Should Politicians Regulate Our Sugar Habit?

Florida Republican State Senator Ronda Storms is no stranger to controversial legislation.  She’s the mind behind the 2004 sterilize-a-pedophile bill.  In the case of regulating sugar for those on food stamps (who also happen to be the unhealthiest among us), she might be onto something.

Mark Bittman of the New York Times writes:

When Ronda Storms, a Republican state senator in Florida, is accused of nanny-state-ism for her efforts on behalf of a sane diet, it’s worth noting. When she introduced a bill to prevent people in Florida from spending food stamps on unhealthy items like candy, chips and soda, she broke ranks: few of her party have taken on Big Food. And as someone who has called for the defunding of an educational Planned Parenthood program and banning library book displays supporting Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, she is hardly in her party’s left wing. Not surprisingly, she’s faced criticism from every corner: Democrats think she’s attacking poor people, and Republicans see Michelle Obama. Soon after Storms proposed the bill, she told me, “Coca-Cola and Kraft were in my office” hating it.  Click here to read the full NYT article, “Regulating Our Sugar Habit” by Mark Bittman.

Bittman’s most important point is that food stamp payments have been based on the cost of a nutritionally adequate diet, and do not account for the added cost of nutritionally-empty food.  In addition, the poorest among us — those on food stamps — are also the least likely to have access to healthcare to correct diet-related ailments.  Often, they are using those food stamps to buy meals for children.  The correlation between food stamps and obesity is well-documented.  What if we ensured, through the regulation of food stamps, that our nation’s poorest children and adults spent government dollars on nutritious food?

Take this poll to share your opinion:

Advertisements

Who Loses Weight and Keeps It Off?

I have long been a fan of Tara Parker-Pope’s writing, but her recent article, “The Fat Trap,” published in last week’s edition of The New York Times Magazine, was particularly intriguing. In the days since it’s publication, almost every newspaper and magazine has weighed in (pun intended) to promote or critique the article.  In “The Fat Trap,” Parker-Pope seamlessly weaves personal anecdotes with statistics and studies as she delves into one of the most serious health questions facing America: Why are we failing to lose weight?

Although I’m not overweight, I write “we” because we are all affected by the obesity epidemic.  On a philosophical level, I believe the world’s problems are interconnected and that we solve our own problems when we have compassion for others and work together to solve one others’ problems.  On a literal level, if you are an American taxpayer, obesity is your problem, too, regardless of your weight.

I have always had compassion for overweight people.  First, I feel fortunate for the health education I’ve had in my life, and I feel it’s quite possible I could have been overweight without it.  Second, as a woman, I have certainly felt the shame of feeling fat.  In my opinion, it’s a given that the vast majority of overweight people don’t want to be overweight.  If you desperately don’t want to be fat, and are working as hard as you possibly can not to be fat, is it really your fault that you’re still fat?  Although conventional wisdom takes issue with my premise that most overweight people are working hard not to be overweight,  I believe many are.  And in so many, many ways, I feel that we could be doing more as a nation to help overweight people reach their health goals.

According to the studies referenced in Parker-Pope’s article, once people gain weight, they are statistically unlikely to lose the weight and keep it off.  If they do manage to lose the weight, they will have to work harder — for their entire lives — in order to maintain that new weight than a person who never gained and lost the weight to begin with.  Parker-Pope’s article shadows this select and successful few, and lists their characteristics.  People who maintain a significant weight loss for the long-term share these 5 traits:

  • Eat breakfast every day
  • Exercise daily
  • Weigh themselves daily
  • Eat consistent foods and don’t “cheat” on holidays or weekends
  • Watch less television than the average American (about half as much)

I found this to be one of the most fascinating parts of the article!  Who is winning the weight game?  It’s not people who are dieting in the traditional use of the word — that is, temporary depravation; instead, it’s people who have made positive changes in their lives and are committed to maintaining these changes forever.

(Slate Magazine‘s response to Parker-Pope’s piece pointed out that in normal or underweight people, these behaviors may seem disordered.  You can find Parker-Pope’s response to the Slate piece here.  Eating disorders are a complicated subject, but I mostly agree with Parker-Pope’s response.)

It’s unfortunate news for those hoping for a get-thin-quick scheme — but it’s important for overweight people to know that the only diet that will work is a diet that can be maintained over the course of one’s entire life.  For overweight people, the 3000-calories-to-a-pound rule is a myth.  For you, there may be more calories, or fewer.  The only way to find out is to know yourself, and to work at maintaining a healthy weight — learning along the way — until you succeed.

My only issue with the article is its quiet acceptance of Columbia University researcher Rudolph Leibel’s dismissal that slowing the pace of weight loss could make a difference in the body’s ability to sustain lost weight.  According to Parker-Pope, Leibel claims that “the body’s warning system is based solely on how much fat a person loses, not how quickly he or she loses it.”  I’m interested to know what research Leibel has to back up that sweeping claim.  My understanding is that long-term studies on the subject haven’t yet been completed.  Indeed, anecdotal evidence and expert opinion has historically suggested that slow weight loss is more sustainable than quick weight loss.  Why is Leibel so quick to dismiss a natural, sustainable path to weight loss?

Clearly, permanent weight loss is a complicated task.  Perhaps the real message in this article is the importance of prevention.  Childhood obesity is a preventable condition, and grossly unfair to our nation’s children, who have so little say in the matter.

Regardless of your weight, this article is a worthwhile read.  If you have lost weight and kept it off, what has helped your success?  Please leave a comment and share your thoughts below.

UPDATE: Ta-Nehisi Coates of The Atlantic seems to have similiar concerns regarding Rudolph Leibel’s quick dismissal of slow weight loss.  In his brief opinion piece, Coates provides more anecdotal evidence (his own) in support of weight loss at “a glacial pace.”

Welcome!

The United States is facing an unprecedented crisis in public health. Americans are more ill than they have ever been in history. Recent studies predict that by 2020, more than 80 percent of American men and more than 70 percent of American women will be overweight or obese. Not only are Americans as a population more ill than they have ever been, but the neediest among us are suffering most of all.

The disparity in health among social classes is growing rapidly. The gap in premature death rates between the poorest and richest Americans has almost doubled since 1980.  This disparity begins in the womb — low socioeconomic status is strongly linked to low birthweight — and the disadvantages continue throughout life. In 2009, 600,000 of Chicago’s 3 million residents lived in urban neighborhoods with limited or no access to fresh fruits and vegetables. Fortunately, new studies are pulling back the curtain on food deserts, and challenging the old assumption that poor people choose unhealthy food voluntarily.  In reality, they often do not have access to healthier options. In America today, the best predictor of health is social class.

Food is one part of the health equation, but it is only one part. Wellness is about more than diet and exercise. It’s about our daily patterns and activities. It’s about exposure to toxins and chemicals. It’s about education, and awareness.

WELLNESS & EQUALITY is a progressive health blog.  Health, at it’s core, is simple. Our modern world, however, is complex; simple, natural living has become nearly impossible without thoughtful effort. The goals of this blog are to bring awareness to contemporary health concerns, including health-related inequalities, and to encourage a conversation about how we can alter the fate of millions of Americans — including ourselves.