An Oprah threat to your health and the health of your children? Have you been misled?

Find out at or

See FTC complaints about Oprah and her diet experts at

Friday, June 29, 2007

Businesses Help Workers to Lose Weight

No they don't.

It's all in the subtitle:
"Wellness Industry Booms as Corporate America Tries to Help Workers Get Healthy, Shed Pounds"
The only business helped here is the "wellness industry" a congeries of oleaginous "experts" preaching the same useless, failed approaches. See here and here.
"A burgeoning industry of wellness advisers, counselors and consultants is booming as corporate America tries to increase productivity and control insurance costs by helping its employees get healthy and shed pounds."
The industry will "burgeon" as will the waistlines of their victims.
"'What we don't have in the weight control business now is a program of maintenance,' said Rebecca Reeves, an obesity researcher and associated professor at Baylor College of Medicine in Texas. 'There's recidivism, and it does return.'"
What you do not have is a program that starts right. Forget the maintenance. If it was done properly from the get-go, maintenance would hardly be an issue.
As the field grows, businesses looking for help can find a dizzying array of methods to help employees, and very little research to back up which provide the best method.
Since they all say basically the same stuff, there are decades of experience proving that none of them work, let alone are "best."

For some of the experts, it is all about the show:
"'Just having a facility shows the employees that the company cares about their well-being,' said Brenda Loube, president of Montgomery Village, Md.-based Corporate Fitness Works Inc., which operates such facilities for dozens of companies across the country."
This Loube job is for companies that want to take it up the pooper and pay Brenda for the experience.

Pity they are all like this.

Being breastfed may not cut kids' obesity risk

Believe it.

But either way, who cares?
"Breastfeeding has many benefits for babies, but protection from obesity may not be one of them, a UK research team reports."
Another "so what?" study.

Fat happens because you eat too much relative to what you burn.

A teat in the mouth when young (or old) does not a fatso prevent.

No, Virginia, you are not guaranteed overfat if you did formula.

No, Virginia, you are not guaranteed lean if you did your mama's milk.

Ignore the ridiculous studies on both sides of the mammary debate.

Get past tit.

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

More U.S. children suffer chronic health problems

This is an article documenting a really bad approach to problem-solving.
"The number of U.S. children with chronic health problems such as obesity has soared in the past four decades, foreshadowing increases in adult disability and public health-care spending, researchers said on Tuesday."
This is not at all true IF we refuse to pay for the bad choices people make.

Each of these problems is almost certainly a matter of choice, caused by:
"More time in front of the television and use of other electronic media, decreased physical activity, increased time spent indoors, increased consumption of fast foods and sugar-sweetened beverages, and changes in parenting are all likely to blame, the researchers said...

In the early 1970s, about 5 percent of children ages 5 to 18 were obese, compared to about 18 percent now, the researchers said. Asthma rates are estimated at 9 percent among these children, doubling since the 1980s, they said."
Their conclusion?
"'The expanding epidemics of child and adolescent chronic health conditions will likely lead to major increases in disability among young and then older adults in the next several decades, with major increases in public expenditures for health care and income support,' the researchers wrote...

They based their estimates on government data and previously published research in scientific journals."
In other words, the conclusion is based on the mistaken approaches of the past.

What to do?
"'One of the most important messages is that we really need to focus on prevention,' said Steven Gortmaker of the Harvard School of Public Health, who worked on the report.

'Genetic bases have been described for obesity, asthma and ADHD. Nonetheless, gene pool changes cannot explain the recent dramatic growth of these conditions,' the researchers wrote, pointing instead to a host of behavioral and environmental changes.

Gortmaker said while prevention sounds simple -- eating a more healthful diet, getting more exercise and cutting down on TV -- making it happen is not."


Two reasons.

The first is that all expert diet advice is wrong and impossible. Once fixed, this will account for overweight/obesity and their related disorders (e.g., diabetes, asthma).

The second is that we keep rewarding bad behavior by paying for it, instead of rewarding responsible people who are concerned about their fitness and are doing something about it.

