Most people have heard the term food desert. A food desert is a place where people live and do not have reasonable access to whole foods, or fresh produce. Often this is measured by some distance to a grocery store. For example, in some places people live close to convenience stores and fast food restaurants, but would have to travel several miles, sometimes 10 or 20, to get to a grocery store. In these same areas, there may be high rates of obesity - however, there are high rates of overweight and obesity across the USA. Some speculate that not living close to a grocery store where one can access produce is a 'cause' of obesity (i.e., they associate food deserts with obesity). And it is not just availability, it's affordability, too. If the fresh produce costs more than processed foods, they are less accessible. If children have to try foods several times to like them, and a parent is on budget, it makes it hard to buy more expensive items that might not be eaten.
Access and affordability are things that public health advocates work to change AND that the electorate/society supports. Right? Of course we should make sure everyone has access to nutritious foods that are often low in calories. YAY! Let's do it.
Research has not always supported the intuitive, however, and sometimes people who have access to fruits and vegetables still don't purchase or consume them. Why not? Well, my educated/informed opinion is because a good many people live in food swamps. I am not sure where I first heard or read the phrase, but I describe a food swamp as an area where high calorie foods - often low in nutrients - are in abundance, are cheap, easy to locate, highly advertised, branded (e.g., KFC, Doritos, Pepsi) and popular among children, adolescents and adults. Actually, these foods and their promotions (e.g., all you can eat buffets, $1 hamburgers, 3 for 1 honeybuns, 32 ounce sodas) are hard to avoid.
As noted above, the popular strategy for dealing with a food desert is to bring more fresh foods in - build a grocery store or a farmers market, add produce to the convenience store checkout, send in a mobile produce truck - and hope people will purchase, prepare wisely and eat more nutritious foods. Oh and here is the most important part... eat them instead of the high calorie non-nutritious foods they have been eating. Every one agrees, yes - those are all good strategies... yay, lets fund them! [They don't work so well, but they seem smart and non-paternalistic, therefore, it must be right.]
The strategy for food swamps (which is as unpopular as the food desert strategy is popular) is policy and regulation. I believe that food swamps are the bigger problem and that regulation and policy are our best bet at trying to reduce over consumption of calories (often occurring passively, i.e., not intentionally eating extra calories). Examples include, limiting the number of fast food/quick casual restaurants that can surround neighborhoods, schools, and worksites (zoning laws), putting a sales tax on high calorie, low nutrient items, like sugar sweetened beverages (specifically I say a sales tax because consumers are more likely to notice a sales tax than an excise tax and sales taxes cannot be 'eaten' by the manufacturer unless they literally lower the prices of their products), putting calorie counts out in front on everything, everywhere (menu boards, front of packages, sodas) and educating people on what is considered a 'high' amount of calories (e.g, a dinner entree over 500 calories is high, if it is part of a days worth of meals), portion caps - like suggested in NYC might work, and limiting ads for high calorie foods or ad space (e.g., TV, public transit, magazines, websites, social media). I think our grocery stores should have makeovers as well. The cheap, high calorie foods should not get prominence and promotion. This is one of the main reasons I believe that strategies to add fruits and vegetables to neighborhood stores or whole grocery stores to neighborhoods, fail. It is hard to get through the mire of junk - physically, emotionally, socially, parentally - to the better for you items.
And before anyone points out that the food swamp policies I mentioned are regressive (i.e., they will have a bigger impact on persons of lower income) I say YES, and obesity and its related disease conditions is also regressive and has a greater impact on persons of lower income.
My point is, that though it might sound good (especially politically) to make fruits and vegetables and other nutritious foods available and accessible, what we really need is to make low nutrient (junk) foods and drinks LESS available and accessible (less cheap, less popular, less in our face). And as that annoying prince on the TV show Outlander says, "mark me" I am right about this.
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Your Numbers - Your Risks
Before we move on to another topic, I want to assure myself that the information I shared with you yesterday made some kind of impact.
