficient in several important nutrients, as well as continue in the unique American shared experience of getting fat and becoming diabetic"

And here I thought wheat was the world's worst food. Seems odd that losing the wheat - a food which according to Davis is basically a highly toxic genetic abomination - regardless of what it's replaced with, would, "achieve very little".

Way down below is an extensive list of the foods allowed and disallowed by Dr. Davis' diet, but given that at the end of the day his admonition is to cut out not only wheat, but also pretty much every other source of carbohydrate, and to keep total carbs at between 50-100grams a day (and if you're diabetic, less than 30g a day), truly this is just Atkins minus cured meats, repackaged with a scary, theoretical narrative and a great book title.

Perhaps the strangest part of Wheat Belly's dietary recommendations are the book's included menu plans and recipes.

As with all of my diet book reviews I calculated the calories the first day provides. Based on the ranges of servings Dr. Davis suggests would be appropriate Day 1 would provide a minimum of 2,156 calories and a maximum of 2,996 calories.

Not exactly weight loss material.

So I decided to calculate the last day as well (maybe calories start high and go low?). I came up with a minimum of 3,518 calories and a maximum of 3,719 calories.

Here's hoping whoever picks up the book doesn't actually bother with Dr. Davis' menu and recipe suggestions as it would seem to me that doing so would certainly not lead to weight loss, but rather would likely lead to gain. That is, unless of course you decide to fast a whole bunch. That shouldn't be a problem because according to Dr. Davis wheat free people are never hungry and can fast, "nearly effortlessly" for, "18, 24, 36, 72 or more hours with little or no discomfort"!?

And please don't expect to enjoy going wheat free. According to Dr. Davis for some going wheat free,

"can be a distinctly unpleasant experience on par with a root canal or living with your in-laws for a month"

The kindest way for me to describe Wheat Belly is as the Atkins diet wrapped in one physician's broad sweeping, yet not particularly well backed up by evidence theory, that wheat's modern genetic modifications are responsible for the majority of society's ills. The harshest would be that Dr. Davis has eschewed his medical responsibility to ensure that the information he conveys to the public while wearing his MD hat is firmly supported by and grounded in science (or at the very least point out when a view is highly preliminary and theoretical), and instead, uses his MD platform to push his own personal theory onto a trusting, vulnerable, and desperate public, as nearly irrefutably factual and scientific.

To gain an appreciation as to the scope of Dr. Davis' concerns about wheat, while reading I compiled a list of those conditions that he reports are either caused by wheat's consumption, or cured by its dietary removal. I also compiled a list of more nebulous feel better claims and of the physical manifestations Dr. Davis reports a person quitting wheat might enjoy. The lists are down below but if reading's not your thing, I've created a short video highlighting a hypothetical visit to Dr. Davis' office which includes these same lists.

To sum up - I'm not at all opposed to low-carb diets, and agree with Dr. Davis that our society eats far too much in the way of highly processed carbohydrates, and that if we could simply cultivate love affairs with our kitchens our health would improve by leaps and bounds. No doubt for many people low carb diets do prove to be helpful in enabling both weight management and healthful lifestyles, and I'm not even remotely concerned about low-carb health risks as the medical evidence to date doesn't really suggest that there are any worth worrying about. So if low-carb's your thing, feel free to pick up Wheat Belly (just don't bother with the recipes), but please just skip straight through to the dietary recommendations. Or if you'd like to save a few dollars, just grab a used copy of Atkins and eschew the bacon.

And lastly, as always, I'll remind you - regardless of the impact of your diet on your weight and/or health, unless you actually like the life you're living (and the food and dietary style you're eating), you're not likely to keep living that way.



[My favorite quote from Wheat Belly had to be this one, "Wheat of course, was my first thought". It was Dr. Davis describing an interaction with a patient with alopecia areata, and yet somehow I'm guessing, it describes Dr. Davis' first thought with pretty much any patient who walks into his office, perhaps even regardless of their presenting complaint.]

