HealthyConcerns.com

Paula Deen, type-2 diabetes and ethics

I'm sorry that Paula Deen has discovered that she has Type-2 diabetes.

I'm flummoxed but understanding that she's going to become a spopesperson for a pharma company that makes a Type-2 diabetes treatment. [PS-Novartis says it's notTHEM she has inked a deal with.]

But I'll be disappointed and aggrieved if she does all that and does nothing to adjust her cooking style.

To continue cooking about as unhealthily as it's possible to do, to make a joke, really, of that unhealthiness, and then to monetize the at-least-partially-resulting illness?

Seems to cross a line to me.

This blogger thinks so too. What do you think?

Note: The story is all still a bit hearsay-y, so stay tuned to see what Ms. Deen really come sout and says.

 

Cross-post: BlogHer.com interview with Kathy Freston

Interviewed Kathy Freston for BlogHer. She's awesome:

http://www.blogher.com/interview-talking-health-oprah-and-veganism-author-kathy-freston

According to new study: Exercise does not prevent weight gain

Depressing study showing that exercise does not prevent weight gain for middle-aged women...unless they're already at a healthy weight. Le sigh.

http://getbetterhealth.com/physical-activity-for-weight-loss-not-for-most-middle-aged-women/2010.06.26#more-22553

Of course as with any study, it raises as many questions as it answers. And since only the abstract is available at no cost on the JAMA site, I'm not sure if the answers are available or not.

Like: Isn't weight loss still (mostly) a mathematical equation? Is the fact that exercise did not prevent weight gain indicative that women who exercised were eating more to fuel their energy to exercise? Or is it disproving the whole generally accepted notion that weight loss is all about calories in vs. calories out.

Inquiring minds want to know, but might be too lazy to find out. Since, you know, there's now no motivation not to be lazy, right?

What? Is that not how I'm supposed to interpret this study? :)

Jamie Oliver at TED
I actually don't think Jamie is saying something revolutionary or new in his TedTalk this year...all about teaching children about real foods in order to save our lives...BUT:

1. He has a passion that is, hopefully, infectious
2. He's actually gone out and done something about it in a community in our unhealthiest state, West Virginia. And it seems replicatable.

Check out his 20 minute talk:

Quick link: PCRM's 21-day Vegan Kickstart

If you've ever considered becoming vegan because for health reasons, then you might get the little boost you need by signing up for the PCRM's 21-day vegan kickstart. I signed up, even though I'm already a vegan, because after all: Who wouldn't want daily healthy tips and recipes?

And just in case you'd like some links on vegan being the healthiest way to eat:

PCRM's entire Health section

WebMD: Vegan diet good for Type-2 diabetes

NIH: Vegan proteins may reduce risk of cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease

So, is this another sign of age or what?!

Twice in my life, once more than 20 years ago and once surely more than 10 years ago, I was given a steroid treatment to curb my allergies. In each case it consisted on one shot, and then a few days of taking pills.

And in each case that treatment lasted about 4 months. We're talking 4 months basically allergy-free. You could expose me to cats, to dust, to mold, to grass, and I was symptom-free.

So, this year after weeks of being sick and miserable, I strong-armed my reluctant doctor into, once again, trying the steroid route. She reminded me of side effects associated with steroids. I reminded her that one treatment once a year wasn't likely going to result in those side effect. I walked out triumphantly shot up with prednisone and a few weeks later I was crowing about how well it worked.

Only, at about the two month mark exactly, it stopped working so well.

I first noticed it a couple of weeks ago when, after a long walk outside...amongst the plant life, oh noes!...and then dinner and some TV-watching at a friend's house. A friend with two cats. Yup, by evening's end I was miserable. And it lasted a day or two.

Then, this week, I decided to have a little cocktail on a flight home from a quick trip. Figured I was entitled after the four hour delay I had just experienced. Used about half the little airline bottle of vodka for my Bloody Mary and sure enough, next trip to the restroom? My face was all red and splotchy.

So, I got 2 months, not 4 months of complete relief this time around.

Think the doctor low-dosed me?

Think it's cause I'm 10-20 year older than I was back when I tried this before?

Think my allergies are just that much worse?

Back when I picked up the prescription for the pill portion of the steroid treatment, the pharmacist noted that the doctor had included a second pill sequence in the prescription...so I had 6 extra pills. The pharmacist kind of shrugged his shoulders and said, "Maybe she wanted you to have a second round of pills handy" and handed me the bag.

So, two more questions?

Think I should take those pills now?

Think I should email my doctor and ask?

Yeah, I'm guessing it's smart to ask...especially in this day and age of email with your doctors.

Sigh. Whatever the reason, it's a disappointing development, that's for sure!

Food Inc is all the buzz this week (cross-post)

Here's one example where one post I write is appropriate for cross-posting at almost every blog I write.

