How many minutes a day should you exercise?

I don't think there's a one size fits all answer.

Last week the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology (CSEP) and ParticipACTION released their new recommendations that saw their minimum recommended amounts of exercise drop to 60 minutes a day for children and 90-150 minutes a week for adults.

I was critical of their press release. I felt that by providing specific numbers and omitting calls to action to change the environment it perpetuated the notion that sloth is a disease of the individual, and by extension for many, that so too is weight and that the solution is increased personal responsibility. To me it seemed akin to the NRDC and Greenpeace putting out a press release about cleaning up the oil in the gulf of Mexico without a call to action for oil rig regulation reform and a call to actually plug the leak.

A friend and colleague emailed me to tell me that they felt I had been too harsh and that my post misconstrued the press release because I focused on the fact that the minimums had dropped while ultimately the report strongly encourages people to do more than the minimums. They also felt that having evidence-based guidelines for exercise was a good thing and mentioned that they felt evidence-based guidelines were something I ought to support given my call for evidence to be applied to Canada's dietary guidelines.

That led to an interesting email exchange (we're still friends) and given they read into my post intentions that weren't there, I figure it's best to flesh them out here.

So let me start by saying that I do not believe that society has recently been afflicted with an epidemic of laziness. People haven't changed, the world has, and to steal a line from Dr. David Katz, it used to be that calories were scarce and physical activity was unavoidable while today physical activity is scarce and calories are unavoidable.

Consequently I feel that press releases that simply focus on how many minutes a day everyone supposedly ought to be exercising fail to address the root cause of exercise deficiencies - the world we live in.

Cheap cars, suburbia, non-walkable neighbourhoods, irrational fears of child abductions, always on electronic tethers to work, constant chauffeuring of kids to activities, the Internet, video game consoles, hundreds of television channels, big box malls, etc. If we want people to take responsibility for exercising, I think we need to ensure we do our very best to empower them to do so and that means changing the world.

Elementary school children aren't lazy, they're just faced with a different environment than we were when we were kids and consequently their weights have risen. While my take on the literature is that the rise is more due to intake increases rather than output decreases, when it comes to exercise people always tend to focus on the "when we were kids we used to play outside" argument. Yes we used to play outside, but the alternative then was staying home with our parents and playing with them, talking to them, or doing chores, whereas now more attractive alternatives abound. Kids, like adults, are consumers of both time and pleasure. If there's a behaviour that's more fun, they're likely to choose it and many find playing video games, surfing the net, instant messaging, and iPhones, to be more entertaining than a ride around the block, a game of cops and robbers or hopscotch in the driveway.

I also disagreed that a fair comparison can be drawn between the utility of evidence-based exercise recommendations and evidence-based dietary recommendations. I disagreed there because the simple fact of the matter is that more exercise is good, any exercise is good and all exercise is good. Whether it's formal gym based exercise, playing with your kids, gardening in your yard or shoveling snow in the winter, simply put, it all counts, it's all good for you and doing more is better. The same certainly can't be said for food and consequently having more specific guidelines with food is much more of a necessity.

My friend felt that my assertion that the personal responsibility focus should simply be on getting people to exercise more rather than providing them with a specific number to shoot for was flawed and perhaps overly simplistic.

My thinking's pretty straightforward. It stems from SMART goal setting, which suggests that while goals should certainly be specific, goals should also be both realistic and attainable. What's realistic and attainable for one person may not be for another and frankly telling sedentary children or adults that they need to at a minimum exercise for 60 minutes a day isn't likely either.

More importantly though, I wonder if we'd be better off simply encouraging people to exercise more because that's more likely to have an actual impact than specific minute based minimum targets.

People should be encouraged to find small bouts of lifestyle based or more formalized exercises, with the recommendation being that every 5-10 minutes count.

Certainly the literature would suggest that multiple short bouts of exercise have many of the same health benefits as you'd get from more discrete large bouts of exercise, but perhaps more importantly research might suggest that people encouraged to find short bouts of exercise in fact do more exercise overall than folks trying to find those big blocks of time.

One such study, conducted in 1995 by John Jakicic and colleagues found that women encouraged to find multiple 10 minute bouts of exercise, exercised more frequently and with greater total duration than women who were trying to carve out 40 minute blocks of time for exercise.

Undeniably more is better, but why paralyze people with huge chunks of minimum more?

One argument my friend made, and it's a theoretical one, does fairly refute my post from a few days ago. They wondered whether or not CSEP and ParticipACTION would have been permitted to make specific governmental calls to action in their press release. They wondered whether or not the involvement of the Public Health Agency of Canada would have precluded any criticism of governmental inaction. I don't know the answer to those questions and indeed it's possible that they were muzzled and while if true it might help to explain the omission, it doesn't help change my most basic concern.

Press releases are by their nature picked up by the press. The press by its nature is busy and with rare exceptions doesn’t spend tremendous amounts of time researching back stories to succinctly worded press releases. While ParticipACTION may be involved with the Active Health Kids Report Card that does indeed include governmental calls to action as part of its 80 pages of commentary, the average reporter isn't going to dig that up to include it in their coverage of this story.

Consequently absent the call to action to government in the press release on exercise, what the CSEP/ParticipACTION press release does, along with provide recommendations as to how many minimum minutes of exercise are necessary, is continue to perpetuate the myth, a dangerous one at that, that individuals themselves are the problem, and not their environment. And while I don't for a moment believe that CSEP or ParticipACTION set out purposely to do so, press releases and calls to action which embolden the flawed notions that inactivity and weight are diseases of the individual have the unintended consequence of hamstringing efforts for the dramatic environmental reforms we so desperately need by taking attention off of the cause and focusing it only on the consequences.

So my answer to the question of how many minutes a day should you exercise? As many minutes as you can enjoy, and every single one of them count.

Murphy, M., Blair, S., & Murtagh, E. (2009). Accumulated versus Continuous Exercise for Health Benefit Sports Medicine, 39 (1), 29-43 DOI: 10.2165/00007256-200939010-00003

Jakicic JM, Wing RR, Butler BA, & Robertson RJ (1995). Prescribing exercise in multiple short bouts versus one continuous bout: effects on adherence, cardiorespiratory fitness, and weight loss in overweight women. International journal of obesity and related metabolic disorders : journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, 19 (12), 893-901 PMID: 8963358

Canadian stimulus package funding gigantic ribfest?!

Yup. That's a picture of last year's festivities and according to a report in the Globe and Mail, "Canada's Largest Ribfest" is set to receive federal funding for being a "marquee tourist event".

