'Healthy' Foods Being Rejected in School Cafeterias

The following two posts are not for school districts or their lunch programs--they are for parents. I am writing these posts for individuals, not for the mass consciousness behind government programs. Although I fully understand the utility of mass institutions, like school lunch programs, particularly for people who'd rather not think or act for themselves, I happen to know that some people prefer to take care of themselves--that is, they appreciate certain qualities of life, like what kind of foods their family eats.

I don't necessarily mean that as an insult, since we all have areas in which we would rather just have help than personally take the bull by the horns. But I am certain that people falling into this category with regard to their children's lunches--those that would rather subject their kids to school lunches than prepare bag lunches from home--are going to be pissed off by what I have to say. Oh well...

It appears that school kids in Los Angeles are rejecting the new "healthy" meals they're dishing up at L.A. Unified these days. The L.A. Times reports that the new menus introduced into the public school system as a part of the campaign to combat obesity, diabetes and other health problems has been a massive flop. Not only are kids not biting into the health food fare, but underground junk food markets are popping up at most schools, some even being run by teacher that feel sorry for the starving children. Crazy, I know...but can't say I'm surprised. I'll explain why.

First, let's take a look at some menu items being served at school cafeterias in Los Angeles: black bean burgers, vegetarian curries and tamales, quinoa salads and pad Thai noodles, beef jambalaya, vegetable curry, lentil and brown rice cutlets, quinoa and black-eyed pea salads, and Caribbean meatball sauce. Duh!

Who the heck would eat that stuff? I'm sorry L.A. Unified but that's beyond stupid. Today's children, raised on junk food, are not going to suddenly and drastically change their diets, even if First Lady Michelle Obama endorses that yuck. Wake up you brain-dead ideologues--I wouldn't touch a black bean burger for anything, and I grew up eating healthy food. Sorry, that's not healthy--it's puke-inducing.  Listen to what the kids have to say about it

Iraides Renteria and Mayra Gutierrez don't even bother to line up. Iraides said the school food previously made her throw up, and Mayra calls it "nasty, rotty stuff." So what do they eat? The juniors pull three bags of Flamin' Hot Cheetos and soda from their backpacks.  Yeah, no kidding. "This is our daily lunch," Iraides says. "We're eating more junk food now than last year."

And it's not just the type of foods L.A. Unified School Lunch Programs are serving, but the ways in which they are serving them. Reports are coming back from students and administrators alike of inedible food:

"The chicken pozole was watery, the vegetable tamale was burned and hard, and noodles were soggy," said one 16-year-old

Other complaints included salads dated Oct. 7 being served on Oct. 17, although lunch program officials claim those dates were not for expiration, but instead "best used by"  dates. Either way, I don't blame the kids--I wouldn't buy that either. Who wouldn't want food when it's at its best?

As a result, student participation has been down--thirteen percent to be exact. And as an understandable backlash, the junk food black market has been booming. Students and teachers are coming equipped with candy, chips and even instant noodles to supply the hungry students.

So I reiterate that if children are raised on junk food, like most Americans are, and the food being served in school cafeterias is "like dog food" (according to one student), wouldn't you expect them to reject it and go for what they know? Duh.

You can't force drastic food changes on people, let alone children--that's a recipe for disaster. School lunch programs could start by simply offering good quality foods. So keep the burgers and pizza, just make them with decent ingredients, and not the mass produced crap that large institutions typically purchase. I mean, my heavens, the school lunch budget increased a whopping 1,000% (from $2 million to $20 million)--start by buying fresh meat instead of frozen pre-made patties.

I like that L.A. Unified is attempting to make school lunches healthier, but serving Sloppy Quinoa-Joes ain't gonna cut it. They've got to keep it within the comfort zone of the children. Fresh fruits and vegetables instead of canned or frozen is a good start, and I'm happy to report they have done that. But before introducing the same sort of yuck they serve at the Whole Foods hot deli counter...I'd invest in barf bags.

Some Evidence on Obesity Model

I've been getting harangued for weeks by a severely wounded ego-centric proponent of the I'm-so-desperate-to-be-right approach to intellectual discourse, that I am finally giving in and providing some support for my thoughts on obesity. The blog stalker has insisted that I prove the validity of my thoughts on obesity, and so I will provide some evidence, but let it be known that this is the last response I will make to the ramblings.

In the most recent issue of the International Journal of Obesity [Volume 35, Issue 10 (October 2011)], no less than every article supports my position:

• On the causes of obesity:

Overweight and obesity are the results of an enduring positive energy balance, that is, when energy intake is larger than energy expenditure. Hence, overweight and obesity prevention requires effective intervention programmes targeting behaviours that contribute to both sides of this energy balance. These so-called energy balance-related behaviours include dietary behaviours (for example, consumption of fruit and vegetables, or sugar-sweetened beverages), sedentary behaviours (for example, television (TV) viewing or computer use) and physical activity behaviours (for example, sports or active commuting to school).

Interesting, calories in vs. calories out (boldface emphasis mine), and not one thing about hormones or genetics. That's because it's science, stupid.

