AUTISM-CAUSING PESTICIDES FOUND IN BREAKFAST CEREALS & ELSEWHERE Pete Linforth - Pixabay "Each year, more than 250 million pounds of glyphosate are sprayed on American crops, primarily on 'Roundup-ready' corn and soybeans genetically engineered to withstand the herbicide. But when it comes to the food we eat, the highest glyphosate levels are not found in products made with GMO corn. Increasingly, glyphosate is also sprayed just before harvest on wheat, barley, oats and beans that are not genetically engineered. Glyphosate kills the crop, drying it out so that it can be harvested sooner than if the plant were allowed to die naturally." From Dr. Temkin's article by the EWG being discussed today. Monsanto has a line of GMO seeds known as "Roundup Ready". The plants produced by Roundup Ready seeds have the ability to withstand being doused in the broadleaf weedkiller, Roundup. Although there are a host of health problems associated with exposure to Roundup or similar pesticides / herbicides (ENDOCRINE SYSTEM DISRUPTION is a major one), one is rightfully gaining a great deal of media exposure.
It's become obvious that there is an intimate relationship between GLYPHOSATE (Roundup's active ingredient) and autism --- a relationship which is becoming more pronounced with every published study (HERE and HERE) not to mention those that are never published (HERE). And now this. Last week we discovered from the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) testing of oat-containing cereals and cereal-like products (breakfast bars, granola, etc) that they all contained glyphosate; most of them significant amounts of glyphosate. In fact, one of the samples of Quaker Old Fashioned Oats contained a whopping 1,300 parts per billion (ppb), with another sample coming in at 1,000. And while several "TRUST US" governmental watchdog agencies have said that glyphosate is safe to consume in concentrations of 160 ppb or less, a quick peek at the chart produced by the EWG (using independently verified lab results) showed that several products contained much higher levels. For instance, Cheerios came in at almost 500 ppb, while Quaker Dinosaur Eggs, Brown Sugar, Instant Oatmeal averaged a stunning 700 ppb per sample. Study author, Dr. Alexis Temkin, wrote..... The EPA has calculated that 1-to-2-year-old children are likely to have the highest exposure, at a level twice greater than California’s No Significant Risk Level and 230 times EWG’s health benchmark. Did you catch that? 230 times higher? By the way, this is not the first study of its kind. Back in October of 2016, the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) published a report titled Do Breakfast Cereals Contain Endocrine-Disrupting Pesticides? which stated, "Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are natural or artificial substances that are foreign to the human body. Exposure to these chemicals can interfere with the endocrine system and induce many adverse effects on an individual or on a person's children or grandchildren. Many pesticides or biocides are either proven or strongly suspected to be EDCs. On average, 9.4 residues were found in the non-organic samples. Of the 70 non-organic samples that could be quantified, the average concentration of residues was .177 mg/kg per sample - a level 354 times higher than the maximum allowable concentration (MAC) tolerated in drinking water for all pesticides!" And now this; just days ago the American Journal of Psychiatry (Association of Maternal Insecticide Levels With Autism in Offspring From a National Birth Cohort) concluded that this relationship to AUTISM is not only real, it's strong. "Prenatal exposure to neurotoxins including persistent organic pollutants are common in the pregnant population and are suggested to influence risk of neurobehavioral syndromes including outcome. The odds of autism among offspring were significantly increased with maternal DDE levels that were in the highest 75th percentile, with adjustment for maternal age, parity, and history of psychiatric disorders. The odds of autism with intellectual disability were increased by greater than twofold with maternal DDE levels above this threshold. These findings provide the first biomarker-based evidence that maternal exposure to insecticides is associated with autism among offspring." Here's what's really crazy about this study. When the authors were interviewed by Kristen Monaco for MedPage Today (Pesticide Exposure in Pregnancy Tied to Autism Risk), they made it clear that these results were not a shocker. "Brown added that his group wasn't particularly surprised by this DDE-autism link, given that this chemical class was associated with other developmental outcomes in prior research." All of this begs the question of what are DDE's? According to PubChem, "Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE) is a chemical compound formed by the loss of hydrogen chloride from DDT. DDE is an organochlorine pesticide, it is the ethylene metabolite of DDT. DDE is a breakdown product of DDT, which was used in the past as an insecticide." DDT was banned decades ago because it weakened the shells of various bird's eggs. For instance, when I first started running the CURRENT RIVER 25 years ago, there were no eagles. About 15 years ago or so I started seeing a few eagles, and when you saw one it was a big deal. Now, if you don't see an eagle (or several) it's a big deal. The reason I mentioned DDT is because our government's ATSDR profile on DDE (Toxicological Profile for DDT, DDE, and DDD) states, "Birds of prey, waterfowl, and song birds are more susceptible to eggshell thinning than chickens and related species, and DDE appears to be more potent than DDT." Wikipedia says this of DDE. "DDE is particularly dangerous because it is fat-soluble like other organochlorines; thus, it is rarely excreted from the body, and concentrations tend to increase throughout life. The major exception is the excretion of DDE in breast milk, which transfers a substantial portion of the mother's DDE burden to the young animal or child." What can you do to protect yourself and your family above and beyond limiting their exposure? The studies mentioned above show that while eating organic oats or other foods is helpful, thanks to cross-contamination, it doesn't completely solve the problem, and it certainly doesn't solve the problem of it getting into groundwater. Speaking of cross-contamination, if you want to see what it looks like, look no farther than the increasingly common phenomenon known as "Dicamba Drift". Dicamba is a weed killer that has gotten more popular as weed resistance to Roundup has increased (just like ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE), and has the propensity to vaporize after spraying and then "drift" over to neighboring fields. How big is this problem? One short month ago, EcoWatch (New Dicamba Drift Estimate: 1.1 Million Acres Damaged Already in 2018) stated that, "A University of Missouri report estimates that drift damage from the pesticide dicamba has occurred across 1.1 million acres of agricultural crops...." The most famous case of Dicamba Drift in these parts happened down in Missouri's boot heel area in Campbell. Campbell, MO is famous for their peaches. If you've never had a Campbell peach, you are truly missing out. Unfortunately, thanks to Dicamba Drift, enjoying these peaches has gotten much more difficult as the St. Louis Post Dispatch (Missouri's Largest Peach Farmer Sues Monsanto Over Alleged Damage from Illegal Herbicide Use) recently revealed. "In 2015, about 7,000 trees in Bader’s orchards were damaged, leading to a loss of $1.5 million, according to the lawsuit. This year an estimated 30,000 trees are considered a permanent loss, amounting to a financial blow that has yet to fully come into focus. 'Those numbers are still being estimated,' said Bev Randles of Randles & Splittgerber, a Kansas City law firm. 'The losses will certainly be in the millions.'" The point of today's post? We are swimming in a sea of chemicals, including not only those you just read about, but PRESCRIPTION DRUGS and VACCINES as well, which have side effect profiles that are, according to scores of studies, underestimated by almost two orders of magnitude (100 times --- HERE). It's also why taking care of your body's natural detox systems (BIOTRANSFORMATION) is more critical than ever, and part of THE PROTOCOL I give my patients and readers to help them start the process of taking their lives back. If you appreciate what you are reading or find yourself spending more time on our site than originally intended, be sure and share the wealth by liking, sharing or following on FACEBOOK. It's the easiest way I know to reach those you love and care about most with pertinent health-related information.
0 Comments
WHAT ABOUT YOUR BABY'S REFLUX PROBLEM? FancyCrave1 - Pixabay Although PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS (PPI's, otherwise known as stomach acid blockers) are one of the more commonly-prescribed class of drugs in a nation that consumes mass quantities of drugs in the first place (HERE), they've been in the news for the past several years not only because of their increasingly-exposed SIDE EFFECT PROFILE, but because they are mis-prescribed almost 100% of the time. I well remember the shock I had the first time I had a patient tell me that their baby had been prescribed a PPI --- some time around Y2K. Now it's common. How common?
"GER in preterm infants is most often diagnosed and treated on the basis of clinical and behavioral signs rather than on specific testing to prove or disprove pathology, and many infants continue to be treated after they are discharged from the hospital. Indeed, routine use of anti-reflux medications for the treatment of symptomatic GER in preterm infants was one of the therapies singled out as being of questionable value in the recent American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Choosing Wisely campaign. The primary mechanism of GER in preterm infants is transient lower esophageal sphincter relaxation (TLESR). TLESR is an abrupt reflex decrease in lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressure to levels at or below intragastric pressure, unrelated to swallowing. Preterm infants have dozens of episodes of TLESR each day, many of which are associated with some degree of GER. As such, GER is a normal phenomenon in preterm infants, which is exacerbated by a pure liquid diet and age-specific body position. Preterm infants with clinically diagnosed GER are often treated with pharmacologic agents; however, a lack of evidence of efficacy together with emerging evidence of significant harm (particularly with gastric acid blockade) strongly suggest that these agents should be used sparingly, if at all, in preterm infants. GER is a normal developmental phenomenon that will resolve with maturation." Not particularly effective and not nearly as safe as we've been led to believe (not surprisingly they are also being linked not only to OSTEOPOROSIS in adults, but BONE FRACTURES IN CHILDREN). Not to mention the fact that (are you ready for this shocker?) babies burp up (TLESR). What's a person to do if you feel they may be burping up more than "normal" (whatever normal really is)? Firstly, read Dr. Robert Mendelsohn's book (he is a pediatrician), HOW TO RAISE A HEALTHY CHILD IN SPITE OF YOUR DOCTOR. Secondly, if your child has COLIC, click the link. And thirdly, if you want to learn why stomach acid is not your enemy but your friend, HERE is the place to start. And if you know someone that needs this information, a great way to reach them is on FACEBOOK (like, share, or follow). WHY AREN'T WE ASKING WHAT'S |
 Aleser |  Vveia784 |
There are any number of lower extremity injuries that kids tend to get as the result of sports. OSGOOD SCHLATTER is a common one, as are ANKLE SPRAINS of varying degrees. I also see a lot of kids (as well as adults) with PATELLO-FEMORAL SYNDROME, aka Patellar-Tracking Syndrome. The cool thing is that I can usually help people dealing with these sorts of problems, often seeing results immediately (click the links). Immediate results, however, are not something you are going to get with stress fractures of the heel or "calcaneus".