The ribfest, slated for September 3-6th in Burlington, boasts that last year 175,000 people consumed 150,000lbs of ribs.

Indeed, that does sound like a marquee tourist event, but really, should the government be promoting it?

Having attended a few ribfests in my time I can tell you, they're not events that focus on moderation and the average rack of smoky barbecued ribs will contain in the neighbourhood of 1,000 calories and 4,000mg of sodium. Add some sides to that and most ribfesters will consume a day's worth of calories and likely 4 days worth of sodium in a single meal.

Remember too it's now abnormal in Canada to have a healthy body weight. Childhood obesity rates have tripled in the past 30 years. Healthcare expenditures are skyrocketing and dire predictions of the end of socialized medicine come more and more frequently.

While I think events like ribfests can be a lot of fun, I do find myself scratching my head to learn that the government thinks selling horribly unhealthy food is something they should be doing with my tax dollars.

I'd complain, but no one would listen.

[Hat tip to Peter from Vancouver's Humane Society]

Why is the Running Room promoting chocolate milk?

A few of my readers forwarded me an email they received from the Running Room this week. They received the email because at some point they had signed up for clinics or races at the Running Room.

The email's subject line was, "Recharge with Milk" and it contained the graphic up above which in turn is not linked to a Running Room website, but rather to the Dairy Farmer's of Canada's site extolling the virtues of chocolate milk.

Research has shown that eating foods inclusive of both carbohydrates and protein post heavy workout may in fact help with recovery, but it's important to focus on that word heavy.

A stroll is not a heavy workout. A short jog or run is not a heavy workout. A heavy workout is an extended or intense bout of exercise.

Chocolate milk is certainly not a magical post workout choice, it's just a post workout choice inclusive of carbs and protein.

Chocolate milk, for those of you who don't read my blog regularly, has drop per drop double the calories and double the sugar of Coca Cola. It's a liquid chocolate bar.

The Running Room does not sell chocolate milk in its stores.

The Running Room is a trusted resource for Canadian runners and walkers and is often the location of choice for beginners who may never have run or walked for exercise. This general mailing, out to everyone who's signed up for anything at the Running Room, is an abuse of the public's trust because consuming chocolate milk post stroll, walk, light jog or short run is going to do more harm than good for the average beginner.

The container in the advertisement is a 500mL container of 1% chocolate milk. It contains 15.5 teaspoons of sugar, 400mg of sodium and 360 calories, 40 calories shy of what you'd get from a litre of Coca Cola.

Chugging a litre of Coca Cola post walk, jog or run doesn't strike me as the best caloric plan. If you're concerned about weight, as many walkers and runners are, you'd best be sure to only drink that chocolate milk if you've walked more than 70-80 minutes or run more than 30.

If you're walking or running to lose weight, best to pass altogether and stick with water for re-hydration.

I wonder how much the Running Room got paid by the Dairy Farmers of Canada to effectively sell them their email directory and in so doing, sell out.

[Hat tip to blog reader and soon to be mom Jesse who was first out of the blocks with this unfortunate campaign]

Saturday Stories

Larry Husten from Cardiobrief asks why is there a red dress on diet Coke cans?

The Neuromarketing blog covers the fact that men's brains seem to be wired differently than women's when it comes to fMRI driven body image studies.

Scott Stinson from the National Post opines about stupid studies that state the obvious.

Hockey night in the newborn unit

Hockey fans are an interesting bunch.

Just ask the rioters in Montreal.

Enjoy Verizon's take on hockey fans for this week's Funny Friday.

Have a great weekend!

[Hat tip to BMI's fitness director Rob]

Canadian health authorities recommend we exercise less?!

Yesterday the Canadian Society for Exercise Physiology and the social awareness experiment called ParticipACTION recommended that Canadians exercise less.

What do I mean?

Well old guidelines advised Canadian kids to aim for 90 minutes of daily exercise and adults 30-60 minutes.

The new ones?

Kids are now supposed to aim for 60 minutes a day and adults 21 minutes a day if the exercise isn't particularly vigorous and 13 minutes if it is (they're recommending 90-150 minutes per week depending on intensity).

I guess their thinking is that perhaps the facepalm ridiculous recommendations of 90 minutes a day for kids and 60 minutes a day for adults was too daunting and that by actually recommending we aim for less, people will be less paralyzed with the knowledge they'll never hit the targets and actually do more.

Personally I think both the old and the new sets of recommendations are backwards.

What CSEP and ParticipACTION should be calling for are changes to the environment we live in, rather than calling for changes in individuals.

Off the top of my head they should be calling for:

- Tax exemptions for gym memberships, sporting equipment and organized sports.
- Industry encouragement to provide multiple 10-15 minute fitness breaks for employees.
- Corporate tax breaks dependent on the percentage of employees with proof of gym memberships or for corporation's whose health plans include fitness dollars.
- Increase in recess time and a greater focus on play in schools.
- Modification of parking lots to encourage parking further away with better lighting, creative line painting and signage.
- Renovation of government stairwells with better lighting, paint, art and music along with signage steering people to the stairs in building such as hospitals, libraries, art galleries and museums.
- Bike lanes anywhere and everywhere possible.
- Improving the country's hiking trails and mounting public awareness campaigns as to their existences.

Do CSEP and PartipACTION truly believe that by simply telling Canadians how many minutes a day they ought to exercise they're actually going to get Canadians out doing it? Given that there has never been a public health intervention where a simple call to action to exercise has been successful in inspiring people to do more exercise, including the 30 years of ParticipACTION between 1970 and 2000 when obesity rates in children tripled and exercise dropped off, if they do believe it they're quite simply delusional.

Our environment, our fast paced lifestyles, our perpetual kid carpooling, our electronic smart phone tethers, our always on Internet - these things are not going away and if we weren't finding the time to exercise before, telling us we have to do less certainly isn't likely to help us exercise more.

We need to physically change our environment to make physical activity unavoidable. All setting our exercise bar lower does is gives us all a lower target not to hit.

We need to enable action, not just call for it.

Pepsi Refresh adapts Big Tobacco marketing playbook for the 21st century.

Have you heard about Pepsi Refresh? If not, I promise you will, probably from your friends.

Pepsi Refresh is Pepsi's latest brilliant marketing campaign.

The premise is simple. Each month for a year consumers will be asked to submit and vote for Pepsi funded grants ranging from $5,000 to $250,000 in one of six areas: Health, arts and culture, food and shelter, the planet, neighborhoods and education. 1,000 applications are accepted monthly and applicants use their own social networks to rally for votes. Each month Pepsi will fund up to 32 projects and they estimate that over the course of the year they'll give out in the neighborhood of $20 million to "refresh everything".