• On parents needing to get involved because increased physical activity (PA) at school only is met with greater inactivity outside of school:

The PA of children seems to compensate in such a way that more activity at one time is met with less activity at another. The failure of PA programmes to reduce childhood obesity could be attributable to this compensation.

Duh!  Parents are responsible for their children especially when they see them blowing up.

• That feeding your child crap disrupts their physiology to such a degree as to promote obesity:

Lower insulin sensitivity at childhood may predict subsequent total and central adiposity gain at adolescence. These findings enhance the role of insulin sensitivity as a target of obesity prevention already from the first decades of life.

Or in other words, don't let your children eat junk food.

•  That fat parents breed fat kids:

Children whose both parents were overweight or obese both before pregnancy and after 16-year follow-up had a strikingly high risk of overweight at age 16 years...parents’ long-term overweight (BMI 25 kg m⁻² before pregnancy and after 16-year follow-up) was the strongest single predictor.

I almost can't believe that anyone would need proof of this.

• That drinking sufficient water helps decrease and/or maintain healthy weight:

Consuming the recommended daily amount of water for children could result in an energy expenditure equivalent to an additional weight loss of about 1.2 kg per year...water drinking could assist overweight children in weight loss or maintenance, and may warrant emphasis in dietary guidelines against the obesity epidemic.

• That hormonal changes are the result of fat deposition (obesity) and not the cause:

Too much abdominal (visceral) fat increases an individual's risk of developing insulin resistance and other metabolic disorders. In a Perspective, Hug and Lodish discuss the unexpected finding that blood levels of a hormone produced by visceral fat, called visfatin, correlate with obesity.

Okay, that particular study is from a different journal, but I couldn't resist (and one more from same journal)

But back to the International Journal of Obesity:

Conclusion: Hormone (serum visfatin) levels are influenced by body fat content in obese children

•  On overeating being one significant factor in obesity:

An association between children's body mass index (BMI) and overeating has been established...overeating, impulsivity and reward responsiveness were significantly associated with childhood BMI. Mediation analysis revealed that impulsivity and reward responsiveness equally and significantly predicted BMI indirectly through overeating.

The single most idiotic argument I've heard is that overeating is not a cause of obesity--precisely why this will be my last response to such nonsense. I cannot discuss an idea with someone if we don't speak the same language.  Denying the most basic knowledge we have about physiology puts us on different planets.  Conversation over.

• That eating fast food (FF) regularly leads to obesity:

The teenagers who ate at FF restaurants consumed more unhealthy foods and were more likely to have higher BMISDS than those teenagers who did not eat frequently at FF restaurants. 

• That prosperity leads to obesity:

Ethnic minority groups in Western European countries tend to have higher levels of overweight than the majority populations for reasons that are poorly understood. ..Conclusion: Contrary to the patterns in White groups, the Dutch ethnic minority women were more obese than their English equivalents.

It's only poorly understood because the right questions aren't being asked.  Essentially the study shows that culture alone isn't definitive.  However, I propose that it's the change in culture, particularly entering an environment where conveniences abound.

• That junk foods promote overeating due to chemical and high sugar content:

...higher preferences for sweet and fatty foods compared with the other two groups. Food preferences were also related to all overeating measures, which in turn accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in BMI...The associations reported in this paper are important from a public-health perspective because of the abuse potential of sweet-fat foods and their strong relationship with obesity.

And that's that. As I've said before, Mr. Stalker, I don't do peoples' research for them. But because you showed such diligence in asserting yourself, I thought I would finally accommodate. I didn't have to go far for supporting articles--one journal, sir, was all I needed. That's because what we know about obesity isn't in need of an overhaul, therefore most of what I put forth is BASIC. What is needed is a halt to the notion that the individual isn't responsible for his or her own weight, and that they are powerless because of their genetics or hormones.

So as I said, I'm done. I will post a few more promised pieces on obesity in the future, and then I move on.

Hate to be the One that Tells You, but...

In my recent obesity debates, I noticed a disturbing trend among many proponents of fantastical new theories on obesity, which included some doctors: They were adopting a "obesity is far too complex to blame a singular (or few) product/action" position. As I remarked in an earlier post, I think this poorly thought out opinion only perpetuates the problem.  No less erroneous than the genetic theory of obesity, denying the obvious simply gives the obese person a reason to pull themselves, and their lifestyle habits, out of the equation. As a result, it ensures that obesity will remain a lucrative disease entity in need of a cure (à la cancer).

Case in point: In response to a recent report coming out of the Yale University Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, that has showed soft drink manufacturers to be stepping-up advertising to children and teens, particularly blacks and Hispanics. The American Beverage Association, whose members include soft drink companies, disputed the study's findings. Said the group's Chief Executive Officer Susan Neely in a statement,

"This report is another attack by known critics in an ongoing attempt to single out one product as the cause of obesity when both common sense and widely accepted science have shown that the reality is far more complicated."

Uh huh...listen up obesity enablers: Aspects of obesity may have some complexity to them, but how it originates physiologically in the individual isn't complex. Any right-minded person not driven by profits or ego (doctors...) simply cannot deny that imbibing ten teaspoons of sugar (contents of one can of soda) will lead to metabolic and hormonal changes that ultimately cause obesity.  If you're this person, forgive me but...you're an idiot.