The first thing you have to do is to determine whether or not your child (or you for that matter) has a stress fracture of the calcaneus (heel bone). Although you can go have X-rays, CT SCANS, bone scans, etc, this is just about like X-raying a rib to see whether or not it might be cracked (we are not talking "shattered" here as might be seen in severe trauma). Considering the treatment is the same whether it is or isn't, why bother? The test for determining a Calcaneal Stress Fracture simply involves grabbing the sides of the heel with your thumb and forefinger (see the black arrows above) and giving a firm (firm) squeeze. If there is pain, then there is likely a stress fracture.
What exactly is a stress fracture? Stress fractures occur mostly in the lower extremity and foot, and occur mostly due to overuse. When muscles get fatigued, they have a diminished ability to act in their secondary role as shock absorbers (their primary role is contracting). The result is a tiny fracture that may or may not show up on X-ray. And like almost every other health problem out there, females are more prone than men. The best way to deal with a stress fracture is by staying off of it for 4-6 weeks --- the amount of time it will take the fracture to heal (my experience is that in kids they will often heal faster than that). Beyond rest, other forms of treatment that might prove helpful (or measures that might prevent recurrence) include....
How common are these calcaneal stress fractures in kids? The December 2014 issue of the Brazilian medical journal, Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Stress Fractures in the Foot and Ankle of Athletes) gives us a pretty good idea. " Stress injuries are common among athletes and military recruits, accounting for approximately 10% of all orthopedic injuries. Prospective and retrospective studies show a higher incidence among Caucasians. When compared to American black and Hispanic individuals, white individuals are more susceptible to stress fractures. The same occurs with age: older individuals present a higher incidence of such fracture. Stress fractures are less common in children than adolescents and adults. In relation to sex, some studies have shown that military women have an incidence 5 to 10 times higher than men."
Because of my experience, I think we may be way underestimating these particular stress fractures in kids. I not only saw calcaneal stress fractures in at least 3 OF MY 4 KIDS (all are soccer players), but I saw it in kids I coached as well (not to mention in patients). Soccer-wise, it was most common during dry periods when the fields were hard as proverbial rocks, or in kids who were both playing soccer and running cross country or playing basketball.
The first thing you have to do is to determine whether or not your child (or you for that matter) has a stress fracture of the calcaneus (heel bone). Although you can go have X-rays, CT SCANS, bone scans, etc, this is just about like X-raying a rib to see whether or not it might be cracked (we are not talking "shattered" here as might be seen in severe trauma). Considering the treatment is the same whether it is or isn't, why bother? The test for determining a Calcaneal Stress Fracture simply involves grabbing the sides of the heel with your thumb and forefinger (see the black arrows above) and giving a firm (firm) squeeze. If there is pain, then there is likely a stress fracture.
What exactly is a stress fracture? Stress fractures occur mostly in the lower extremity and foot, and occur mostly due to overuse. When muscles get fatigued, they have a diminished ability to act in their secondary role as shock absorbers (their primary role is contracting). The result is a tiny fracture that may or may not show up on X-ray. And like almost every other health problem out there, females are more prone than men. The best way to deal with a stress fracture is by staying off of it for 4-6 weeks --- the amount of time it will take the fracture to heal (my experience is that in kids they will often heal faster than that). Beyond rest, other forms of treatment that might prove helpful (or measures that might prevent recurrence) include....
- CALCIFOOD: Despite ingesting far more calcium than most of the rest of the world, incidence of fractures (stress fractures included) are exploding in the pediatric population (HERE). The solution is not taking more calcium supplements (HERE)! Learn why there is only one real calcium supplement out there, and it comes from raw bone meal (HERE).
- LOW LEVEL LASER THERAPY: In case you haven't heard, LOW LEVEL LASER THERAPY is good for almost anything and everything. Click the link to find out why.
- BETTER SHOES & ORTHOTICS: Unfortunately, way too many people --- even people who spend lots of money on their footwear --- are wearing the wrong shoes for their foot type. For example, it's not uncommon for me to find a person with a high-arched rigid foot (a supinator), wearing "stability" shoes used to correct pronation. The result is that people are often thrown into the very posture or position they are trying to avoid. How do you find out if a certain shoe is right for you? One of the best ways is to have a video gait analysis done by someone who knows the score (HERE for instance). While this is relatively simple in large urban areas with huge shoe stores or departments, you won't find it in our neck of the woods.
- STAY OFF THE CONCRETE: Look; I completely realize that you aren't going to be able to live you life barefoot on the beach. Just remember that HARD SURFACES will eat you up over time, and that they are a huge contributing factor to stress fractures as well.
- DON'T OVERTRAIN: This one is huge. Of the people who love to work out, a significant portion works out too much, too often, too intensely, or too long. The results of overtraining are never good. It all comes back to the concept of MED or Minimal Effective Dose. For instance, if three sets of ten pull-ups is optimal for muscular development, anything more than that is at best a waste of time, and at worst counterproductive or even harmful. While it's true that sunshine is healthy, exposing your skin to anything over a certain amount is going cause varying degrees of damage in the form of a sunburn. If you are overtraining, you are causing varying degrees of damage to certain body tissues.
- USE GOOD FORM: Honestly, this is a no-brainer. I don't care whether it's playing tennis, running, lifting weights, or throwing a baseball, poor form is going to adversely affect your body, leading to increased chances of developing a stress fracture.
- ENGAGE IN REGULAR STRENGTH TRAINING: Because stress fractures often start with fatigued, weak, or underworked muscles, one of the very best ways to solve (or better yet, prevent) the problem is make sure your muscles are strong. Muscles are strengthened by resistance training, not straight cardio. It's why the importance of adding STRENGTH TRAINING to whatever kind of training you are doing cannot be overlooked. If you are an athlete who finds yourself injured but needing to train, the pool or bicycle can be great alternatives to pounding-type exercises.
How common are these calcaneal stress fractures in kids? The December 2014 issue of the Brazilian medical journal, Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Stress Fractures in the Foot and Ankle of Athletes) gives us a pretty good idea. " Stress injuries are common among athletes and military recruits, accounting for approximately 10% of all orthopedic injuries. Prospective and retrospective studies show a higher incidence among Caucasians. When compared to American black and Hispanic individuals, white individuals are more susceptible to stress fractures. The same occurs with age: older individuals present a higher incidence of such fracture. Stress fractures are less common in children than adolescents and adults. In relation to sex, some studies have shown that military women have an incidence 5 to 10 times higher than men."
Because of my experience, I think we may be way underestimating these particular stress fractures in kids. I not only saw calcaneal stress fractures in at least 3 OF MY 4 KIDS (all are soccer players), but I saw it in kids I coached as well (not to mention in patients). Soccer-wise, it was most common during dry periods when the fields were hard as proverbial rocks, or in kids who were both playing soccer and running cross country or playing basketball.
IF YOU THINK YOUR GENERATION HAS HEALTH PROBLEMS... WAIT UNTIL YOU SEE WHAT'S COMING!
 |  |
"Despite their greater life expectancy, the adults of today are less "metabolically" healthy than their counterparts of previous generations. The prevalence of obesity in our youngest generation of men and women at the mean age of 40 is similar to that of our oldest generation at the mean age of 55. This means that this younger generation is 15 years ahead of the older generation and will be exposed to their obesity for a longer time." From the April 2013 issue of the Journal of Invasive Cardiology (Today's Adult Generations Less Healthy Than Previous Generations). In other words, for 'Generation Z' 30 will be the new 45.
A society that lives longer, but with more chronic health problems. It's BIG PHARMA'S wet dream. But how long before people aren't living as long, and what about the sorry quality of life associated with this phenomenon? Via the latest issue of their journal (Circulation), the American Heart Association has issued a "Scientific Statement" called Cardiovascular Health Promotion in Children: Challenges and Opportunities for 2020 and Beyond. In this paper, thirteen prominent cardiologists and Ph.D researchers presented their case that our nation's children not only have overall poor health now, but are at risk for terrible health as they age --- the major reason I continue to argue that our current healthcare trajectory is UNSUSTAINABLE.
In this "pediatric focused" paper, the authors let us know that (no big surprise here) OBESITY is at the root of numerous health problems. How bad has the problem of childhood obesity gotten in the good ole USA? "The number of overweight children has risen dramatically over the past four decades for youth 2 to 19 years of age, with a recognized epidemic occurring between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s in the United States. 17% of 2 to 19-year-olds are obese and an additional 15% are overweight." Interesting. Not only do we see that one in three of our nation's children are packing excess weight, we see that incidence of this exploded (they use the word 'epidemic') in the decade of the mid 80's to the mid 90's. Make sure and ask yourself why?
I would contend that you can largely thank our government for this decade of dietary debacle. How so? The decade being discussed would best be described as the "Low Fat / Fat Free" era --- an era I wholeheartedly bought into while at KSU as a nutrition major (HERE). Face it; science has gotten any number of things wrong over the years --- particularly when it comes to diet. For instance, they've told us that things like SALT, EGGS, RED MEAT, GREENS, etc are bad for us, while things like GRAINS, MSG, ASPARTAME, and HFCS are just fine. And despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, they continue to beat us over the head about DIETARY FAT. There was an expensive and concerted effort that started in that ten year span to make sure that everyone knew that it did not matter so much what you ate, as long as it wasn't fat. There was no such thing as a "GOOD FAT". Fat was fat was fat, and it was all equally bad --- except that one particular fat that supposedly came from heart-healthy "vegetables" (TRANS FATS ----- made from corn). What was the result?