So what's in it for Pepsi?

Public sentiment and trust. Effectively this is a one year legitimacy campaign with the aim of creating deep and meaningful positive connections with consumers in some of the very areas that Pepsi has run into difficulty - health (obesity), food and shelter (junk food), the planet (factories, waste and plastic), and education (obesity).

Ultimately Pepsi Refresh is an extremely cost effective public relations and framing tool geared to position Pepsi as part of the solution and not as part of the problem, a play perhaps learned from the experiences of Big Tobacco.

In Brownell and Warner's fantastic paper, "The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar Is Big Food?" they lay out the playbook of Big Tobacco in their handling of the news that smoking was really, really bad for you.

In their opinion the writing of the playbook began on January 4th, 1954 when the industry published, "A Frank Statement to Cigarette Smokers" and had it published in 448 newspapers with the personal signatures of the top Big Tobacco executives adorning the statements,

"We accept an interest in people’s health as a basic responsibility, paramount to every other consideration in our business."

and

"We always have and always will cooperate closely with those whose task it is to safeguard the public’s health"

Flash forward to 2010 and here's Pepsi doing the very same thing but this time with the harnessed power of social networking.

Brownell and Warner describe Big Tobacco's statement as,

"a charade, the first step in a concerted, half-century-long campaign to mislead Americans about the catastrophic effects of smoking and to avoid public policy that might damage sales"

and that their reasons for launching it in retrospect were as plain as day,

"The industry wanted desperately to prevent, or at least delay, shifts in public opinion that would permit a barrage of legislative, regulatory, and legal actions that would erode sales and profits."

And what are Pepsi's concerns?

Schools are banning the sales of their products, governments are considering soda and junk food taxes, banning advertisements targeting children, and creating more transparent food labeling laws, while the public is growing more and more concerned about the impact of obesity on their future and that of their loved ones.

Pepsi is taking the Big Tobacco playbook and giving it some 21st century polish. And it's not just their Pepsi Refresh project.

In February Pepsi teamed up with Yale University's Faculty of Medicine to open a research laboratory to fund the development of, "healthier food and beverage products" as well establish a fellowship to Yale's MD/PhD program to fund work on nutritional research. This led Michele Simon, public health lawyer and author of Appetite for Profit (the book and the blog) to quip about returning her Yale law degree.

The Wall Street Journal explained Michele's concerns,

"When a business gets its name worked into the academic fabric of a school, it is buying something more than a place to slap a corporate insignia. There is the implication that the firm is a partner in the intellectual enterprise."

Pepsi wants you to believe that they're part of the team trying to find the solution, not the team fueling the problem.

Never mind that they're spending $30 million rebranding Gatorade to snag teenage athletes, never mind the $5 million they spent in 2009 lobbying the American government to help stymie progressive food marketing, or the $6.7 million they spent in 2009 lobbying the government to support their stances on school nutrition, or the nearly $7 million they spent in 2009 lobbying against soda taxes - they're the good guys, just look at what they're doing with Pepsi Refresh.

More depressing still? I've had high school friends and blogging buddies, including physicians and researchers, send me links on Facebook and Twitter encouraging me to vote for the Pepsi Refresh projects they felt worthwhile.

If they can't see through this Big Tobacco'esque smoke screen, who will?

Ultimately Pepsi Refresh is meant to refresh Pepsi's image. If Pepsi can sway the court of public opinion to think they're the good guys, that gives them clout politically. How? Politicians, expect perhaps New York's politicians, tend not to push issues where they don't have public support. Much tougher to garner public support for practices that might impact negatively on Pepsi when what the public remembers is that Pepsi offered to fund little Timmy's classroom computers, or a $250,000 program to help combat childhood obesity. With 1,000 different grant applications a month that means there are 1,000s of folks each month all harnessing the power of their own personal social networks to spread the word that Pepsi's a wonderful company.

Brilliant. The stuff of I'm sure many future case studies in advertising textbooks.

I know that the Big Food apologists out there will argue that it's sour grapes that makes me be so negative. Why not take money from Pepsi to do good? What harm is there?

My answer?

How many years did Big Tobacco manage to continue to pull the wool over people's eyes and minimize the negative impact of their products? How many deaths are attributable to their stall tactics?

Obesity is now the number one preventable cause of death and my hope would have been that at the very least those who should know better would feel it just as anathema to stump for Pepsi funding community altruism as they would feel stumping for Philip Morris.

I don't think junk food can, or should be banned, but that doesn't mean that people should feel comfortable getting into bed with Big Food. Philip Morris is still allowed to sell cigarettes, but at least no one in their right mind would touch them with a ten foot pole for research fellowships, University chairs, hospital wings, health conference sponsorships or funding their children's school's computer room. I can only hope that one day the same will be true of the purveyors of junk food.

Deals with the devil always have consequences.

BROWNELL, K., & WARNER, K. (2009). The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar Is Big Food? Milbank Quarterly, 87 (1), 259-294 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00555.x

Rapid weight loss is the best way to keep it off?

You'd sure think so if you'd just been reading headlines.

You see a study came out last week in the International Journal of Behavioural Medicine that looked at the impact the initial rate of weight loss had on long term success in 262 women over the course of an 18 month weight management program.

The study is a mess. Before I get to the results, let's go over some methodological issues.

Firstly the study represents a secondary data analysis of a different randomized controlled trial. That pretty much always means trouble because it means that the trial wasn't in fact originally designed to properly answer the study question.

Secondly when analyzed, the racial makeup of the fast, medium and slow groups were markedly different with the slow group being primarily made up of visible minorities and the fast group Caucasians, and while the authors describe using ethnicity as a covariate in further data analysis, I wonder how that's possible given there were only 65 non Caucasians enrolled in the study with a grand total of 6 ending up in the fast group.

Results wise the authors conclude that it is the speed of loss that determines longterm success. Yet the authors also report that the fast and medium speed losers had better session attendance, better food diaries, consumed fewer calories and took more steps than those in the slow group. Wouldn't this then suggest that longterm success is dependent on adherence to one's treatment plan? Is that news?

Even the authors realize their study added nothing to the literature. In their words,

"This study used a correlational design and thus cannot directly assess causality. This post-hoc separation of groups according to initial rate of weight loss did not account for underlying physiology or behaviors that may have self selected participants into each group and determined longterm outcomes."

Translation? Even the authors realize that you can't make any conclusions about the results because there are a multitude of factors that may in fact provide better causal explanations.

But my biggest beef with the study is their use of the words FAST, MEDIUM and SLOW.