Dr. Davis' list of conditions caused by consuming, or treated by removing, wheat:

• Type 2 Diabetes
• Acid reflux
• Irritable bowel syndrome
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Asthma
• Schizophrenia
• Autism
• Breast cancer
• Pancreatic cancer
• Colon cancer
• Prostate cancer
• Celiac disease (with Davis' modern wheat increasing its incidence)
• Type 1 diabetes
• Osteopenia and osteoporosis
• Osteoarthritis
• Cataracts
• Erectile dysfunction
• "Kidney disease"
• Dry eyes
• Alzheimers
• Atherosclerosis
• Hyperlipidemia
• Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease
• Non-alcoholic steatosis
• Heart disease
• Cerebellar ataxia
• Nystagmus
• Myoclonus
• Chorea
• Peripheral neuropathy
• "Gluten Encephalopathy"
• Migraines
• Dementia
• Seizure disorders
• ADHD
• Acne
• Gangrene
• Skin ulceration
• Dermatitis herpetiformis
• Intestinal lymphoma
• Angular chelitis
• Glossitis
• Cutaneous vasculitis
• Acanthosis nigricans
• Erythema nodosum
• Psoriasis
• Vitiligo
• Behçet's diseases
• Dermatomyositis
• Icthyosiform dermatoses
• Pyoderma gangrenosum
• Alopecia areata
• Gynecomastia
• Leg edema
• Bipolar illness
• Dandruff

What Dr. Davis promises removing wheat will do for your general well being:

• Improve athletic performance
• Improve mood
• Reduce mood swings
• Improve concentration
• Improve sleep
• Increase energy
• Slow skin aging
• Improve coordination

What Dr. Davis reports will disappear with wheat's removal (his terminologies, not mine):

• Wheat bellies
• Food babies
• Michelin tires
• Love handles
• Wrinkles
• Man boobs
• Man cans
• Mental fog
• Pretzel brains
• Bagel bowels
• Biscuit faces
• Bagel faces

What other than wheat can't you eat on Dr. Davis' Wheat Belly diet?

• Cornstarch and cornmeal (tacos, tortillas, breakfast cereals, corn chips, corn bread, sauces and gravies thickened with cornstarch)
• Snack food (potato chips, rice cakes, popcorn)
• Dessert including cakes, cookies, ice cream, chips, dry roasted peanuts, fruit fillings, granola and granola bars, licorice, nut bars, pies, tortilla chips, trail mix)
• Rice (all types to less than 1/2 cup per day)
• Potatoes
• Legumes (all beans, chickpeas and lentils to less than 1/2 cup per day)
• Gluten-free food
• Fruit juices and soft drinks
• Dried fruits
• Bulger, kamut, barley, triticale, and rye
• Quinoa, sorghum, buckwheat, millet, oats, amaranth, teff, chia, etc to less than 1/2 cup a day
• Cured meats (sausages, bacon, hot dogs, salami, deli meats, etc.)
• Self basting turkey
• Canned meats
• Fruit (though you're allowed small amounts - 8-10 blueberries, 2 strawberries, a few wedges of apple or orange - but markedly limit bananas, pineapple, mango, and papaya)
• Dairy products (cottage cheese, yogurt, milk and butter to no more than 1 or 2 servings daily)
• Soy products
• Fried foods
• Sugary condiments or sweeteners including ketchup, malt vinegar, soy sauce and teriyaki sauce
• Beer
• Scotch
• Wine coolers
• Vodka
• Flavoured teas
• Blue cheese
• Hydrolyzed and textured vegetable protein
• Energy, protein and meal replacement bars
• Veggie burgers and mock meat products

What are you actually allowed to eat on Dr. Davis' Wheat Belly diet?

• Vegetables
• Cheese
• Oil
• Eggs
• Raw nuts
• Uncured Meats
• Non sugary condiments
• Ground flaxseed
• Avocado
• Olives
• Coconut
• Pickled vegetables
• Raw seeds
• Herbs and spices

Saturday Stories: Good Medicine, Oz, and Siberian Solitude

The incomparable Edzard Ernst shares his vision of what constitutes good medicine.