Look around you. 40% of our nation's women are obese, with another third being simply overweight (HERE). And men aren't too far behind. As America became increasingly fat-phobic, they became not only more and more obese, but they ended up with all the problems associated with rampant carb-consumption (HERE), including hardcore addictions (HERE). The problem is, it has taken the government decades to get their act together as far as telling us what we should be eating --- and it's still screwed up. In fact, no one but maybe the medical profession itself (HERE), continues to offer worse dietary advice than our government. Don't believe me? Case in point, our government's current recommended diet --- DASH --- the specific diet recommended by the authors of the study we are talking about today. But the free fall doesn't end there.
The metrics that the AHA looks at to determine one's level of cardiovascular health include SMOKING, BMI, EXERCISE LEVEL, BLOOD PRESSURE, CHOLESTEROL, BLOOD SUGAR, and of course, diet. The first question I have to ask is how bad has it gotten when children are taking DRUGS FOR HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, DRUGS FOR HIGH CHOLESTEROL, and DRUGS FOR TYPE II DIABETES? Although this sort of thing was unheard of when I was a kid back in the 1970's, today it's not uncommon at all. The second question I must ask is why is the sort of dietary advice the government is dishing out so behind-the-times? Is it any better than the debacle we've seen in the past? Maybe a bit. In this study they promoted a, "diet emphasizing fruits, vegetables, fish, whole grains, low sodium, and few sugar-laden foods and drinks."
Some of this is fine. Getting off the sugar and junk carbs is a fantastic place to start. However, it's our grain-based diet of the old 'Food Pyramid' that helped push us to where we're at now. Furthermore, unless you are getting wild, cold-water fish, there is not a an iota of health benefit. In fact, some people say that farm-raised fish is one of the worst foods you can eat (HERE). The truth is that DEER or FRESCOLN BEEF is far better. As for fruits and vegetables; can we please stop talking about them as though they are a single entity (HERE)? And about the whole "low sodium" thing, click my earlier link on "salt" and you'll quickly notice that this is another of the numerous areas where the "experts" are confused (or outright lying to you). But lets forget all of this for a moment. Why is this whole paper a huge we've-heard-it-all-before pipe dream as far as making real changes are concerned? Take a listen to what the authors reveal.
"Unfortunately, children in the United States score most poorly in regard to a healthy diet. Approximately 91% of US children are classified as having a poor diet score, while less than 0.5% are classified as having an ideal diet score. Moreover, a higher percentage of children than adults are ranked in the poor category for diet quality. This worrisome finding is consistent across all pediatric age groups, races, and sex."
There you have it folks; kid's diets are bad --- really bad. And not only are they really bad, they are significantly worse than adults. Across the board. Mostly this is the fault of moms and dads who have failed to step up to the plate and parent, making sure little Junior does not leave the table until he eats his broccoli. Pretty soon, when Junior is a senior in high school, he's eating Skittles and Coke for breakfast, fries and ketchup for lunch, and a frozen pizza and cold cereal for supper. And we wonder why things look so bleak for the future of cost-efficient healthcare.
The older generation may think they have it bad as far as health-related problems are concerned. But they grew up eating non-processed foods and garden vegetables. Although few of these elders will be around to see the consequences, just wait until people get a load of what's coming down the pike as far as health problems are concerned. We are talking here about a generation (Gen Z) who has never let a garden vegetable parse their lips --- and has no intention of doing so. No matter what sort of CATCHY PSA you hit them with.
The prevailing thought in America has been, and largely continues to be, a DRUGS-FIRST approach. In case you were wondering how well this is working out, wonder no more. Simply start reading the titles of THESE POSTS and you'll quickly realize you've been bamboozled. Swindled. Sold a bill of goods. Sold down the river. Use whatever analogy you want, but the drugs aren't doing what the TV commercial told us they would (HERE). You can go back and look at my earlier links, or you can read what the authors themselves wrote about this cycle of crappy habits, crappy diets, and and crappy health.
"Unfortunately, over time, most children experience a decline in health factors and behaviors, resulting in loss of cardiovascular health as they reach adulthood. It is well known that achieving sustained lifestyle changes in adults is difficult, and risk factor control through the use of medication cannot fully restore the low-risk state present in ideal cardiovascular health."
This whole paragraph one giant understatement. Medications are largely a myth and do not do what they claim they are going to do --- except provide you with untold numbers of side effects (HERE). We also know that bad habits you carry through from childhood to adulthood are tougher to break the older you get. For instance, if you are an overweight gamer and computer junkie who never gets off the couch as a kid, what makes you think it gets easier when you get to adulthood? What's the result of this whole cycle? Easy. "A decline in health factors and behaviors children reach adulthood." Unfortunately, this decline rapidly turns into a free-fall.
The government welcomes 'Captain Obvious' to the discussion when they state, "Overall, it is clear that much of the benefit of ideal cardiovascular health factors is lost in childhood and adolescence. This is due in large part to the adoption of unhealthful diet and physical activity behaviors." Great; but let's get to that point where the rubber meets the road. How are we going to turn this around and change 35 years of heading down the wrong path? SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS certainly aren't getting it done. Neither is the admonishment to exercise more, smoke less, and eat more vegetables. And we've already seen how well these sorts of programs really work anyway (HERE). Of course the government's solution is more studies, more and bigger analytics, and (drum roll please), more funding ---- way more funding.
A society that lives longer, but with more chronic health problems. It's BIG PHARMA'S wet dream. But how long before people aren't living as long, and what about the sorry quality of life associated with this phenomenon? Via the latest issue of their journal (Circulation), the American Heart Association has issued a "Scientific Statement" called Cardiovascular Health Promotion in Children: Challenges and Opportunities for 2020 and Beyond. In this paper, thirteen prominent cardiologists and Ph.D researchers presented their case that our nation's children not only have overall poor health now, but are at risk for terrible health as they age --- the major reason I continue to argue that our current healthcare trajectory is UNSUSTAINABLE.
In this "pediatric focused" paper, the authors let us know that (no big surprise here) OBESITY is at the root of numerous health problems. How bad has the problem of childhood obesity gotten in the good ole USA? "The number of overweight children has risen dramatically over the past four decades for youth 2 to 19 years of age, with a recognized epidemic occurring between the mid-1980s and mid-1990s in the United States. 17% of 2 to 19-year-olds are obese and an additional 15% are overweight." Interesting. Not only do we see that one in three of our nation's children are packing excess weight, we see that incidence of this exploded (they use the word 'epidemic') in the decade of the mid 80's to the mid 90's. Make sure and ask yourself why?
I would contend that you can largely thank our government for this decade of dietary debacle. How so? The decade being discussed would best be described as the "Low Fat / Fat Free" era --- an era I wholeheartedly bought into while at KSU as a nutrition major (HERE). Face it; science has gotten any number of things wrong over the years --- particularly when it comes to diet. For instance, they've told us that things like SALT, EGGS, RED MEAT, GREENS, etc are bad for us, while things like GRAINS, MSG, ASPARTAME, and HFCS are just fine. And despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, they continue to beat us over the head about DIETARY FAT. There was an expensive and concerted effort that started in that ten year span to make sure that everyone knew that it did not matter so much what you ate, as long as it wasn't fat. There was no such thing as a "GOOD FAT". Fat was fat was fat, and it was all equally bad --- except that one particular fat that supposedly came from heart-healthy "vegetables" (TRANS FATS ----- made from corn). What was the result?
Look around you. 40% of our nation's women are obese, with another third being simply overweight (HERE). And men aren't too far behind. As America became increasingly fat-phobic, they became not only more and more obese, but they ended up with all the problems associated with rampant carb-consumption (HERE), including hardcore addictions (HERE). The problem is, it has taken the government decades to get their act together as far as telling us what we should be eating --- and it's still screwed up. In fact, no one but maybe the medical profession itself (HERE), continues to offer worse dietary advice than our government. Don't believe me? Case in point, our government's current recommended diet --- DASH --- the specific diet recommended by the authors of the study we are talking about today. But the free fall doesn't end there.
The metrics that the AHA looks at to determine one's level of cardiovascular health include SMOKING, BMI, EXERCISE LEVEL, BLOOD PRESSURE, CHOLESTEROL, BLOOD SUGAR, and of course, diet. The first question I have to ask is how bad has it gotten when children are taking DRUGS FOR HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, DRUGS FOR HIGH CHOLESTEROL, and DRUGS FOR TYPE II DIABETES? Although this sort of thing was unheard of when I was a kid back in the 1970's, today it's not uncommon at all. The second question I must ask is why is the sort of dietary advice the government is dishing out so behind-the-times? Is it any better than the debacle we've seen in the past? Maybe a bit. In this study they promoted a, "diet emphasizing fruits, vegetables, fish, whole grains, low sodium, and few sugar-laden foods and drinks."
Some of this is fine. Getting off the sugar and junk carbs is a fantastic place to start. However, it's our grain-based diet of the old 'Food Pyramid' that helped push us to where we're at now. Furthermore, unless you are getting wild, cold-water fish, there is not a an iota of health benefit. In fact, some people say that farm-raised fish is one of the worst foods you can eat (HERE). The truth is that DEER or FRESCOLN BEEF is far better. As for fruits and vegetables; can we please stop talking about them as though they are a single entity (HERE)? And about the whole "low sodium" thing, click my earlier link on "salt" and you'll quickly notice that this is another of the numerous areas where the "experts" are confused (or outright lying to you). But lets forget all of this for a moment. Why is this whole paper a huge we've-heard-it-all-before pipe dream as far as making real changes are concerned? Take a listen to what the authors reveal.
"Unfortunately, children in the United States score most poorly in regard to a healthy diet. Approximately 91% of US children are classified as having a poor diet score, while less than 0.5% are classified as having an ideal diet score. Moreover, a higher percentage of children than adults are ranked in the poor category for diet quality. This worrisome finding is consistent across all pediatric age groups, races, and sex."
