Um, what do they say about it again?

Have you seen this commercial? Stupid know-it-all girlfriends! Who do they think they are?! And the Corn Refiners Association is the biggest proponent of these obnoxious women and their sassy opinions of High Fructose Corn Syrup, or HFCS.

Really though, it's the guy's fault. Who says, "Well you know what they say..." without actually knowing what they say? Amateur.

We've all heard a lot about HFCS, but personally, I've never taken the time to form an opinion of it. It's assumed that HFCS is bad, but very few people can actually tell you why, like the guy in the commercial. Since the appearance of the TV ads a few months ago, there has been a lot written about HFCS, from TIME to WebMD, and much more.

Most of the articles address the 3 assertions made by the know-it-all girlfriend in favor of HFCS.

1. It's made from corn, so it's "all natural."

TRUE, it is made from corn. However, it is not a naturally occurring substance. The extensive processing involved in producing HFCS is hardly easy, quick or painless. Linda Joyce Forristal of the Weston A. Price Foundation details the process here.

2. It has the same calories as sugar.

TRUE. Nutritionally, it's pretty much the same as sugar, which most support by citing the American Medical Associations' position that HFCS does not contribute more to obesity that sugar.

3. It's fine to consume in moderation.

TRUE. But the key word here is "moderation." It can be difficult to moderate your consumption of HFCS because it is in a huge number of foods and beverages, particularly processed products. The Mayo Clinic discusses how this impacts health and diet.

So, it's not like the Corn Refiners Association is selling blatant lies, but they are only telling a small part of the story. Check out their arsenal of marketing tools in their HCFS Facts Press Kit. You have to admit, the time and energy spent creating such a beautifully crafted half-truth is impressive. You're in for a sweet surprise indeed.

Furthermore, the Washington Post brings up a point that the know-it-all girlfriend (and most of the popular articles) fails to mention: the impact of producing HFCS on the environment, which is rather large. Michael Pollan has become the resident expert on this issue, and if you haven't already, I'd check out The Omivore's Dilemma.

So! Do you feel more capable of saying "Well, you know what they say about High Fructose Corn Syrup..." and having an actual answer to back it up?

Carbs are like, good for your smartness!

Could a Low-Carb Diet Make You Ditzy? presents recent research from Tufts University about how low- to no-carb diets can affect cognition and memory.

Oh boy. Did you know that Glamour has a health blog? It's called Vitamin G (I already don't get it). Responding to mainstream crap like this is the reason I started this blog. So here we go!

The study consisted of 19 female participants who were allowed to choose between a low-carb diet and a low-calorie diet to adhere to for three weeks. The ScienceDaily press release explains how a lack of carbohydrates affects the body and brain:

While the brain uses glucose as its primary fuel, it has no way of storing it. Rather, the body breaks down carbohydrates into glucose, which is carried to the brain through the blood stream and used immediately by nerve cells for energy. Reduced carbohydrate intake should thus reduce the brain’s source of energy. Therefore, researchers hypothesized that diets low in carbohydrates would affect cognitive skills.

And the researchers were right. The participants' cognitive skills were impaired after just a three weeks on a low carb diet. On memory tasks, low-carb dieters had slower reaction time and their visuospatial memory was not as sharp and the low-calorie group. However, low-carb beat low-cal on attention vigilance tasks, which sounds fantastically primal, although I'm not entirely sure what it means.

But how does Vitamin G interpret this information? They dumb it down so that their non-carb eating readers can process it. There is no mention of the reason that carbs are essential for optimal brain performance--only that if you never eat any like, bread and stuff, your memory might not be great.

I hate the lack of information! By assuming that women won't care to know (or won't be able to understand) the scientific bodily processes involved, Glamour squashes curiosity and makes it easy for women to remain ignorant about their bodies. What if they just threw in a short sentence about how carbs turn into glucose, and glucose fuels your brain? That's not hard.

Bottom line reporting is informative to an extent, but ultimately it's irresponsible and promotes misinformation.

Exhibits A-G: Check out the reader comments. Yikes.

The Healthiest Grocery Store?

From Fox News.



Yeah, the results are not surprising.

However, why is there no discussion of the quality of produce?