Obesity Causes Imbalance

Continuing on with obesity, you know, I've been hearing quite a bit about hormones and their role in weight gain.  It is an indisputable fact that the concentration of some hormones goes haywire as people gain weight.  But listen up o' seekers of truth: Hormone imbalances are a consequence of weight gain (though I am certain they are also maintainers of such), but in and of themselves they are not the cause.

Hormones are chemicals messengers that have a number of functions, one being regulation or homeostasis.  Homeostasis is a control mechanism that maintains the balance in a system--it is a universal principle.  The peripheral nervous system is made up of the somatic and autonomic nervous systems (ANS), the latter controlling functions that are on auto pilot--the one's we don't have to think about.

The ANS has two branches that act in continual oscillation under normal conditions--the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems.  The sympathetic nervous system is responsible for our fight or flight responses; the parasympathetic for our rest and digest.  In other words, each branch of the ANS is responsible for various functions that support either build-up (parasympathetic) or breakdown (sympathetic) processes.  Energy utilization is one such process.

During energy buildup and storage or anabolism--when we extract and store our energy molecules--our parasympathetic system is the driver, controlling various hormones and chemical messengers.  During breakdown and utilization (fuel burning) or catabolism--it's our sympathetic nervous system that's the driver, with it's own hormones and neurotransmitters.  Parasympathetic prepares the body for build-up (rest and digest), which includes slowing molecular breakdown and energy utilization (sympathetic), increased blood flow to the digestive system, and decreased blood flow to the muscles.  When this system is in full force, we often feel relaxed, lazy, maybe even sluggish.  Our bodies are ripe for energy storage or weight gain when we are in rest and digest.

On the flip side, our sympathetic nervous system prepares the body for energy utilization, especially under stressful conditions.  Remember it's the fight or flight system.  During sympathetic stimulation, our metabolism speeds up so we burn fuel more efficiently, blood flow to the digestive organs decreases (less food coming in and being distributed to tissues, thus less stored), and muscles perfuse with blood (getting ready to work).  It's what makes you shake and tremble when you are stress or excited, although I am certain some people rarely feel it so strongly.

I say that because, no doubt, obese people are in a state of parasympathetic imbalance.  That is, their parasympathetic system is kicked in more often than their sympathetic system.  As a result, it has been observed in obese people that certain parasympathetic processes are acting normally while their sympathetic system is depressed.  The effects of such an imbalance is that obese people have difficulty burning fuel efficiently, while they are quite proficient at packing it in.

Okay, we'll no shiitake...we all know that: It's harder for obese people to lose weight.  No kidding...that doesn't mean they cannot.  The reason this happens is that when fuel keeps coming in as food, the body, in its profound intelligence, does what it's proficient at: stores it as fat for leaner times, for survival.  The body doesn't understand gluttony; it doesn't understand prosperity--it doesn't know 24-hr pizza delivery exists.  All it understands is, "Influx of food--store."  Period.  So that's what it does.

As a result of overeating, excessive weight gain and very likely low physical activity, the body is forced into this autonomic nervous system imbalance between parasympathetic and under-active sympathetic systems.  And a vicious cycle ensues.

Yes, it's the reason obese people don't see the same gains non-obese people see from short-term exercise...that's why they've got to make it lifestyle, and see what happens after two years of continued activity.  Too many obese people quit when they don't see result within three months.

And, yes, decreasing calories too quickly can lead to a stress both mental and physical, one that the body interprets as a need to store even more ("Starvation!").  That's why I always recommend to keep weight loss to realistic and healthy goals of one pound per week.  It's one thing I like about the Weight Watcher program--they do it slowly and steadily, advocating lifetime wellness and not just a crash-diet--literally and figuratively.

But here's the bottom line: In the end, it still comes down to calories in, and stored, versus calories burned.  It's just that the hormonal changes that occur--the ANS imbalance--slow things down that much more for the obese person.  In the end, though, part of the answer is still to exercise regularly and effectively, as well as change eating habits (see last post).  There is, however, one more obstacle that is probably the biggest hump when it comes to losing and keeping off weight, and one which I will be discussing in the next post--the human mind.

Shocking Revelation: Chips Make You Fat!

When it comes to weight gain, is one food-like substance worse than another?  Yes, say Harvard University researchers, and the biggest offenders are potato chips!  Whaddayaknow--worse than sodas, worse than fries, worse than candy?  Yup, chips were more than four times more fattening than sweets or desserts.  Dang!  I'd say, "Who knew," but isn't it kind of obvious?

The study (actually three studies combined) looked at more than 120,000 people over a twenty year period, analyzing their dietary and lifestyle habits.  The subjects were all health professionals and not obese at the start.  Their weight was measured every four years, and they detailed their diet on questionnaires.  On average, participants gained nearly 17 pounds over the 20-year period.  For each four-year period, food choices contributed nearly 4 pounds, while exercise--for those who did it--cut less than 2 pounds.

This is how foods broke down into the fattening quotient (pounds gained/4 years):

• Potato Chips -- 1.69
• French Fries -- 1.28
• Candy -- 0.41
• Alcohol (drinks) -- 0.41
• Watching hour of TV a day -- 0.31
• Recently quitting smoking, 5-pound increase
• People who slept more or less than six to eight hours a night gained more weight.

