More on the 2nd McDonalds suit

McDonald’s marketing cited for teens’ obesity – a more complete report on the 2nd suit against McDonalds.

“We feel that the advertising strategies [of quick-service chains] target young children,” said Samuel Hirsch, the attorney representing the teenagers. “Toy promotions and Happy Meals are a lethal combination.”

Mr. Hirsch said his clients ate at McDonald’s almost every day for at least five years. One teenager, who is 5-foot-9-inches tall, now weighs 270 pounds; another, who is 5-foot-3-inches tall, now weighs 200.

Obviously, neither the clients nor their parents should accept any responsibility for their weight. Responsibility is abandoned as a concept in this country, rather let’s blame someone for our own shortcomings, and sue the bastards.

The lawsuit drew criticism from consumer groups and plaudits from medical groups, which said yesterday such cases alert people about the health risks of consuming fast food.
“We advocate for people to take control over their diets, but these lawsuits keep fast food in the news and point to the real issues that fast food can cause,” said Brie Turner-McGrievy, a clinical research coordinator with the Washington-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a nonprofit organization that promotes preventive medicine.

Others disagree.

“The Caesar Barber case was clearly a legal belly flop in the eyes of the public,” said Mike Burita, a spokesman for the Center for Consumer Freedom in Washington.

“The trial lawyers are back at the drawing board, now using kids as their new pawns to try to get their multimillion-dollar payday in court. This has everything to do with fattening attorney wallets and nothing to do with slimming down Americans.”

Either concept bothers me. You should not file a suit to attract attention. That concept perverts our legal system. This legal grandstanding sickens me. I certainly do no advocate poor diet, quite the contrary. Could the lawyers use their profits to pay for an advertising campaign for healthy diet and exercise? Could they defend the downtrodden? Why do they play the victimization game?

Exercise motivational tips

Train Your Brain

HMOs and Medicare – oil and water

This report makes sense – Survey: Thousands to be affected by HMOs dropping out of Medicare
Nearly 200,000 people may have to change health plans next year as health maintenance organizations continue their exodus from the Medicare program, according to a survey by an HMO trade group.

THE AMERICAN Association of Health Plans said Monday that HMOs are continuing to pull out of Medicare’s managed care program because they don’t get enough money to care for each patient amid rising health care costs.

Federal officials have said that the overall cost of the nation’s health care rose 6.9 percent in 2000. But the amount of money that an HMO gets to care for patients has risen by just 2 percent, said Susan Pisano, spokeswoman for AAHP, which represents health plans.

“That’s arithmetic that can’t be sustained over time,” she said.

Last year, 58 health plans withdrew or cut services. That meant 536,000 seniors — about 10 percent of the 5.6 million in Medicare HMOs — had to find a new way to receive Medicare benefits.

Medicare HMOs typically provide benefits that traditional Medicare does not, including prescription drug coverage. But the program has struggled in recent years to keep HMOs involved.

We obviously need a different approach to the financial crisis in health care. Could our health be worth the extra mone?

Get moving!

The finding was so serious that it could be comparable in its health effects to a vitamin deficiency, medical experts said. It was so shocking that U.S. News & World Report published a special 11-page section warning the nation.

“There is deep concern in high places over the fitness of American youth,” the magazine’s report began. “Parents are being warned that their children — taken to school in buses, chauffeured to activities, freed from muscle-building chores and entertained in front of TV sets — are getting soft and flabby.”

The date of that report was Aug. 2, 1957.

Decades of Admonitions Fail to Get Americans Moving. You can probably tell that I am not adverse to beating a dead horse. I cannot resist providing more and more evidence of the benefits of exercise and the problems of inactivity. This article does a great job of summarizing data that I have written about previously.

“We can’t just throw up our hands and say, `We tried,’ ” Dr. Haskell said. He is convinced that one reason people are getting fatter is because they are so sedentary and because they don’t know it, with many thinking they are moving more than they really are.

Dr. Haskell and others are undeterred, determined to keep trying to find a way to change Americans’ exercise habits.

“Physical activity is as close as we’ve come to a magic bullet for good health,” Dr. Manson said. “It’s more difficult than popping a pill, but it’s worth it.”

Amen!

