Eating for the 'wrong' reasons and important links

Even though I don’t have time to maintain my blog, I am reluctant to shut it down. So today I am writing for two reasons. The first is to remind readers about the danger of eating when you aren’t hungry and the second is to share a couple of health news sources. These news sources will be of particular interest to those who have enjoyed my blog topics, and I will share the links at the end. The sources have free email subscriptions and I believe they are two of the best (i.e., credible, relevant, current) out there.

As I thought about writing (my posts often percolate in my head a few days), I remembered that I started my blog as a newsletter back in 2004 (approximately) when I was working at a hospital and taking classes to earn my Master’s in Public Health. Many readers followed my journey from that point (i.e., to Florida as a Tobacco Treatment Specialist, to UNCG for more graduate studies in Public Health, to Beasley School of Law to complete a post doc in Public Health Law Research) to now – 13 years later.

Today, I am an Assistant Professor at Temple University in the Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences. My teaching responsibilities include a course about substance use disorders and addiction (that should make sense if you’ve read the blog over the years) and a course on nutrition as it relates to the health of populations (i.e., I am still not a registered dietician and do not give individual diet advice). I teach additional courses and conduct research/program evaluations, but this blog has foremost been about behaviors that impact our health and the laws that make those behaviors harder or easier to accomplish (e.g., that darn national menu labeling law that can’t seem to be implemented, soda taxes, new food labels). 

Dietary intake and health status (including obesity) has probably been of most interest to my readers, and to me. So, I want to talk about a specific area of risk regarding dietary intake. Eating for non-hunger reasons. It is often when we eat for the ‘wrong’ reasons that we gain weight. I think what sets me apart from a lot of people is that I don’t do that. I primarily eat to fuel my body when I am hungry. Or better put: I do not eat to socialize. I do not eat because I am bored. I do not eat because I am sad. I do not eat because I am high (haha, just kidding – bc I don’t get high). I do not eat just because everybody else is eating or to be polite. To be clear, I LIKE food, and enjoy meals and snacks and alcoholic beverages, but I don’t respond to social (including work meetings) or familial pressure to eat for the sake of fitting in.

Now that I think about it, I did blog about this many years ago – about how to eat in a social context without gaining weight. I suggested that when you are going to an event (family traditions included) where it is expected that you ‘eat to be social,’ or you know your favorite foods will be available, you plan it so that the food you eat at the event is part of your daily intake (and if its occasional, maybe it’s a little more than your daily intake). But eating when you are sad, bored, or unexpectedly confronted with someone’s ‘oh I had to get these out of my house, please have some’ cookies is a sure path to over consumption/excess calories. This over consumption is especially likely because the food associated with those ‘eating but not for hunger’ reasons are usually high in sugar, saturated fat, salt and calories. So, just think about that – and decide how you want to handle it.

That’s all I have for you on diet and health today. Most importantly are the links I promised you at the start of this post. Here they are:

STAT News Morning Rounds

ConscienHealth blog   (the subscribe option is on the top right of the page)

Nutrition Labels: Calories and Sugar

I am a little disappointed in the scientific rigor of the two studies I mention below, especially because they address two issues of importance to me - and you; restaurant menu and food package labeling. The study designs/methods make it hard, no impossible, to make causal inferences.  We can't say x caused y, in either study - but to be fair, the second study was only meant to describe peoples perceptions.  Unfortunately, the people surveyed are not representative of the larger US population.

The first study (from the University of Glasgow in Scotland) compared the average weight gain of two different groups of college students - during two different years.  The first group may or may not have eaten at the cafeteria when no calorie labels were present and the second group may or may not have eaten at the cafeteria when calorie labels were present.  The first group gained 8 pounds during 36 weeks (perhaps a semester) and the second group gained 4 pounds during the 36 weeks they were assessed.  There is absolutely no way to say that the calorie labels were responsible for the weight gain differences - none.  And I am 100% pro labeling. However, during the second year when calorie labels were on the menus, the customers did purchase less calories than when the labels were not on the menus - during this one time period.  That is important.

The second study - a very small, internet survey- strove to answer the question of whether or not Americans would be confused by the addition of an added sugar declaration on the Nutrition Facts Panel (the panel on the back of packaged foods).  The rationale for this study was the assertion by anti- added sugar labeling folks that consumers would not find the additional nutrition information helpful - on the contrary, naysayers say - added sugar information will confuse the public.