Why?

Because when people think about rapid weight loss, they think many pounds a week. They think about things like the very-low-calorie-diets (VLCDs) the authors themselves refer to in their discussion. They think of losses easily running into the 3-5lb/week range.

Here?

FAST was the term used to describe folks where an arbitrary post-hoc analysis not designed to look at cause revealed losses averaging more than 1.5lbs a week. MODERATE was for losses averaging between 0.5-1.5lbs per week and SLOW for those averaging less than 0.5lbs per week.

Not exactly dramatic between group differences and not exactly what most would think of when they heard the term, "FAST".

Why does that piss me off so much? Because when the media grabbed hold of it headlines, blogs and tweets all sounded off about how rapid weight loss is a great idea, the best way to lose weight, and yet there is a wealth of studies suggesting that rapid weight loss may in fact be a bad plan, that VLCDs are a really bad plan, and that there may be additional health risks to overly rapid weight loss.

Reporters and bloggers - while I recognize it's not your job to be experts, I would expect that at the very least your job is to read the article you're writing about and even a casual read would inform anyone that this study is not in fact talking about rapid or fast weight loss and moreover isn't a study that anyone can draw real conclusions from.

Peer reviewers - really? A post hoc analysis that certainly can't be relied upon for any real conclusions? Did you even read it?

Authors - Fast, medium, slow? Sure, a sexy title, but whether you meant to or not, all you've succeeded in doing here is use an admittedly useless study to promote unhealthy dieting practices.

Publish or perish, never mind the consequences.

Sigh.

Nackers, L., Ross, K., & Perri, M. (2010). The Association Between Rate of Initial Weight Loss and Long-Term Success in Obesity Treatment: Does Slow and Steady Win the Race? International Journal of Behavioral Medicine DOI: 10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y

Supermarket endorses Meatless Mondays - Beef Information Centre busts a spleen

So it started harmlessly enough. Sobey's (a grocery chain) printed its Spring issue of Inspired Magazine which featured an article on how to "be green".

Among their three suggestions was, "Try going meatless once a week" with reference to the Meatless Monday's movement. They also suggested that eating less meat overall could help to lower your intake of cholesterol and saturated fat.

That ticked off Laura Bodell.

You see Laura's the co-owner of Bella Spur Innovative Media Inc., an Edmonton based company that caters to the beef industry. Laura read the article in Sobey's Inspired magazine and according to coverage in trade magazine Western Producer, decided to launch a letter writing campaign on Facebook because, "My clients’ livelihood is based on the popularity of beef."

Now while I can't find any such campaign on Facebook, the Beef Information Centre, the marketing snout of the beef industry, did get wind of this outrageous outrage and jumped into action. Ron Glaser, their Executive Director of Communications sent a comical letter to Belinda Youngs, Sobey's Chief Marketing Officer.

The letter lays out beef's defense.

Wait for it.

Beef's good for you because, hmmm.

Wait for it.

Beef's good for you because regardless of the incredible variety of cuts and types of fresh and processed beef there exist 8 cuts that qualify for the Heart and Stroke Foundation's Health Check!

It's also good for you because it's included in Canada's Food Guide and contains, guess what, nutrients!

Ron then goes on to talk about how cattle are raised on lands that couldn't be forests and that the methane produced by cow flatulence depends on feed quality and that Canadian feed quality is top notch.

I guess that means also top notch is our cow flatulence, and reading the letter I couldn't help but be surprised that Ron didn't try to make the argument that Canadian cow farts actually smell like roses.

Viva Meatless Monday!

[For the other side of the beef/environment argument head over to Meatless Monday's site where you can find all sorts of information that I'm sure Ron Glaser would find fault with.]

[Hat tip to Meatless Monday aficionado Peter Fricker from the Vancouver Humane Society]

Saturday Stories

Ten things not to say to someone with cancer - a brilliant post by a young woman whose fight with breast cancer ended recently. Thanks to Angela Mulholland from CTV for steering me to Leanne Coppen's blog, Living with Breast Cancer.

Registered dietitian Sybil Hebert takes the Dietitians of Canada to task for their corporate Big Food sponsorships. I'd read this one quickly! I bet it's already set off war drums over at Dietitians of Canada. Important to note, this is a real dilemma with no easy solution. Who else is going to fund Dietitians of Canada other than the food industry? And yet, if the food industry steers the ship, who's going to trust the voice of the captain?

Dr. Arya Sharma comments on parenting styles and adolescent obesity risk.

The newly doctored Peter Janiszewski from Obesity Panacea covers research asking how much salt is in your fast food?

Look at me, look at me, look at me!

Today's Funny Friday is Beth Fulton's fantastic interpretation of Todd Alcott's poem, "Television".

I feel so cultured.

Have a great weekend!

Television is a drug. from Beth Fulton on Vimeo.

Who matters more to newspapers - readers or advertisers?

That's the question I asked myself when I saw the ad one of my patients cut out of last week's National Post.

The ad was placed by MacMillan Orchards to sell their maple syrup and the copy reads,

"Recent studies have disclosed the remarkable health benefits of dark maple syrup.

They include higher quantities of antioxidants, manganese and zinc and immune boosters.

It also has anti-inflammatory qualities and increases good cholesterol."

They must be really, really recent studies because searching Medline from 1950 through to the 3rd week of April 2010 I can't come up with a single study, well designed, peer reviewed, or otherwise, that describes the effects of maple syrup ingestion on systemic inflammation or on cholesterol.

So it would seem that MacMillan Orchards, the folks trying to sell you their maple syrup, are quite comfortable lying to you to do so. They're happy to just make stuff up to try to entice you to believe that eating maple syrup, basically just liquid sugar, will help reduce systemic inflammation and increase your good cholesterol.

According to the National Posts' parent company Canwest, their core values are to,

"Serve the customer
Strive for quality and excellence
Win, but fairly with integrity and honesty
Empower citizens with knowledge
Give back to the community"

Not sure how printing outright lies geared to dupe readers into making misinformed choices represents those values.

Shame on MacMillan Orchards, and shame on the National Post. Both should know better.

Badvertising Bagel Bites

"Which would you rather give your kids?"

Is there a door number 3?

Why would I want to give my kids horrific, heavily processed, lowest common denominator nutrition, food garbage?

I love this ad though and truly admire their chutzpah.

The ad's premise is simple. Totino's pizza rolls have lots of scary sounding ingredients in their cheese so you should feed your kids Bagel Bites instead.