There you have it folks; kid's diets are bad --- really bad. And not only are they really bad, they are significantly worse than adults. Across the board. Mostly this is the fault of moms and dads who have failed to step up to the plate and parent, making sure little Junior does not leave the table until he eats his broccoli. Pretty soon, when Junior is a senior in high school, he's eating Skittles and Coke for breakfast, fries and ketchup for lunch, and a frozen pizza and cold cereal for supper. And we wonder why things look so bleak for the future of cost-efficient healthcare.
The older generation may think they have it bad as far as health-related problems are concerned. But they grew up eating non-processed foods and garden vegetables. Although few of these elders will be around to see the consequences, just wait until people get a load of what's coming down the pike as far as health problems are concerned. We are talking here about a generation (Gen Z) who has never let a garden vegetable parse their lips --- and has no intention of doing so. No matter what sort of CATCHY PSA you hit them with.
The prevailing thought in America has been, and largely continues to be, a DRUGS-FIRST approach. In case you were wondering how well this is working out, wonder no more. Simply start reading the titles of THESE POSTS and you'll quickly realize you've been bamboozled. Swindled. Sold a bill of goods. Sold down the river. Use whatever analogy you want, but the drugs aren't doing what the TV commercial told us they would (HERE). You can go back and look at my earlier links, or you can read what the authors themselves wrote about this cycle of crappy habits, crappy diets, and and crappy health.
"Unfortunately, over time, most children experience a decline in health factors and behaviors, resulting in loss of cardiovascular health as they reach adulthood. It is well known that achieving sustained lifestyle changes in adults is difficult, and risk factor control through the use of medication cannot fully restore the low-risk state present in ideal cardiovascular health."
This whole paragraph one giant understatement. Medications are largely a myth and do not do what they claim they are going to do --- except provide you with untold numbers of side effects (HERE). We also know that bad habits you carry through from childhood to adulthood are tougher to break the older you get. For instance, if you are an overweight gamer and computer junkie who never gets off the couch as a kid, what makes you think it gets easier when you get to adulthood? What's the result of this whole cycle? Easy. "A decline in health factors and behaviors children reach adulthood." Unfortunately, this decline rapidly turns into a free-fall.
The government welcomes 'Captain Obvious' to the discussion when they state, "Overall, it is clear that much of the benefit of ideal cardiovascular health factors is lost in childhood and adolescence. This is due in large part to the adoption of unhealthful diet and physical activity behaviors." Great; but let's get to that point where the rubber meets the road. How are we going to turn this around and change 35 years of heading down the wrong path? SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS certainly aren't getting it done. Neither is the admonishment to exercise more, smoke less, and eat more vegetables. And we've already seen how well these sorts of programs really work anyway (HERE). Of course the government's solution is more studies, more and bigger analytics, and (drum roll please), more funding ---- way more funding.
NO SURPRISE HERE
BABY FORMULA MAKERS HAVE BEEN LYING TO YOU FOR YEARS
"Immune mediated health conditions such as allergic and autoimmune diseases seem to have increased in prevalence in many countries and are leading causes of chronic illness in young people. There is evidence that dietary exposures in infancy can influence the risk of these diseases, with a specific concern that early exposure to intact cows’ milk protein in the form of infant formula could trigger the onset of allergic or autoimmune disease. Current infant feeding guidelines in North America, Australasia, and Europe recommend the use of hydrolysed formula in the first 4-6 months of life in place of a standard cows’ milk formula for the primary prevention of allergic diseases in childhood. This has also been supported by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and by a Cochrane systematic review." From the study we are discussing today
The medical community is fun to watch. One day they tell us that EGGS are bad for us, the next they reveal that they're a 'super food'. We all grew up being told that RED MEAT AND SATURATED FATS were the worst possible things we could put in our collective mouths, but that vegetable oils (mostly corn or soy) and TRANS FATS were actually 'heart healthy'. Then they started trying to take away your SALT SHAKER in the name of health. It's the never-ending yo-yo that shows the very nature of EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE. As long as billions of dollars are at stake, you can't trust it any more than you can trust politicians. Baby formula has proven no different.
Baby Formula is an interesting topic in its own right because since it was first introduced for commercial production back in the latter 1800's, it has largely been marketed on the premise it's superior to mother's milk. For instance, chapter 3 of a 2004 book called Infant Formula: Evaluating the Safety of New Ingredients, says that, "Soy formulas now account for about 40 percent of formula sales in the United States." That's fantastic! If you happen to be a soybean farmer or commodities trader. Otherwise, IT'S WORSE THAN YOU COULD EVEN IMAGINE!
Because of this historical emphasis from the medical community on formula being better than mother's milk, we saw a steady decline in the nation's percentage of infants being breast fed --- particularly after the first few months. This is only recently being reversed. Unfortunately, it seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Case in point, the recent study from the British Medical Journal (Hydrolysed Formula and Risk of Allergic or Autoimmune Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis).
Over a dozen medical doctors and researchers (and a few medical students) analyzed 52 studies that involved over 19,000 infants from 1946 (the year after WWII ended) to the present, trying to determine whether or not hypo-allergenic infant formulas were really hypo-allergenic. What did they find? Amazingly enough, they found that babies fed these hypo-allergenic formulas rarely if ever developed allergies or autoimmune diseases. Hold on. Wait a minute. That's what the manufactures of these products have always wanted people to believe. What the researchers actually found was that.......
"There was no evidence to support the health claim approved by the US Food and Drug Administration that a partially hydrolysed formula could reduce the risk of eczema nor the conclusion of the Cochrane review that hydrolysed formula could [improve] allergy to cows’ milk. These findings do not support current guidelines that recommend the use of hydrolysed formula to prevent allergic disease [ASTHMA, RHINITIS, ECZEMA, FOOD ALLERGIES, TYPE I DIABETES, etc] in high risk infants. Our findings conflict with current international guidelines, in which hydrolysed formula is widely recommended for young formula fed infants with a family history of allergic disease."
In other words folks, you've been lied to by both COCHRANE and the FDA (In Cochrane's defense, they found the evidence to be moderate to weak. There is no excuse for the FDA). Which begs a couple of questions. What exactly is "Hydrolyzed Infant Formula" and how much money is as stake?
Before I answer that, let me give you a brief history of Infant Formula.
Baby Formula is an interesting topic in its own right because since it was first introduced for commercial production back in the latter 1800's, it has largely been marketed on the premise it's superior to mother's milk. For instance, chapter 3 of a 2004 book called Infant Formula: Evaluating the Safety of New Ingredients, says that, "Soy formulas now account for about 40 percent of formula sales in the United States." That's fantastic! If you happen to be a soybean farmer or commodities trader. Otherwise, IT'S WORSE THAN YOU COULD EVEN IMAGINE!
Because of this historical emphasis from the medical community on formula being better than mother's milk, we saw a steady decline in the nation's percentage of infants being breast fed --- particularly after the first few months. This is only recently being reversed. Unfortunately, it seems that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Case in point, the recent study from the British Medical Journal (Hydrolysed Formula and Risk of Allergic or Autoimmune Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis).
Over a dozen medical doctors and researchers (and a few medical students) analyzed 52 studies that involved over 19,000 infants from 1946 (the year after WWII ended) to the present, trying to determine whether or not hypo-allergenic infant formulas were really hypo-allergenic. What did they find? Amazingly enough, they found that babies fed these hypo-allergenic formulas rarely if ever developed allergies or autoimmune diseases. Hold on. Wait a minute. That's what the manufactures of these products have always wanted people to believe. What the researchers actually found was that.......
"There was no evidence to support the health claim approved by the US Food and Drug Administration that a partially hydrolysed formula could reduce the risk of eczema nor the conclusion of the Cochrane review that hydrolysed formula could [improve] allergy to cows’ milk. These findings do not support current guidelines that recommend the use of hydrolysed formula to prevent allergic disease [ASTHMA, RHINITIS, ECZEMA, FOOD ALLERGIES, TYPE I DIABETES, etc] in high risk infants. Our findings conflict with current international guidelines, in which hydrolysed formula is widely recommended for young formula fed infants with a family history of allergic disease."
In other words folks, you've been lied to by both COCHRANE and the FDA (In Cochrane's defense, they found the evidence to be moderate to weak. There is no excuse for the FDA). Which begs a couple of questions. What exactly is "Hydrolyzed Infant Formula" and how much money is as stake?
Before I answer that, let me give you a brief history of Infant Formula.
THE SORDID HISTORY OF INFANT FORMULA
"In 1867, a Swiss pharmacist named Henri Nestlé mixed together a liquid food from cow’s milk, wheat flour, and sugar for a neighbor’s baby who wouldn’t nurse. This became the first infant formula, and it helped create an international food conglomerate that now sells ground and instant coffee, chocolate candy, L’Oréal cosmetics, Friskies and Alpo pet foods, Libby’s vegetables, and more than 50% of all infant formula sold worldwide." From the opening paragraph of Lauren Pomerantz's 2001 piece called History of the Boycott
"If you are a 'mature' pediatrician—one older than 40 years or so—there is a good chance that, if you were not breastfed as an infant, you were fed a formula created by mixing 13 oz of evaporated milk with 19 oz of water and two tablespoons of either corn syrup or table sugar." Dr. Andrew Schuman from the opening paragraph of the February, 2003 issue of Contemporary Pediatrics (A Concise History of Infant Formula --- Twists and Turns Included)
"Convincing doctors of the virtues of artificial milks — or at least neutralizing their resistance — is the key to establishing bottlefeeding. Babymilk companies spend untold millions of dollars subsidizing office furnishings, research projects, gifts, conferences, publications and travel junkets of the medical profession. The American Academy of Pediatrics received a renewable $1 million grant from Abbot Laboratories. The purpose is to generate physician good will toward the company and its products. An Abbott Laboratories trade publication states, ‘In effect, we are striving to make the physician a low-pressure salesman for Abbott’. And of course it is the ordinary purchaser of artificial babymilk who must pay a portion of the cost of every cocktail that a doctor sips at conventions like the recent ‘Ski-and-Study’ symposium at a California mountain resort which Abbott Laboratories helped finance. The tactics work. Physicians continue to allow free infant formula samples to be distributed despite the evidence that this discourages breastfeeding." Taken from Edward Bauer's piece in the April 1982 issue of New Internationalist called Babies Means Business
The end of WWII ushered in a time of great change in America. The pessimism and hardship that characterized the war years (1941 -1945) as well as the dust bowl years of the Great Depression (otherwise known as the "Dirty Thirties") --- left people with a feeling of unbridled optimism. Economies exploded as huge industrial growth took place. Millions of soldiers took advantage of the GI Bill to return to school and advance their education. Because of this bright outlook on the future, people were no longer afraid to have children. This helped to bring about what's come to be known as the "Baby Boom". The combination of increasing incomes and lots of babies saw the creation of a new market --- the market for Infant Formula.