The researchers conclude that diet is more important than exercise when it comes to gaining or losing weight.  Although I definitely agree with this statement in context of today's western society, I wouldn't say that's a physiological fact, thermodynamically speaking.  Today's foods may just be harder to burn, but I don't know that it is true for all foods (and can't one, technically, get fat from an excess of any food?).  Okay, different subject, I know, but I will agree that our current obesity epidemic ain't from eatin' too many carrots.

This is a decent study, but I would say we should put things into perspective.  Many people believe that as long as they work out, they should be able to eat whatever they want...within reason.  Problem is, people grossly underestimate how many calories they are eating at any given time.  A great piece came out in Scientific American last year discussing a study which showed most people, oddly, miscalculate total calories when high-calorie items are accompanied by 'healthy' side dishes.  Subjects overwhelmingly assigned less calories to plates with cheeseburgers and celery, than they did to cheeseburgers alone.  Doh!  Think that might happen regularly in real life?

Listen, crap is crap is crap is crap.  Chips are crap, period.  Eat them more than a few times a year (seriously) and expect fatness.  Same for sodas, canned ravioli, frozen tater tots and doughnuts--sorry to break-up the party, but...

Do we really need a study to tell us chips and fries are not Jenny Craig material?  I wish not, but sadly...we do.  So now you know.  Do with it what you will.

Obesity Paradigm Wrong

Just finished reading an article that was as good an analysis on obesity as I think you'll find today.  The latest issue of Scientific American featured a piece titled, How to Fix the Obesity Crisis, and it does a great job of explaining the multi-factorial complexity of today's obesity epidemic.

The article discusses the numerous metabolic, genetic and molecular process that might be involved in the mechanism of developing obesity, but it focuses on the behavioral approaches to breaking mental patterns involved in overeating and poor food choices.  The history on the obesity epidemic is pretty good, too.

Where I think the article fails is that it still approaches obesity from the same mechanistic thinking that has been unable to figure out the malady to begin with.  This sentiment can be summed up by the line,

"Maybe someday biology will provide us with a pill that re-adjusts our metabolism so we burn more calories or resets our built-in cravings so we prefer broccoli to burgers."

Continuing to hope for a magic bullet that will allow us to live a faulty life style consequence-free is foolish. That IS the problem!  I'm going to leave my full assessment for a later time, because I think the article is worth reading.  But stay tuned.

Flip Side of Obesity

Want to know the flip side to our current obesity obsession?  Increased hospitalization for eating disorders...in children!  That's right, the more society bashes the overweight, the greater the fear instilled in kids.  Heavens forbid they might turn out to be...big, fat, obese.  Scourges of society they'll be--the press'll beat 'em, the public'll beat 'em, you'll beat 'em...and forget about what their school mates might do.  Sheesh.

A new American Academy of Pediatrics report shows that among children younger than 12 with eating disorders, hospitalizations surged 119% between 1999 and 2006.  This at the same time hospitalizations for eating disorders among all age groups increased 15%.


I'm not surprised as the focus on fatness--in the negative--must scare the appetite out of plenty of kids.  Being inundated with pictures of emaciated models, and seeing how skinny starlets are pedastalized in magazines and on television, while normal sized ones are denigrated for being "big" would lead any kid with a normal-sized ego to an ex-lax habit.

Quite honestly, I'm much more disturbed by anorexia and bulimia than I am about obesity.  Seems to me that although one might lead to a slew health problems, the other is a death wish, quick and to the point.  Nevertheless, one extreme must live with the other, and so I don't doubt we'll be seeing a steady rise in eating disorders (and subsequent hospitalizations) in the near future.

American Kids, Water Deficient

Yo kid, whatcha drinkin'?  Not water, that's for sure.  A recent study to be published in the October issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, shows that children in the U.S. are drinking far too little water.  Since water makes up the bulk of the human body weight, getting sufficient amounts is vital.  And since we can't store water for the long term, running on a water deficiency can wreak havoc on the health.

According to the study conducted by the Queens College of the City University of New York and the U.S. National Cancer Institute, American children drink far less than the minimum amount of water recommended by the U.S. Institute of Medicine.  The study looked at the water intake of 3,978 boys and girls, aged 2 to 19 years, who had been included in a national nutrition study from 2005 to 2006.  They found that only 15-60% of boys and 10-54% of girls, depending on age, drink enough water.  Instead, children are primarily drinking...yup, you guessed it, sugary drinks like sodas.

The study found that most kids drank sweetened beverages with meals and not plain water.  Yecchh!  And girls overall drank less water than boys.  The good news is that as children age, they start to drink a bit more water, but not enough to preserve good health.  Let's go over some points on the importance of proper hydration:

• Human beings cannot live without water for a few days
• We lose approximately two liters of water per day through sweat, urine, tears, saliva and the breath, among other processes
• Caffeinated drinks--sodas, iced tea, coffee drinks--are diuretics, which make us urinate more, thus increasing the need for water
• Insufficient water levels lead to 
• fatigue
• increased hunger
• muscle weakness
• headaches
• dry mouth
• heat stroke and other maladies

Furthermore, high consumption of sugary drinks leads to...yes, right again, obesity (along with other illnesses like diabetes).  And you heard childhood obesity is due to the common cold virus, now, didn't you?