I decided to look up Bagel Bites' ingredient list and found out that while its cheese only has 4 ingredients the rest of this frankenfood has 37!,

"Bleached Wheat Flour, Water, Mozzarella Cheese (Milk, Cultures, Salt, Enzymes)Tomato Puree (Tomato Paste, Water)Pepperoni (Pork, Beef, Salt, Spices, Water, Dextrose, Seasonings [Oleoresin of Paprika, Natural Spice Extractives, BHA, BHT, Citric Acid]Lactic Acid Starter Culture, Sodium Nitrate)2% or Less of: High Fructose Corn Syrup, Modified Cornstarch, Salt, Soybean Oil, Yeast, Whey Protein Concentrate (Milk)Nonfat Milk, Flavor Enhancer (Potassium Chloride, Ammonium Chloride, Yeast Extract, Maltodextrin [Corn]Lactic Acid, Citric Acid, Calcium Lactate, Natural Flavor)Methylcellulose, Citric Acid, Red Pepper, Natural Flavor, Dough Conditioner (Ascorbic Acid)Enzymes.

Delicious.

Oh, and guess what. Bagel Bites have 21% more sodium and 250% more sugar than Totino's Pizza Rolls.

Of course making an argument that Bagel Bites are better to give your kids than Totinos or vice-versa is like making the argument that it'd be better to get kicked in the nuts than get punched in the nuts.

Don't buy your kids either!

Make them actual food.

Badvertising: Lunchables Turkey & Cheddar Sub

"it doesn't get better than this"

Way to set the bar low Oscar Meyer.

Here we've got a tiny little sandwich that contains 8 teaspoons of sugar and 600mg or half of your child's daily maximal recommended amount of sodium.

Gravity might not stand a chance, but neither do your children if you've given up to the point of feeding them Lunchables on a daily basis rather than taking a whole 5-10 minutes out of your day to make your children, your most precious possessions, lunches that are actually nutritious

Sign of the times - pharmacies provide free diabetic medications

Ever hear of a "loss leader"?

A loss leader is an item a store sells at a loss to draw people into the store. The premise is that by leading them into the store, the loss will be more than made up by spending elsewhere.

Milk's a pretty common loss leader for pharmacies where it's often sold cheaper than in supermarkets. Of course most everything else in pharmacies is marked up through the roof, but still, that milk is cheap and so often that's where I'll go to get it.

Milk's a good loss leader because most households buy it, it has an expiry date so people won't stockpile it, and you can place it in the back corner of the store so people need to walk through other aisles to find it and in so doing be more likely to grab other, higher priced items.

Items that would make bad loss leaders? Things not enough people want or need as it simply wouldn't draw in enough business to recoup the losses.

So what does that say about Meijer's latest plan to give away free prescription diabetes medications?

Yup, Meijer's, with 191 stores across 5 American States has announced that Metformin, the most commonly prescribed diabetic medication, a drug that retails there for between $14 and $42 monthly, will be dispensed freely to those with prescriptions.

The medical community there is thrilled, and so too I'm sure are uninsured patients.

Me? I don't find it as thrilling. Sure it's wonderful that low income folks will no longer have an issue affording their medication but what does it say about the state of the nation that diabetes medications can be successful loss leaders, and not just at discounted prices but at 100% markdowns?

It says that type 2 diabetes, weight-related diabetes, is now so prevalent that actually giving away the medication for free is a cost effective strategy for improving store sales.

Given the exponential rise in the risk of obesity with rising weight, diabetes rates are set to soar with some predictions suggesting rates are set to more than double by 2050.

That's a lot of free Metformin.

Saturday Stories

Michael Ruhlman calls bullshit on you being too busy to cook.

Physician Bruce Dan blogs about his fight with acute myelocytic leukemia. Keep on slugging Bruce!

The New York Post has the best headline of the week in, Putting the "Die" in Diet in a story about how a nutritional supplement maker almost killed himself by taking his own supplements.

Boys will be boys

Somehow the foreign language in this prank makes it that much funnier.

Today's Funny Friday, a trick you can play on your friends or family.

Have a great weekend!

(email subscribers head to the blog to watch the video)

Is Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi stupid, misinformed, deluded, ignorant or evil?

You pick, but it seems to me it's got to be one of those five choices.

Why?

Because just two days ago Indra told reporters from Fortune magazine,

"If all consumers exercised, did what they had to do, the problem of obesity wouldn't exist."

Forget about the fact that doubly-labeled water experiments suggests activity levels haven't actually changed much over the course of the past 3 decades. Forget about all those studies that state we're eating on average an extra meal worth of calories a day since the 70s. Forget about the fact that portion sizes have grown astronomically and that you can't pump gas, go to the gym, visit a hospital or walk down the street without an unending, easily accessibly supply of calories and junk food.

It's exercise stupid. Why can't we just exercise.

I bet that the hundreds of millions of overweight folks out there haven't ever tried to exercise to lose weight - because clearly if they did, they'd be skinny by now and drinking all the Pepsi they want, right Indra?

Never mind the studies that report that regardless of the amount of exercise overweight women do, in the absence of dietary change they just keep gaining weight. Never mind the fact that obesity rates in toddlers have risen dramatically - clearly they're just not hitting the gym hard enough, lord knows I have a tough time getting my 3 year old to do her squats and bench presses.

The thing is, someone like Pepsi CEO Indra Nooyi isn't likely to be stupid or ignorant - you don't get to be the CEO of a massive corporation by being stupid or ignorant. She's also unlikely to be delusional and given her stature, it'd be someone's head if she were misinformed.

So she's likely not stupid, misinformed, deluded or ignorant (though I suppose anything's possible).

And while I can't state for certain she's evil, as far as I'm concerned willfully, knowingly, and deliberately trying to deflect any modicum of Big Food corporate blame for obesity by shifting the entirety of the blame to individuals, is.

Boy Scouts should be prepared for a rise in sloth.

Why?

Apparently they've just commissioned a new badge for their scouts to earn.

The video game badge.

Yup.

Just checked my calendar and it's not April 1st.

Sad sign of the times.

The weekend is 28.57% of the week

Does this sound like you - lose weight Monday through Friday and gain it back on the weekend?

It's one of the many unfairnesses of weight management. 2 quick days can easily erase a week of best intentions.

How does that happen?

Well weekends are actually pretty long.

I know, it sure doesn't feel that way but indeed, weekends take up roughly 30% of our weeks.

Get disorganized, go out to eat a few times, have a few drinks or simply have a "write-off" and suddenly nearly a third of your week is gone. Worse still, for folks actively trying to lose weight a weekend of indulgences can easily erase 2-3 days of great efforts leaving a person with just a day or two a week to lose. Have life throw a hiccup or two on those days and kiss your week's weight loss goodbye even if the majority of the week you were actually doing great.