Eating fruits and vegetables is a bigger part of healthy eating than whether or not you're consuming organic granola bars or whatever. I'm sorry, but in my mind, if it's processed food, it's processed food, regardless if 100% of the ingredients are USDA Certified Organic. A lot of the same corn- and soy-based preservatives that are used in regular cereals and snacks are also allowed in their organic counterparts. (Sustainable Table has a pretty good overview here.)

Sure, I suppose organic snacks are somewhat healthier, but I think the attention should be focused on REAL FOOD, i.e. fruits, vegetables, meat, fish, dairy products, etc.

For me, that is what would make or break the "healthiness" of a grocery store.

P.S. Furthermore, is it safe to say that Whole Foods would top the list of "Most Expensive Grocery Stores" also? I bet you five bucks.

P.P.S. I didn't insert this website I came across in the main text, so here it is: Food Additives, where they explain:

Food additives have become a necessity of all types of food products and food industry. Right from the aroma of the beverage, the texture of the food and its visual appeal, has to be enriched to make it acceptable. (my emphasis)

Hahahahaha. I think someone is taking themselves a little too seriously...

No money in the bank, no gas in the tank and no healthcare either

The National Women's Health Resource Center recently published their 4th annual Women T.A.L.K. survey, which showed that many women have opted to forgo medical attention in the past year because of financial issues.

Forty-five percent of women aged 18 and over reported that they failed to seek medical care because the cost was too high. This includes skipping doctors visits and recommended medical procedures, as well as failing to fill prescriptions for themselves or family members. Yikes.

To read the full report in pdf, click here.

Overall, I think the NWHRC survey is interesting on the surface but it doesn't go far enough. Respondents were aged 18 and up, and while the survey did ask demographic information, it never breaks down the results by age, ethnicity, education or income.

I emailed the Director of Marketing and Communications at the NWHRC, Marisa Rainsberger, because of that oversight, and she sent me this information:

Percent Who Skipped Care in Past Year
Aged 55+ - has skipped care: 31%; has not skipped care 69%
Aged 35-54 ­ has skipped care: 53%; has not skipped care 47%
Aged 18-34 - has skipped care: 51%; has not skipped care 49%

She explained that there weren't enough respondents to break it down any further than these three ages groups; the numbers were too small to be statistically significant.

As for ethnicity, I couldn't find any specific information in the full report, but the press release indicates:

Hispanic women were most likely to have skipped health care in the past year (58%) versus white (43%) or African American (42%) women.

And the other indicators, education and income? There was no information that I could find.

The survey also covered aging issues, you know, how women feel about getting older, whether they are prepared for aging, and who their favorite 55+ female celebrity was (Tina Turner). Ok then.

Included in the Women T.A.L.K. online press package, is a pdf called Tips for Minimizing Healthcare Costs. Despite a couple questionable suggestions (right after "Exercise" is "Cancel the gym membership": look people, I'm not made of steel. I refuse to run outside in freezing weather.), most of the advice is practical and not just another tirade on "healthy living," which is nice. Suggestions include:

• Read medical bills carefully.
• Use all the services you pay for.
• Wash your hands.
• When you're sick, stay home!
• Educate yourself about your health.
• Use safety equipment when required.
• And floss!

Alright then, will do. Thank you. I suspect that if the NWHRC had a bigger budget, they'd be all over a more thorough survey, including more publicity to attract more respondents. But alas, it is what it is.

Scare tactics no good?

Mark Lindstrom, author of Buyology: Truth and Lies About What We Buy, contributed an interesting op-ed to today's NY Times.

Inhaling Fear briefly relates the results of a study Lindstrom conducted using brain imaging techniques to test the cognitive response in smokers brains to extreme anti-smoking labels on cigarette packages and ads, like the one pictured or like you might find at TheTruth.com. He explains that although smokers agreed that the health information was concerning, their brains weren't "scared straight".

We found that the warnings prompted no blood flow to the amygdala, the part of the brain that registers alarm, or to the part of the cortex that would be involved in any effort to register disapproval.

To the contrary, the warning labels backfired: they stimulated the nucleus accumbens, sometimes called the “craving spot,” which lights up on f.M.R.I. whenever a person craves something, whether it’s alcohol, drugs, tobacco or gambling.