Listen, adults in the U.S. aren't doing much better.  Sodas are still the number one consumed beverage in America.  And kids learn from their parents, so if you are a soda junkie, don't expect less from junior.

Simple solution: stop buying soda! if you have younguns at home, don't give them any of that crap, period.  My girls have never tasted a soda in their lives, and they won't ever in our house.  Yes, I'm on a soapbox on this one, and I'm not getting off anytime soon.  That garbage is killing people, and I'll keep screaming it till people listen.

Water is the elixir of life, and if you or your child are not getting enough, then you're playing with fire.  Play with water instead, give your kids good ol' H2O to drink and watch them flourish.  It's in your hands parents--do the right thing.

More O-BS-ity Madness

OK, OK...now that genetics is out as a cultural crutch for obesity, here goes something to quickly take its place.  Get this: Childhood obesity might be linked to the common cold virus.  Yes, yes, the common cold.  Not lifestyle behaviors, but a virus.  How's that for quick thinking?

A recent study to be published in the September 20 issue of Pediatrics showed that some children infected by adenovirus 36 (AD36), which causes the common cold and slight gastrointestinal upset, were an average of 50 pounds heavier than children who hadn't been infected by this particular strain.  The study, small and rife with coincidences, is the latest in "take-the-blame-off-the-patient" obesity hypotheses.

The study looked at 124 children between the ages of 8-18, with more than 50% (67 total) considered obese based on body-mass measurements for their age and gender, and found that nearly one in four obese children had been infected with AD36, compared to only 7% of non-obese children.  In total, the numbers are 15 and 4 respectively--this makes a study?  Further, within the entire group of obese children, those who were AD36-positive weighed about 35 pounds more than obese children who hadn't been infected with AD36.

I repeat, this makes a study?  Now granted, the authors do not claim to have proof, but I laugh at the absurdity of the notion from the start.  Why not study the link between biting one's fingernails and developing hemorrhoids?  Seriously.

OK, I get the rationale, but come on!  Whether or not, a child has been infected with adenovirus does not remove the necessity to watch the diet and to be active, plain and simple.

But we musn't blame people. Why the hell not?  Why perpetuate the ultimate problem: the lack of knowledge, understanding, discipline and responsibility?  Here's why.  Hypotheses lead to further studies, connections lead to rationales, and rationales lead to drug and vaccine development--think anti-depressants.  New drugs for epidemics means a shipload of money.  The public gets a new wonder drug, doctors get more business, and government gets to look like it supports the public health by endorsing poppycock.

So the rest of us get a good five years of having to hear how people are fat because they'd at one time caught a cold; a particular cold; a fat cold.  And we get to pay even more for their health care, because it's not their fault and everyone should be entitled to be an ignorant, irresponsible and undisciplined glutton.  We support you...literally.

Now before I get accused of being insensitive to obese people, remember, I'm the first to say be whatever you want to be.  I have nothing against obesity, ignorance, irresponsibility or a lack of discipline, because I know that everyone has these same characteristics somewhere in their lives.  In fact, I have said in this very blog and in my health articles that I am more an advocate for people loving who they are as they are, even if obese, as long as if they want to change, they take the responsibility to do so on their own.  No BS, no excuses, just take the leap and accept the glory and the blame.

But I do not support removing personal responsibility from one's physical health and well-being; and I definitely do not support the use of so-called science to find further reason to move the blame away from the individual.  To answer one of the study's authors, who thinks we should "move away from assigning blame, and broaden the way we think about obesity," I say, it help much less to give people another crutch to simply rationalize reality: It takes hard work and a drastic change in lifestyle to lose weight and keep it off.  You've got to cut the sodas, work out, and keep the overeating in check.

Trying to pass off the notion that obesity is somehow caused by exposure to the common cold is irresponsible, and in my mind, an obvious attempt at creating the next blockbuster drug.  It's a free market, yes--but will it change the world's obesity profile?  Fat chance.

Exercise In, Genetic Excuse Out

Short and sweet.  I've never bought the bull that obesity is genetic.  Too easy, removes personal responsibility or accountability, and dishonors all overweight people by telling them its beyond their control.  I make the point in my book, The Six Keys to Optimal Health, that even if genetics has a role in obesity, one is still bound by the laws of physiology--more calories in than out...weight gain; more calories out than in...weight loss; equal calories in and out...maintenance.  Gene or no gene, that's the truth.

A new British study confirms my point: Exercise cuts a person's genetic predisposition to obesity by 40%.  Well, no freakin' shit-take mushrooms. 

Researchers looked at over 20,000 people in Norwich, England and focused on genetic variants known to increase the risk of obesity.  Most people had inherited 10 to 13 of these variants from their parents.  Those obesity inheritors that exercised had 36% less weight gain per genetic variant than sedentary inheritors, and each additional obesity-susceptibility variant increased the odds of obesity by 1.1-fold.   This risk, however, was 40% lower for active people compared to inactive people.