Not bad places to begin are:
  • cessation of all sick care payments for treating the calorically rich,
  • a moratorium on all medical expert diet advice,
  • prosecution of all diet experts who make impossible diet claims (including their facilitators, e.g., publishers, media),
  • prosecution of all fitness experts who make impossible fitness claims (including their facilitators, e.g., publishers, media),
  • a halt to all bariatric surgery (except in the cases of impending death),
  • removal of weight loss medications from the marketplace and
  • going after parents who abuse their children nutritionally:
"In many children, chronic health conditions continue into adulthood and can be expected to raise health care costs while driving down quality of life, the researchers said."
In responsible circles, this approach is known as accountability.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Obesity has become the new norm in the U.S.

Reasonable observation, though I may not agree with this guy's reasons.

We will have to change to the fat, wide and bloat to celebrate Oinkle Sam's B-day on July 04.

Saturday, June 16, 2007

People Get Drunk Faster After Bariatric Surgery, New Study

I cannot vouch for the quality of this study. But if true, there is a ray of light here.

Bariatric surgery is almost never indicated. It is almost never performed after a patient has had a real opportunity to lose weight by dieting.

This is supposed to be a prerequisite, but as all expert diets are impossible, no one gets a true chance to avoid the knife.

Still, this newly realized benefit of fat-person surgery should not go unappreciated.

Let's face it. Fat people are at a social disadvantage. Besides the matter of attraction, there is the economic issue.

If you see one and think about buying them dinner, for example, you might be inclined to wonder how much more it will cost you to feed him/her than it would if you socialized with a not-fat person.

Restaurant costs can add up quickly.

You might even go through the cost-benefit analysis to determine what your return on investment will be.

If you are inclined to have sex with an uber-person, then this effect of bariatric surgery is what you have been waiting for. By the same token, if you are uber-person and in need of social interaction, you are similarly in luck.

Bariatric surgery has come to your rescue.

These victims of largely unindicated surgical violence are now big, fat and CHEAP-er dates.

For a relatively minimal investment in alcohol, your chances of having relations with a Michelin person have apparently improved.

To further this benefit of medical malpractice, assault and battery (since bariatric surgery is almost never indicated), a next step might be research into how to make bariatric surgery decrease the visual acuity and self-esteem of the other, i.e., non-surgerized, person.

NIH, which has shown a willingness to fund research into child mutilation, should be a ready source.

There is also a business opportunity here for an enterprising entrepreneur who fixes up bariatrically surgerized individuals with other victims, making the cheaper date a greater likelihood.

Friday, June 15, 2007

Group: Diet Drug Alli Linked to Colon Cancer

Another possible weight loss mechanism. This one is more effective.

It was that weight loss from taking Alli (and Xenical, the prescription version) came from blocking fat absorption.
Alli decreases the amount of fat absorbed by the body. In addition to causing loose and oily stools and unfortunate and uncontrollable oily discharge, the drug may also interfere with the absorption of the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, K and E.
Now, we find that another, more potent process may be at work.

But one group has worked unsuccessfully for the past year to bring attention to what it believes is a worse, and possibly fatal, side effect of the drug.

The nonprofit group, Public Citizen says Alli, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, has been shown in studies to cause pre-cancerous lesions in the colons of mice. And, because there are no long-term studies of the drug’s effect on humans, the group believes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should not have approved the drug for nonprescription use.

Cancer, as a means to weight loss has certain advantages. For example:
"... the studies also show that once you stop the drug, you regain the weight."
Cancer does not stop when drugs are stopped. This allows the body to continue the weight loss process as it feeds the malignancy inside of you.

Further, Alli itself is a weight loss drug, well worth the risk of any side effect, including death, cancer, oily farts, malabsorption of vitamins, etc. Take a look at these numbers:

Last fall, Dr. James Anderson, head of the UK College of Medicine Metabolic Research Group, and his colleagues examined the effects of 60 mg orlistat on mildly to moderately overweight individuals. Previous studies only looked at the drug’s effect on obese people.

Study participants took orlistat or a placebo three times daily with meals for 16 weeks. "Our research showed that people taking orlistat and following low-fat diets lost almost 5 percent of their initial body weight, about seven to 15 pounds over four months," Anderson said in a press release.

So in 16 weeks, at a max, you can lose from 7 - 15 pounds or between under one-half to less than one pound per week. In caloric equivalents this is somewhere in the range of replacing a sugary soda pop or two with a sugar-free soda per day.


It is also impressive that a 300-pounder is considered "mildly to moderately overweight." Fifteen pounds is 5% of 300.