Did you view any food labels today? Were the trans fat grams high or low? If they were not 0 to 0.5 then they were high.
Do you have any existing health condition that makes avoiding trans fat especially important? (heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes)
Is there any reason to avoid trans fats if you do not have those conditions? YES. Do normal weight people need to avoid trans fats? YES. Do people who exercise every day? YES.
Not sure what I am talking about? Maybe you missed yesterday's post. You can review it here.
 |
| from the American Heart Association website |
Do you have any existing health condition that makes avoiding trans fat especially important? (heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes)
Is there any reason to avoid trans fats if you do not have those conditions? YES. Do normal weight people need to avoid trans fats? YES. Do people who exercise every day? YES.
Not sure what I am talking about? Maybe you missed yesterday's post. You can review it here.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Food Supply and Weight (part one)
Part One
Continuing from yesterday, here are observations regarding the food industry. This post is related to information in an article by Tillotson which is referenced below. Something to consider on an individual level (with regard to energy balance) will be noted tomorrow.
The U.S has created a phenomenal food system based on the exceptional work of our agricultural industry. Less than two hundred years ago, the US began its investment in agriculture. The goal was to provide Americans with a food supply adequate to prevent (or reverse) nutritional deficiency. The government invested in farmers and land, in Universities, technology and research. The efforts were hugely successful and continue today. We can feed our people and much of the world. The agricultural industry is responsible for supplying food makers with cheap commodities; beef, dairy, grains, sugar, etc and the food industry....Well they too are an American (business) success story.
We forget that in the late 1800s a shift occurred in our relationship with food. We went from growing our own food or working to earn food to paying money for food. This inspired entrepreneurs to create and sell a product (with substantial backing from investors), but it also meant we weren't working as hard in general or doing any physical work to obtain our food.
In the 21st century, NOW, we have the least active population that has ever existed and the most abundant food supply. We don't just eat to stay alive - we eat because its the social thing to do and because it brings us pleasure. The food industry is happy to keep oversupplying. Food companies work hard to shape our preferences and to earn our loyalty. Any time, any where, tasty and cheap.
So that's a problem. Two systems working remarkably well and a population that (as we discussed yesterday) is unable to regulate its intake. The same population that is quite disinterested in exercise.
There are a number of ways to regulate the supply and the demand side, but what about regulating or restricting what an individual consumes?
At the end of the day, the amount of regulation or limiting a person needs is based on energy expenditure. If a person does not want to exercise, then the amount of calories they burn in a day and thus need, is going to be low. There may come a point where the amount needed is too low to be reasonably regulated. That is hard to explain. It means that we need a certain amount of calories - even if that need is psychological and our limiting has limits.
Clearly we cannot go on eating all the food that is available to us. By doing so, we become a nation of unhealthy people. The food supply allows over 3000 calories a day for every person. Not everyone consumes 3000 calories a day, but it can easily be done.
More about energy balance in a food heavy society, tomorrow.
Continuing from yesterday, here are observations regarding the food industry. This post is related to information in an article by Tillotson which is referenced below. Something to consider on an individual level (with regard to energy balance) will be noted tomorrow.
The U.S has created a phenomenal food system based on the exceptional work of our agricultural industry. Less than two hundred years ago, the US began its investment in agriculture. The goal was to provide Americans with a food supply adequate to prevent (or reverse) nutritional deficiency. The government invested in farmers and land, in Universities, technology and research. The efforts were hugely successful and continue today. We can feed our people and much of the world. The agricultural industry is responsible for supplying food makers with cheap commodities; beef, dairy, grains, sugar, etc and the food industry....Well they too are an American (business) success story.
We forget that in the late 1800s a shift occurred in our relationship with food. We went from growing our own food or working to earn food to paying money for food. This inspired entrepreneurs to create and sell a product (with substantial backing from investors), but it also meant we weren't working as hard in general or doing any physical work to obtain our food.
