Mixed Messages

Want to know about unintended consequences and what they can do to you and society in general? Look no further than the sudden interest in the obesity crisis. From Michele Obama’s campaign for fitness and backyard gardens to NY Mayor Bloomberg’s war against soda, the government’s major push is against fat.


And its working. According to Gallup, 81 percent of us think obesity is an “extremely serious” or “very serious” social problem. All fine and good, if you ignore that while I was in high school, it was a national crisis that all the girls were developing eating disorders based on unfair media images of women.

The sad thing is, only 67 percent of us rate cigarettes as “extremely serious” or “very serious.” I say sad, because - without getting into the nitty gritty details - using cigarettes is roughly twice as bad for you as being obese. Cigarettes raises your risk of disease 4x, while being obese only raises is 2x. And being just a little overweight actually lowers your risk of dying below 1 (where 1 = average risk) while using cigarettes only occasionally actually puts you at the same risk as an obese person.

The government not only permits cigarettes, it provides manufacturers with tax breaks. Meanwhile, it also helped promote the obesity crisis by pushing low fat, high carb diets as the food choice du jour.

Having promoted both problems, it now tamps down slightly on the most dangerous, while launching an all out war on the less dangerous problem. Most likely because it has run out of ways to shame hard-core smokers, while the social stigma against being obese allows it target them without problem.

I told you so

It happened faster than I thought, but I have to say I told you so.

The board/commission that will consider banning large sodas is also making noise regarding popcorn and milk-based drinks such as milkshakes and various coffees.

First they came for cigarettes, then candy bars, then soda, then coffee, then popcorn, then ... [hey, you know what has a lot calories, pizza, burgers, hotdogs are a nutritional wasteland almost on par with soda, and also: food in general].

I for one would rather enjoy a nice unhealthy food every now and again and die 5 years earlier than not enjoy the food and die 5 years later, probably after a long, insidious disease that deprives me of every enjoyable part of life.  Life is to be enjoyed, not just lived.

Hopefully by the time pizza is illegal, assisted suicide will be legal.

UPDATE: I changed the last sentence.

Cigarettes yesterday, soda today, burgers tomorrow

When I say I support gay marriage, even though I don’t think its constitutionally protected (at least not under any sensible reading of the due process clause), its because of outcome like the following.

Several years ago people began to bang the drum for heavy regulation of cigarettes as a public health issue. Cigarettes are horrible for you, and I don’t and have never smoked. I don’t support it and frankly, if you smoke, I think you are an idiot. And in public places, the public should be able to ban smoking, but not in private places, so bars and restaurants should be able to allow smoking. But this compromise wasn’t enough, and public policy makers went after these establishments as well.

“No, no,” they said to those who worried about what this could mean down the road, “this is where it ends. Cigarettes are a unique case involving a product that is hazardous as used. It is limited to this one case.”

Except now the use of trans fats is all but illegal (and actually illegal in New York). Also in New York, salt is all but illegal. And then you get Newsweek columnist Michael Tomasky supporting New York’s ban on soda’s containing more than 16 ounces (but not in convenience stores; or grocery stores).

Ok, you say, someone out at a movie or at a McDonald’s can buy two 16 oz sodas if they want more soda.  Same price.  No a big deal. Soda really doesn’t have much in the way of a redeeming quality, so its an easy target.  Obesity is epidemic.  Obesity is clearly unhealthy. Maybe you can see the logic here. I for one can understand the thinking.  If you drink too much soda you really are an idiot, and if you wind up fat, you really only have yourself to blame.  This all makes this is a pretty unique case, correct?

Certainly, except that this is where Tomasky goes next:

“Are bacon-cheeseburgers next? As a practical matter, no. Sodas are an easy target because there is nothing, nothing, nutritionally redeeming about them. But might there come a day when the New York City Department of Health mandates that burgers be limited to, say, four ounces? Indeed there might. And why not? Eight- and ten-ounce burgers are sick things.

“As a practical matter, no.” It’s also not often practical to wage a 2-front war. But once the war on 1 front is won, it makes perfect sense to turn your eye to that other front. So once the battle over 16oz+ soda is over and people are still fat, perhaps then it will be more practical.

When you try to accomplish something good without regards to the means, this is where you can end up.  Because now there is no limiting principle.  Why stop at 4oz burgers.  An eight ounce burger (Tomasky's "sick thing") is twice as large as a four ounce burger, but a four ounce burger is twice as large as a 2 ounce one.

In fact, fried patties of ground meat are certainly one of the, if not the, least healthy ways to eat beef.  Why not ban burgers?  Practical?  Not right now.  Once we are down to 2 ounces per burger, maybe.  And plenty of people will tell you that eating beef isn't healthy anyway.  Why not just ban meat consumption.  Again, as a practical matter, it won't happen today, but I'm not worried about today, I'm worried about tomorrow.

Check out http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/03/newsweek-writer-we-have-this-liberty-bus for more likeminded commentary.

The road to hell is paved with canned goods

I'm a bit of a contrarian at heart, and I love when "common wisdom" is wrong; when doing action "A" has a perverse, unintended affect. In fact, I love unintended consequences altogether. Not that I love when they happen, only when I spot them.

Meanwhile, at this time of year, plenty of offices and groups are doing canned food drives. And plenty of people are feeling good about dropping off that can of tuna or soup.

Turns out your good deed might be done better a different way, and might actually do some harm.

All that food can overwhelm food banks. Not to mention that they now have 700,000 cans of high-sodium food to distribute to people who may have high-blood pressure, or jars of peanuts that can't be given to people with allergies. Or some godawful can of creamed something or other that no one knows what to do with.