Of course, you still have to follow "a healthy diet" by eating fatty foods (seems like an oxymoron, eh?):
"First of all, the drug doesn't work unless you have a certain amount of fat in your diet," he said. "Most people that are on low-fat diets are eating a lot of carbohydrates. Well, Alli doesn't block carbohydrates. On the other-hand, if you are eating a lot of fat in your diet, you're going to end up saying to yourself, 'I thought I was already toilet trained' because 25 percent of the people use this drug get oily spotting."
And spend money:
While Alli has been shown to help people following a healthy diet lose weight, studies show that consumers should not expect dramatic results from taking the drug. The retail price for Alli is $49.95 for a starter package of 60, $64.95 for a starter package of 90, and $76.95 for the refill package of 120 capsules.
In any event, the issue is not settled and Alli may not cause cancer:
But the FDA, in a response to Public Citizen earlier this year, said there was not enough evidence to link Alli to colorectal cancer, nor was their evidence to link the drug to breast cancer, another concern raised by Public Citizen.
The only settled issue, is that the fatty crap Alli users stick in their mouths and the oily crap that comes out the other end is nothing compared to the crap between their ears.

Thursday, June 14, 2007

Slentrol, First Medication to Combat Canine Obesity, Now Available by Prescription

A good explanation for why people cannot lose weight.

Clearly, anyone who purchases, by prescription no less, a doggie weight loss drug because they are too stupid to feed their pet less or take away the bowl, is patently too stupid to control themselves.

When it comes to weight loss, the only thing that trumps Calories In, Calories Out, is stupid.

Stupid trumps everything.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Exercise of the Week - Alternating Chest Press on the Ball

Impending injury alert!

Paige Waehner is a serious moron.

In fact, anyone who suggests strength training on an unstable surface is unstable all the way down below the surface, as in to their very core. Think about it, are you more likely to trip and fall on the deck of a small boat in the water or on terra firma?
"As a person who is easily bored by strength training, I'm always looking for new ways to spice things up."
Like an emergency room visit or meeting a new EMT.

Strength training requires intense overload and the less stable the surface, the less intense the lifting.
"Even more important, I also want to find ways to save time while still getting effective workouts. One of the ways I do that is to add a little intensity to different moves by changing them up a bit."
The only way to add intensity is to add intensity, not simply "by changing (the moves) up a bit."

Incidentally, "alternating" exercises take about twice as long to complete as exercises performed with both sides at the same time since you have to do twice the number of movements. It is not possible to "save time" this way.
"This Alternating Chest Press is a prime example of that, turning a regular old chest press that just targets the upper body into a full-body exercise. First, I added an exercise ball to the mix to engage the lower body as well as the core muscles for stabilization."
This stupid exercise is a prime example of turning a regular old chest press into a higher probability of injury chest press with no added benefit to the rest of the body.
"It takes a lot of focus to stabilize your body during this exercise."
Yes, and a lot of luck not to break it.

1. Do not train with weights on unstable surfaces.
2. Do not listen to moron fitness "experts."

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

The Molecular Basis Of Obesity Uncovered


Obesity is not molecular. It is too-many-Calories-in-your-gut-ular.
"Spontaneous physical activity, subconscious movements we make such as fidgeting while working at the computer, and food intake are two crucial factors regulating our body weight."
One is, the other is not.

Think about all the fatsos at Starbuck's jitzed into caffeine tremors. What's their excuse?

Still, this stupid research can be a little more fun than most.

It might result in a way to turn fat people into bobble-headed, Jello-O-jiggling, krump-dancing, tremorous entertainment.

Picture Dumbo as the Minister of Silly Walks on steroids and speed with some Katharine Hepburn tossed in.

I wouldn't pay to see it, but I would watch.

Suicidal behavior linked to obesity drug in testing

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Arguably, getting fat enough to want this stuff is suicide.

So, take your choice.

Commit flabicide. Commit Zimulti-cide.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Consumer Reports - Profile In Incompetence

Here is a chronicle of my communications with Consumer Reports re: their June 2007 cover story on "Rating the Diets."

The quality of their work is, IMHO, shamefully shoddy and their analytical skills fatally flawed - just like diet programs.

Of particular interest is CR's response, via a Mr. Harzewski speaking for the Editors.

Read it all.