The assertion that more information is bad really gets under my skin, because again, I am pro labeling.  However, there is evidence from studies on nutrition information that suggests we cannot apply available nutrition information in the context of our personal, daily needs.  That is why the IOM and others have recommended more intuitive labels, ones that highlight a few nutrients of concern, like salt, sugar and overall calories- in color coded front of the package schemas.

But the FDA is considering changes to the Nutrition Facts Panel(NFP) on the back, including an added sugar declaration - read more here.  Ted Kyle and his colleague surveyed a small group of internet users, a couple hundred, and asked them if the added sugar section of the NFP was helpful or confusing.  The survey respondents looked at a make believe label before answering the question.  Most of the people who participated said that the additional information was helpful.  I think this is probably right, however, the survey doesn't really tell us anything about what people will do when the labels actually contain this information, we need a different kind of study for that.

You can read a popular press write up about the Glasgow study here, and an over view of the added sugar survey results can be found here.  The ConscienHealth blog written/maintained by Ted Kyle focuses on more rigorous studies than the added sugar survey  and is one of my favorites.

Will the Supreme Court Do What the FDA Won't? Legitimize Food Labels.

POM Wonderful, LLC the maker of POM pomegranate juice has been trying to sue Coca Cola for false advertising because its Minute Maid drink called Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of 5 juices (really that is the name) only contains a trace amount of pomegranate and blueberry juice, in fact less than 1%.   POM Wonderful sells juice blends and 100% juices; it sells 100% blueberry POM and 100% pomegranate POM, and a pomegranate blueberry blend.  The label for the blend clearly notes that it is 85% pomegranate and 15% blueberry.  Thus, the company wants to sue because they believe that Coca Cola is -by way of their label - drawing customers away from the POM blend. There is nothing on the Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of 5 juices label that indicates how much of the blend is pomegranate and how much is blueberry, but clearly most of it is something else.  I think POM has a fair point.

You can see the court brief here.  The concern about the law suit is whether its the FDA that is supposed to do something - is Coca Cola breaking any label laws under their jurisdiction (no) - because if so, then the private company cannot, or if it isn't the FDA's responsibility then can a private company sue another under the Lanham Act even if this seems like an FDA related labeling issue.  The decision by the US Supreme Court, which is being talked about a lot today, was that POM Wonderful can go ahead and sue Coca Cola.  

I think that is good.

I understand also that POM has an FTC labeling issue to contend with - a 'false' health claim - and that same issue is likely to hit Coca Cola whose juice drink label purports "brain nourishment".

Some public health advocates, consumer activists and business attorneys consider the courts decision to be a potential game changer.  Me, too.  I have bemoaned the, capricious at best, actions of the FDA on food labeling for years.  Two examples are 1) The FDA is not moving forward with restaurant menu labeling which was passed 4 years ago and 2) they are not putting any teeth into definitions for food labels, such as All Natural.  That is why I see this as a game changer.  If companies or activist organizations like CSPI can sue over label issues - false, misleading, opaque - then companies in their cross hairs will CHANGE.  I imagine that big businesses have the resources and motivations necessary to go after their competitors, and I expect that consumers want to be told the truth.  There is a huge difference between 85% pomegranate juice and 0.3% pomegranate juice.

Now, lest you think I have had a change of heart about juice, I assure you I have not.  Many of the juices sold by Coca Cola/Minute Maid are only 25% juice and contain calorically dense high fructose corn syrup; but even 100% juice is high in calories and light on fiber/substance.  Though I am 100% in favor of FRUIT and 0% in favor of fruit juices, I am 110% in favor of truth in labeling.

What keeps us healthy doesn't involve self loathing.

There are several diseases and poor health outcomes that may be related to weight gain and having excess adipose tissue (fat).  Research suggests an association among weight gain, diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers (see e.g., The Surgeon General's Call To Action To Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity.)  There is reason to believe that the increase risk in heart disease is related to inflammation caused by fat tissue (Berg & Scherer, 2005) and that belly fat specifically, increases the risk for diabetes (Chan, Rimm, Colditz, Stampfer, & Willett, 1994).  Being overweight is also associated with joint problems (Anderson & Felson, 1988) .  The studies that I have referenced here do not show cause and effect, but many scientists, myself included, agree that excess body fat is detrimental to health.