In the 21st century, NOW, we have the least active population that has ever existed and the most abundant food supply. We don't just eat to stay alive - we eat because its the social thing to do and because it brings us pleasure. The food industry is happy to keep oversupplying. Food companies work hard to shape our preferences and to earn our loyalty. Any time, any where, tasty and cheap.
So that's a problem. Two systems working remarkably well and a population that (as we discussed yesterday) is unable to regulate its intake. The same population that is quite disinterested in exercise.
There are a number of ways to regulate the supply and the demand side, but what about regulating or restricting what an individual consumes?
At the end of the day, the amount of regulation or limiting a person needs is based on energy expenditure. If a person does not want to exercise, then the amount of calories they burn in a day and thus need, is going to be low. There may come a point where the amount needed is too low to be reasonably regulated. That is hard to explain. It means that we need a certain amount of calories - even if that need is psychological and our limiting has limits.
Clearly we cannot go on eating all the food that is available to us. By doing so, we become a nation of unhealthy people. The food supply allows over 3000 calories a day for every person. Not everyone consumes 3000 calories a day, but it can easily be done.
More about energy balance in a food heavy society, tomorrow.
Tillotson, J.
(2004). America's obesity: conflicting public policies, industrial
economic development, and unintended human consequences. Annu. Rev. Nutr.,
24, 617-643.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
EVERYTHING in Moderation - really? EVERYTHING?
And you know where I am going with tonight's post.
It is a funny thing, this mantra of many. Everything in moderation. Where did that come from exactly? (well, I know where it came from, a Greek temple and it was "nothing in excess", but anyway) This is the phrase we like to voice when we either want more of something that we'd be better off without or we want to do less of something we really should be doing more. For example, french fries and ice cream are really NOT something we should have in moderation, but something we should limit, but when we want to eat them we say, "everything in moderation." Physical activity and exercise are things we should do more of - a lot of - every day of - but we see the people who walk or run most days of the week when we don't and shake our heads saying, "everything in moderation."
So let us think about the recommendation guidelines from health experts that are meant to improve our health and well being and are based in science. Science of course is dynamic, meaning what we knew 60 years ago does not always mesh with what we know today. It is dynamic, ever changing, and so must we be. I gander to say that even antediluvian postulations did not call for consumption of everything and anything at moderate levels. But we do not have to go back to biblical times to do our work, we can start with the 1800s. Lucky for me, a young woman named Lisa Green who is a student at UF, has a webpage that describes the history of our food guidelines. We are most familiar with the Basic 4, the 4 Food Groups. According to Lisa's history, President Roosevelt had actually commissioned the USDA to create the Basic 7, but that was too complicated. I remember the 4 Food Groups from school. But since then we have have the Food Guide Pyramid (USDA), the DASH diet (NHLBI), the Mediterranean Diet (classified by research and highly recommended), the New Food Guide Pyramid (Harvard -Walter Willett), New American Plate(AICR), the Go Slow Whoa program (NHLBI) and the AHA's recommendations on eating to prevent heart disease. And yes, a two years ago, , the US Government came out with its first recommendations for physical activity. (other agencies have done so for ten or twenty years)
Every single one of the aforementioned guides distinguishes food amounts by food type. For example, saturated fats, oils, butters, whole milk and whole milk products and sugars are to be consumed in limited quantities while vegetables, according to Dr. Willett are to be consumed with abandon. Alcohol should only be one or two glasses of the measured amount per day. Trans fats are to be avoided at ALL COSTS and ALL TIMES. Red meat is to be consumed much less and fish much more... I can stop now can't I? No , no I really can't, it is just who I am.
The absolute best advice, scientific advice, is to eat a variety of foods with special attention to lean meats or proteins, low or no fat dairy products, whole grains and complex carbs, fish, mono unsaturated fats, many fruits and most vegetables, measured alcohol intake, and little to no saturated fats and sugars.
