An Oprah threat to your health and the health of your children? Have you been misled?
See FTC complaints about Oprah and her diet experts at www.JailForOprah.com
Thursday, December 28, 2006
"Why were the Hispanics at higher risk? Kimbro checked a long list of factors, from children's TV habits to whether mothers had easy access to grocery stores. Nothing could fully explain the difference. "'e were surprised,' she said."
But did she check Calories In, Calories Out? Duh.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
For medicine, these are usually “feel good” reports about alleged successes in sick care.
Well, just wait until next year when the so-called successes are proven to be failures.
Here are some of the real top medical stories of 2006 – and these are from January 2006 only.
Each month for the rest of 2006 was similar.
Doctors Debate Safety of Obesity Surgeries
“The most common method in the United States — gastric bypass, or stomach-stapling surgery — may be riskier than once thought.”
Dietary supplement may harm heart patients: study
“Heart attack patients should avoid the dietary supplement L-arginine based on a study that was scuttled after six volunteers taking the over-the-counter supplement died, researchers said on Tuesday”
FDA Warns Consumers on Brazilian Diet Pills
“The FDA warned consumers Friday not to use two unapproved Brazilian diet pills because testing has revealed they may contain tranquilizers, antidepressants and stimulants.”
Drug firms eye fat profits from new obesity pills
“Slimming pills have had a chequered history, due to modest effectiveness and adverse side effects -- most notoriously with the diet drug combination "fen-phen," which was linked to heart-valve problems and has cost Wyeth more than $21 billion in provisions related to patient claims.”
Nickelodeon, Kellogg Targets of Lawsuit
“The plaintiffs are citing a recent report documenting the influence of marketing on what children eat. Ads aimed at kids are mostly for high-calorie, low-nutrition food and drinks, according to the government-chartered Institute of Medicine.”
Anti-diabetes drugs may have a down side
“People with type 2 diabetes are often prescribed drugs to boost their production of insulin. The controversial belief that these so-called sulfonylurea drugs increase mortality in patients with diabetes now gets support from a new study by researchers in Canada.”
US FDA staff questions Glaxo's weight-loss drug
“Early evidence shows labeling proposed to sell GlaxoSmithKline's weight-loss drug Xenical over-the-counter may not lead to safe use, U.S. regulatory staff said in documents released on Friday.”
Review Casts Doubt on Soy Health Benefits
“An American Heart Association committee reviewed a decade of studies on soy's benefits and came up with results that are now casting doubt on the health claim that soy-based foods and supplements significantly lower cholesterol.”
Fish Oil May Not Help Prevent Cancer
“Fish oil, seen as beneficial for reducing heart disease risks, probably doesn't help prevent cancer, according to a review of studies involving more than 700,000 patients.”
Panel: Teflon Chemical a Likely Carcinogen
“A chemical used in the manufacture of Teflon and other nonstick and stain-resistant products should be considered a "likely" carcinogen, according to an independent scientific review panel advising the Environmental Protection Agency.”
Primary care about to collapse, physicians warn
“’Primary care is on the verge of collapse,’ said the organization, a professional group which certifies internists, in a statement. ‘Very few young physicians are going into primary care and those already in practice are under such stress that they are looking for an exit strategy.’”
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
How often do they have to repeat the same, old conclusions?
"'The bottom line is that psychosocial problems associated with child obesity are common,' said Dr. Andrew J. Hill of the University of Leeds School of Medicine in the UK."
As to the alleged quantification, what difference does it really make in the diagnosis, management and treatment of the problem? Little to none.
"Other studies have suggested that in general, heavy children and teenagers tend to have a poorer self-image than their thinner peers. But the new findings actually 'quantify' their risk of low self-esteem and show which areas of life -- such as physical appearance and athletic ability -- are typically affected, the study's senior author told Reuters Health."
What is needed are solutions, not more re-research of established data.
Friday, December 22, 2006
This "news" also appeared as "A New Way To Count Calories" on the CBSNews website and as "Goodies Girth: How to Burn Off Holiday Calories" on FoxNews.
Save your money.
Go to: http://www.drapplebaum.com/Fitness%20Rants/Index.Fitness%20Rants.htm and click on Dr. Applebaum's Food Label tm.
This will work for an infinite number of food items and recipes, all body weights and can never become obsolete.
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
As far as obese parents go, data seem to indicate that one obese parent condemns children to a 40% likelihood of overweight and two obese parents condemn children to an 80-90% likelihood of overweight.
Arguably, this really does help keep kids healthy.
Monday, December 18, 2006
No, Suburban sprawl does not create heavier kids.
Too many Calories creates heavier kids.
No matter where you live.
Same cause. Same fix.
Fewer Calories in or more Calories out.
They got one thing right - herbs are not a solution.
Only fewer Calories in or more Calories out will work.