Thanks to influence that was bought and paid for by by the food industry, medical schools, and physicians organizations, the Formula Industry began to promote the use of their products not only for women who struggled to nurse, but to women in general. Thanks to an intentional barrage of propaganda, nursing was seen as a sign of poverty --- something that only the poor, minorities, uneducated, or country bumpkins did. On the contrary, the ability to provide your babies with formula showed that you had money, class, dignity, and intelligence. And in similar fashion to the way that our politicians were talking about eradicating sickness and disease through "science" (chiefly VACCINES and ANTIBIOTICS), people were being led to believe that similar scientific breakthroughs had occurred with formula that could actually make the bottle healthier for your baby than nursing.
As bottle-feeding became increasingly popular, it began to be promoted by our government (WIC) as well as being exported around the world --- chiefly to third world countries. One of the biggest health-related scandals of the 20th century concerns the disgusting manner in which Nestle made billions taking it's baby formula business world wide. How was this accomplished in such grand fashion?
What was the result of all this? By the time these women realized they could not afford the formula, it was too late. Usually they ended up diluting it to try and stretch it until they could afford more. The result was the death of infants by the millions. There are any number of books that detail Nestle's culpability in the epidemic of infant and child mortality. You can read about it yourself in THIS 1981 article published in the New York Times. The echos of this scandal are still with us today.
"China is a nation hooked on milk powder, with just a third of its babies exclusively breastfead." From Sarah O'Meara's October 2013 article in The Telegraph called How the Aggressive Formula Industry Spoiled China's Breast Milk
History always seems to repeat itself and the issue of nursing has proven itself no different. As ridiculous as it sounds, there is a growing body of intellectuals (researchers, university professors, M.D.'s, Ph.D's, etc, etc) that are --- I'm not making it up folks --- telling people that the benefits of nursing are overstated and oversold. They claim that what the research really shows is that formula-fed babies seem to grow into healthy adults just as well as breast-fed babies (a great example is Viv Groskop's piece in a Feb 2013 piece in The Guardian called Breast Is Best - Isn't It? Debate Rages Over the Effect on Mother and Child.
I read the article and (sort of) see where they're coming from. But like most myopic ideas about nutrition promoted by the mainstream (HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE are a few), they're missing the bigger picture. Today's babies / children are growing up, consuming the vast majority of their calories from soda and heavily-processed junk (HERE) --- a fact touted by research from BMJ that came out just a couple of days ago. Our children also happen to be coming down with Autoimmune Diseases and Chronic Inflammatory Degenerative Diseases such as Arthritis, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Cancer, Obesity, and others (HERE) at rates that could not even have been imagined 30 years ago. Breast feeding and nursing expert, Dr. Jack Newman (MD), put this debate into perspective when he stated......
"You don’t have to prove that normal and natural is better than the artificial. You have to prove that the artificial is at least as good as the normal. Demanding that breastfeeding, which is, incidentally, much more than breast milk, be proved better than artificial feeding, is yet another example of turning the world on its head. No thinking scientist would accept that you have to prove that getting to sleep naturally is better than taking a sleeping pill to get to sleep".
I'm not going to get into it very deeply here, but the benefits of nursing are legion. And, like Dr. Newman reveals, these benefits go far beyond the chemical make up of the milk. Besides the proven benefits of the regular skin-to-skin, one-on-one contact that baby has with mom, we know that nursing prevents infectious disease (Beaudry, 1995 and Dewey, 1995), increases the development of the nervous system (Mortensen, 2002), and protects against chronic diseases (Saarinen and Kajosaari, 1995). But the benefits don't end there --- not by a long shot. We can't leave this section without at least mentioning the effect of nursing on Gut Health.
GUT HEALTH is the most critical aspect of your health that you are likely not as aware of as you should be. If you want to really put this issue in perspective, I would suggest spending some time on DR. ART AYERS' site, Cooling Inflammation. Listen to the conclusions of a 2009 study by three RN's (who also happen to have doctorates) published in the Journal of Perinatal Education (A History of Infant Feeding).
"Breastfeeding rates in the United States have decreased significantly in the 21st century, resulting in serious health issues that include atopy, diabetes mellitus, and childhood obesity. Research suggests that breastfeeding prevents adverse health conditions, whereas formula-feeding is linked with their development. This evidence confirms breastfeeding is still the best source of infant nutrition and the safest method of infant feeding."
"If you are a 'mature' pediatrician—one older than 40 years or so—there is a good chance that, if you were not breastfed as an infant, you were fed a formula created by mixing 13 oz of evaporated milk with 19 oz of water and two tablespoons of either corn syrup or table sugar." Dr. Andrew Schuman from the opening paragraph of the February, 2003 issue of Contemporary Pediatrics (A Concise History of Infant Formula --- Twists and Turns Included)
"Convincing doctors of the virtues of artificial milks — or at least neutralizing their resistance — is the key to establishing bottlefeeding. Babymilk companies spend untold millions of dollars subsidizing office furnishings, research projects, gifts, conferences, publications and travel junkets of the medical profession. The American Academy of Pediatrics received a renewable $1 million grant from Abbot Laboratories. The purpose is to generate physician good will toward the company and its products. An Abbott Laboratories trade publication states, ‘In effect, we are striving to make the physician a low-pressure salesman for Abbott’. And of course it is the ordinary purchaser of artificial babymilk who must pay a portion of the cost of every cocktail that a doctor sips at conventions like the recent ‘Ski-and-Study’ symposium at a California mountain resort which Abbott Laboratories helped finance. The tactics work. Physicians continue to allow free infant formula samples to be distributed despite the evidence that this discourages breastfeeding." Taken from Edward Bauer's piece in the April 1982 issue of New Internationalist called Babies Means Business
The end of WWII ushered in a time of great change in America. The pessimism and hardship that characterized the war years (1941 -1945) as well as the dust bowl years of the Great Depression (otherwise known as the "Dirty Thirties") --- left people with a feeling of unbridled optimism. Economies exploded as huge industrial growth took place. Millions of soldiers took advantage of the GI Bill to return to school and advance their education. Because of this bright outlook on the future, people were no longer afraid to have children. This helped to bring about what's come to be known as the "Baby Boom". The combination of increasing incomes and lots of babies saw the creation of a new market --- the market for Infant Formula.
Thanks to influence that was bought and paid for by by the food industry, medical schools, and physicians organizations, the Formula Industry began to promote the use of their products not only for women who struggled to nurse, but to women in general. Thanks to an intentional barrage of propaganda, nursing was seen as a sign of poverty --- something that only the poor, minorities, uneducated, or country bumpkins did. On the contrary, the ability to provide your babies with formula showed that you had money, class, dignity, and intelligence. And in similar fashion to the way that our politicians were talking about eradicating sickness and disease through "science" (chiefly VACCINES and ANTIBIOTICS), people were being led to believe that similar scientific breakthroughs had occurred with formula that could actually make the bottle healthier for your baby than nursing.
As bottle-feeding became increasingly popular, it began to be promoted by our government (WIC) as well as being exported around the world --- chiefly to third world countries. One of the biggest health-related scandals of the 20th century concerns the disgusting manner in which Nestle made billions taking it's baby formula business world wide. How was this accomplished in such grand fashion?
- First, they created a market where there was no need for a market. In the vast majority of cases, the last thing these people needed was baby formula, which is exactly what they got.
- Secondly, they convinced these women that they would be like "Western" women if they bottle-fed. Furthermore, they let them know through huge advertising campaigns that this method of feeding their baby was much healthier and could prevent many of the common illnesses these people faced.
- Thirdly, in almost identical fashion to the way drug pushers operate, they provided free samples. They did this through doctors, physician organizations, hospitals, nurses, or salespeople. The sample would often provide just enough days of formula that mother's breast milk would dry up. Then she had no choice but to purchase their product --- a product that took up a huge portion of an impoverished family's income.
What was the result of all this? By the time these women realized they could not afford the formula, it was too late. Usually they ended up diluting it to try and stretch it until they could afford more. The result was the death of infants by the millions. There are any number of books that detail Nestle's culpability in the epidemic of infant and child mortality. You can read about it yourself in THIS 1981 article published in the New York Times. The echos of this scandal are still with us today.
"China is a nation hooked on milk powder, with just a third of its babies exclusively breastfead." From Sarah O'Meara's October 2013 article in The Telegraph called How the Aggressive Formula Industry Spoiled China's Breast Milk
History always seems to repeat itself and the issue of nursing has proven itself no different. As ridiculous as it sounds, there is a growing body of intellectuals (researchers, university professors, M.D.'s, Ph.D's, etc, etc) that are --- I'm not making it up folks --- telling people that the benefits of nursing are overstated and oversold. They claim that what the research really shows is that formula-fed babies seem to grow into healthy adults just as well as breast-fed babies (a great example is Viv Groskop's piece in a Feb 2013 piece in The Guardian called Breast Is Best - Isn't It? Debate Rages Over the Effect on Mother and Child.