Disease and poor health may also be the result of sitting around too much, of being still. Researchers have found that people who spend continuous hours of time doing sedentary activities, like sitting at one’s desk, sitting and playing cards, sitting and watching TV, sitting and reading, etc, regardless of how physically active they are at other times, are at risk of premature death from any cause (Katzmarzyk, Church, Craig, & Bouchard, 2009).  Sedentary activity also increases the risk of metabolic syndrome (Bankoski et al., 2011), which is often seen as a precursor to diabetes or heart disease.

A lack of regular, consistent physical activity (exercise) is another risk factor for disease and early death. The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans and several independent research studies have shown numerous health benefits of daily exercise.  For example, men and women who spend more time engaging in leisure time physical activity have less heart attacks and less heart attack deaths than men and women who engage in little or no leisure time physical activity, i.e., exercise (Leon, Connett, Jacobs, & Rauramaa, 1987; Oguma & Shinoda-Tagawa, 2004).   Lack of exercise is also related to incidence of diabetes, cancer, hypertension, obesity, depression and osteoporosis (Warburton, Nicol, & Bredin, 2006).

So, these things are clear to me and maybe to you as well:
· achieving and maintaining a weight that is considered low risk by waist to hip ratio, waist circumference and/or BMI -indicating normal levels of fat tissue, especially in the abdomen- is smart (i.e., it promotes health and reduces risk of disease and early death);
· limiting the amount of time spent in activities that require you to be still is also smart; and,
· engaging in physical activity for prolonged bouts - 20 to 60 minutes at a time, at least once a day is again, smart.

All of these lifestyle behaviors, which we have some or total control over, are good for us.  We are wise to be mindful of our dietary intake (what and how much), wise to sit for only short periods of time (< 1 hour), and wise to exercise every day.  We should do what we have the power to do to keep our bodies from becoming overfat and deconditioned.  I believe this and I promote it, but I believe something else just as vehemently.

I believe we have weight stigma in the USA and this stigma may be responsible for adverse health outcomes (Puhl & Heuer, 2010).  I find that the worst part of the stigma and the discrimination it promotes is its internalization: people turn the stigma onto themselves and become self-loathing. 

Please click on this link to read a story and watch a video about the hatred many women feel about their own bodies.  Being overfat is bad for health.  I will continue to say it, and continue to push back against body acceptance when body acceptance is a justification for poor dietary habits and a lack of exercise.  But let me be clear, hating oneself is more than bad for health; it is bad for the soul. Obesity researchers, myself included, must be ever mindful of the very difficult and complex process of weight loss and not let our work imply that obesity is a chosen disease, it is not. Weight loss is not easy, if it were easy, two out of three US adults wouldn't be overweight.  Please watch that video.

Anderson, J. J., & Felson, D. T. (1988). Factors associated with osteoarthritis of the knee in the first national Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HANES I) evidence for an association with overweight, race, and physical demands of work. American journal of epidemiology, 128(1), 179-189.

Bankoski, A., Harris, T. B., McClain, J. J., Brychta, R. J., Caserotti, P., Chen, K. Y., . . . Koster, A. (2011). Sedentary activity associated with metabolic syndrome independent of physical activity. Diabetes care, 34(2), 497-503.

Berg, A. H., & Scherer, P. E. (2005). Adipose tissue, inflammation, and cardiovascular disease. Circulation research, 96(9), 939-949.

Chan, J. M., Rimm, E. B., Colditz, G. A., Stampfer, M. J., & Willett, W. C. (1994). Obesity, fat distribution, and weight gain as risk factors for clinical diabetes in men. Diabetes care, 17(9), 961-969.

Katzmarzyk, P. T., Church, T. S., Craig, C. L., & Bouchard, C. (2009). Sitting time and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 41(5), 998-1005. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181930355

Leon, A. S., Connett, J., Jacobs, D. R., &; Rauramaa, R. (1987). Leisure-time physical activity levels and risk of coronary heart disease and death: the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Jama, 258(17), 2388-2395.

Oguma, Y., & Shinoda-Tagawa, T. (2004). Physical activity decreases cardiovascular disease risk in women: review and meta-analysis. American journal of preventive medicine, 26(5), 407-418.

Puhl, R. M., & Heuer, C. A. (2010). Obesity stigma: important considerations for public health. American journal of public health, 100(6).