Michael Specter in the New Yorker on whether or not Dr. Oz is doing more harm than good.

Not a happy story, but a fascinating one, of 40 years of actual solitude for one Siberian family.

[And if you don't follow me on Twitter or Facebook, here's my weekly US News and World Report column on why a diagnosis of sleep apnea may be more of a blessing than a curse.]

Bad Lip Reading takes on the NFL

Don't know how to really describe today's Funny Friday video other than just damn funny.

Have a great weekend!

(Email subscribers you need to head to the blog to watch)

Guest Post: Will Organized Sport in Childhood Spell the End of Self Directed Adult Exercise?

Two weeks ago I received an extremely kind and thoughtful email from Maureen McVicar, physiotherapist and ACSM Clinical Exercise Specialist with the Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Health in Motion Program in Nova Scotia.

I'll post her email below, but the question she's asking is thought provoking. What she's wondering is whether the rise of organized exercise in childhood and the consequent fall of spontaneous play will lead today's children to have greater difficulty undertaking self-directed exercise as adults?

Looking forward to your thoughts and comments.

Hello Yoni-

I so enjoy your Weighty Matters blog. Met you at NB Heart Symposium in 2011 - your thoughts never cease to intrigue and interest me. I work with an adult population in a cardiac rehab setting. A patient's comment to me yesterday got me thinking. Yesterday, I referred to your blog of Jan 21st during my exercise class cool-down. It stimulated some conversation and one gentleman posed the question of "what happens to all these kids who we shuffle from team sport to team sport when they become adults? Do they even exercise on their own anymore? " It got me thinking about me and my own kids...and about the value of individual play and activity.

I'm wondering if, in your own readings, you have any answer to what happens to those children whose experience with exercise has occured only on a team? Those who have never needed to make a decision on their own about physical activity because their activities are efficiently scheduled by parents months in advance? Are there any studies to suggest that motivation to exercise at a later age may be affected in these cases? Do they have a personal drive to exercise or was the motivation externally driven?

I wonder because I think about myself and my own long-standing personal belief that I would be the world' s best eater if only I had someone come and make the choices for me (and prepare the meals too!). Perhaps same goes for exercise too.

I played on teams as a child, not to the extent that today's kids played on teams. By high school, my studies took precendent and through these years, due to studies and an hour commute to high school, no team sport occurred. Did I exercise? Well, back then I would have said no. Now looking back, I vividly remember that YES I DID!!! Homework after dinner each weeknight was followed by dancing in our rec room to the top 6 at 6pm on the radio (it was '80's after all - you can only imagine the calorie burn). I was totally excceding the exercise guidelines of the day without even knowing it!!! Even now, it's still my preferred mode of exercise. I wonder then that if I had to rely on team sport, would I even find a good option now? Certainly, choices become more limited as I age.

So in the end, I'd be interested what you think. Are we "balancing" our kids enough and giving them an internal drive to be active? Thanks for listening...

Maureen McVicar, PT
ACSM Clinical Exercise Specialist
Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Health in Motion Program, CDHA

Badvertising: Special K's Newest Campaign Tells Us All The Things Fat People Are Not

Special K's new campaign slogan is simple,

"What will you gain when you lose?"

Then they ask you - the presumably hoping to lose weight reader/eater - to submit your answer in video form, and they also happily provide you with examples.

Looking to their extended campaign video Special K starts off by explaining how since they day we're born we're defined by a number. They then ask, "but is a number inspiring?" while images of weight scales and body fat callipers flash in the background.

Almost makes you think that they're about to say that you can be healthy and happy at any weight.

But of course that wouldn't sell their highly processed cereal.

To do that they need to make you feel bad about yourself.

And to accomplish that the ad goes on to explain all the things you presumably couldn't possibly be if you're fat, because you'll only gain these emotions and beliefs when you lose weight:

"Strength"
"Pride"
"Possibilities"
"Confidence"
"Beautiful"

If you want to know the dozens of other things you can't feel or believe if you're fat, feel free to head over to their image gallery.