I read the article and (sort of) see where they're coming from. But like most myopic ideas about nutrition promoted by the mainstream (HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE are a few), they're missing the bigger picture. Today's babies / children are growing up, consuming the vast majority of their calories from soda and heavily-processed junk (HERE) --- a fact touted by research from BMJ that came out just a couple of days ago. Our children also happen to be coming down with Autoimmune Diseases and Chronic Inflammatory Degenerative Diseases such as Arthritis, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Cancer, Obesity, and others (HERE) at rates that could not even have been imagined 30 years ago. Breast feeding and nursing expert, Dr. Jack Newman (MD), put this debate into perspective when he stated......
"You don’t have to prove that normal and natural is better than the artificial. You have to prove that the artificial is at least as good as the normal. Demanding that breastfeeding, which is, incidentally, much more than breast milk, be proved better than artificial feeding, is yet another example of turning the world on its head. No thinking scientist would accept that you have to prove that getting to sleep naturally is better than taking a sleeping pill to get to sleep".
I'm not going to get into it very deeply here, but the benefits of nursing are legion. And, like Dr. Newman reveals, these benefits go far beyond the chemical make up of the milk. Besides the proven benefits of the regular skin-to-skin, one-on-one contact that baby has with mom, we know that nursing prevents infectious disease (Beaudry, 1995 and Dewey, 1995), increases the development of the nervous system (Mortensen, 2002), and protects against chronic diseases (Saarinen and Kajosaari, 1995). But the benefits don't end there --- not by a long shot. We can't leave this section without at least mentioning the effect of nursing on Gut Health.
GUT HEALTH is the most critical aspect of your health that you are likely not as aware of as you should be. If you want to really put this issue in perspective, I would suggest spending some time on DR. ART AYERS' site, Cooling Inflammation. Listen to the conclusions of a 2009 study by three RN's (who also happen to have doctorates) published in the Journal of Perinatal Education (A History of Infant Feeding).
"Breastfeeding rates in the United States have decreased significantly in the 21st century, resulting in serious health issues that include atopy, diabetes mellitus, and childhood obesity. Research suggests that breastfeeding prevents adverse health conditions, whereas formula-feeding is linked with their development. This evidence confirms breastfeeding is still the best source of infant nutrition and the safest method of infant feeding."
HYPOALLERGENIC BABY FORMULA
Let's now briefly discuss the study we started with at the beginning of this post, Hydrolysed Formula and Risk of Allergic or Autoimmune Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The very name of this study leads me to ask the question, what does increase risk of ALLERGIES and AUTOIMMUNITY entail? That's easy. The biggest risk can be described in one word, Dysbiosis.
DYSBIOSIS is almost always caused by ANTIBIOTICS, although there are many NON-ANTIBIOTIC DRUGS that can destroy the Microbiome as well. These antibiotics can come from mom's milk, but are mostly the result of what is prescirbed to baby by their physician for things like runny noses or EAR ACHES. In case you were not aware, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE are a few of the studies showing what these drugs do to children that take them --- not only in the present, but for the rest of their lives as well. Oh; in case you were wondering, Vaccines can cause Dysbiosis as well (HERE and HERE are a couple of examples). Once Dysbiosis is off and running, it is fed via THE HIGH-CARB LIFESTYLE lived by the majority of US citizens.
The idea that a certain type of baby formula can create babies with fewer allergies than breast-fed infants is, in all but extremely rare cases, laughable. In the rare case that some sort of formula is necessary, there are actually recipes for doing it yourself. The best? The venerable Dr. Tim O'Shea has one on his website; at the end of an amazing article called PEDIATRICIANS, BRAIN FATS, FORMULA, AND RAW MILK: THE JIG IS UP.
I can't leave this post without a brief discussion of Colic. No one is really sure what Colic is, other than to say it causes crabby, gassy, babies. Although there are any number of websites that give advice (much of it excellent) on things mom can do to make her milk easier for her baby to digest and assimilate, studies usually show that Colic occurs equally in breast fed babies and bottle fed babies. The solution? Read THIS SHORT ARTICLE I wrote on the topic a number of years ago.
DYSBIOSIS is almost always caused by ANTIBIOTICS, although there are many NON-ANTIBIOTIC DRUGS that can destroy the Microbiome as well. These antibiotics can come from mom's milk, but are mostly the result of what is prescirbed to baby by their physician for things like runny noses or EAR ACHES. In case you were not aware, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE are a few of the studies showing what these drugs do to children that take them --- not only in the present, but for the rest of their lives as well. Oh; in case you were wondering, Vaccines can cause Dysbiosis as well (HERE and HERE are a couple of examples). Once Dysbiosis is off and running, it is fed via THE HIGH-CARB LIFESTYLE lived by the majority of US citizens.
The idea that a certain type of baby formula can create babies with fewer allergies than breast-fed infants is, in all but extremely rare cases, laughable. In the rare case that some sort of formula is necessary, there are actually recipes for doing it yourself. The best? The venerable Dr. Tim O'Shea has one on his website; at the end of an amazing article called PEDIATRICIANS, BRAIN FATS, FORMULA, AND RAW MILK: THE JIG IS UP.
I can't leave this post without a brief discussion of Colic. No one is really sure what Colic is, other than to say it causes crabby, gassy, babies. Although there are any number of websites that give advice (much of it excellent) on things mom can do to make her milk easier for her baby to digest and assimilate, studies usually show that Colic occurs equally in breast fed babies and bottle fed babies. The solution? Read THIS SHORT ARTICLE I wrote on the topic a number of years ago.
PICKY EATING HABITS?
NEW RESEARCH SHOWS THAT THIS CAUSES A TENDENCY TOWARD ANXIETY, DEPRESSION, AND ADHD IN CHILDREN
I hear it constantly from parents. "My child won't eat anything but CHOCOLATE CAKE AND CHEETOS." Or, "My son will only eat "KID FRIENDLY FOODS". Or maybe it's, "My daughter doesn't like anything but CHICKEN NUGGETS and COLD CEREAL." And as astounding as it sounds, I actually have parents tell me that their child won't drink anything but SODA (most of the time it's because they won't drink anything other than soda either).
This month's issue of the journal Pediatrics carries a study on this subject done at Duke University (Psychological and Psychosocial Impairment in Preschoolers With Selective Eating). One of the more interesting aspects of reviewing this study was that the authors gave a peer-reviewed history lesson revealing that psychological problems have been known to be associated with picky eating for a very long time. This new study goes on to say that.....
"Eating problems among preschool-aged children are so pervasive that clinicians and researchers often treat them as developmentally normal. Particularly prevalent is picky or selective eating (SE): 14% to 20% of parents report that their preschooler (ages 2–5 years old) is “often” or “always” selective with food. Yet, the fact that a behavior is relatively common does not mean that it is harmless. SE has been associated with impairment in emotional, physical, and social domains.
children with severe SE were more than twice as likely to have a comorbid diagnosis of depression or social anxiety... With regard to psychiatric symptoms, both moderate and severe SE was associated with significantly elevated symptoms of depression, social anxiety, and generalized anxiety. However, moderate levels of SE were also associated with symptoms of separation anxiety and ADHD."
Of course, the reason given for this study was so that physicians could screen children and "intervene". But what sort of intervention are they really talking about here? About the best you could possibly hope for is that your busy doctor hands you a pamphlet called "Solutions for Selective Eaters" and then tells you they'll grow out of it. Worst case scenario? That's easy. They'll do what they've been increasingly DOING FOR DECADES --- prescribe DRUGS. In case you are one of those people who is not aware of the many dangers associated with RITALIN or ANTIDEPRESSANT DRUGS, make sure to read the links.
Although the experts tell us that "Selective Eating" is not really an issue of "likes and dislikes," in the vast majority of cases, I'm not convinced (HERE). Just like you, as a little kid, there were foods that I did not like. However, the rule at our house was that we ate everything on our plate. If we refused to eat it for supper, we got it for breakfast --- cold. Needless to say, it did not take many such breakfasts to learn my lesson. Most of today's parents look at such "old school" methods as a medieval form of torture. Whatever methods you choose to use, it's up to you to educate your children about the importance of eating their vegetables, and then figure out what it's going to take to get from here to there. Don't be their enabler. Because the old cliche, "You are what you eat" is just as true today as it ever was.
This month's issue of the journal Pediatrics carries a study on this subject done at Duke University (Psychological and Psychosocial Impairment in Preschoolers With Selective Eating). One of the more interesting aspects of reviewing this study was that the authors gave a peer-reviewed history lesson revealing that psychological problems have been known to be associated with picky eating for a very long time. This new study goes on to say that.....
"Eating problems among preschool-aged children are so pervasive that clinicians and researchers often treat them as developmentally normal. Particularly prevalent is picky or selective eating (SE): 14% to 20% of parents report that their preschooler (ages 2–5 years old) is “often” or “always” selective with food. Yet, the fact that a behavior is relatively common does not mean that it is harmless. SE has been associated with impairment in emotional, physical, and social domains.
children with severe SE were more than twice as likely to have a comorbid diagnosis of depression or social anxiety... With regard to psychiatric symptoms, both moderate and severe SE was associated with significantly elevated symptoms of depression, social anxiety, and generalized anxiety. However, moderate levels of SE were also associated with symptoms of separation anxiety and ADHD."
Of course, the reason given for this study was so that physicians could screen children and "intervene". But what sort of intervention are they really talking about here? About the best you could possibly hope for is that your busy doctor hands you a pamphlet called "Solutions for Selective Eaters" and then tells you they'll grow out of it. Worst case scenario? That's easy. They'll do what they've been increasingly DOING FOR DECADES --- prescribe DRUGS. In case you are one of those people who is not aware of the many dangers associated with RITALIN or ANTIDEPRESSANT DRUGS, make sure to read the links.