Weekends need to follow the same rules as the week. Eat every 2-3 hours, be calorie aware and only eat out for celebration. Don't waste your calories eating in a food court because you didn't plan your day's shopping well, or lounge around till 11am only to have a 2,000 calorie brunch just because it's Sunday.

If you're serious about weight management your efforts need to occur 7 days of the week where effort means minimizing hunger with well organized meals, snacks and macronutrients and also means knowing what you're eating. It doesn't mean don't indulge, it just means ensure hunger doesn't fuel your indulgences and that you've thought about them to ensure they're actually worth their calories to you.

5 steps forward and 2 steps back when it comes to weekends often translates to 5 steps forward and 5 steps back.

Seems a shame to let 28.57% of your week erase the remaining 71.43%.

So about Danone's Activia and DanActive Health Claims...

For those who aren't as odd as I am and read multiple international food newsletters like Nutraingredients, here's what's going on:

1. A little over a year ago in Europe Danone withdrew their claims of probiotic health benefits for Activia and Actimel (known as DanActive here in Canada and also in the US). They withdrew them in response to the European Food Safety Authority's newer regulations which demand rigorous scientific proof for all claims or else they can't be made. At the time, Danone reported they needed to review the new regulatory environment before submitting their claim dossiers and therefore it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to assume that their supporting dossier wouldn't have stood up to the new levels of scrutiny.

That's of course fair. If there were less hoops to jump through before, it would seem reasonable that the dossier they prepared prior to the changes wasn't up to new snuff.

Ten months later Danone resubmitted their claims and then last week re-withdrew them.

Makes it really tough to argue this time that the dossier they submitted ten months after they retracted their old one wasn't up to the new snuff.

Why they withdrew their claims for consideration is anyone's guess. That said I imagine that the last thing Danone would want would be a formal rejection of their claims as that certainly wouldn't be good for business - better to just pull out on their own.

2. In the States Danone is known as Dannon and 2008 saw Dannon settling a class action lawsuit regarding Activia and DanActive health claims to the tune of $35 million. The terms of the settlement don't in fact have Dannon suggesting their claims aren't true but rather states that Dannon preferred to avoid the distraction and expense of litigation. $35 million seems like quite a large expense and distraction. Did they really think it would have taken $35 million to prove their claims were true and is it really that distracting for a massive multi-national corporation to have their lawyers working on their case?

I've been told by someone in the know that here in Canada Danone's been extremely careful not to make specific product claims but rather use inference to promote their suggested probiotic benefits. It would seem that's at least partially true as at least one of these yogurts is still promoting specific health claims - claims presumably pulled from consideration in Europe and the subject of a settled class action lawsuit in the States.

Before we get there, first let's look at the inferential claim. For evidence of this head over to Activia's homepage and you'll see a downward facing arrow on a naked belly with an animation of falling balls, the addition of a probiotic cleverly named B. regularis , and the mention that B. regularis remains active in the intestinal system. Looking at their FAQ you will see some benefits of B. regularis mentioned, but none for Activia the yogurt.

Danactive on the other hand has a very specific claim on its website (and in the photo up above taken at my local supermarket),

"DanActiveTM helps strengthen your natural defenses".

Ultimately I'm surprised that an enterprising class action lawyer here hasn't jumped on this bandwagon.

I'm certainly not an expert in probiotics or the law, but it would seem to me that with the groundwork in the US where Dannon seemed to rather a $35 million settlement to the "distraction and expense" of litigation, and Europe where they keep withdrawing their dossiers for consideration, as well as the claims being inferred by Activia and explicitly made by DanActive here in Canada that this would be a ripe area for an enterprising lawyer.

The food-pocalypse is nigh.

Now I'm not a theologian, but I'm pretty sure this is an official sign of the apocalypse.

It's the Bob Evans automated gravy dispenser.

According to the advertisement, buy one gravy dispenser for the low, low price of $595 and receive 4 FREE cases of gravy!

So my question to the readers out there, and no it's not the obvious who in their right minds would want to eat this, my question is what's up with the vomity gravy? I mean that's the food stylist's shot. If that's the best it can look, can you imagine what actually comes out of one of those machines?

Best line ever?

"Gross profit from free gravy"

Gross profit indeed.

Saturday Stories

Sorry, was a crazy, crazy week and did barely any reading.

Doug Powell from Barfblog covers the story of the 4th grader whose science fair experiment showed that Purell doesn't kill E. coli.

Marion Nestle and the very exciting news that the American 2010 Dietary Guidelines might actually be evidenced based!

Want to tell Susan G. Komen for the cure to stop "pinkwashing" KFC? You can send them a note with just a few simple clicks.

A fantastic video taking us around the world in 80 seconds.

A compliation of infomercials' best idiots

You know the ones - the ones that can't crack eggs, pour milk, put an iron on an ironing board. They're the "before" pictures of the informercials and some genius decided to string them all together into one clip of idiocy.

Have a great weekend!

(email subscribers - head to the blog to watch the video)

A gentle request for help

One of the most important factors for success in life is a good education.

Certainly without it I wouldn't be writing this blog and likely you wouldn't be reading it.

I was lucky. My parents were very generous and so was the Bank of Montreal and between them I was able to weather 11 years of University. Unfortunately, not everyone is that lucky and sadly not everyone has the means or the fortune to pursue higher education.

To that end my office, the Bariatric Medical Institute, is launching our first (and hopefully annual) Movement for Youth Bursary Challenge.

Working with the Champions for Children Foundation and the Nepean Sportsplex we've put together an event we hope will help underprivileged youth get a higher education.

We've rented the entire Nepean Sportsplex for an "open house" the afternoon of Saturday May the 1st. Skating, open gym, spinning class, the weight room, volleyball Court, bike trails and badminton courts will be open for you to explore with no admission fees.

We're hoping to raise $15,000 for the Champion's for Children's Dare to Dream Bursary Program and in so doing provide ten $1,500 scholarships for youth pursuing their educational dreams.

If you're a regular reader of my blog (or a kind hearted visitor), I'd greatly appreciate it if you could consider sponsoring my fundraising for the event. The blog's truly a labour of love and I sincerely hope you enjoy reading it and while I'll never monetize it with advertisements, I may, from time to time, like today, ask you for some love in return in the form of generosity for a great cause.

To give simply click here to get taken to my donations page. Donations greater than $10 will receive a tax receipt.

And of course, if you're in Ottawa, please come on out and support us and enjoy a great afternoon, fee-free at the Sportsplex.