Way to empower women to feel comfortable and proud in their own skin.

Guest Post: Will the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Stand up for its Members?

Photo by Andy Bellatti, taken at the exhibit hall of the 2012 Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics FNCE conference

Today's guest posting comes from my friend Andy Bellatti, MS, RD. Andy is a Las Vegas-based registered dietitian with a plant-centric and whole-food focus. His work has been published in Grist, The Huffington Post, Today’s Dietitian, Food Safety News, and Civil Eats, among others. He is as passionate about healthful eating as he is about food politics, deceptive Big Food marketing, and issues of sustainability, animal welfare, and social justice in our food system. He is the creator of the Small Bites blog (which, though now closed, spans five years and 2,000 posts). You can also follow Andy on Twitter and Facebook.

Andy was one of the resources author Michele Simon utilized in the creation of her report on the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), and I invited him to write a guest post covering the response he'd seen to Michele's report. Here's that post:

Michele Simon’s hard-hitting report on the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ corporate sponsorship was released last month. National media coverage (see articles in The New York Times, Civil Eats, Grist, and AlterNet) and online buzz soon followed.

Many registered dietitians on social media expressed their support of Simon’s report, as well as their ongoing disappointment with the Academy’s troublesome corporate partnerships. Perhaps more importantly, some RDs stated they were unaware of the insidious implications of such partnerships (many are now considering not renewing their memberships).

As the roar of RDs saying their own organization is diminishing their credential grew louder each day, support for the Academy was minimal; the only evidence of support came by way of an #IStandWithAND Twitter hashtag that consisted mainly of a handful of Academy spokespeople and gained little traction. Many dietitians who have previously spoken out in favor of the Academy were conspicuously absent from the conversation.

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics crafted its own response in the form of a letter to RDs that read more like a media statement (and only appeared on the AND website, as opposed to actually being sent to members), penned by president Ethan Bergman and titled “Facts, Opinion and Speculation: Know the Difference as We Inform the Public”. Bergman’s tone-deafness came through loud and clear when he stated, “for the record, I support the Academy’s sponsorship program, as does the Board of Directors and our members.” It is galling – and inaccurate – for Bergman to say all member RDs support the program, when many have expressed their dissent with the organization’s corporate ties for years.

The letter is peppered with vague accusations (such as “factual inaccuracies” in Simon’s report, which are not identified), irrelevant tangents (a reminder to Academy Spokespeople about the importance of disseminating accurate information to the public), and feeble critiques (such as how many of Simon’s references are to the Academy’s own website ).

In short, Mr. Bergman’s response completely avoids any of the issues raised in Michele Simon’s report and, even worse, makes the categorically false claim that all RDs are in favor of the current sponsorship program. What about an independent survey of registered dietitians showing that more than half do not support AND’s ties to Mars and Coca-Cola? Bergman makes no mention of it, instead citing another survey the Academy conducted that concluded dietitians are apparently A-OK being sponsored by Big Food.

This report has clearly been a public relations blemish on the Academy’s reputation – one they would be happy to sweep under the rug. It seems that Simon’s report is already having repercussions. Several RDs are forming a coalition to continue raising these concerns publicly, sharing the statements of current and former Academy members who feel misrepresented by their organization’s corporate ties. Although some groups of RDs within the Academy have been addressing this issue for years and gaining ground, additional outside public pressure is needed to wake the Academy up from its Coca-Cola sponsored slumber.

Please join me for a Twitter chat on this issue this Wednesday (tomorrow) at 9 PM Eastern/6 PM Pacific. Whether you are a dietitian or not, please add your voice to those who demand professional integrity from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.

McDonald's and their Purchase of Hockey for Canadian 9-10 Year Olds

Thanks to blog reader "J" who sent this my way.

It's atoMc hockey and in the tradition of Hockey Canada selling access to your children (something I blogged about a few months ago), comes McDonald's atoMc hockey.

What do your little bundles of targeting marketing get from McDonald's?

Free hockey jerseys and toques, McDonald's coupons for teams (that almost certainly will be used to reinforce the notion of fast food as a deserved reward for exercise and/or for celebration), a "Golden Moment" jersey, and "more".