The study was relatively small (only 32 subjects), but the results are pretty interesting. I wonder if the same would hold true for other kinds of addicts.

Also, I saw Mr. Lindstrom on the Today show awhile ago when his book came out and I was eating cereal in bed, being unemployed. Anyway, he was rather enjoyable to watch in the 3.5 minute segment devoted to him. Specifically, I remember he explained how product placement only goes so far to inspire us to want a similar product--not necessarily the brand name product we see. So, for example, if you saw one of those insanely annoying commercials for the Coke Side of Life, you might think, "Gee, that commercial was so terrible that I'm really thirsty... for a root beer!" Or something like that. I don't know really... read the book.

I checked out the comments because I've found that people tend to sound off more on the NY Times than other websites and it can be entertaining, if nothing else. Most of the comments were non-smokers saying how much that hated smokers blah blah blah join the club. But one from an ex-smoker seemed insightful to me:

I have not smoked in two years after 15 years of up to, ah, multiple packs a day. Now, the only time I truly crave a cigarette is not after a meal, or when drinking coffee or alcohol or even when around other people smoking but when those inane and insulting anti-smoking advertisements come on the television. Part of the joy of smoking (and there are many!) is the counter-culture aspect of the habit and these pro-conformity visual escapades make me want to stick a smoldering brown tipped finger up in the air. You tell me not to do something, or worse government tries to compel me to adapt my behaviour to its norms, and the 15 year old in me wants to do it even more!

— AFW, Greenwich, CT

You know, I'm no expert, but I think this guy is on to something. Isn't that how it is sometimes? The second someone tells you not to do something (without providing an immediately horrifying consequence) you want to do it!

Well, no. Not all the time. From that perspective though, it's interesting that people will resist conformity to the extent that they injure themselves, significantly and permanently. It's a completely passive response to whatever injustices smokers see and experience in the world.

Obviously, a lot more research is needed, which Lindstrom readily admits. If this phenomena checks out, though, this could have some interesting consequences for smoking prevention and cessation. Do smokers just need a forum to bitch about their issues? Would that help a person to quit? Can you tell I've been reading a book about psychoanalytic theory?

Bon digestif!

I've got some Big Things to blog about, but instead of working on those Things, I've been distracted by a new book I found at the library called The Experts' Guide to Doing Things Faster: 100 Ways to Make Life More Efficient. Generally speaking, I try not to buy into BS self-help books with a specific numbers of ways to make your life better (i.e. 12 easy steps, 8 secrets, etc.), but this one is entertaining.

Number 46 on the list? "Cure a Stomachache" by Crazy Legs Conti, Competitive Eater (pictured).

The following three methods are Conti's suggestions to get you "back to the table fast."

Digestives

Dense or rich foods you’ve regretted ingesting respond well to the digestive treatment. Skip drugstore tablets and grocery store biscuits. Also, ginger ale is good for neither stains nor stomachaches because these days it’s mostly corn syrup. Fake sugar will only ferment your agony. The carbonation will cause burping, which feels good, like a pressure valve releasing, but stick to seltzer, not soda, to enable short-term belching relief. Early versions of the golden soda contained ginger, the plant, hence the common beliefe in the ale’s restorative powers. What you actually need is fresh ginger, sliced, boiled,, and then served as tea. Digestives derived from roots, herbs and mints have long been a remedy for overindulgence.

Additionally, many are mixed with alcohol. The French digestif (Cognac, Armagnac, Calvados) is the most common; however I favor the Italian Fernet-Branca, which has a vague medicinal taste, hints of root beer, and overtures of dirt. Limiting your intake to three ounces won’t get you inebriated, but will alleviate your gurgling belly. Simply quaff, sit comfortably, and wait. After twenty minutes, you should notice your stomach settling. If not, drink another three ounces and continue to do so until you are pain-free (or drunk). One July Fourth, I maws musketball-loaded with twenty-three and a half Nathan’s hot dogs and buns when a beautiful woman asked me to ride the Cyclone roller coaster. I sipped Fernet-Branca until my stomach found the courage.