Coca Cola's latest deceit

Here's a case study on deceitful marketing that I cut out of my local newspaper.

The ad screams,

"Up-front Calorie Labeling. No need to read between the lines"

and goes on to explain,

"the easier it is to find the calories, the easier it is to make the choices that help you and your family achieve a sensible, balanced diet"

Now putting aside the fact that Coca Cola has no place in a sensible balanced diet let's go back to how easy it is to find the calories.

Looking at this helpful new label it would appear that the bottle of Coca Cola has 110 calories. No need to read between the lines.

What it doesn't mention is that while there might not be a need to read between the lines, there's a need to read below the lines and then follow that up with some long division and multiplication.

If you look just below the large fonted 110 you might notice the small fonted calories/250ml qualifier.

The bottle is 591mL.

591mL/250mL * 110 calories = 260 calories.

Coca Cola folks, when you read this - 260 calories in big type on a 591mL bottle would be up-front labeling. 110 calories in big type on a 591mL bottle with small print below stating /250mL? That's just slimy marketing.

[UPDATE May 8th, 2010: Saw some cans at the store. They were labeled correctly with total calories for the whole container and not just 250mL. Looks like their deceit is limited to their national campaign launching the program]

[Hat tip to Twitter's @kidactivecanada]

Susan G. Komen for the Cure doesn't understand breast cancer.

You'd think they would.

You see Susan G. Komen for the Cure is a charity set up in 1982 in memory of breast cancer victim Susan G. Komen. According to their website they've raised over $1.5 billion for the fight against breast cancer.

So why would I suggest they don't understand breast cancer? Simple. For this year's runs they've teamed up with KFC in their, "Buckets for the Cure" campaign. By teaming up with Susan G. Komen for the Cure, KFC is able to advertise their buckets of chicken as a tool in the fight against breast cancer - something that will likely drive sales of deep-fried chicken as well as help with their corporate image. A whole 50 cents from every pink bucket sold will go to Susan G. Komen for the Cure with a minimum KFC contribution of $1 million.

For KFC this is an incredible coup. Not only is this a feel-good cause but they're likely to make a fortune off of it. KFC hopes to donate $8.5 million to Susan G. Komen for the Cure and by my calculations that'll mean the sale of 17 million pink buckets of chicken.

17 million pink buckets containing 255 million pieces of deep-fried chicken, and I imagine that along with the 17 million pink buckets KFC will sell at least 34 million medium orders of fries, 17 million orders of gravy and 17 million orders of a KFC "salad".

So in effect Susan G. Komen for the Cure is helping to sell deep fried fast food and in so doing, helping to fuel unhealthy diets and obesity across America, an odd plan given that diet and obesity certainly impact on both the incidence and recurrence of breast cancer.

According to the helpful summary found at the National Cancer Institute, obesity increases the relative risk of developing post menopausal breast cancer by 50%. They also report that maintaining a body mass index of 25 could prevent 11,000 to 18,000 deaths per year from breast cancer in U.S. women over age 50, that breast cancer is more likely to be detected at a later stage in obese women than in lean women, and that weight gain during adulthood has been found to be the most consistent and strongest predictor of breast cancer risk in studies in which it has been examined.

It would be one thing if KFC simply handed over a cheque to Susan G. Komen for the Cure in the amount of $8.5 million - that'd be incredibly generous and welcome. However it's quite another thing for Susan G. Komen for the Cure to sell their name to KFC and allow them to use it to encourage the consumption of high calorie, high sodium fast food and the promotion of a lifestyle that increases the risk of not only breast cancer, but a myriad of diet and weight related illnesses. That's just reprehensible.

Shame on you Susan G. Komen for the Cure, surely you know better and yet you've chosen greed over responsibility.

Want to tell Susan G. Komen for the cure to stop "pinkwashing" KFC? You can send them a note with just a few simple clicks.

(Below is KFC's TV spot showing how they're using this partnership to sell goodwill and bad chicken - email subscribers will have to head to the blog to watch)


[Hat tip to my friend Julie from Dinner with Julie]

The call to retire Ronald McDonald

Notice I didn't title the post the call for Ronald McDonald to retire.

There's a difference there. Some news reports on this new campaign, a campaign spearheaded by Corporate Accountability International at Retire Ronald, suggest that the campaign is simply for McDonald's to give the clown his walking papers.

That's actually not the case, the case is to retire the ability of the food industry to utilize characters like Ronald to market their fare to kids.

Why?

Because that clown embodies an advertising practice that has preyed on generations of children and certainly has been a real contributor to societal obesity. That practice? Targeting children who aren't able to discern truth from advertising to utilize kids' "nag power" to control their parents' purse strings while at the same time cultivating lifelong brand loyalty.

Ronald's more than just a restaurant clown, he's also a charity clown in places like Ronald McDonald house, a comfort clown in hospitals, a teacher clown in schools and an activity clown at sporting events.

Ultimately though, he's still a clown and as such he's clearly designed to appeal to our children.

The call isn't for McDonald's to retire Ronald, it's for society to retire him. Pressure from society to lawmakers may ultimately lead Ronald and his ilk to be legislated out the door.

From their report, The Case for Ronald McDonald's Retirement, Corporate Accountability International's call for action includes:

• The end of all use of celebrities, cartoons, and branded and licensed characters that appeal to children

• The elimination of all gifts, toys, collectibles, games or other incentive items from kids meals;

and

• The removal of all advertising and promotional materials from places children visit frequently including schools, playgrounds, recreation and community centers, and pediatric health care centers.

I signed the retire Ronald petition. Will you?

Saturday Stories

The Chicago Tribune takes a very deserved, long hard look at "America's Doctor", Dr. Oz, and the quakery he now espouses.

Scott Gavura on Health Canada's regulation of sugar pills.

And a great video on garbage in our oceans (email subscribers, head to the blog).

Old Jews telling jokes talks sex and schmaltz

Schmaltz.

That's yiddish for rendered chicken fat.

You need to know that to enjoy this week's Funny Friday video.

Have a great weekend!

(email subscribers you've got to head to the blog to view)

10 common fast food sandwiches way worse than KFC's Double Down.

I can't get over all the hoopla surrounding the Double Down.

It's definitely a Frankenfood, but more from the yuck factor perspective than the nutritional perspective - certainly it was the yuck that hooked me.

Personally I think KFC's Double Down is more of a marketing home run than something KFC actually expects to sell a lot of. I wouldn't be surprised at all if in a few years it's gone from the menu due to lack of sales and I also wouldn't be surprised if its appearance doesn't spur an increase in this quarter's KFC profits simply by getting curious feet marching through its doors.