Warburton, D. E., Nicol, C. W., & Bredin, S. S. (2006). Health benefits of physical activity: the evidence. Canadian medical association journal, 174(6), 801-809.

Using Advertising to Improve Diet

The post for today was written, by me, as an exercise for a class I am taking to improve my writing.  I chose the study for blog relevance and personal interest, but it may seem more formal than my usual, opinion- infused posts.  Now you know why :)

 In the United States, obesity rates have risen over the past 40 years (Ogden & Carroll, 2010), and many health professionals consider the disease to be epidemic.  The suggested causes of obesity are numerous, interconnected and multi-level.  Because individual level prevention programs are expensive and generally ineffective, researchers have begun testing environmental or societal level strategies that can affect whole populations (Swinburn, Egger, & Raza, 1999).  For example, Rusmevichientong, Streletskaya, Amatyakul and Kaiser (2014) recently conducted a laboratory experiment to compare the effect of 4 types of food advertising on lunch purchases.  The researchers expected that limiting unhealthy food advertising, increasing healthy food advertising and airing anti-obesity messages would each lead to the purchase of items with less calories, fat, sugar and sodium.

If advertisement manipulation is effective in reducing over consumption in the short term, public health advocates will have evidence to promote advertising interventions or policies, which may lead to a reduction in obesity rates over the long term.  Rusmevichientong and colleagues offer some evidence in this regard.

 Rusmevichientong and colleagues randomly assigned 182 adult college students into one of 4 treatment conditions.  All participants watched TV for about 16 minutes. In all but one group (the control), the participants viewed four, five or six, 30 to 60 second advertisements in one of the following categories: unhealthy food advertisements (unhealthy foods were defined as items high in sugar, fat and sodium), healthy food advertisements (ones promoting the consumption of fruits and vegetables), anti-obesity messages, and a mixture of all three types. Before and after the TV viewing, each participant chose a lunch meal from a computerized menu.  The researchers provided $10 meal vouchers, but participants had to pay the difference if their order was more than $10.  The researchers compared the food orders before and after the TV viewing (within participants) and the changes between the groups, including the control. The research design (different in difference) allowed the researchers to compare the magnitude of difference between ad types.

In this laboratory experiment; exposure to the healthy food messages, anti-obesity messages and a mixture of unhealthy, healthy, and anti-obesity messages, led to an increase in healthy food purchases and a decrease in number of calories purchased. The healthy food messages produced the greatest decrease in calories purchased (134) compared to anti-obesity messages (93) or mixed messages (90). There was also some reduction in the fat and sodium content in the meals purchased.  In addition, Rusmevichientong and colleagues found a positive association between these 3 advertisement conditions and ‘becoming healthier,’ which they defined as purchasing a greater number of healthy foods at time 2.  The researchers suggest using anti-obesity ads judiciously and thoughtfully (i.e., ones that are not stigmatizing or fear producing) and healthy food advertising to reduce the over consumption of calories in the US adult population.

Rusmevichientong and colleagues results are important because most research suggesting a relationship between both anti-obesity messages and reduced caloric consumption, and healthy food ads and reduced caloric consumption is based on cross sectional surveys.  Experimental studies allow researchers to claim causal inference, e.g., healthy food ads change behavior. However, this particular study was small, took place outside of a natural setting and used a homogenous set of participants.  Policy advocates may present this evidence along with evidence produced from representative, field based, cross-sectional or longitudinal studies to make a case for new advertising polices.

Citations

Ogden, C. L., & Carroll, M. D. (2010). Prevalence of overweight, obesity, and extreme obesity among adults: United States, trends 1960–1962 through 2007–2008. NCHS Health and Stats.

Rusmevichientong, P., Streletskaya, N. A., Amatyakul, W., & Kaiser, H. M. (2014). The impact of food advertisements on changing eating behaviors: An experimental study. Food Policy, 44(0), 59-67. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.10.011

Swinburn, B., Egger, G., & Raza, F. (1999). Dissecting obesogenic environments: The development and application of a framework for identifying and prioritizing environmental interventions for obesity. Preventive Medicine, 29(6), 563 - 570. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1999.0585

 

The new trans fat? Acrylamide 11 Years Later.

