weigh-2-go.org

I’m not talking about the Beatles’ song, but “The Biggest Loser.”

I started watching the show online as a matter of research for this blog. I mean really, how can I blog about weight control issues without knowing what this show is about?

Host Alison Sweeney introduces the fitness challenge with high drama.

It didn’t take long for me to form strong opinions about the advice and role models Americans are getting from this show.

Yet, I keep watching episode after episode.

Oh, I shed a tear when Sherry got voted off. And then I really sobbed when O’Neal and Sunshine had that heartfelt father-daughter talk. Then O’Neal walked up the steps to the scale, finally light enough to take pressure off the knee injury that has crippled him for years! Michael is showing real character, still shedding major pounds even while his Grandmother is dying. And wow, Sam is looking hot!

Oh yeah, I’m a loser all right. Reality TV has got me.

Here’s the stuff that makes my eyeballs roll back in my head. Bob, the trainer, takes aside one player in each episode for some serious health advice coupled with an awkward embedded product advertisement. As each player is voted off, it is foreshadowed with some melodrama that I suspect is incited by the producers of the show.

What I fear “The Biggest Loser” is teaching Americans is that it’s healthy and normal to lose 5-10 pounds per week (after all, Dr. H is on campus supervising everything, right?); that these intense workouts (“Last Chance Workout!”) are good for everybody, even the most obese; and that what makes good TV makes good practice for weight loss. I have serious doubts.

Yet, I keep watching. I’m a loser all right.

When I am hungry, I feel nervous. I’m like a squirrel, darting around to find a nut. In the kitchen, when I am impatient to eat what I’m cooking, I get butterflies in my stomach. (There’s an old Joan Rivers joke from back in the day when Elizabeth Taylor was fat and microwave ovens were novel: “She stands in front of the microwave and yells, ‘Hurry up!’”)

I’ve noticed lately that I have conditioned myself, conversely, to eat when I am nervous. Aha! I’m in the habit of responding to nervousness with food–whether or not the nervousness is about hunger. I bet a lot of people do something like this.

So I was interested to read a passage in “Change Your Brain, Change Your Body” by Daniel G. Amen, MD, discussing the brain’s responses to food.

MIT researchers demonstrated that simple carbohydrates, such as cookies or candy, boost seratonin levels. [Seratonin relieves anxiety, depression, and obsessive thinking.]

[Researchers Matthew Gailliot and Roy Baumeister] write that self-control failures are more likely to occur when blood sugar is low. Low blood sugar levels can make you feel hungry, irritable, or anxious–all of which make you likely to make poor choices. Many everyday behaviors can cause dips in blood sugar levels, including … consuming sugary snacks or beverages, which causes an initial spike in blood sugar then a crash about thirty minutes later.

Therefore, anxiety and eating is a vicious cycle. I eat to relieve anxiety. If I happen to eat something sweet, then my blood sugar level crashes. When it does, not only do I crave more sugar (especially if I am still anxious), but I lack the mental self-control to make a healthier choice.

I wonder if this cycle leads to all-or-nothing thinking in dieting: if I eat one cookie, then the diet is blown and I might as well have another, and another.

Being aware of this vicious cycle, and the physiological goings-on that cause it, are helping me see it when it happens and say “Stop already.”

My weakness: the drawer full of Zone Bars (evil disguised as health food) at an office where I work. Stop already.

Here’s a blog post on the Huffington Post that I wholeheartedly agree with:

Do We Need a Fattitude Adjustment?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Here’s the comment I wrote:

Amazing, the diversity of viewpoints here. Some questions not yet considered:

– I agree that parents’ behavior is at issue for childhood obesity. But “lack of willpower” doesn’t explain the phenomenon, either. Millions of adults genuinely try, but fail, to lose weight. Why?

– Yes, parents “should” control their kids’ eating, but we don’t live in a society where parents have that control. Kids feed themselves now, candy machines are everywhere, school lunches are filled with junk, and parents are too busy to cook nutritious meals with real ingredients. Fast food fits the lifestyle of parents *and* their children. How do we fix *that*?

– Sugar in its many forms is hard to escape in our food supply, and it’s an addictive substance that causes the brain to want more. (If you don’t believe this, try living without any processed/packaged food for 2 days.)

Dr. Katz, thank you for articulating an intelligent response to the “rock and a hard place” we find ourselves trapped in, as we work to fight obesity, not the people who are obese.

By the way, if the official definition of obesity is the 95th percentile, what happens when 20% of kids are obese? Do we need a definition based on symptoms instead of statistics?

A quick add-on to today’s post.

As the nation starts to address obesity as an epidemic and a social issue, here’s a revealing blog post from the fat side.

Does the Obesity Task Force [of Tennessee] Even Have Any Obese People On It?
http://blogs.nashvillescene.com/pitw/2010/03/does_the_obesity_task_force_ev.php

A Page from NAAFA.org.