The CDC has great information about fats, and that is a perfect example. We are asked to keep our fat intake between 20-30% of our total daily calories and our saturated fat intake at no more than 10%. They say on this web page that even though some fats are health promoting we STILL need to keep overall intake under 30%. Which is why you cannot eat cups of almonds all day!
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/fat/index.html
Fat is just one example. There are very specific and different recommended daily allowances for salt, for fiber, for protein, for carbs, and oh my gosh WATER, which is very individually specific. etc. So if it IS everything in moderation - then it must follow that some things are more moderate than others. Moderation means nothing to excess, but it also means nothing at a level that is considered harmful and that is the real issue.
Fats, sugars and alcohol can be harmful at much lower levels than people who enjoy them would like to acknowledge. Additionally, exercise levels have to be much higher than sedentary people would like to believe before considered harmful. Remember the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans state:
Additional health benefits are provided by increasing to 5 hours (300 minutes) a week of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity, or 2 hours and 30 minutes a week of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination of both. With an additional two days of strength training. For most health outcomes, additional benefits occur as the amount of physical activity increases through higher intensity, greater frequency, and/or longer duration and the benefits of physical activity far outweigh the possibility of adverse outcomes.
I repeat - Moderation means nothing to excess, but it also means nothing at a level that is considered harmful and that is the real issue.
(side note: you can eat the right amount of a food and still get a belly ache and you can do the right amount of exercise and still strain a muscle - we are not talking about these acute things!)
(second side note, if you receive this blog in your email, you may have to come to the website to see the links and to leave comments)
It is a funny thing, this mantra of many. Everything in moderation. Where did that come from exactly? (well, I know where it came from, a Greek temple and it was "nothing in excess", but anyway) This is the phrase we like to voice when we either want more of something that we'd be better off without or we want to do less of something we really should be doing more. For example, french fries and ice cream are really NOT something we should have in moderation, but something we should limit, but when we want to eat them we say, "everything in moderation." Physical activity and exercise are things we should do more of - a lot of - every day of - but we see the people who walk or run most days of the week when we don't and shake our heads saying, "everything in moderation."
So let us think about the recommendation guidelines from health experts that are meant to improve our health and well being and are based in science. Science of course is dynamic, meaning what we knew 60 years ago does not always mesh with what we know today. It is dynamic, ever changing, and so must we be. I gander to say that even antediluvian postulations did not call for consumption of everything and anything at moderate levels. But we do not have to go back to biblical times to do our work, we can start with the 1800s. Lucky for me, a young woman named Lisa Green who is a student at UF, has a webpage that describes the history of our food guidelines. We are most familiar with the Basic 4, the 4 Food Groups. According to Lisa's history, President Roosevelt had actually commissioned the USDA to create the Basic 7, but that was too complicated. I remember the 4 Food Groups from school. But since then we have have the Food Guide Pyramid (USDA), the DASH diet (NHLBI), the Mediterranean Diet (classified by research and highly recommended), the New Food Guide Pyramid (Harvard -Walter Willett), New American Plate(AICR), the Go Slow Whoa program (NHLBI) and the AHA's recommendations on eating to prevent heart disease. And yes, a two years ago, , the US Government came out with its first recommendations for physical activity. (other agencies have done so for ten or twenty years)
Every single one of the aforementioned guides distinguishes food amounts by food type. For example, saturated fats, oils, butters, whole milk and whole milk products and sugars are to be consumed in limited quantities while vegetables, according to Dr. Willett are to be consumed with abandon. Alcohol should only be one or two glasses of the measured amount per day. Trans fats are to be avoided at ALL COSTS and ALL TIMES. Red meat is to be consumed much less and fish much more... I can stop now can't I? No , no I really can't, it is just who I am.
The absolute best advice, scientific advice, is to eat a variety of foods with special attention to lean meats or proteins, low or no fat dairy products, whole grains and complex carbs, fish, mono unsaturated fats, many fruits and most vegetables, measured alcohol intake, and little to no saturated fats and sugars.