My blog site search engine is currently broken.  This is unfortunate because several years ago,  I wrote a post about a chemical found in french fries that was linked to cancer or which actually caused cancer in experimental studies involving mice.  Of course the mice were fed foods with much more of the chemical than most of us would be exposed to, but anytime a substance is considered a carcinogen or in the case of acrylamide a "probable cancer causing substance," I tend to steer as clear of it as possible. 
When I wrote about acrylamide years ago, it did not pose much of a threat to me as I don't eat french fries, chips or any white potato foods.  But the latest report regarding acrylamide includes cereal based foods (which includes cookies, crackers, whole grains and cold cereal) and COFFEE!   This is a sad day.  (To be fair, the first report may have said the same thing and I glossed over it).
Acrylamide is not a naturally occurring substance, but one that is created during some cooking processes.  For example, using really high heats in frying, baking and roasting (coffee beans are roasted and that is how coffee becomes tainted with acrylamide).  In this way, acrylamide reminds me of the harmful chemicals that are created when red meat is grilled and for that matter, the cancer causing chemicals in cigarette smoke (which among other things, also has acrylamide) - the chemicals aren't there until you or someone else does something to the product. 
The FDA has issued some guidance to food manufacturers and growers to help them reduce the amount of the chemical that is 'created' when the foods are processed.  With regard to chips and fries, the sugar in the potato seems to interact with the heat causes acrylamide to develop, so farmers are encouraged to grow low sugar potatoes. For coffee lovers, it is good to know that some types of coffee bean have less acrylamide after roasting than others - the FDA report notes that one lower acrylamide coffee bean is the arabica type (my sister had long ago convinced me it was the better tasting roast and I agree).  
The cereal foods category has me a little perplexed and concerned both personally and professionally. Acrylamide is created from an amino acid in the grains, called asparagine.  When the grains are heated at high temperatures, this amino acid is effected. According to a report I read and link below, the major culprit is whole grain, yes ~ the kind we are supposed to eat more often. I wonder if this means my cereal bars, made from All Bran, oat bran and Kashi Go Lean, or my mini cakes, made from whole wheat and soy flour are sources of acrylamide in my diet. Not cool. This will be a challenge for the FDA because they encourage us to follow the dietary recommendations from the USDA/DHHS  which focus on a plant based diet high in whole grains and fiber.  
The FDA is currently studying the impact of acrylamide in levels Americans are likely to consume (i.e., less than the mice did) in order to determine if more serious measures need to be taken.
For now they recommended avoiding french fries and chips and dark or burnt toast. 
Here are some FDA links that offer more information. 
FDA Q and A 
Food sources and cooking 
This next link is the report to industry and it is very telling, e.g., it discusses growing, transporting, storing and prepping potatoes in a way to reduce the amount of acrylamide that will be produced when those specific potatoes are fried.   The report has a section on cereals and coffee as well. When I was reading this I began to feel the general public's frustration with nutrition science and guidance.  
Lastly, a public health statement from the CDCs Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry from 2012.

Will the new trans fat law start a Peanut Butter war?

   I sure hope so! It is no secret - I am a fan of 'truly' all natural peanut butter.  When I say truly, I mean that the ingredients written on the label, if you didn't churn it yourself at a whole foods store, are simply: peanuts, and sometimes salt.  It is also no secret that Smuckers All Natural peanut butter is my favorite.  I have blogged about it numerous times and even made a You Tube video showing the world how to stir it.
    The reason a truly natural peanut butter needs to be stirred is that at room temperature, the oil will separate.  Peanut oil is NOT a solid fat.  In order to make it solid, it has to be hydrogenated, or in some cases, a solid fat is added to the peanut butter  - like palm or coconut oil (called oil only because they are plant based).  Palm, coconut and palm kernel oil is the same type of fat as beef or butter fat - it is almost 100% solid (saturated) fat.
   Trans fats are bad fats - not in excess, but period - in any amount (according to research reviewed by the FDA).  A trace amount of trans fat occurs naturally, but most trans fats are created in the process used to make unsaturated fats stay solid at room temperature and to make them last longer. [an example of when this process has been applied is when peanut butter is on a store shelf and the peanut oil has not separated - it isn't floating on the top.]
   The FDA is now banning all trans fats because they have been found to lower good cholesterol (HDL), raise bad cholesterol(LDL) - both of which are linked to heart disease, and to independently (whether you have high LDL cholesterol, low HDL cholesterol or normal cholesterol) increase the risk of heart disease.
   So begins the peanut butter war - I predict.  Currently, trans fats are allowed in products, except that nice ban in NYC restaurant foods.  And under current law, if a product contains less than .5 grams of trans fat, the label can say 0 trans fat per serving.  WELL.  The FDA says no amount of trans fat is considered safe.  There is no safe dose.  Just like there is no safe dose of lead. (Besides that - those little .4 grams of trans fat we consume unknowingly from multiple products can add up in a day!)  
   Therefore, when the law takes effect (and no I am not holding my breath), food companies will not be able to claim zero trans fat when they are providing nearly half a gram because they can't sell a product that contains ANY synthetic trans fats.  Hence, I bet those "all natural" but surprising solid at room temperature "no need to stir!" brands of peanut butter, are going to disappear.  I say, 'good riddance.'
    And in the meantime, keep reading those ingredients labels.  Your peanut butter does not need added oils, peanuts have their OWN oil and that is what makes all natural peanut butter natural - the peanuts - and just the peanuts.