And here’s an obesity defense group:

NAAFA.org | We Come In All Sizes | The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance
http://www.naafa.org

This morning on NPR’s Morning Edition, I was half-listening to a report that Air France has decided to allow large people to occupy two seats on a plane for free. This is a reversal of a policy to charge for the extra seat, which had earned the company “the ire of obesity defense groups,” said the reporter on my radio.

“Obesity defense groups” tugged at my ear. Research!

But first, a statement of values is on order. Where do I stand in defense of obesity? What bias do I have? (And I do have one, as I will demonstrate.)

I put being overweight in the same category as the following:

• parenthood
• using mind-altering drugs
• collecting guns
• attending crafts festivals
• reading porn magazines
• working in food service
• swimming laps
• watching Bill O’Reilly

I know people  who practice these things, and I defend their right to do so. But experience and instinct tell me they are not right for me.

What Book Are We Reading?

Brief tangent: I was at a book club meeting to discuss “The Awakening” by Kate Chopin. Spoiler Alert: The main character, an affluent mother with a working husband in New Orleans in the late 1800s, quietly rebels against convention, but becomes isolated from love and society, and commits suicide. At our meeting, Jennifer was very upset. “She could have started a salon to discuss great ideas! She could have become a painter or a musician! She had children to raise! She didn’t have to kill herself!” To which Sally answered calmly, “Jennifer, that’s not the book we’re reading.”

Being thin? As a society, that’s not the book we’re reading. Oh sure, we have options, but we take the options we take, because we live in this world, here, now.

And it’s a weird world where statistically “normal” weights are rising, but being large is alternately normalized, then marginalized by our culture in a bipolar way. The message of diet books, Jamie Oliver, and The Biggest Loser is: everyone would be better off thin. Sponsored by TGI Friday’s, Burger King, and Comcast with 250 channels. Those shows don’t really have those sponsors, but we all see those ads–they’re in our culture and our heads–and they resonate with our familiar lifestyles.

What would happen to the economy if 80% of Americans cooked–really cooked–18 meals per week, and replaced 5 hours per week of TV/video/gaming time with exercise? That’s what it would take for American’s to be fit. That’s not the book we’re reading.

And, as a former borderline-obese person, who has: been rudely blown off by the rail-thin retail girl at Victoria’s Secret; sat in theater seats obviously not designed for the width of her butt; and huffed and puffed like the Big Bad Wolf after climbing office stairs behind thin coworkers; I remember being marginalized.

I do believe that obese people require defense.

But I admit my bias in the “everyone would be better off thin” camp. Here’s how I demonstrate my bias: I really enjoyed Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution (watch entire episodes and video shorts online). But here’s a scathing review on the Shakesville Blog that I can’t entirely argue with, either. Wow–as in politics, we hear and see the same things, and come away with totally different opinions. Based on whatever book we’re reading.

My posts lately have been newsy, I admit–a bit of a departure for Weigh-2-Go, as my 10 readers will attest. Where am I going with this?

There’s some magical mysterious factor(s) for weight loss that a gazillion people are trying to figure out.
Even people who have lost weight can’t usually articulate these factor(s) well enough to translate their success to others.
Psychologists, coaches, trainers, and nutritionists have systems–and it’s even possible that all of these systems work!–but the issue is not finding a system.
People don’t follow any system until they are ready.
Weight loss is, we must assume, a personal issue–something that happens inside the mind and the heart.

But it’s becoming a national issue. It has captured the nation’s attention that people are dying, and lifespans are shortening, because of weight.

I was talking to Mary Beth, a fitness trainer, about this phenomenon. We call it The Light Bulb.
If The Light Bulb turns on, weight gets lost. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.

When I lost 82 pounds, it was because my Light Bulb went on.
Three years later, 25 pounds regained, my Light Bulb is off.
It was on and now it’s off, and I’m having a hard time turning it back on.
How can this be?

The nature of The Light Bulb runs counter to conventional wisdom. It isn’t about goal setting, willpower, accountability, or the right nutrition or exercise program.

It’s about seeing who you will become.
That’s the best I’ve got so far.
We don’t have good language for The Light Bulb.

Dr. Phil says:

Close your eyes and visualize yourself after you’ve reached those goals. Use this visualization to feel commitment and inner strength.

To which a few people say, “oooh, yeah, nice,” but most people say, “waaah?!?”
Better is Dr. Phil’s Life Law #1 is “You either get it or you don’t.” This Law validates the existence of The Light Bulb, but it doesn’t provide a switch.

Weight Watchers says:

Imagine yourself having already achieved your goals, and enjoying them.

Visualize the way your Winning Outcome will be experienced, when you achieve it. Use your senses so that you feel how it will feel. Add sounds, smells, movement.

Is that going to work for this woman and her family?
Has it worked for Oprah?
Is this a realistic goal for everybody?
Can a nation visualize itself healthy?

Now that obesity is having a measurable impact on our life spans and our health, understanding The Light Bulb is vitally important. That’s what I’m blogging about.

I got that line from Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food. It cracked me up.