Oh, and if you want other corporate logos festooned on your children's jersey, no problem, but no competing sponsors (no other fast food) and,

"The atoMc Hockey, Hockey Canada or Golden Arches logos cannot be obstructed by any other logos"

McDonald's also has 3 hockey superstars helping to hammer home how great they are into your children's young hearts and minds.

Truly brilliant marketing for McDonald's as it ties the incredibly powerful emotions of sport, competition, victory, camaraderie and joy to their restaurants in the minds of 9-10 year olds. How better to foster lifelong brand loyalty, and all for the cost of a jersey.

Guessing too - if your kid happens to be on a team where the coach has decided to apply to join the program, your only recourse if you don't want them exposed or involved is to pull them from the sport. Because of course parents can always "just" say "no".

Saturday Stories: Death, Manliness, and School Lunch

A sobering and thoughtful piece from the New York Times - "You're Going to Die"

An amazing piece by Brett and Kate McKay on cultivating the "manliness" of our greatest generation (not just for men).

A story out of the Washington Post that has Japan schooling the world in school lunch.

[And if you don't follow me on Twitter or Facebook, here's my weekly US News and World Report column. This week's topic was whether or not it really only takes 21 days to form a habit?]

Baby Laughing Harder Than You've Ever Laughed in Your Life

God bless the little ones of the world. Today's Funny Friday video is pure joy.

Have a great weekend!

(Email subscribers, head to the blog to watch)

The New England Journal's Obesity Mythbusting

Yesterday an article authored by a veritable who's who list of obesity researchers was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Titled, "Myths, Presumptions, and Facts About Obesity", it details what the authors describe as seven popular obesity related "myths", six common "presumptions", and nine understated evidence supported "facts".

While I agree almost wholeheartedly with the "Facts" section, and agree too that the "Presumptions" (presumptive in that we don't have enough data yet to decide one way or the other if they're true) are indeed still presumptions, I'd argue some of the "Myths" have yet to be busted.

For what they're worth, here are the myths, presumptions and facts and my thoughts occasionally interspersed therein.

The Myths

These are subjects that the authors feel have sufficient data to conclusively dismiss them as false. While I agree in some cases, I don't in all. That doesn't necessarily mean the authors are wrong and that I'm right, just that our opinions differ:

1. "Small sustained changes in energy intake or expenditure will produce large, long-term weight changes".

(Agree this is a myth. Putting this another way, I'll often tell my patients weight loss is insert-adjective here. Meaning small changes only lead to small losses and if you want to lose a huge amount of weight, you'll need to undertake (and sustain) a huge amount of change.)

2. "Setting realistic goals for weight loss is important, because otherwise patients will become frustrated and quit".

(Disagree. Not that the statement's true or false, just that the authors call it a myth consequent to the fact that there isn't robust evidence proving it to be true or false. Until there's robust evidence one way or the other, tough to call this one a myth and I'd have put it into their "presumptions" section. Moreover, tough to apply to everyone as no doubt some people likely respond wonderfully to aggressive goals, while others quit consequent to not reaching a dream destination.)

3. "Large, rapid weight loss is associated with poorer long-term weight-loss outcomes as compared with slow, gradual loss".

(Disagree. Here again is an area where I don't think we have sufficient data. The authors refer to year-long studies as long term data and frankly I don't think that's long term. For instance if a person rapidly loses 80lbs during an 8 month meal-replaced, very-low-calorie-diet looking at 1 year as "long term" only gives that person 4 months to regain. So I'd argue anything less than 2 year data is a short-term outcome and that we need data from at least 2 or more years out to draw long term conclusions and that's truly rare to come by.)

4. "It is important to assess the stage of change or diet readiness in order to help patients who request weight-loss treatment"

(Disagree. Here the authors report that studies that have looked at stage of change in people voluntarily entering weight loss programs didn't predict outcomes. Yet as the authors themselves point out, by definition folks voluntarily choosing to enter weight loss programs are at least minimally ready to face change. But for the clinician working their primary practice and not a practice like mine for instance, no doubt stage of change assessment crucial - if not for success than certainly for a respectful doctor patient relationship.)