But, just when you think they have a prayer of doing something right, there is this:
"It's a lifestyle modification. We have clinics that help in weight management. It's a combination of acupuncture, herbs and modifying your lifestyle. I don't think it's an easy solution."
Simple weight loss is NOT a lifestyle modification. It is a matter of one or more easy, less daunting tasks.
You do not need a clinic, special foods, doctors, diet experts, the government or Big Pharma.
Given half a chance, these folks will bury you.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
This BBC article,functioning as an apparent advertisement, quotes heavily from GSK, GlaxoSmithKline, a pharmaceutical company. The experts in this article have a vested interest in your failure and are recommending exercise for weight loss.
"John Brewer, GSK Sports Scientist, said: 'The trend of people swapping the gym for a low calorie meal is very worrying.'"
"Graham Neale of GSK Nutritional Healthcare said diet food manufacturers had a responsibility to consumers.
He said: 'With food and drink manufacturers broadening their 'diet' ranges, we need a concerted effort to encourage consumers to focus as much on 'energy out' as 'energy in'.'"
The following are from the GSK website:
"GlaxoSmithKline is a leader in the worldwide consumer healthcare market.
With nearly $5 billion in sales, over ten $100 million brands and present in 130 markets, the consumer healthcare business brings an added dynamic dimension to GSK...
In one year GSK Consumer Healthcare produces - among many others - nine billion tablets to relieve stomach upsets, six billion tablets for pain relief tablets and 600 million tubes of toothpaste."
No cures, just palliation; chest-thumping about sales and market penetration. Arguably, they want to keep people "sick."
Follow their advice at your own risk.
Friday, December 15, 2006
But, it is their own fault.
The NHS, Health Canada and HHS have all been providing the same bad, mistaken and impossible weight loss advice.
"A new study found that nine out of 10 Tennesseans have at least one risk factor for heart disease and stroke, the first and third leading causes of death in the state."
"The study also found that the treatment of these largely preventable diseases places a big burden on taxpayers. TennCare and Medicaid hospital spending on heart disease, strokes and high blood pressure in Tennessee ran more than $2 billion in 2002."
The real sad part is that they will likely repeat all the mistakes of the past.
"The report recommends public health programs help educate the public about what they can do to reduce the risk for heart disease."
So close and yet...
Read the complete report at: http://www2.state.tn.us/health/Downloads/HrtDisStrokeBk.pdf.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Herein the Brits extol the value of bariatric surgery.
"But if attempts to lose weight fail, more extreme measures such as weight loss drugs or surgery should be considered."
"If attempts to lose weight fail" it is almost certainly because diet advice is all wrong.
For most people, bariatric surgery is a way for doctors to needlessly line their pockets since they charge you for the operation and you require lifelong follow-up.
Overwhelmingly, bariatric surgery is performed inappropriately.
To find out more and to learn how to save yourself, your family and those about whom you care, read my book Why Diets Fail: The Simple Mistake That Ruins Millions of Lives available at: http://www.FitnessMed.com
It is your life. Don't let them take it away from you.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Americans are not managing blood pressure better, doctors are convincing us to drug ourselves instead of managing our blood pressure better.
"Experts say that the improvement in controlling blood pressure is likely due to aggressive efforts at educating the public."
"Also, doctors note it has become more accepted in the last few years to use multiple medications to attack the problem instead of just one."
"Despite the improved control rate, the proportion of Americans who had high blood pressure stayed roughly the same — about 27 percent in 1999-2000 and about 29 percent in 2003-04."
"Cornell University researchers found that people consume more calories when they eat low-fat snacks than when they eat the regular versions — especially if these people are already overweight."
People who are already overweight are already consuming more Calories when they eat. That is why they are overweight.
Still, the crux is do they really eat more Calories AND add more fat from the low-fat versions vs. the regular versions. Fact is, you can overeat about 1/3 more Calories in carbohydrates than fats without adding any additional body fat. In other words, to add the same amount of fat to your body, you can overeat about 300 Calories as fat or about 400 Calories as carbohydrate.
Here are the reported results:
"... overweight participants in the study (loaded) up on these snacks, consuming an average of 90 more calories when a snack had "low-fat" on the label. That was about a 50 percent increase.
Normal weight people in the study also seemed enticed by "low-fat," but they didn't do quite as much damage. They ate 30 more calories per snacking session, on average."
Suppose they cut the hours trainees work. One problem possibly solved.
But, will the researchers contact the families of those killed or injured by their stuporous physicians? Will the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education assume responsibility for the bad limits they established?
"If these findings are applied to all 100,000 young doctors working such schedules at U.S. hospitals, he said, that means there are nearly 100,000 significant medical mistakes, tens of thousands of preventable injuries to patients and thousands of preventable deaths that are fatigue-related every year."
"The study examined the issue of these doctors-in-training working within work-hour limits established by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education."
Friday, December 08, 2006
As if it has not been known for years that the overweight and obese have a problem determining how many Calories they consume.