Although the experts tell us that "Selective Eating" is not really an issue of "likes and dislikes," in the vast majority of cases, I'm not convinced (HERE). Just like you, as a little kid, there were foods that I did not like. However, the rule at our house was that we ate everything on our plate. If we refused to eat it for supper, we got it for breakfast --- cold. Needless to say, it did not take many such breakfasts to learn my lesson. Most of today's parents look at such "old school" methods as a medieval form of torture. Whatever methods you choose to use, it's up to you to educate your children about the importance of eating their vegetables, and then figure out what it's going to take to get from here to there. Don't be their enabler. Because the old cliche, "You are what you eat" is just as true today as it ever was.
OBESITY
THE POINT OF NO RETURN / IGNORANCE IS BLISS
Gigi Ibrahim
"Ignorance is bliss." Thomas Gray from his mid 1700's poem (Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College)
"The kids are alright." The Who from their 1965 song, and the 1979 documentary that bears the same name
"Current weight management programs focused on dieting and exercise are not effective in tackling obesity at population level." Cherry-picked from the July 16th issue of Science News (Low Chance of Obese People Recovering Normal Body Weight)
"The kids are alright." The Who from their 1965 song, and the 1979 documentary that bears the same name
"Current weight management programs focused on dieting and exercise are not effective in tackling obesity at population level." Cherry-picked from the July 16th issue of Science News (Low Chance of Obese People Recovering Normal Body Weight)
I remember a grade school buddy's T-shirt; "An Ounce of Prevention" on the front, with, "Weighs More Than Your Brain" on the back. Of course, this was a play on words concerning the old adage, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Nowhere is this more true than with OBESITY. What would possibly make me say this?
After scouring the health records of nearly 280,000 adult patients over the past decade, researchers writing in this month's issue of the American Journal of Public Health (Probability of an Obese Person Attaining Normal Body Weight: Cohort Study Using Electronic Health Records) revealed that if you were fighting the battle of the bulge, "the annual probability of attaining normal weight was 1 in 210 for men and 1 in 124 for women." Stop and re-read that and let it sink in for a moment. That's less than a half percent success rate for overweight men, and less than a one percent success rate for their female counterparts. Shocking; isn't it? But it's actually much worse than that.
The statistic above is for men and women with a BMI between 30 and 35. If you go over 35 ("morbid obesity"), your odds of successfully returning to a normal weight decrease, "to 1 in 1290 for men and 1 in 677 for women." Study co-author, Dr. Martin Gulliford of King's College (London) says that the chief methods of dealing with Obesity are not working. What are these methods? I mentioned both in a quote at the top of the page --- "Cutting calories and boosting physical activity." We should not be surprised, as I've shown you repeatedly that this approach doesn't work (HERE).
Bottom line; if you are not preventing Obesity in the first place, you are already behind the eight ball --- in a very big way. In fact, lead researcher, Dr. Dr Alison Fildes, told the BBC News that, "the greatest opportunity for fighting the obesity epidemic might be in public health policies to prevent it in the first place at a population level." The problem is (and as we just saw via the quote from her co-author) that their approaches aren't working. Maybe they are advocating for a new sort of "Food Police" here? Not sure, but another brand new study lets us know that we have a doubly hard row to hoe in front of us when it comes to educating our progeny about this issue.
Most of the older generation has noticed a trend. That trend is that when you compare TODAY'S CHILDREN and adolescents to those of YEARS GONE BY, they tend to be heavier, more sedentary, and as often as not, less motivated. For the most part, this can be laid directly at the feet of parents who have found that it's easier to coddle or pacify than train. Among other things, their children are living on "KID FRIENDLY FOODS" such as CHICKEN NUGGETS, COLD CEREAL, a VAST ARRAY of junk carbs, and hot dogs. One result of this sort of lifestyle is that studies are showing that today's adults are both overestimating their own health as well as underestimating their weight.
Unfortunately, these same parents are now underestimating their children's 'weight problem' as well (HERE). But the trend doesn't stop there. Now we see that the children themselves no longer realize they weigh too much. Lest you think I am simply trying to be mean, take a look at two studies that were published exactly one year apart. One year ago this month, the CDC released a report (Perception of Weight Status in U.S. Children and Adolescents Aged 8–15 Years, 2005–2012). This report revealed that.......
"Approximately 81% of overweight boys and 71% of overweight girls believe they are about the right weight. Nearly 48% of obese boys and 36% of obese girls consider themselves to be about the right weight."
Exactly one year later (this month) we were given this gem from the American Journal of Preventative Medicine (More Overweight Adolescents Think They Are Just Fine: Generational Shift in Body Weight Perceptions Among Adolescents in the U.S.). Researchers compared the BMI's of children (ages 12 to 16) who answered the question, "Do you consider yourself to be overweight, underweight, or just about the right weight?" in the early 1990's, to the BMI's of children who answered the same question just a couple years ago. Although BMI's in this age group increased by a whopping 27% in the two decades between the questions........
"the probability of self-perceiving as "overweight" declined by 29% for overweight / obese adolescents interviewed recently. The declining tendency of accurately self-perceiving as overweight was most pronounced among whites. Both boys and girls interviewed recently were significantly less likely to accurately self-perceive as overweight."
We have a huge problem on our hands folks. Approximately 70% of our population is overweight, and over half those are obese. And neither the obese children nor their obese parents realize there's a problem. When it comes to dealing with this, we've already seen (repeatedly) that simply telling people to eat less and exercise more does not work. What does work? Certainly not another visit to your doctor (HERE, HERE, HERE, or HERE).
If you want to LOSE WEIGHT permanently, you'll have to, in the words immortalized in the movie Cool Hand Luke, "get your mind right". The very first thing you need to do is understand WHAT INFLAMMATION IS, and realize that there is a strong (causal) link between it and Obesity. The second thing you need to do is realize that not only is SUGAR EXTREMELY INFLAMMATORY, if you can control your BLOOD SUGAR (note that I am not talking about whether or not your numbers are within 'normal' range on a blood test) --- especially from your youth ---- you will be much less apt to require taking THIS QUIZ. Thirdly, if you fail to grasp the importance of GUT HEALTH as it pertains to your weight, you will likely remain heavy for the rest of your days. Because there are any number of other things that might need to be dealt with in order to be successful, you can take a look at them HERE.
After scouring the health records of nearly 280,000 adult patients over the past decade, researchers writing in this month's issue of the American Journal of Public Health (Probability of an Obese Person Attaining Normal Body Weight: Cohort Study Using Electronic Health Records) revealed that if you were fighting the battle of the bulge, "the annual probability of attaining normal weight was 1 in 210 for men and 1 in 124 for women." Stop and re-read that and let it sink in for a moment. That's less than a half percent success rate for overweight men, and less than a one percent success rate for their female counterparts. Shocking; isn't it? But it's actually much worse than that.
The statistic above is for men and women with a BMI between 30 and 35. If you go over 35 ("morbid obesity"), your odds of successfully returning to a normal weight decrease, "to 1 in 1290 for men and 1 in 677 for women." Study co-author, Dr. Martin Gulliford of King's College (London) says that the chief methods of dealing with Obesity are not working. What are these methods? I mentioned both in a quote at the top of the page --- "Cutting calories and boosting physical activity." We should not be surprised, as I've shown you repeatedly that this approach doesn't work (HERE).
Bottom line; if you are not preventing Obesity in the first place, you are already behind the eight ball --- in a very big way. In fact, lead researcher, Dr. Dr Alison Fildes, told the BBC News that, "the greatest opportunity for fighting the obesity epidemic might be in public health policies to prevent it in the first place at a population level." The problem is (and as we just saw via the quote from her co-author) that their approaches aren't working. Maybe they are advocating for a new sort of "Food Police" here? Not sure, but another brand new study lets us know that we have a doubly hard row to hoe in front of us when it comes to educating our progeny about this issue.
Most of the older generation has noticed a trend. That trend is that when you compare TODAY'S CHILDREN and adolescents to those of YEARS GONE BY, they tend to be heavier, more sedentary, and as often as not, less motivated. For the most part, this can be laid directly at the feet of parents who have found that it's easier to coddle or pacify than train. Among other things, their children are living on "KID FRIENDLY FOODS" such as CHICKEN NUGGETS, COLD CEREAL, a VAST ARRAY of junk carbs, and hot dogs. One result of this sort of lifestyle is that studies are showing that today's adults are both overestimating their own health as well as underestimating their weight.
Unfortunately, these same parents are now underestimating their children's 'weight problem' as well (HERE). But the trend doesn't stop there. Now we see that the children themselves no longer realize they weigh too much. Lest you think I am simply trying to be mean, take a look at two studies that were published exactly one year apart. One year ago this month, the CDC released a report (Perception of Weight Status in U.S. Children and Adolescents Aged 8–15 Years, 2005–2012). This report revealed that.......
"Approximately 81% of overweight boys and 71% of overweight girls believe they are about the right weight. Nearly 48% of obese boys and 36% of obese girls consider themselves to be about the right weight."
Exactly one year later (this month) we were given this gem from the American Journal of Preventative Medicine (More Overweight Adolescents Think They Are Just Fine: Generational Shift in Body Weight Perceptions Among Adolescents in the U.S.). Researchers compared the BMI's of children (ages 12 to 16) who answered the question, "Do you consider yourself to be overweight, underweight, or just about the right weight?" in the early 1990's, to the BMI's of children who answered the same question just a couple years ago. Although BMI's in this age group increased by a whopping 27% in the two decades between the questions........
"the probability of self-perceiving as "overweight" declined by 29% for overweight / obese adolescents interviewed recently. The declining tendency of accurately self-perceiving as overweight was most pronounced among whites. Both boys and girls interviewed recently were significantly less likely to accurately self-perceive as overweight."