Fluids

We take for granted the advantages of modern plumbing, but would be wise to acknowledge the flushing mechanism in the human body. Get your system moving with lots of water. Drink a half gallon of water and the stop-and-go-rush-hour traffic of one’s lower intestines will find log-flume-like speedy relief in no time. If peristalsis (muscle contractions in your digestive tract) is the culprit, expulsion can be the hero and water the catalyst. I spent an evening in Alaska, my stomach wrestling with eighteen reindeer sausages. However, after the water method, by morning, I was able to mush on to pancakes and bacon (four and half pounds in ten minutes).

The Mind

Even if your eyes are bigger than you stomach, your mind is bigger still. Your stomach has the storage space of a small puddle, but your mind, with a great capacity than the Grand Coulee Dam, can never fill up. Putting all your mental energies toward something else, getting distracted, and ignoring the physical pain will often make it go away. It’s mind over stomach matter (I often daydream of salad) and it works for pro eaters and casual diners alike.

I usually go straight for the ginger ale or Tums, but I might invest in some Cognac if Crazy Legs swears by it.

In any case, expect more excerpts from The Experts'... I'm picking up quite a few nifty tidbits.

Happiness & Television

Relevant, straightforward research is what I like. Because of that I've been meaning to post this for awhile, but I haven't had time to give this study the attention it deserved, until now.

But first I want to give you a brief background of the events leading up to this post. What Happy People Don't Do (11/19/08) piqued my interest while browing the NYTimes website, but if you look at the article, there isn't a lot of identifying information about the original study, if, for example, one wanted to find it and analyze it for oneself. I tried to email the columnist, but of course, she has no email. I tried to email NYT and got no response. So. Helpful.

Then I came across this random article Happy People Watch Less TV (11/24/08) on a site where the leading stories are "Britney's Ex in Jail" and "Katie Holmes Declares That She Wears The Pants". Unexpected!

FINALLY, I found the original article here, just waiting to be downloaded. I'm not even sure how that happened. I might have blacked out.

Anyway, the point is that it's found! And I read it and it's interesting. Both the NYT article and the other one gloss over the results, but the conclusions by researchers John Robinson and Steven Martin are more poignant.

Firstly, the methods are pretty fascinating. They looked at the data from the General Social Survey or GSS conducted in 1975 and 1985, which surveyed more than 45,000 people. However, researchers used two different kinds of methods to obtain information about people's happiness during daily activities. Some people recorded their relative happiness for each activity the following day, while others recorded their happiness throughout the day in a diary. It may not seem like much of a difference, but there is a lot of evidence showing that as we get farther away from our experiences, our constructed memories of events can alter/be altered by our remembered feelings. For a more thorough explanation, Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert is a good read.

After analyzing the results from two major studies, Robinson and Martin found that people who reported being "very happy" engaged in significantly more social activities, religious participation and newspaper reading.

"The major exception," they explain, "was for TV viewing." It was the only activity to correlate significantly lower with happiness, and actually could be seen as a predictor of general unhappiness.

The study couldn't affirmatively comment on causation, but it does offer two possible interpretations:

1. TV watching causes unhappiness: TV viewing is enjoyable enough, but it ultimately fills time that could be spent doing more productive activities--things that could increase long term happiness.
   
2. Unhappiness causes TV watching: "TV is not judgmental nor difficult, so people with few social skills or resources for other activities can engage in it." People who don't participate in many social activities or go to church or read the newspaper (random?) are more likely to be unhappy and watch TV to fill their time.

So really, it's a chicken and egg situation. Are we watching TV because we're unhappy, or is TV making us that way?

Robinson and Martin suggest that more specific studies look at TV viewing to answer the question. Personally, I'm not sure that there is going to be one answer. There are many different motivations for watching TV, which can change day to day as well.

If nothing else, it seems important to think about why we're watching TV. Is our favorite show on? Are we doing it because we're bored? Is it for a class?

Maybe just the simple act of evaluating our decision to turn on the TV can eliminate needless consumption and we can find more productive activities to occupy our time.

The benefits of red wine are virtually limitless

The Onion wins again. And so does Laura.

Study Finds Link Between Red Wine, Letting Mother Know What You Really Think

According to a study published Monday in The American Journal Of Medicine, a previously unknown ingredient in red wine has been shown to cause a marked improvement of vocal clarity and emotional acuity—while reducing overall inhibition—after only four glasses.