5. "Physical-education classes in their current form, play an important role in reducing or preventing childhood obesity"

(Here all I can say is AMEN. No doubt evidence very clearly suggests kids aren't going to burn off or prevent obesity by means of school based PE classes.)

6. "Breast-feeding is protective against obesity"

(The authors report that a WHO meta-analysis on the subject was flawed, and that well controlled trials failed to demonstrate any clear benefit to breastfeeding on reducing obesity risk.)

7. "A bout of sexual activity burns 100 to 300 kcal for each participant"

(By their calculations the authors predict the average act of intercourse burns in the neighbourhood of 14 calories (sorry folks).)

The Presumptions 

These are subjects that as yet remain unproven one way or the other.

1. "Regularly eating breakfast is protective against obesity"

(Agree that it's not true for everyone. But perhaps important to note that the National Weight Loss Registry reports 78% of successful maintainers regularly eat breakfast. The flip side of that is that 22% don't. As I've blogged about (yesterday in fact), different strokes for different folks, though I'd argue (as would the Registry) that for most, breakfast may be important.)

2. "Early childhood is the period in which we learn exercise and eating habits that influence our weight throughout life"

3. "Eating more fruits and vegetables will result in weight loss, or less weight gain, regardless of whether any other changes to one's behavior or environment are made"

4. "Weight cycling is associated with increased mortality.."

5. "Snacking contributes to weight gain and obesity."

(Depends wholly on the snacks!)

6. "The built environment, in terms of sidewalk and park availability, influences obesity."

The Facts

These are the nine points the authors feel there's sufficient evidence to be true.

1. "Although genetic factors play a large role, heritability is not destiny"

2. "Diets (reduced energy intake) very effectively reduce weight, but trying to go on a diet or recommending that someone go on a diet generally does not work well in the long term."

3. "Regardless of body weight or weight loss, an increased level of exercise increases health."

4. "Physical activity or exercise in a sufficient dose aids in long term weight maintenance."

5. "Continuation of conditions that promote weight loss promotes maintenance of lower weight."

(Meaning whatever you do to lose it, if you want it to stay off, you need to keep doing it)

6. "For overweight children, programs that involve the parents and the home setting promote greater weight loss or maintenance."

7. "Provision of meals and use of meal-replacement products promote greater weight loss."

(The inclusion of this "fact" confused me consequent to point number 5! If you lose weight utilizing meal replacements and you stop using meal replacements, the weight lost as a consequence of their use may well return. What percentage of folks in meal replacement based programs are counselled or are prepared to live with meal replacements for life?)

8. "Some pharmaceutical agents can help patients achieve clinically meaningful weight loss and maintain the reduction as long as the agents continue to be used."

9. "In appropriate patients bariatric surgery results in long-term weight loss and reductions in the rate of incident diabetes and mortality."

Does New Study Settle the 3 Square vs. 6 Small vs. the 8 Hour Diet Debate?

So this month yet another study in a never-ending line of studies looking to compare the impact of meal frequency on fullness and biochemistry came out. This one suggested that small frequent helped decrease energy intake in normal weight men.

Honestly I pretty much disregard all of these studies.

Not because I'm doubting or questioning their results, just that I don't think their results really matter.

What I mean is that all of these studies fail to address the practical aspects of living with their recommendations, and as a clinician, that's really all that matters to me.

I've seen people controlling calories, loving life and preserving health with 6 small meals daily. I've seen people do the same on 2, 3, 4, and in some cases even 1 meal a day.

Regardless of the research that comes out, what matters more than what a physiology paper says is how you personally feel.

In my office we do tend to start people on small and frequent meals and snacks. But if that doesn't suit or help the individual we'll shift to 3 square meals. We've also recommended the intermittent fasting style that's suddenly finding some traction on the diet book shelves.