Not to mention, apparently the food banks can buy the food cheaper than you ever could. Like $0.10 on the dollar cheaper, so it makes much more sense to simply send them a check that they can use to buy food they actually need for their clients. As the article says, eat the can of tuna and donate half its value to a food bank and you've done a much better deed.

As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

UPDATE: The original title of this post was "In a canned pickle". Like either one better?

Back to the salt's mine

After NY and other places went on a tear and tried to ban salt, or at least reduce its use, and after years of government programs shouted from the rooftops regarding the hazards of the white crystal, it turns out that lowering your salt intake can be harmful. And these weren't crazy reductions to like 600 mg per day, these people were still eating - after the reduction - 3,800 mg, which is much much higher than the 2,000 mg the government recommends.

Meanwhile, out on the left coast Los Angeles is busy preventing new fast food chains from opening, on the premise that they locate in poor neighborhoods and make the poor fat. Ignoring the personal choice issue, it turns out that - OMG - middle class people eat more fast food and in fact, the richer you are, the more fast you eat, up to about $60,000 in income. The availability of healthy food in poor neighborhoods, and health and obesity in general in those areas, is an issue, but simplifying it down to "fast food = bad" is not the way to solve it. But it makes some people feel like they are helping, so who cares who it hurts.

Oh, and after needlessly worrying parents for the last 5 or so years, it turns out that your fat baby probably isn't going to grow up to be the blob.

It's the trifecta! The trifecta, I tell ya!

Its not exactly the technological singularity, or even the other, more sciency, singularity, but still.

This reason.com post and the accompanying video (well worth a watch in my opinion - but I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't think that was the case) hits all the interests: government programs, health and food. And there is a TED mention, to boot.

Food choice, schmood schmoich, apparently

Reason.com has an interesting article of the White House's recent anti-obesity initiative and a peak at the newly redesigned food pyramid, along with the usual anti-government seasoning.

I've got some thoughts at my other blog.

I try not to cross post too often, but part of this blog's 1000 & 1 things is health & fitness. So I thought I would expand upon my other post.

So here goes: Don't even get me started on the food pyramid. It was a staple in schools and on food containers while I was growing up. Nice orderly progresssion from grains/carbs at the bottom (base), progressing up through fruits and veggies and meat and finally ending up in the smallest, topmost portion with fats and sugars. It was very nice.

And pretty much completely wrong.

Turns out, the carbs and grains that made the base of the pyramid really shouldn't form the base, because outside of a few whole grains and vegetables, carbs shouldn't be the base of your diet. Why not? They are mostly empty calories, and worse yet, they are relatively calorie dense and don't fill you up like, say fats and protiens. And lets just forget that the smallest part of the old pyramid makes a demon out of "fats," despite that saturated fats are probably one of the more healthy things you can eat.

So you see, the pyramid was pretty much entirely ass backwards or upside down, take your pick.

To make matters worse, based partly on that pyramid and party on advocacy from decades earlier, companies started abandoning fat at all costs. The result - trans fats and low-fat foods with high calorie counts. Both have since been discovered to be evils in the battle of the bulge.

Oh, and I forgot the best part of this little cross-over article: it gives me a place to crow about the fact that I'm down from 230ish pounds to 220 pounds. Almost all of it fat, as far as I can tell. And while on vacation R. and I worked out and I took a "fitness test" offered by one of the treadmills. It rated by VO2 Max as "above average."

Here I come, 210.

Fat-free fools

It turns out, all that "fat-free"/"low-fat" food you see on store shelves might not only not help you lose weight (which we've known for a while), it might also be dangerous to you. All because the original understanding and testing didn't account for the particle size of LDL cholesteral.

The original thinking went that since eating fat raises cholesteral, and those with high cholesteral are at general risk for heart disease, eating fat raised your risk for heart diseaes. Turns out, only eating certain types of fat actually leads to an increased risk of heart disease. And this helps explain why cholesteral tests can predict only about 70 percent of those at risk for heart disease. Some people with heart disease might have LDL level completely within the "normal" range, but primarily comprised of the wrong type of particles.

So says this slate.com story.

I say this as I eat sunflower seeds, after having had almonds yesterday, and olive oil (the oil, not the girl) Wednesday. Oh, the good LDL comes from olive oil and nuts/seeds.

And these people want to run our health care? Oh joy.

Green with envy

More BMI fun from the pages of comics...

The Hulk's BMI (7 foot, 1040 pounds): 103.6. 103.6!

Bruce Banner's BMI (5.9, 128): 18.9. Nearly underweight, which is 18.5. Guess all that metamorphosis is taxing on the body. Plus, its hard to eat at restaurants when a simple slip up by the waitress or some slight bit of undercooked potato could have such disasterious results.

CDC's Frieden to fry fast food?

I'm not a huge purchaser of fast food. But I like me some Arby's Roast Burger.

Meanwhile, Slate.com reports that the new CDC, despite his introduction as a swine flu expert*, actually is the man behind trans fat bans and the attack on salt. Look, trans fats and salt in large quantities probably aren't good for you. But trans fat was industries reaction to the horrors of sat fats. And salt is just yummy.

I know there is some question about food, obesity and epidemics, but I think the links are weak. What's more, I'm not sure the links mean we should attack fast food establishments. Lazy overeaters who are overweight aren't suddenly going to be thin and munching celery just because Frieden flunked Friendly, or 'Bama bans BK .

I'm a big boy and can pick my food for myself; thank you very much.

Whole thing here.

* Unless this sickness I seem to be coming down with is swine flu, has there ever been a more overblown epidemic? Oh, right. Avian flu.