"It seems the benefits of red wine consumption are virtually limitless," said Dr. Susan Zheng, lead researcher on the study. "Many were unable to recall a single time their mother had paid more attention to their sister's soccer games than to their starring role in the school play. But after drinking only one bottle of standard Merlot, these participants could not only remember, but could actually sing whole stretches of Annie Get Your Gun, even while sobbing. It's extraordinary."

The positive effects of wine consumption were seen in as little as three hours, with 86 percent of participants showing greater resistance to unsolicited career advice, 77 percent displaying increased mental function in the area of the brain devoted to reminding you why Dad left you in the first place, and 60 percent demonstrating less concern to "play this little happy-happy game anymore."

What could be more true?? Actually this has never happened to me, and I pray to the Baby Jesus that it never does. I suspect that once the buzz wears off, the initial relief of spilling your guts would be replaced by an overwhelming sense of regret and dread... and not just that you're going to hurl, although I'm sure the hangover would be severe.

This article actually prompts several interesting concepts, but I'll have to save that for later.

WebMD: Making us smarter or stupid(er)?

This is part of the sidebar that appears on the Women's Health homepage on WebMD.

Yes, headlines are supposed to be snazzy and eye-catching. These, however, are down right absurd. Let's go through them one by one, shall we? (I know I've been numbering things a lot lately, but I like it.)

• How to Lose Weight Fast... oh, and also, How Do It Safely. So, the headline is kind of a misnomer. I got ready to be so annoyed! And then it turns out that the advice isn't so ridiculous. The problem is that Dr. Michael Dansinger, the doctor from Biggest Loser, describes the diet and exercise regimen that the show's contestants follow. Which is CRAZY. Dr. Dansinger recommends eating between 1050 and 1200 calories a day and exercising for one hour. (Most dieticians, the article notes, generally recommend 1200 calories a day as a minimum.) Alright, ambititious!

• Why Men Cheat, from Oprah.com. Marriage counselor M. Gary Neuman gives the ladies the 411 on why men mess around.

  What's the number one reason men cheat? Ninety-two percent of men said it wasn't primarily about the sex. "The majority said it was an emotional disconnection, specifically a sense of feeling underappreciated. A lack of thoughtful gestures," Gary says. "Men are very emotional beings. They just don't look like that. Or they don't seem like that. Or they don't tell you that."

Men are people?! Um... yeah. And guess what else? WOMEN CHEAT ALSO. Take a look at some of the statistics in a recent NYT Well blog post (More People Appear To Be Cheating On Their Spouses, Studies Find, 10/27/08) and you'll see that while the rate of men who cheat is higher, it's not that much higher. Sorry, it's just another Oprah doctor that I can't get behind*.

• What is a Gluten-Free diet? Slideshow of gluten filled products that you can't eat. Weird.
• 8 Things No One Tells You About Marriage from Redbook. This should be good.

  Waking up from a good dream to face the harsh morning daylight may not seem like a reason to celebrate. But trust me, it is. Because once you let go of all the hokey stories of eternal bliss, you find that the reality of marriage is far richer and more rewarding than you ever could have guessed. Hard, yes. Frustrating, yes. But full of its own powerful, quiet enchantments just the same, and that's better than any fairy tale.

And also, you're drunk? This sounds like a Deep Thought to me. Honestly, I couldn't get past the first page of this crap. Maybe I am a completely atypical lady, but I would never enter into a legally binding relationship expecting hearts and flowers and poetry 24/7. No one would want that anyway! It would get so freaking annoying after awhile. Be realistic people. However, if you can imagine a long, fulfilling partnership and you've discussed major issues like finances, procreation, retiring to Florida, etc. you should be good to go! But I've never been married, so maybe I'll be scrambling in 10 years trying to find this article to help solve my life crises...

• 16 Cold and Flu Remedies Another slideshow. No groundbreaking remedies.
• 10 Gynecology Secrets Shhhh! Don't tell! I hate it when the word "Secret" is in headlines. This article offers some interesting information, but I wouldn't swear by this advice. And also I would ask my doctor before doing something like sticking my birth control pill in my vag. That just seems strange.
  