The CDC has great information about fats, and that is a perfect example. We are asked to keep our fat intake between 20-30% of our total daily calories and our saturated fat intake at no more than 10%. They say on this web page that even though some fats are health promoting we STILL need to keep overall intake under 30%. Which is why you cannot eat cups of almonds all day!
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/fat/index.html
Fat is just one example. There are very specific and different recommended daily allowances for salt, for fiber, for protein, for carbs, and oh my gosh WATER, which is very individually specific. etc. So if it IS everything in moderation - then it must follow that some things are more moderate than others. Moderation means nothing to excess, but it also means nothing at a level that is considered harmful and that is the real issue.
Fats, sugars and alcohol can be harmful at much lower levels than people who enjoy them would like to acknowledge. Additionally, exercise levels have to be much higher than sedentary people would like to believe before considered harmful. Remember the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans state:
Additional health benefits are provided by increasing to 5 hours (300 minutes) a week of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity, or 2 hours and 30 minutes a week of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination of both. With an additional two days of strength training. For most health outcomes, additional benefits occur as the amount of physical activity increases through higher intensity, greater frequency, and/or longer duration and the benefits of physical activity far outweigh the possibility of adverse outcomes.
I repeat - Moderation means nothing to excess, but it also means nothing at a level that is considered harmful and that is the real issue.
(side note: you can eat the right amount of a food and still get a belly ache and you can do the right amount of exercise and still strain a muscle - we are not talking about these acute things!)
(second side note, if you receive this blog in your email, you may have to come to the website to see the links and to leave comments)
Saturday, May 30, 2009
A Change of Plan
The Wellness Weekly is getting a makeover, in fact, it will cease to be. Ironically, I began doing a weekly news update because of how fast new research was coming out and how important it was to keep people in the know. That is all still true but blogging has also emerged since I began writing in 2000 and my understanding is, the more you blog, the better your blog will be. So:
I am going to try to blog on current issues more frequently, ideally that would be daily. Instead of keeping my bits of paper for the weekend, I will share research and thoughts as it or they come to me. And you know by now, my opinions are without limit.
My hope is to one day be a self employed health and wellness advocate and when that happens I should be able to greatly improve the blog entries.
Research and teaching are my great passions. I would hope to increase my knowledge constantly and then not only write, but also speak at conferences and consult with communities. This is very important because I am not able to reach a significant portion of the population by Internet and they need this service as much if not more than my web based audience.
My topics for the blogs will include anything that can improve a person's lifestyle in order to avoid disease or to improve disease outcome. I will share research on medication and supplements as well as side effects; on prevention screening; on health promoting foods and how to cook them; on exercise and where and how to start and more. At times I will dedicate a page to a recipe, but will post most of my food videos on You Tube.
I have added a few links this week and changed a few things along the side of the blog.
Next time I will talk about one of the stories I followed this week, but all this change talk has wore me out for now.
I am going to try to blog on current issues more frequently, ideally that would be daily. Instead of keeping my bits of paper for the weekend, I will share research and thoughts as it or they come to me. And you know by now, my opinions are without limit.
My hope is to one day be a self employed health and wellness advocate and when that happens I should be able to greatly improve the blog entries.
Research and teaching are my great passions. I would hope to increase my knowledge constantly and then not only write, but also speak at conferences and consult with communities. This is very important because I am not able to reach a significant portion of the population by Internet and they need this service as much if not more than my web based audience.
My topics for the blogs will include anything that can improve a person's lifestyle in order to avoid disease or to improve disease outcome. I will share research on medication and supplements as well as side effects; on prevention screening; on health promoting foods and how to cook them; on exercise and where and how to start and more. At times I will dedicate a page to a recipe, but will post most of my food videos on You Tube.
I have added a few links this week and changed a few things along the side of the blog.
Next time I will talk about one of the stories I followed this week, but all this change talk has wore me out for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)