Over at Elisa's Green Scene, I did a brief recap of some of the reviews and some of my thoughts about the new documentary, Food, Inc.

Food, Inc is somewhat based on MIchael Pollan's work and a great deal of its focus is on the health ramifications of our current agro-industrial complex approach to food production on humans, particularly lower-income families.

So I thought it belonged here, and I'm wondering if any of you are planning to see it or have seen it?

Of course, I also have a vegan blog. And a personal blog where I write both movie reviews and occasionally items about animal rights. So this belongs there too.

Might start to feel a little bit like cheating though!

For this blog, I'd like to direct you to a particular part of the site about this documentary: The Hungry for Change Cafeteria.

Healthy school lunches seem like a total no-brainer, but in fact one of the small things you can do is start to activate around your local schools, particularly by telling your local schools to stop selling sodas, junk food, and sports drinks. 

Hell, I'd say you should do that even if you don't have kids in school!

But if you do have kids in school: What are their food options like? Food, Inc. wants us all to know...and to work to make those options healthier...for children in every kind of school at every kind of income level.

Who could argue with that?

The continuing saga of Vitamin D deficiency

When you blog, your friends send you links. Links to stories similar to what you've been writing about. Sometimes stories they simply think you should be writing about.

Today my friend Maria NIles contributes to my ongoing series of posts about Vitamin D, or Vitamin D deficiency to be more specific.

The post: Why Black People Need More Vitamin D from TheRoot.com.

This I already knew, but the article goes into some detail about why.

Bottom line: The melanin in the skin of people of color does something great: It protects them from harmful UV rays. but it also does something not-so-great: It blocks Vitamin D production.

And since the medical community has evolved from thinking Vitamin D only impacts bone health, but also may lower the risk of diabetes, hypertension and other very common illnesses and conditions, they are thinking that epidemic Vitamin D deficiency is really not a great thing!

The article's bottom line is that it is very very difficult to get enough Vitamin D naturally from either our diet or from foods. They recommend supplements all the way.

Kind of a bummer, but there it is...

Is 4% too much to ask? And if it's not why do only patrons pay?

I spent last weekend up in San Francisco, something I do very rarely. It was a gastronomic delight, as we visited four different restaurants and had four different wonderful meals over the course of the weekend.

At one of them, Palomino on the Embarcadero, I noticed this note on the menu:

Now, at first glance, this didn't bother me at all. After all 4% of a $40 lunch bill is $1.60. I would gladly pay $1.60 so that restaurant workers can have health care benefits. If I can afford to eat at this restaurant, I can afford this surcharge.

But as always there is more to the story.

I've always been most aware of health care for restaurant workers as a political issue because of one blogger: Shuna Fish Lydon from Eggbeater.

As early as 2006 she was blogging passionately about this issue, at her own blog and for KQED.

And her perspective on this surcharge is a little more nuanced than mine. She asks why it is the patron alone who bears this cost? Why does this one cost get passed through, and shouldn't it be managed as one more cost of doing business like any other? Why this gets tacked on as a surcharge, when rising rent or food costs are not? 

Of course counter-arguments are that many businesses tacked on surcharges when gas prices were so high, one assumes because they were potentially temporary surcharges. But this one is permanent and legislated.

There are more, obviously peeved, diners sounding off about it at Eater SF.

I'm not sure I see the difference between calling out the surcharge (allowing angry diners to take their business elsewhere) or raising your prices (where again, diners can take their business elsewhere if prices get too high.)

Are we just angry to be reminded about the ridiculous state of our health care system? If so, then I agree with at least one commenter who said the notice about the surcharge is good if it starts conversations about health care.

I saw the notice. I didn't mind it. I thought it was kind of cool that San Francisco was trying to do something instead of just talk about it.

That was my gut reaction, as an occasional diner in SF.

What's yours?

Wow, Americans have a slow-death wish

Hat tip to Daily Green for pointing me to Food Politics, if for no other reason than learning about how the most famous cookbook in America (The Joy of Cooking, natch) has adjusted its portion sizes over the year.

One example cited:

That recipe calls for about 4 pounds of ingredients to make only 18 cookies, each of which runs 500 calories — one quarter of the amount needed by most people for an entire day. I’d call one of those cookies lunch or share it with three friends. By the way, a similar recipe in the 1975 “Joy of Cooking” made 45 cookies with just half the ingredients. These would be just under 100 calories each.

Wow, right?

I, too, would like to know how the editors justified this ballooning of portion sizes over the years. Certainly, as people with free will, we could always choose to serve more than the recipe calls a portion if we protested against their original small portion size, but when recipes (and restaurants) put portions of immense size in front of us, it does sort of re-set our expectations of how much we should eat.

Seems like this is just another way that our culture is killing us slowly and insidiously.

Am I being over-dramatic?