Maybe, just maybe, that is why they are obese or overweight.
No news here, just the same old problem.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
When life gives you Calories, make more meals.
Here is a real opportunity to make two meals from one. When dining out, simply explain to your wait server person that you would like half your meal served to you and the other half wrapped to go. Or share one meal between two people.
Remember, they work for tips and are there to provide service.
Is it me or what?
Since when is an obese kid not eating unhealthily already?
"It's better to address children's weight problems with regular, balanced meals, limits on snacking and regular physical activity, according to Braet. Rather than trying to get kids to shed pounds with a restrictive diet, she explained, the goal should be to stabilize their weight with healthy eating."
Hey, Braet! For obese kids, regular, balanced meals and limits on snacking is known as "a restrictive diet."
Monday, December 04, 2006
I have no doubt about the prediction that diabetes will increase in prevalence.
BUT whose fault is it?
In large part it is the fault of the ADA (American Diabetes Association).
Likely all of the world's Diabetes Associations use the same mistaken approach to weight loss as do the ADA, the medical profession, the AMA, the governments of the world, Big Pharma and the diet gurus.
Any weight loss program that says in one way or another that a caloric deficit of 500 - 1000 Calories per day will result in safe weight loss of 1 -2 pounds per week, is fatally flawed.
The program is flawed, it is fatal to you.
It is a physical, biological, physiological and mathematical impossibility to safely lose 1 -2 pounds per week while in a daily caloric deficit of 500 - 1000 Calories.
DO NOT fall for this con.
Here is an article about insanity.
Einstein is quoted as defining "insanity" as: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Imagine $100K spent and still no lessons learned.
But what's worse, is the quote from the doctor in this article. In slamming diet products, he says, "There's no proof of effectiveness and no proof of safety."
Problem is, medical advice has been proven ineffective. Over and over again.
In fact, medical advice for weight loss easily fits within Einstein's definition of "insane."
If you want to learn about this, read my book, available at: http://www.FitnessMed.com
If you want to lose weight, do not follow the recommendations of conventional medicine, Big Pharma, diet gurus or the government.
These researchers have to be daft.
"But the women were encouraged not to diet and eat whatever they wanted in moderation." and "'Don't go on a diet,' she advised. 'Change the way you eat, you can eat what you want in moderation.'"
'Splain me, Lucy, what the heck is the difference between the obese eating in "moderation" and dieting?
Do not fall for this stuff. If you really want to succeed, and are like most people, cut back on the Calories and then, after you have some success removed from under your belt, add some training, not exercise, to your life.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Here is an article about weight management that makes some scientific sense.
The problem is, who can or will eat this way?
There are more reasonable approaches, but this one will work.
"Women consumed about 70 fewer calories when they were told to take their time eating a meal of pasta and sauce, compared to when they were instructed to eat it as quickly as possible."
More moronic medical advice. Take a pill. Lose weight. But will the pill get you to spell "lose" properly (it's spelled "loose" in the article.)
"Many studies have shown that this medication helps patients loose weight when compared to a placebo. Most of the weight reduction results from patients limiting the number of calories they consume on a daily basis."
There would be no need for weight loss pills, products, etc., if the docs, diet gurus, Big Pharma and the government got it right.
For the real scoop on how diet advice is killing us and creating harmful "support" industries, go to: http://www.drapplebaum.com/Fitness%20Rants/Index.Fitness%20Rants.htm and read "The Executioners' Diet" and "The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the National Socialists (Nazis)"
Maybe improving reading and math skills or redefining "adequate" for literacy skills would be a better way to go.
"Patients were shown labels for five common prescription drugs: two antibiotics, a cough medicine, a blood pressure drug, and a diuretic. They read each label aloud, then answered questions about how they would take the drug. A panel of experts reviewed their answers.
Almost half the patients — 46 percent — were 'unable to read and correctly state one or more of the label instructions,' the researchers write. Those with poor reading skills were more likely to misunderstand the labels. But almost four out of 10 of those with 'adequate' literacy skills made mistakes, according to the study.
Patients generally understood straightforward instructions, like 'Take one tablet in the morning and one at 5 p.m.' But some misread doses, such as mistaking 'teaspoon' for 'tablespoon.' Others were thrown by complicated instructions.
For instance, 333 of the patients correctly read aloud the instruction, 'Take two tablets by mouth twice daily.' But when asked how many of those tablets they should take in a day, a third of them got the answer wrong. The right answer is four tablets per day. "
Celebrex, Vioxx, Bextra, thalidomide...
The last thing we need is help from the FDA in deciding what to swallow.
And what's up with Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)? Has it gone insane? Since when does CSPI consider the FDA "reliable"?
"The supermarket is teeming with competing 'healthy food' symbols that run the gamut from highly helpful to fatally flawed," said CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson in a press release today. "But a prominent and reliable symbol on the fronts of packages would be a tremendous help to those harried shoppers racing through the supermarket."