Brody on diet

High-Fat Diet: Count Calories and Think Twice. Jane Brody in today’s NY Times writes intelligently about the Atkins diet and the low fat philosophy. The entire article makes good reading. I will excerpt some high points.

Does it help people lose weight? Of course it does. If you cannot eat bread, bagels, cake, cookies, ice cream, candy, crackers, muffins, sugary soft drinks, pasta, rice, most fruits and many vegetables, you will almost certainly consume fewer calories. Any diet will result in weight loss if it eliminates calories that previously were overconsumed.

This diet seems easy because it places no limits on the amounts of meats, fats, eggs, cheese and the like you can eat. These foods digest slowly, making you feel satisfied longer. Also, a diet without carbohydrates causes the body to make substances called ketones that may create a mild nausea, suppressing hunger.

We all really knew that much. Atkins is not magic. You omit so many foods that you almost have to decrease caloric intake.

What is surprising is that after three decades of simmering and soaring popularity, the Atkins diet has yet to be tested for long-term safety and effectiveness.

In an interview, Dr. Atkins said: “A long-term study would cost millions and millions of dollars. We can afford to do a six-month study.” Those shorter studies, he said, have shown “major improvements in lab tests and well-being.” He said his foundation has contributed to a study under way at Harvard comparing the short-term effectiveness and health effects of diets low in carbohydrates versus diets low in fat.

Dr. Abby Block, nutritionist at the foundation, said studies of the Atkins diet lasting six months to a year and extensive clinical experience, have shown consistent improvements in blood lipids and glucose levels, suggesting that the diet can improve health despite its high levels of saturated fats and cholesterol, long associated with heart disease risks.

Why hasn’t the government tested it? One possible reason is that it is unlikely to be approved by any review committee, given what is known about the effects of animal fats and cholesterol on the risk of heart disease, strokes and some cancers, as well as accumulating evidence that diets rich in fruits and vegetables and moderate in protein and fat can prevent diseases like high blood pressure, prostate cancer, heart disease and diabetes.

The Atkins diet is shy on several vital nutrients, including the B vitamins and vitamins A, C and D, antioxidants that slow the effects of aging, and calcium. And, a diet rich in animal protein can draw calcium from the bones, increasing the risk of osteoporosis and hip fractures.

Brody may be correct, but as I have stated on multiple occasions, one should not use theories to stop research. There are preliminary data on the Atkins diet which seem counterintuitive. Maybe our theories are wrong. Given appropriate consent (which would include disclosing the countervailing theory) one could easily get volunteers. I understand the argument; I just do not buy it!

When nutrition experts began urging Americans to cut back on fats, many filled in by eating more carbohydrates — a lot more than anyone recommended. Food producers jumped on the bandwagon to produce low-fat snacks and desserts, and Americans went hog wild, eating as much of them as they wanted.

Many fat-free foods have as many calories, or nearly as many, as their original high-fat versions, since sugars and other carbohydrates replace the fat and reduce the loss of flavor.

Third, Americans are not eating a low-fat diet. Despite a decline in the percentage of fats in the American diet, most people still eat the same amount. As caloric intake rose, the percentage of fat calories dropped but the total amount did not. Americans are eating more of everything, especially refined carbohydrates, which are made from white flour and sugars, doing neither their health nor their waistlines any good.

Too many refined carbohydrates can raise blood levels of heart-damaging triglycerides and may increase the risk of diabetes as well as obesity. Neither is it wise to cut out all fats. The body needs fat to aid in the absorption of essential nutrients, fat enhances flavor and satiety, and some fats actually promote health.

Brody points out the key problem with the low fat movement. By emphasizing low fat, we did not focus on carbohydrates. Most diet gurus agree that too much carbohydrates (especially refined carbohydrates) will cause weight gain. The question and challenge we all have is how to cut back on carbohydrates.
To which Dr. Alice H. Lichtenstein, professor of nutrition at Tufts University in Boston, added: “Reducing fat alone is no guarantee of weight loss. You must cut calories or increase physical activity.”

Dr. Denke concurred: “No matter what anyone tells you, it’s calories that count. Carefully controlled metabolic studies show that it doesn’t matter where extra calories come from. Eat more calories than you expend and you’ll gain weight.”

There you go. It really is simple. Expend more calories than you ingest (the fancy doctor’s way of saying burn more than you eat). There is no magic.