In a nutshell: Fat genes or not, exercise obliterates obesity.  No more excuses.

Omega-3 Imbalance Leads to Obesity Inheritance

Finally a genetic excuse for obesity that actually makes sense.  Researchers show that an omega fatty acid imbalance can lead to obesity.  But even more interesting is that this imbalance, and the associated obesity, can be passed on from generation to generation.

A recent French study looked at the role of omega intake and fat deposition in mice.  Four generations of mice were fed a 35% fat diet with an omega imbalance now common in much of the developed world--that is, a high ratio of omega-6 fatty acids relative to omega-3s.  The results were progressively fatter mice at birth, generation after generation.

In my book, The Six Keys to Optimal Health, I discuss the importance of bringing the omega balance to 1:2 omega-6:omega-3.  Currently the typical imbalance in western cultures is 15:1 in much of Europe and up to 40:1 in the United States.  Omega-3s are important to many functions including cholesterol balance, blood pressure, reducing heart disease and stroke, preventing blood clots, preventing diabetes and much, much more.

Omega-3 fatty acids are found plentifully in fish and flax oils, although fish liver oils are a more potent source.  Omega-6s, on the other hand, are high in vegetable oils, breads, grains and poultry--things we eat copiously in the typical American diet.

But what about passing fatness on to successive generations?  Experts believe that the link between omega imbalance and obesity is epigenetic; in other words, the imbalance in mothers influences an offspring's genes during development.  Whoa!  That's right--the omega-6:omega-3 ratio in the breast milk of American women has gone from an average of 6:1 to 18:1.  Holy milkshakes!  Exactly.

I recommend a few things to bring the omega ratio back into healthy balance.  First and foremost is reducing your intake of high omega-6 containing foods.  So breads, high carbs, vegetable oil--cut 'em.  Then I suggest you supplement with a good omega-3 fatty acid.  I carry a great brand in my Los Angeles, Beverly Hills and West Hollywood chiropractic office.  Check this article for all the information you need on omega-3 fatty acids.

Stop the cycle of obesity in your family--get your omega fatty acids balanced.  And don't think it's too late for your children, either.  Feed them well (healthily, not in hordes), get them moving, and give them omega-3 fatty acids--that should break the inheritance pattern.  Remember, health starts in the home.  Now how's that for epigenetics!

Baby Boomers Riddled with Disability

Baby boomers are being nagged by injuries--more than the generation before them. In fact, baby boomers have more disabilities than people over age 65. What the heck is going on here?

According to data from the National Health Interview Survey, conducted annually from 1997 to 2007 and including up to 15,000 individuals each year, more than 40 percent of people aged 50 to 64 reported having problems with at least one of nine physical functions, and many reported difficulty with more than one. Although health problems as a whole did not increase for this age group, physical disabilities, like trouble climbing ten stairs, did. The number of baby boomers using special equipment to get around, such as a cane or wheelchair, also increased. Hmmm....

Here's the breakdown of the number of adults per 10,000, ages 50 to 64, who reported difficulty with various actions in the 2005-2007period and from 1997-1999 (in parentheses).

• Stooping, bending, kneeling: 3,129 (2,875)
• Standing two hours: 2,491 (2,321)
• Pushing or pulling large object: 2,010 (2,024)
• Walking a quarter-mile: 2,146 (1,954)
• Climbing 10 steps: 1,749 (1,537)
• Sitting two hours: 1,491 (1,445)
• Lifting and carrying 10 pounds: 1,410 (1,387)
• Reaching over head: 1,186 (1,149)
• Grasping small objects: 1,128 (1,109

Experts are unclear about the cause of this trend. What's enjoyable to read, however, are the comments posted to the yahoo news page of this report (link no longer available). Some people blame obesity, although the study makes very clear that obesity is not an important cause of the disabilities. Some think it might be processed foods, some exposure to DDT and other chemicals, while others yet to excessive television viewing by boomers.

I love to see people thinking and trying to find a cause, but I have to say none of these guesses make complete sense. Here is my shot at it: Baby boomers are the first generation to really believe they can have it all--career, family, and endless health. They were the generation that pushed themselves physically, if not from day one, then by jumping on the fitness bandwagon when jogging, Tae Bo and Richard Simmons came onto the scene. Many boomers followed the trend rather than taking time to learn the proper form. This leads to injuries.

Boomers also saw the greatest advances in medical technology. Hurt yourself Lambada-ing? No problem--medical science will fix it. Additionally, boomers as a whole tended to trust their medical doctors unquestionably. If Dr. Welby says to take Vioxx, then by golly I'll do it. Um hm.

So my take is that boomers pushed themselves harder physically than any generation before them (graceful agers); to that I applaud. But they relied on medical advice for their musculoskeletal issues, and as I pointed out last post, big mistake. Medical doctors are coming out of school poorly prepared to deal with musculoskeletal problems--this by their own analysis. As such, there have been oodles of surgeries--routine ones, routine ones, that's what we've been told--and here we are witnessing the end result: increased disabilities. Sure one could argue that perhaps medical science saved many a crippling by this daring, if not reckless, generation. But I don't think so. I am certain that you can have excellent function to live the life you love well into old age--I see it in my chiropractic practice every single day.