If you missed those past posts on the different brands of peanut butter and how the labels can be misleading, click here. If you only have time for one of those posts, I recommend this one, which explains why you have to stir the peanut butter and why that is a good thing.
I am not going to share the You Tube link, though you can find it easily enough.  Some people got into a comments free- for- all about my stirring the peanut butter and said some things I wouldn't want my mother to see!  Still, people should be able to say what they feel (even smart asses) - so I left the posts up.

Future Self-Control

    I am 100% in favor of mandatory nutrition information at the point of purchase for ready to eat foods at all places where they can be purchased (e.g., restaurant, vending machine, movie theater, bowling alley).  I believe that an interpretive system, like the multiple traffic light (red for high in a nutrient, amber for moderate and green for low), is crucial, but I understand that nutrition labeling as a means to change behavior will always be less effective than other strategies, like zoning laws and taxes.
    The provision of nutrition information, even with a color code or star rating system, leaves individuals free to make an informed choice.  Unfortunately, choosing food isn't the same as choosing a dishwasher (which also comes with content info and a rating system).  
   There are many things that influence a food choice.  One of my favorite theories or frames which addresses these nuances is behavioral economics.  
READ THIS GREAT ARTICLE, by Liu, Wisdom, Roberto, and Liu (2013).  
  The reason I think the traffic light labels are crucial is two fold.  First, most people do not have awareness of dietary guidelines or the nutrition knowledge that allows them to determine if a food is high or low in items that are best limited (e.g., saturated fat, sugar, salt, calories).  Second, many people are present biased in their (food) decision making. In other words, the desire for the taste or the happy memory associated with a certain food, is first and foremost in a present biased persons mind.  The needs of  'here and now' trump any consequences (weight gain, ill health) that might occur sometime in the future.
   There is another factor (noted in the article I linked earlier) that I wanted to share.  I think you will go "oh my gosh, that is so true!" just like I did.  This is the belief or confidence we have in the self-control of our future selves.  For example, on a certain day of the week, you know that you should skip dessert.  You are full and can't afford the extra calories.  But it is someone's birthday so you just have to have some, and you'll do better next time or the next day.  Then someone brings cookies to the office and you really shouldn't have any, but everyone else is having them, and they really taste good, so you eat the cookies and promise yourself that tomorrow you will have dinner with out bread.  Oh, but tomorrow comes and the waitress served bread so you have to eat it, right? etc.....

What's Good for the Goose

Okay, not the goose, but the dog or cat.
    I recently heard a pet food commercial, which inspired this blog post.  I did not catch the product name and wasn't able to find it by searching keywords on the Internet, but that matters less.
    The gist of the advertisement is that many of the foods we give to our pets provide nutrients in the wrong proportions.  Specifically, I recall the spokesperson talking about protein and salt.  She suggests that pets need to have a balanced diet with the right proportions of nutrients.  This will ensure their health.
    I am pretty certain that the majority of pet owners, certainly those that consider themselves pet lovers, will at the very least, check the labels of the product they currently buy - and most likely, they will consider switching brands.  They will do this for their pets.  Their pets will have no choice but to eat the 'healthier' food.  The pets will feel loved.  :)

   The great irony is that the majority of pet owners are themselves consuming too much protein and salt - as well as calories, sugar and probably fat.  This out of proportion consumption steadily rose over the past 30 years and has contributed to the substantial number of Americans (~70%) who are over weight.
    We know that we are consuming too many calories, sugar, fat and too much salt - but it will take legislation - LAWS - to make us stop.  Isn't there some great irony in that?  Perhaps instead of fighting it, we should consider ourselves pets who need someone to feed us - for our own good, of course.  