Then, you decide.

To me, these folks are dangerously incompetent.

Caveat subscriber.

To access all the Fitness Rants, click here.

Sunday, June 10, 2007

French lessons: Eat petite, be petite

No, eat like the French and get fat.

Here are the actual French lessons:

French face obesity fears

Even the French are fighting obesity

France Battles a Problem That Grows and Grows: Fat

French may be headed for similar obesity and heart problems as U.S.

New French food guidelines aimed at tackling obesity

Shut up, MSNBC and Karen Collins.

Thursday, June 07, 2007

Did microwaves 'spark' obesity?

A really instructive article. Really.

This just shows how "association" gets reported as "cause and effect."

Here we have three possible reasons for the obesity/overweight epidemic.

No proof. Simply speculation reported as news and appearing credible.

Now you can play the home game - Create Your Own Stupid News Article!

Here's how.

Follow these links to the significant events of 1945, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987, the dates mentioned in the article.

Choose an event and then make up a story, just like the pros.

For example:

(London) During a presentation held at Powdered Wig College, brilliant British scientists explained the cause of the obesity/overweight epidemic affecting planet Earth.

In 1987, the marriage of Charles and Di started to deteriorate and they began living alone. Di, the most loved and venerated person on the planet, was unhappy. Her billions of admirers felt her pain and depression. They too, became depressed which led them to find solace in food. This coincides with:
"the figures showing rates of obesity in the population over many years and it seem(s) very clear it began between 1984 and 1987."
Thus, this
"determine(s) when the nation's waistline began to expand and what the trigger was."
"Clearly, the worldwide popularity of Di had effects beyond the borders of England. That is why the world is fat. Until the uncertainty surrounding her death is resolved and people can relieve their ongoing depression with closure, this and future generations will continue to overeat," said Lady Di's biographer, Sir Tummy Overhang.

(I created an expert so I could put the ending in quotes. Great merriment, what?)

Have fun playing.

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Dr. Oz, an Oprah regular, says NYC govt can help with obesity

The next attack on NYC?

Oz, whose diet program (together with Roizen) would rival the fare at Dachau, if their diet program fed dieters better, is on the move.
Dr. Mehmet Oz, a heart surgeon and Oprah regular, was at City Hall on Tuesday talking up government's role in the obesity crisis.
Unsuspecting or just plain stupid NYC politicos have invited this Trojan Horse into their midst.
Oz, a co-author of the best-selling "You: On a Diet" book, who makes regular appearances on Oprah Winfrey's talk show, joined several city councilmen to talk about getting New Yorkers to be healthier.
Probably stupid, since they cannot even act out of concern for their own good on their own initiative. Imagine how little regard they have for their constituents.
His mere presence on the steps of City Hall caused a number of lawmakers to make their own healthy promises.
The reason for his presence?

To set up diet terror cells, apparently.

Rivera is hoping to get more city funding for a number of health initiatives that address obesity, like the program that Oz founded known as HealthCorps.

Modeled after the Peace Corps program, HealthCorps pays recent college graduates a stipend to mentor students on diet, nutrition and exercise. It received crucial funding of about $250,000 from the City Council last year, Oz said.


Tuesday, June 05, 2007

'Exercise after eating' diet tip

More bad exercise news.

Twelve volunteers were fed the same breakfast...An hour later, half of them worked out for an hour on an exercise bike while the other half sat quietly...

Unsurprisingly, people who exercised burned more calories than those who sat quietly, 492 kcal compared to 197 kcal.
An hour of work to burn 295 Calories. (The metabolic rates of the control group vs. exercisers is not provided in the article.)

This is the equivalent of drinking two sodas without sugar instead of two with sugar and taking ZERO time to do it.

The news worsens.

And when given the chance to eat afterwards, people who had exercised tended to eat more, 913 kcal versus to 762 kcal.

However, when the amount of energy burned during exercise was taken into account, the sporty people took in fewer calories overall - 421 kcal compared to 565 kcal for the inactive group.

Time spent - 1 hour (not including showering, clothes changing, etc.). Net savings in Calories - 144.

About a one soda pop difference.

Dr Ian Campbell, medical director of the charity Weight Concern, said: "This is an interesting study. Patients often report that they feel increased hunger and eat more after exercise.