So take heed Gen Xers and Millennials, take care of your bodies today--exercise, eat well, get regular chiropractic care, rest up, and minimize your intake of toxins. Learn proper form of the exercise or sport you wish to do--and learn to rehabilitate and recuperate yourself from injuries. Your physical body isn't indestructible; it needs to be cared for like a fine-tuned machine--better than a fined-tuned machine. Educate yourself on injury prevention and proper care when you get hurt. And don't take any one practitioner's word as gospel. Get a few opinions and do what feels right. Lastly, don't just choose a risky surgery because it's sold to you as routine, even if seems like an easy way out. Conservative care can restore and preserve proper function for years to come if done right and to completion.

Thank you baby boomers for paving the way through yet another uncharted territory. Younger generations listen up...and learn.

Obesity & Weight Loss: A Multi-Factorial Issue

I recently had the question* posed to me, "If there is an easy answer to weight loss, why is our country filled with so many unhealthy, overweight people?" I think this is a fabulous question since the answer certainly uncovers some of the hidden factors behind obesity.

First, obesity is a consequence of an addiction to food. I'm not talking about merely being overweight, here--I mean obesity and, most certainly, severe obesity. Being overweight can be the result of a number of things: eating the wrong foods (eating many meals out, for instance), neglecting exercise, twelve-pack of beer every weekend, and so forth; bad habits, if you will.

Obesity, however, has an addiction component. Obese people are drawn to food either for sensory pleasures (taste) or emotionally. Emotional eaters eat when they are stressed out, pissed off, hurt, elated, embarrassed, and any other number of emotional stressors that lead one to escape. So food, therefore, is a way for some people to avoid these uncomfortable feelings, whether they are conscious of it or not.

An eating addiction is like any other addiction: a combined enjoyment and escape. Drinkers have it, smokers have it, gamblers have it, and sex addicts have it--it's a momentary checking out, a retreat from unpleasant feelings, whatever they may be. Often, it's a totally unconscious act; the addiction becomes habit.

So, as I said in my New Year's Resolutions article on weight loss, the first step is a true heartfelt desire for change. Some people aren't inspired to lose weight; they attempt it because of societal pressures. Only true inspiration leads to actions that will endure the pain and pleasures of undertaking a weight-loss endeavor. Anything else will fail when it gets too tough. That's one reason some people can't lose weight.

Next, a realistic game plan must be constructed. This is where our topic of The Biggest Loser comes in. A healthy strategy must be implemented and carried out, like any venture, be it business, financial investing, family planning, or weight loss. Without a reasonable or healthy plan, not only is failure likely, but complications can arise.

At the very least, the person losing weight runs the risk of putting it all back on again. This is the part of the strategy that requires lifestyle changes. Without them, the whole endeavor ends up momentary, and it's exactly why Biggest Loser contestants have such a high rate of weight regain (and here).

Finally, and most importantly, the mental component to the addiction must be balanced. Essentially this means finding the pleasures and pains associated with the eating addiction for each individual. There is no cookbook here, if you'll forgive the pun; it's individualized and specific. That takes work. People who lose weight without clearing the mental component that leads them to gravitate toward food in the first place, find themselves back off the wagon when emotional crisis hits. Think Oprah's battles and struggles with weight--she's an admitted emotional eater. Yeah, fail to address the emotional component and long-term weight loss will be unattainable.

To further complicate matters is the necessity of food for energy conversion and nutritional needs. So it's easy to see that obesity is a multi-factorial issue that needs attention to a number of components. I hope that answers the question of, "If losing weight had an easy answer..." I think it's not so much that the answer evades us, it's just that we approach it from such simplicity, AND many people are missing the forest for the trees by looking for very complicate answers (genetics, hormonal disorders, etc.). Let's observe Okham's Razor and see that the simplest solution is probably the most correct. But obesity does have a number of sides that need attention, and that's why so many people are struggling with it.

*Thank you Jeanne M. for the great question.

Biggest Loser's Biggest Problem

I like The Biggest Loser--it's good T.V. And I certainly see some value in the show. Saying that, however, it is not necessarily the best approach to weight loss.

According to some experts, The Biggest Loser is counterproductive and dangerous. The show takes obese contestants through extreme exercise conditions and carefully monitored diets, as they compete against each other for the greatest weight loss. The winner at the end of the show wins $250,000.

Last year's season 8 saw two of the contestants collapse during a one-mile (1.6 km) foot race. And this year's season 9 began with two contestants having complications during a 26.2 mile (42 km) race on stationary bikes. One of the contestants had to be dragged off the bike under her protests due to severe cramps, while a second, who weighed in at a massive 526-pounds, was treated for exhaustion.

Some criticisms of the show include that they take a group of people falling to the extreme side of obesity, or the largest people in society, the severely obese (BMI greater than 40) as contestants. Whereas the majority of obese Americans have a body mass index (BMI) of 30+, people with BMIs above 40 represent only 6% of the population. The show, however, uses mostly severely obese contestants. In fact, 17 of the 22 contestants (~80%) this season have BMIs over 40. The problem, critics say, is that it does not accurately represent the population and is, therefore, removed from real world conditions.