Just as I was agonizing over the Diet Wars–in which the low-fat gurus battle the low-carb gurus, and neither side has yet emerged victorious–Pollan makes an excellent case that we need not to fight for carbs, fats, vitamins, antioxidants, or any other subset of our nutrition needs. We need to fight for food.

Pollan carefully defines, and defends, food: he means actual plant and animal substances, not processed or refined into foodlike substances. He even suggests that if a product has to make health claims, it is probably not food, but a foodlike substance derived from parts of nutritious substances that came from food.

Foodlike substances shout wildly for our attention.
Now fortified with 10 vitamins and minerals!

No artificial preservatives!

A heart-healthy food!

And the yams, alas, are silent.

In Defense of Food is a couple years old, but the ideas are still cutting edge. One of my next reads will be Pollan’s Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual.

Really?!? (This is not Dawn, nor me for that matter.)

I want to start perpetuate a new catch phrase: “Really?!?”

I think I picked this up from Dawn. When someone doesn’t get the real point, or is hung up on the weaker argument, or comes at an issue with an incomprehensible perspective, Dawn creates a pregnant pause, squints, and then, with just the right hint of exasperation, asks, “Really?!?”

Jenn sent me to this article on MSN:

Fat epidemic linked to chemicals run amok: Fast food not solely to blame for obesity, new research suggests

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35315651/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition

Notably, the title of the web page, which appears in the browser, reads: “Don’t blame fast food for making you fat.”

In searching for that one, I also found this one:
Stealth Health: Your favorite prepared foods may be getting healthier. You just don’t know it.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235011
“Forget about fat. What’s really killing Americans is salt.”

Pause. Squint. Really?!?

To my marketing-manager’s eye these articles smack–smack!–of public relations gurus trying to take the heat off fast food companies, and prepared food manufacturers, respectively, for the nation’s obesity problems. They divert attention from the ginormous elephant in the room: the sugar and other simple carbs that make their wares oh-so-tasty and oh-so-profitable.

I am a believer–and a scared one–that chemicals and salt are dangerous. When I read about PVCs and Teflon® I feel like I’m in a sci-fi horror movie.

But the symptoms we’re talking about are obesity and diabetes. The culprit, pure and simple, is sugar.
(The lead “Forget about fat. What’s really killing Americans is salt” forgot to mention high fructose corn syrup.)

Food makers must be developing nervous twitches over the spotlight being thrown on the obesity epidemic, and they’ve sent their PR minions to divert that spotlight to other risky substances. Risky, yes, but the “real” sources of the problem?  Really?

Be afraid. Be very afraid. And be skeptical of the news.

Many thanks to Cyndi for posting on Facebook this link to Jamie Oliver’s TED talk. I was glad to see it.

Jamie Oliver’s TED Prize wish: Teach every child about food
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jamie_oliver.html

Jamie’s message is powerful and well timed alongside Michelle Obama’s campaign against childhood obesity. The upshot: One-third of America’s children are obese, and their projected average lifespan is shorter than the generation before them, because of the threats of diabetes, heart disease, and other diet-related illnesses.

After seeing this, I was intrigued when I ran across this promo for a new mini-series on ABC:

Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution
http://abc.go.com/shows/jamie-olivers-food-revolution

The show chronicles Jamie’s hands-on crusade to improve school lunches and community awareness, starting in Huntington, WV, the unhealthiest city in America.

One video clip shows Jamie talking to a mother in her kitchen, across a table piled high with gross unhealthy food. Other clips show him in the schools and on the local radio station, giving talks about nutrition.

I’m going to be interested to see what he recommends for both individuals and institutions. How much of the obesity problem is going to be managed institutionally? How will individuals take up the cause?

This week’s Newsweek contains a series of articles about Michelle Obama’s campaign against childhood obesity. This is a timely and important issue for the First Lady to adopt–one that will surely affect the health–and health care costs–of Americans.

President Obama has issued a memorandum to create a Task Force that will work on: “(a) ensuring access to healthy, affordable food; (b) increasing physical activity in schools and communities; (c) providing healthier food in schools; and (d) empowering parents with information and tools to make good choices for themselves and their families.”

It all sounds positive, but in the American tradition, there will be a partisan debate boiling down to this: who is responsible for the obesity of a child? Do the food lobbies need more regulation, and the schools need better food and exercise programs? Or do parents and children need to take more responsibility for the children’s choices and behaviors?

It’s a complex and essential question. As much as I am a fan of personal responsibility, I believe that foods affect our behavior like drugs, and the effect is increased for children. If my belief is a fact, then it would inconsistent to invoke personal responsibility in our use of food while we regulate and legislate tobacco, alcohol, and narcotics.

Example: Is it realistic to expect kids to stay away from a candy machine in school? Can we fault parents for a lack of control when their kids spend their lunch money on candy? Would food companies voluntarily turn their backs on the schools as a market, for the sake of the nation’s health? Would school districts turn down the money they make from these machines?

I love free enterprise when it works. It works great for magazines, blue jeans, and washing machines. It does not work for addictive substances, assuming we place the highest value on our health and safety.