Must READ - Weight Watchers vs Volumetrics

    After a few words, I will attach a link to an article I just read.  It is an announcement related to a US News and World Report evaluation of popular meal patterns.  Researchers and nutrition experts evaluated the quality of  several meal patterns or diets in regards to their overall nutrition value, their use in weight control or loss, their impact on health and how easy it is to adopt the particular style of eating/cooking in the short and long terms. 
   I am partial to the Mediterranean pattern which is plant/fish and healthy oil based.  It scored well in regards to improving ones health.  I am also a constant promoter of Volumetrics which was only noted for weight loss, which is not why I endorse it.  I do so because it focuses on low energy density which is a recommendation of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.  You will see below that Volumterics is dinged for requiring extra preparation time.  I remind you that I dedicate a You Tube channel to debunking that myth!  The reporter should have interviewed me.  
   Lastly, I have consistently stated that the tenets of Weight Watchers and the results of the program participants are to be lauded.  And today it sits on the top of the list of best diets!

Weight Watchers (3.8 stars) -- The diet plan uses a points system to help people lose weight and keep it off. Weight Watchers beat other diet plans for both short-term and long-term weight loss in experts’ ratings.

 Volumetrics (3.4 stars) -- The diet is based on eating foods that are low in calories and high in volume to help people feel full while losing weight. It got high marks for nutrition, but the diet requires lengthy meal preparation.   

 The above is quoted directly from this article - READ MORE

A Billion Dollar Disease

   A couple of weeks ago, I read a post by Cris Frangold.  Cris pronounces a love for investing and writing about it.  I would consider him or her a financial blogger, with a  focus on medical services and the health sector.
   The piece that I read in Seeking Alpha regarded the value of Merck and purchasing its stock.  One reason offered to invest in the company was its drug Januvia.  Januvia is meant to treat the symptoms of type 2 diabetes.  Cris noted that 2012 Q2 sales of the drug were over 1billion dollars. Then he or she said:

Januvia has a potential to be a real moneymaker because the American Diabetes Association estimates that 25.8 Americans, or 8.3% of the population have Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes - the majority are Type 2.

   Type 2 diabetes in adults and children is related to diet - diet as it produces obesity.  It appears that excess body fat leads to metabolic dysfunction or disregulation so that blood sugar, blood pressure, and cholesterol irregularities follow.   Our diabetes rates have doubled in the past 30 years in tandem with our increase in obesity.  The 30 year trend of rising weights has been attributed to an increase in availability and consumption of high calorie, nutrient poor foods and beverages.
   Sure we can make billions on treatment and millions investing in those treatment options, but isn't there a better response?  I suggest that there is.  Investing in a diabetes drug means counting on a disease to continue, needing it to continue in order to enhance a portfolio or fund a retirement account.  That seems to be a good example of maleficence.    
   What of the better good?  I say the noble thing to do is invest in the food environment so that meals and drinks contain reasonable amounts of sat fat, sugar and calories.  And yes - sometimes that takes a mandate.

 American Diabetic Association
National Diabetes Information Clearinghouse.  Program of the National Institutes of Health