Another criticism is that the program is too strenuous and that weight loss happens too quickly, neither of which is healthy. Not only can this pose a danger to contestants but can also be discouraging for those viewers at home trying to lose weight. When people can't match the numbers posted on the show, some being record weight losses (fastest 100-pound weight loss in seven weeks, and most weight lost in one week--34 pounds), people are bound to get discouraged.

The final criticism is that the rapid weight loss seen on The Biggest Loser is not likely to be maintained. Several former Biggest Loser contestants have regained some or all of the weight they lost while contestants on the show.

Well I've got to say...I couldn't agree more. I do like The Biggest Loser, mostly because it shows that for any person to lose weight, one simple physiological principle must be satisfied: More calories must be burned than taken in. This principle is true whether one has the "obesity" gene, an underactive thyroid, or whether one just likes to eat. To lose weight you've gotta burn more than you bring in, period. I think the show demonstrates this princilple quite nicely.

But as I've said in a recent article, losing more than one pound per week is unhealthy. And if you are trying to lose weight for any other reason than your own inspiration, forget it--it will never happen, not with any permanence, that is.

If you really want to lose weight, you've got to set realistic goals, and do it over the long haul. Making some lifestyle changes will be a necessity, and getting over the mental barriers that attach you to eating will be of the utmost importance.

So as far as The Biggest Loser is concerned, it'll keep on its game plan of getting the fattest people to lose the most extreme amount of weight in the shortest period of time, healthy or not. Even if they lose a couple contestants one year to heart attack or dehydration, they'll keep going for one simple reason: It makes good T.V.

Sitting Duck

Hey you! Yeah...you. Don't be a sitting duck. Get off your a$$ and move around. Sitting for too long can get you killed, literally. Several studies suggest that prolonged sitting can cause obesity, heart disease and even death. And let's not forget hemorrhoids.

According to an editorial published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, physical activity is not enough--sitting too long causes the genes that regulate glucose and fat in the body start to shut down. Whether the sitting is done in a classroom, a car, or in front of the T.V. or computer is inconsequential. What matters is time.

In a Canadian study published last year, 17,000 people were followed for twelve years: Those that sat the most had a higher death risk, independent of whether they exercised or not. Holy hematochezia! That means...aw man, I'm in trouble.

I'm not the only American needing to worry: A 2003-2004 U.S. survey found that Americans spend more than half their time sitting, from working at their desks to sitting in cars. Although preliminary, these studies point out the dangers of taking too much of a load off.

Well, I must say I'm truly listening to this one. Although I am a highly active person, I also sit a lot. And the results of these preliminary studies make sense to me. The human body is made to move--movement is a part of our very survival. Not in just the obvious way as a means of catching food or escaping predators, but as a way to detect changes in the environment. Our moving parts have receptors--sensory devices that sense the world around us. When these are not used (through movement) regularly, the function of the body is disrupted. Chiropractors know this; we do are part to keep these moving parts moving through adjusting subluxations (stuck joints). But actual movement also need to be carried out. Sitting on your rump is not movement.

So if you want to win the lottery, you've gotta buy a ticket. And if you want to get the most out of your movable body, well you figure it out. But may I suggest you not be a sitting duck?

Bout Time

Finally, a useful suggestion for health reform--tax sodas! Well, by golly...I think they've got something there: Tax the nutritionally inert liquid sugar that Americans are severely addicted to, and yes, a solution. One solution. Small solution. But a great start.

Here are the facts. Sodas are the number one consumed beverage in the United States. They contain about 100 calories and ten teaspoons of sugar. Diet sodas add their own twist. While having zero calories, a large study conducted at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio showed that people who drink diet soda regularly are 41% more likely than regular soda drinkers to become obese. What??? You heard right, the zero calorie drink actually makes people more susceptible to obesity; and it's because of aspartame, the artificial sweetener, that people pack on the pounds.

According to researchers, aspartame fools the body into thinking it will be receiving sugar--an energy source--but that sugar never comes; so the body is left wanting. What happens next is that our diet soda drinkers reach for something to satisfy that sugar urge, and they overindulge. Not convinced? Then ask yourself why the discrepancy in physicality. Why are diet soda drinkers anything but emaciated? Hmmmmm....

Since soda--diet or regular--is garbage, and it's contributing enormously to the obesity problem (and consequently, outrageous health care costs), then why not tax it? We tax tobacco, alcohol, and mary jane (oh yeah, not yet), why not the simple syrup? Americans drink enough soda that a tax would generate an estimated "100 to 200 billion dollars over a 10-year time frame." Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Listen, health care cost are significantly related to lifestyle behaviors. If you want to socialize health care, then don't just punish everybody across the board; tax those most negligent. Tax the smokers (I'll pay my share), the boozers, and the junk food junkies. My position has always been, "Don't just single out the fast food restaurants; nail the soda manufacturers too." That's fair--and accurate. Bingo.

And I'll be pleasantly surprised if they ever get how much the chronic pharmaceutical drug users cost us--you know, people who prophylactically or habitually take statins, antidepressants, or any other drug that doctors are pushing on the public like the sky's the limit. Yeah, tax all those negligent people involved in making our system "broken".