Nutritionally it sure is salty at 1,380mg of sodium, but calorically it's a bit of a fast food yawn at 540 calories.

That said, think of the incredible amount of coverage it's received. According to Google there's been over 3,000 news stories on KFC's Double Down in the past month. The blogosphere has 460,000 hits (including mine). But nutritionally is it really worth all the attention? When it comes down to it, nutritionally it's pretty much a Big Mac which also clocks in at 540 calories and a smidge less sodium at 1,020mg.

Interestingly in the coverage reporters and bloggers seem aghast that KFC's selling the Double Down. Really, is it KFC's job to look after our health? If you want to fault someone for KFC selling the Double Down (or for fast food in general) I'd point the finger at us. Why us? KFC and everyone else is just selling what the people want and buy. If we want healthier fare then we need to make it clear that we won't buy the garbage anymore. Industry, unlike government, reacts quickly to consumer demand. If we demanded health, we'd get it. The problem is, we don't demand it.

Want some perspective? Here are ten common fast food items, all of which top the Double Down in nutritional deviance and some of which put the Double Down to shame when it comes to unhealthy eating. This was by no means a difficult search either, took literally 10 minutes, and had I bothered to explore items other than sandwiches I'd have found offerings that would have put these numbers to shame:

10. Dunkin' Donuts Tuna (Albacore) Sandwich
660 calories, 1,280mg sodium

9. Au Bon Pain Southwest Tuna Wrap
760 calories, 1,570mg sodium

8. A&W Double Mozza Burger
780 calories, 1,230mg sodium

7. Arby's Roast Turkey Ranch and Bacon Sandwich
830 calories, 2,270mg sodium

6. Burger King Steakhouse XT with Cheese Burger
1,000 calories, 2,090mg sodium

5. Dairy Queen 1/2lb Flamethrower Burger
1,010 calories, 1,540mg sodium

4. Boston Pizza Boston Cheesesteak Sandwich
1,140 calories, 3,900mg sodium

3. Ruby Tuesday's Avocado Turkey Burger
1,234 calories, 2,961mg sodium

2. Applebees Quesadilla Burger
1,420 calories, 3,740mg sodium

1. Quizno's Prime Rib Cheesesteak Sub (that's it in the photo above)
1,770 calories, 2,895mg sodium

Study reveals reason why sleep deprivation leads to weight gain

Get ready for it.

Sleep deprivation leads to weight gain because people who are sleep deprived eat more.

The study was a small one. 12 men completed a randomized 2-condition crossover study where the conditions involved sleeping for 8 hours or sleeping for 4 hours. Following their sleeps the men were allowed to eat freely and consumption was recorded. Subjects also wore actimeters to measure physical activity and the men were also polled as to feelings of hunger, pleasantness of food, cravings and sensation of sleepiness.

The results?

Total physical activity was effectively the same whether sleep deprived or not and if anything showed a trend towards greater activity in the sleep deprived state. There was no difference in feelings of hunger, perceived pleasantness of food, or cravings. Not even remotely surprisingly, when sleep deprived subjects felt sleepier.

So what difference was found? When sleep deprived people ate a whole lot more. On average they ate 20% more calories the day after a poor night sleep than the day after a good one.

In terms of why this might occur other studies have found the hunger hormone ghrelin to be elevated following sleep deprivation which may explain things physiologically. To explain the physiology the authors speculated to Reuters that perhaps a heightened drive to eat following sleep deprivation would reflect an aim to store calories in the longer days of summer where nights are shorter and food more plentiful, prior to a long, hard, dark winter.

Bottom line?

Sleeping better may help you with your weight management efforts and certainly is something all physicians and allied health professionals should assess in a weight management screen.

Brondel, L., Romer, M., Nougues, P., Touyarou, P., & Davenne, D. (2010). Acute partial sleep deprivation increases food intake in healthy men American Journal of Clinical Nutrition DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.28523

Toronto's Peel Region schools schedule lunch at what time now?

9:50am.

Yup, you read that right, according to an article on Parent Central, some schools in Toronto's Peel region have their kids eating "lunch" at 9:50am.

Crazy, right?

Not just crazy, I'd argue nutritionally irresponsible and were there such a thing, nutritionally criminal.

Why?

Feed kids "lunch" at 9:50am with the expectation that they might have time to snack somewhere later in the day but with no plan for a real meal until dinner and you'll accomplish a whole bunch of horrible stuff. The kids' attention spans will be shot so their learning will be impaired, they're going to be starving at some point so their dietary choices are going to be impacted and their hunger is going to fuel huge dinner portions and heighten their risk of childhood obesity.

The rationale?

Apparently it's because of overcrowding in the lunchroom and instead of buying some portables or allowing lunch to be consumed in classrooms the Peel District School board has decided it'd be preferable to hamstring their students' educations and increase their students' risk of developing childhood obesity.

Great plan there Peel. Way to think through a problem.

[Hat tip to my friend Brad from the Canadian Obesity Network who commented to me regarding his 6 year old, "If Jack ate lunch at 10:00 he would kill another child to eat him, by, say, 2:00"]

Frankenfood - Lollipop edition

Yup, lollipop.

To be exact, a maple syrup, bacon, caffeinated energy lollipop that contains the equivalent amount of caffeine as you'd find in 2 cups of coffee!

I'll let the folks who're selling it describe it for you,

"we’ve made it the bacon-y equivalent of an energy drink, adding two cups worth of caffeine to the already time-tested wonder of organic, sustainably farmed bacon and delicious Vermont maple syrup."

Want one?

4 for $10 or 36 for $52.

(If it gets sold in Canada I bet our backwards Natural Health Product Directorate would award it a Natural Health Product license. Stay tuned for more on this in the coming week or two)

And for a followup from last week's Frankenfood post, in case you're wondering what an actual version of KFC's infamous Double Down looks like (as opposed to their advertising shots), here's one from Houston [via The Consumerist]

Saturday Stories

Some crazy guy on Slate details his plan to bail on the internet for 4 months leaving me feeling both jealous and smug at the same time.

Millon Dollar Journey discusses the fear of money.

David Katz on how the world needs a new "Fattitude" and at the same times explains why he can't support organizations like NAAFA.

My friend Travis from Obesity Panacea explains how staircases are "the easiest exercise intervention ever"

The best of Old Jews Telling Jokes

I love Old Jews Telling Jokes and thankfully the folks over there have compiled their best jokes of 2009.

The jokes run one after another so today for Funny Friday, sit back and enjoy.

Have a great weekend!

(Remember, email subscribers have to head to the blog to watch)