You need to find a life that you enjoy, and just because a new study or diet book suggests there's a "better", or "right", way, if you don't happen to enjoy it, it just isn't going to work.

Child Literacy - The Food Industry's Next Co-Opted Cause Célèbre?

Sure looks that way and it's a brilliant move for the food industry.

After all there are growing calls to ban the provision of toys with junk food, but what if instead of toys, junk food came with books and the purveyors of junk claimed that it was all in the name of improving literacy?

Doing so would give parents a truly feel good incentive to take kids out to dinner and would likely provide a far greater challenge to any call for legislative efforts to curb the practice of selling junk food with toys as now those toys will have a social issue attached to them.

While I've written before about Burger King's reading club and was recently informed of Pizza Hut's longstanding initiative, earlier this month McDonald's in the UK took it a few steps further announcing that at least for the next two years, Happy Meals will come with books (and in so doing they immediately became UK's largest book distributor). And then last week Casey Hinds forwarded me the details of Lexington Kentucy's "Feed the Mind" event designed to, " promote and celebrate reading and childhood literacy". It's being promoted to "thousands of fourth graders", and even feature's Kentucky's first-lady.

What else will Feed the Mind promote and celebrate?

Arby's, who according to Reza Timaji, Lexington businessman and President of the Arby's Lexington Co-op, "jumped at the chance to be involved". And for good reason,

"The cost of the event is being offset by the distribution of special Arby's coupon booklets created specifically for the celebration. For a donation of $5, Arby's customers will receive a variety of coupons and special offers worth over $20"

McDonald's Uses Ronald McDonald House to Sell Happy Meals

Just in case you thought Ronald McDonald house was all about altruism and charity.

Fact of the matter is that true altruism and corporations simply can't mix. What I mean is that money spent by corporations on charity needs to provide a return on investment. Whether by means of improving a brand's image (and thereby increasing brand loyalty and sales), or by stifling criticism (and thereby decreasing negative coverage or legislation and consequently sustaining sales), or by leveraging the association to sell products (and of course sales), corporate dollars can't be squandered.

For McDonald's I'd bet Ronald McDonald houses achieve all three with the photos here illustrating their use of Ronald McDonald houses to market directly to children.

Saturday Stories: Congitive Biases, Gates vs. Polio, and "Health"

Great primer on i09 of cognitive biases and how they trip us all up.

Awesome read on Bill Gates and how he wants his legacy to include polio's permanent eradication.

My friend Dr. Alex Jadad (for evidence based medicine nerds - that Jadad) with a fabulous and thought provoking talk where he asks, "What is Health" (embedded below too).

[And if you don't follow me on Twitter or Facebook, here's this week's US News and World Report column summarizing the science to date behind The Biggest Loser]

Does Your Dog Have A Skype Account? Maybe They Should.

Today's Funny Friday is a video that truly captures the wonder of our modern age.....or something like that.

Have a great weekend!

(Email subscribers, head to the blog to watch)

What The Heck is "Water Extract of Dried Raisins"?

That's the question I had when I noticed author, editor, columnist, blogger and radio host Ann Douglas (is there anything you don't do Ann?), tweeting about the ingredients of a loaf of Dempster's Whole Grain Whole Wheat bread.

My first thought was that it was perhaps the slimiest sugar synonym I'd ever heard, but then looking at the bread, sugar and molasses are both listed and there's only 2gm of sugar per slice.

Next I called Dempster's and I was told that it's part of their move to include more "natural" ingredients, and that it replaced sodium stearoyl-2-lactylate, but when I looked that up I found it was an emulsifier and that didn't sound right.

Digging around on the net I came up with the possibility that the raisin juice (as oxymoronic as that sounds) was there to provide tartaric acid and serve as a preservative of sorts.

All that to say, just because you can pronounce something doesn't mean you know what it is, what it does, or whether or not it's good for you. While I don't think there's any risk to "water extract of dried raisins", there are plenty of fantastically easy to pronounce ingredients that I'd prefer my food not to have so don't fall into the natural fallacy laden trap of thinking that by definition if you can pronounce it, it must be good.