• The History of HIV Slideshow. Not that informative. Just watch And the Band Played On if you're curious.
• The Flat Belly Diet Shut up.
• The Cookie Diet Shut up again. Ok I didn't read either one of these, but I bet you they are stupid.
• What Does Gout Look Like? Random slideshow. The first picture is over John Barrymore, "relaxing his swollen gouty foot." Mmm uric acid.

So. Did you learn anything? Maybe. I learned that if you can say it in a slideshow, you should! And that orgasms can help ease headaches. And also "gouty" is a word.

Thanks, WebMD!


*That's what she said.

Obesity: Maybe it's not ALL your fault

Finally! Something interesting from this crazy community food list-serve I recently signed up for. Andrew Drewnowski contributed a fantastic article to the November 18 Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The dual burden of being overweight and undernourished breaks down and explains the issue of obesity in concise terms that make a lot of sense and are pretty hard to argue with (although there are plenty of opinions if you check out the comments).

Drewnowski, a professor of epidemiology and medicine at the University of Washington, is a pretty smart guy. I also think it helps that this is his life's work, as the director of the Center for Obesity Research and Nutritional Science Program. Plus, he is a prolific writer of all things edible, cheap and fatty.

In this particular article, Drewnowski dispels three common misconceptions about the American obesity issue:

1. Rising obesity rates are not due to an increasingly toxic food environment, but rather a consequence of a failing economy.
   
2. Obesity and diabetes may have a genetic component, but more importantly they follow a "social gradient"... meaning that economic class is a better indicator of obesity than whether or not your parents were.
   
3. Obesity is not the result of poor choices concerning diet and fitness: "The carefully fostered illusion of freedom of choice disguises the fact that most people have none."

It's pretty standard to blame the obese individual for the fact that they're overweight. People that have financial access to a gym and healthy foods are just lacking education and motivation, right?

Unfortunately, not every obese person is a great candidate for Biggest Loser. In fact, the vast majority of the cast are white, middle class adults. Typical? Maybe not.

As far as kids go, a Time article from June 2008 looks at obesity by demographic (It's Not Just Genetics, 6/12/08):

This [childhood obesity] tsunami, however, is a highly selective one. It discriminates by race: according to the CDC's 2006 figures, 30.7% of white American kids are overweight or obese, compared with 34.9% of blacks and 38% of Mexican Americans. It discriminates by income: 22.4% of 10-to-17-year-olds living below the poverty line--less than $21,200 for a family of four--are overweight or obese, compared with 9.1% of kids whose families earn at least four times that amount.

This is what Drewnowski is talking about. When we talk about obesity and malnutrition as a problem of genetics or "toxic food" or personal choices, we completely miss the bigger picture (and maybe on purpose). Once we're able to admit that obesity and malnutrition are just more consequences of poverty, maybe we'll actually take note of the ROOT of the problem and not just address the various symptoms. I believe thats called "preventative medicine."

"There's a whole anti-oxidant network"

"Young professionals don't eat particularly well", says Dr. Andrew Shao, Vice President of Scientific & Regulatory Affairs at the Council on Responsible Nutrition. "And there is need for supplementation." His association is currently working on initiatives for the research community, urging them not to study supplements in isolation. "When these vitamins are part of a diet, there's a whole anti-oxidant network. But we're setting up these massive, randomized trials where we're giving participants one nutrient and trying for crazy results--nutrition is just not that simple."

From "E said, C said: Talking vitamins," by Aarti Virani in the Boston Metro (for some reason I couldn't find the whole article on the website... probably because it's crap).

I love this quote for three big reasons:

1. It's a practical response to the recent results being reported that vitamins play no part in cancer prevention.
   
2. It's directed towards youngish people who are in the process of developing life-long habits, both good and bad.
3. It recognizes that it's stupid to even try to study one supplement at a time. I think my body would be offended by attempts to simplify the process by which it nourishes itself with the food I feed it. Which is not to say that we can't and will never be able to understand the process, but it seems disrespectful to break down such a wonderfully complex system and spew petty advice like, "Take vitamin A every day and you'll never develop cancer." Come on, now... really?
   

The problem with this advice is that it's COMMON SENSE. It's not new and shiny and impossibly complicated. There are no infomercials about the benefits of "Moderation!" and surely Marie Osmond will never be the spokeslady. It's a damn shame (about the infomercial).