"What this study shows is that, although total calorific intake is greater, the net result, because of the exercise taken, is a reduction in the net energy balance.

"Dieting is never easy. Increased physical activity is an essential part of any weight management programme, not just to expend more calories but also, as we see here, to help control our appetite too."

Dr John McAvoy, a GP with a special interest in obesity, said the study was a "significant contribution to understanding the complex mechanisms of energy balance".

The study shows that the British suffer from brain decay in addition to tooth decay.

Makes me glad not to be a Colonist anymore.

Monday, June 04, 2007

"Dr. Death" Kevorkian will no longer help end lives

Say it ain't so, Jack.

Bad news for Oprah.

This may disqualify him as her next diet expert.

She might have to find someone else, unless she can talk some sense into him.

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Step-Based Guidelines In New Pair Of Studies

Well, here you go.

The ACSM has "unofficially" posted data on how fast you should walk for "MINIMALLY" "moderate-intensity physical activity."
"Researchers at San Diego State University and Arizona State University utilized commercial pedometers on a community sample of adults. Their results support an approximate 100 step/minute recommendation for minimally moderate intensity. To meet ACSM/CDC recommendations, this equates to 3,000 steps in 30 minutes, or three daily bouts of 1,000 steps in 10 minutes."
100 steps per minute is 1.67 steps per second.

Assuming an average stride length of 2.33 feet, a walker covers 233 feet per minute or 1 mile in 22.7 minutes. In 30 minutes, you would travel 1.3 miles and burn off an average of 130 Calories for your efforts.

Let's compare this to some other data. For example, how fast do you have to move your legs to be a world-champion runner?

Exercise physiologists Jack Daniels, PhD monitored the stride rate, stride lengths of the athletes in the 1984 Olympic track and field competitions. It was found that competitors in the shorter distances had longer stride lengths. Female stride lengths varied form 4 feet 10 inches in the marathon to 6 feet 8 inches for the 800 metres. Male stride length was 6 feet 2 inches during the 10 kilometre race to just over 7 feet 9 inches in the 800 metres. (typos in the original)

In contrast, the stride rate did not vary significantly. Stride rates for all events, for both men and women, fell between 185 and 200 steps per minute.

So in 1984, if you believe this data, the fastest people in the world moved their legs between 1.85 and 2.0 times faster than the ACSM "unofficially" suggests that a fat, out of shape, possibly older individual moves his or her legs.

All this just to effectively reduce the same number of Calories you could by simply exchanging one soda with sugar for one without.

Of course, all your efforts would be undone by overeating a mere 26.6 grams of food, which is about an ounce.

There are two significant advantages to doing this walk thing in places where other out of shape people are trying to move, at a minimum, between 50 - 54% as fast as world champions.

The first would be the "walk slalom" where you burn even more Calories avoiding the bodies of others collapsed on the sidewalk. The second is to consider these bodies as moguls and do a step routine on them. This will also burn more Calories and, arguably, add more "weight-bearing" to your routine.

Incidentally, what is the difference between "minimally" "moderate-intensity physical activity" and "maximally" "moderate-intensity physical activity" ?

“Moderate physical activity, such as walking 3.5 miles per hour, is any activity that burns 3.5 to 7 kcal per minute.”

The difference appears to be a factor of 2. (3.5 x 2 = 7)

Therefore, to still engage in "moderate-intensity physical activity," but at the higher end, you only have to move as fast as 1984's fastest world champion track and field athletes (100 steps/minute x 2 = 200 steps/minute).

Sounds both reasonable and "moderate" to me.

To maximize the benefits of these "unofficial" exercise recommendations, try to walk in a place where people do not settle for "minimally" "moderate-intensity physical activity."

The more bodies you have to avoid or step on, the better the workout.

BTW, can anyone spell "heart attack"?

Friday, June 01, 2007

"Dr. Death" set to speak out after prison release

Oprah's next diet guru is entering the building.

Air hostesses told to shed weight

Chickens coming home to roost.

With all the bitching and moaning of fat people that removed slim models from some runways, the predicted logical extension appears to be happening.
"An Indian court has ruled against a group of female flight attendants who were grounded from the national airline for being overweight."
Though a start, a better place to begin would have been removing fat nurses and doctors from places of sick care, e.g., clinics, hospitals.

Let's hope the powers that be get moving on that one soon.