Odds and Ends

   I think the Odds and Ends post may be retiring. This pains me because at least two of my dearest friends seem to like them most of all.  I am contemplating this change because I have been reviewing the analytics - who reads which blog posts - and not many people who don't know me are reading the odds and ends.  I think that  main theme posts are more popular.  Also, my school work and Mon/Tues class prep are demanding a bit more of my time (of course this should be so - it is a doctorate program after all!).
      I do a few tidbits for today
Shirataki Shout Out  In the current nutrition action newsletter from CSPI, my favorite non flour noodles are highlighted.  Shirataki noodles are made from tofu and are calorically dilute.  They meet the definition for a very low calorie food.  You can use them in stir fry meals - hot or cold - and make them into Italian dishes.  You can search for shirataki recipes on my You Tube channel.   I did spell it wrong on the channel so click here to find the recipes.
Bojangles on Campus - The students at my University say that there should not be a fast food restaurant on the first floor of one of the residence dorms.  Still - the restaurant does occupy such a space and as I cycled by today at around 1 pm, I noticed a crowd of people waiting to be served. Money Talks!  That restaurant isn't going anywhere.
Tree Tents and Global Warming What an interesting research project.  Trees that would be subject to the effects of global warming are being exposed to those conditions by scientists.  I heard about this on an NPR show this morning.  I learned that when trees such as these die, they release carbon into the atmosphere.  Carbon emissions are one of the factors implicated in global warming.  Thus as the trees (in groves) die, the very thing that caused their death is perpetuated and strengthened. The story refers to the tents as a torture lab.  I hope that you care enough about the planet to want to hear the story and am including the link here.
Diet Quality and Meals Away from Home My research interests include the impact that meals away from home have on the diet quality of Americans.  I will talk more about this in another post.
Cycling Injuries - As a runner who has been cycling more because of a running injury - and not my first or last, I had a thought.  "Do cyclists ever have over use injuries?" It seems like cyclists don't have to stop cycling to heal from an injury like runners often do. So I did a little, informal research.  I was surprised to find that the most common and frequent problem from cycling is knee related.  KNEE - the joint that people always (incorrectly) assume is damaged by running.  The other issue with cycling is related to pressure and lack of blood flow to the perineum and genitalia.  Both of these issues can be corrected or prevented with proper bike adjustment, seat alignment and seat construction. I read an article that suggested that to prevent overuse injuries in cycling a person should start slowly - and slowly was defined as one or two hours a day.  Are you kidding me?  BTW - I have ridden three times this week - all over 2 hours.  I am training for an event, I guess.  But I will be glad to get back to the old me.  Cycling involves too much sitting.  (NOTE:  Runners and Cyclists have falls - but the most serious injuries from falls/crashes are amongst cyclists - and indeed those types of injuries require significant recuperation times)
One for Tobacco - Sadly, a federal appeals court in the US struck down the graphic warning label requirement of the FSPTCA of 2008.  I am quite disappointed.  Last week Australia won a round and this week the Tobacco Industry won one.  Personally, I think the entire world should be a smoke free zone (but tobacco itself - unlit or unheated (without fumes) - is ok with me).

Odds and Ends

I certainly do not have 3 days worth of O&E this week - just 4 blurbs (finals are approaching and I have been writing papers for days).

Cashing in on Diabetes - I read an article in which a stock analyst recommended that people consider investing in companies that will be treating diabetes.  In the article, it was noted that countries outside of the USA may not be in as much health care debt and will be spending money to treat this epidemic rise of diabetes (related to obesity) in their populations.  In other words, the rates of diabetes are going up everywhere, and in emerging markets the governments haven't had to try and get a grip on spending, so there is a profit to be made.  Scandalous.

Swinburn Speaks - I always listen.  He is my hero. He gave his thoughts in regards to the goal of dietary interventions, programs and policies. Dr. Swinburn said that a change in behavior, not a change in weight, should be the focus.  Especially, he said, in regards to youth.   I strongly agree.  The behavior change I would like to encourage is choosing foods that are lower in calories and higher in nutrients.  If a person fills their plate with items that are low in energy density, a healthy weight should follow.

Robots for Our Own Good - Ford Motor Co is using robots in its plants to do things that human cannot do well, cannot do safely, or cannot do efficiently.  The use of robots will also reduce environmental pollution.  This is a plus side of automation.  I understand there is a downside.

Calorie Burn & Intensity - I just realized that I had a bit of data that could be used for an example - a teaching moment if you will.  It regards the intensity and duration of exercise within the same subject and the caloric expenditure difference between levels.  I.e. this controls for height and  weight because it is the same person - me.  
'We' know that running burns more calories than walking because it is of higher intensity, higher METs.  We think that if we walk twice as long as we run, the caloric expenditure will be the same (or close).  My little experiment is that I ran three miles and then I walked three miles - same route, day, and body!  (I went to meet my Saturday walking buddy, but I got there early and did this short run first. I kept my Garmin device on for both).  
Calorie monitoring devices are prone to inaccuracies so the amount that it says I burned for each activity is a broad estimate. The difference between the two amounts is the point of this post.  So the 30 minute 3+ mile run burned 238 calories and the 1 hour 3- mile walk burned 159 calories.  Not the same no matter how you look at it and I walked twice as long as I ran.