We have a huge problem on our hands folks. Approximately 70% of our population is overweight, and over half those are obese. And neither the obese children nor their obese parents realize there's a problem. When it comes to dealing with this, we've already seen (repeatedly) that simply telling people to eat less and exercise more does not work. What does work? Certainly not another visit to your doctor (HERE, HERE, HERE, or HERE).
If you want to LOSE WEIGHT permanently, you'll have to, in the words immortalized in the movie Cool Hand Luke, "get your mind right". The very first thing you need to do is understand WHAT INFLAMMATION IS, and realize that there is a strong (causal) link between it and Obesity. The second thing you need to do is realize that not only is SUGAR EXTREMELY INFLAMMATORY, if you can control your BLOOD SUGAR (note that I am not talking about whether or not your numbers are within 'normal' range on a blood test) --- especially from your youth ---- you will be much less apt to require taking THIS QUIZ. Thirdly, if you fail to grasp the importance of GUT HEALTH as it pertains to your weight, you will likely remain heavy for the rest of your days. Because there are any number of other things that might need to be dealt with in order to be successful, you can take a look at them HERE.
OBLIVIOUS!
NOT ONLY TO THEIR OWN OBESITY,
BUT TO THAT OF THEIR CHILDREN AS WELL
"Whether or not knowledge is reliably power, denial and delusion are reliably disempowering. We do not always fix what we know to be broken, but we virtually never fix what we are overlooking—whether at the personal level or that of our culture." From Dr. David Katz brand new editorial on parents' propensity to ignore or underestimate their children's obesity. "Children routinely get what used to be 'adult onset' diabetes." Ibid
"Percentages of parents who inappropriately perceived their overweight child as just about the right weight was 96.6% and 94.9%. As high as 78.4% of parents perceived their obese child as just about the right weight. There was a declining tendency among parents to perceive overweight children appropriately." From the actual study Katz is dealing with above, in the same issue of the same journal; Childhood Obesity (Change in Misperception of Child's Body Weight among Parents of American Preschool Children)
"Percentages of parents who inappropriately perceived their overweight child as just about the right weight was 96.6% and 94.9%. As high as 78.4% of parents perceived their obese child as just about the right weight. There was a declining tendency among parents to perceive overweight children appropriately." From the actual study Katz is dealing with above, in the same issue of the same journal; Childhood Obesity (Change in Misperception of Child's Body Weight among Parents of American Preschool Children)
If you look at the picture above, it will help you remember (or at least understand) that America did not used to be the land of the large. In fact, not that long ago, not only was it fairly uncommon to see OBESE adults, seeing an OBESE CHILD was downright rare. Unfortunately, things have changed. In a big way (no pun intended). Today the majority of our population is overweight, and all you have to do is visit a local classroom, movie theater, or swimming pool to see the proof. But the real evidence is the fact that we are regularly witnessing diseases that were previously thought to occur only in obese adults (Fatty Liver Disease, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE, HIGH CHOLESTEROL, METABOLIC SYNDROME, TYPE II DIABETES, and any number of others) in children. Not surprising considering the amount of BELLY FAT they are carrying from very early ages.
There are numerous studies from numerous countries showing the same thing --- that not only are kids getting fatter and fatter, but that parents are increasingly turning a blind eye. Current research shows that parents not only discount or ignore their own weight issues, they are ignoring their kid's weight issues as well. Interestingly enough, Dr. David Katz, Director of Yale's Prevention Research Center and Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Childhood Obesity, just published an editorial (Oblivobesity: Looking Over the Overweight That Parents Keep Overlooking) on this very topic.
Katz begins his editorial by discussing a brand new study from The British Journal of General Practice (Child Obesity Cut-Offs as Derived From Parental Perceptions: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire). After looking at almost 3,000 obese children and the way their parents viewed their weight, the authors determined that, "Parents become more likely to classify their children as overweight at the 99.7th percentile or above." Stop and think about this for a moment. As fat as our nation's kids are, unless they are in the top .003% of the heaviest children (the very fattest of the fat), their parents will deny there's an issue.
Without directly saying so, Katz admits that we have been lying to ourselves about our children's weights by promoting slogans in the public schools such as, "Okay At Any Size". It's one thing to teach children that "Fat Shaming" is neither nice nor polite, but it's a whole other thing altogether not to teach kids that being fat is a serious health risk that carries an almost limitless array of devastating / ugly consequences. For instance, we know that Obesity itself is considered "INFLAMMATORY" and that INFLAMMATION is the root of virtually every disease you can name, including the heavy hitters like those mentioned earlier, as well as CANCER, HEART DISEASE, AUTOIMMUNITY, and a host of others.
Furthermore, studies show that most parents are also underestimating how active their kids are. Oh; no Dr. Jones.... My little Junior can't be overweight. In fact, he is really quite active and plays all day long. What mom is not telling "Dr. Jones" is that he plays video games all day long, while munching on his favorite snacks. A 2010 issue of the International Journal of Pediatrics (Parental Misperception of Their Child's Body Weight Status Impedes the Assessment of the Child's Lifestyle Behaviors) concluded that, "16%, 55%, and 77% of normal weight, underweight and overweight or obese children were perceived inaccurately, respectively. Erroneous body weight status identification impedes the evaluation of eating habits of all children as well as physical activity and fitness levels of underweight and obese or overweight children. Parental misclassification of the child's body weight status and lifestyle habits constitutes an unfavorable context for healthy body weight management." Sadly enough, part of the problem is that like most parents, most doctors are also turning a blind eye to this problem.
This was seen in the 2011 study published in Pediatrics (Parental Perceptions of Weight Terminology That Providers Use With Youth). Parents of overweight children from all over the US were quizzed about the potential words their doctor might use to describe the fact that their child was in fact, overweight (extremely obese, high BMI, weight problem, unhealthy weight, weight, heavy, obese, overweight, chubby, and fat were some of the terms used). On a scale of one to five, "the terms 'fat,' 'obese,' and 'extremely obese' were rated as the most undesirable, stigmatizing, blaming, and least motivating." Parents will put their kids on round after round after round of OBESITY-CAUSING ANTIBIOTICS, but they don't want their doctor telling them their kid is more than just a little chubby.
I have gone as far to tell people that if your kids are fat and you are CHOOSING NOT TO ADDRESS IT, you are condemning them (a difficult word, but true) to a life of physical and emotional misery. Katz would undoubtedly find me a bit harsh (he believes that this problem can be solved with, "a focus on health, family, and love") but would probably agree with me in principle. "Our disinclination to weigh our kids routinely is not sparing them our culture's unfortunate preoccupation with weight. It is merely distorting their perspective of their own weight, what is healthy, and how to get there from here". In this context, there is a normal weight, and here would be overweight or obese.
Katz himself admits that his views on how to fix this are quite possibly a pipe-dream, when he reveals that what he said in the quote at the very top of the page might be one of the many things that sound so good on paper, but don't always work out so well in real life (Communism is another that comes immediately to mind). "Knowledge may or may not translate into power. Obliviousness far more reliably translates into powerlessness. Parents cannot ignore the threat of obesity to our children and still hope to fix it." There is only one way that parents can even hope to fix this problem --- leading from the front. Unfortunately, here in America most parents are leading from the couch. If you are 100lbs overweight, can no longer climb a set of stairs without huffing and puffing, are making constant trips to Dairy Queen, and spending your evenings in front of the TV eating chocolate cake and Cheetos, do you really think your kids are going to listen to anything you have to say on the subject?
If you want to see what it's going to require to take your life back, get your weight down, and beyond that, get healthy; you need to read THIS POST. And while measuring how overweight one is is certainly a starting point in the discussion of health and sickness, it is by no means the only one --- especially when you factor in the people who are either SKINNY FAT or are measuring their health by whether or not they can still get into that old pair of jeans. But until we can be completely honest with ourselves, nothing is going to change.
There are numerous studies from numerous countries showing the same thing --- that not only are kids getting fatter and fatter, but that parents are increasingly turning a blind eye. Current research shows that parents not only discount or ignore their own weight issues, they are ignoring their kid's weight issues as well. Interestingly enough, Dr. David Katz, Director of Yale's Prevention Research Center and Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Childhood Obesity, just published an editorial (Oblivobesity: Looking Over the Overweight That Parents Keep Overlooking) on this very topic.
Katz begins his editorial by discussing a brand new study from The British Journal of General Practice (Child Obesity Cut-Offs as Derived From Parental Perceptions: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire). After looking at almost 3,000 obese children and the way their parents viewed their weight, the authors determined that, "Parents become more likely to classify their children as overweight at the 99.7th percentile or above." Stop and think about this for a moment. As fat as our nation's kids are, unless they are in the top .003% of the heaviest children (the very fattest of the fat), their parents will deny there's an issue.
Without directly saying so, Katz admits that we have been lying to ourselves about our children's weights by promoting slogans in the public schools such as, "Okay At Any Size". It's one thing to teach children that "Fat Shaming" is neither nice nor polite, but it's a whole other thing altogether not to teach kids that being fat is a serious health risk that carries an almost limitless array of devastating / ugly consequences. For instance, we know that Obesity itself is considered "INFLAMMATORY" and that INFLAMMATION is the root of virtually every disease you can name, including the heavy hitters like those mentioned earlier, as well as CANCER, HEART DISEASE, AUTOIMMUNITY, and a host of others.
Furthermore, studies show that most parents are also underestimating how active their kids are. Oh; no Dr. Jones.... My little Junior can't be overweight. In fact, he is really quite active and plays all day long. What mom is not telling "Dr. Jones" is that he plays video games all day long, while munching on his favorite snacks. A 2010 issue of the International Journal of Pediatrics (Parental Misperception of Their Child's Body Weight Status Impedes the Assessment of the Child's Lifestyle Behaviors) concluded that, "16%, 55%, and 77% of normal weight, underweight and overweight or obese children were perceived inaccurately, respectively. Erroneous body weight status identification impedes the evaluation of eating habits of all children as well as physical activity and fitness levels of underweight and obese or overweight children. Parental misclassification of the child's body weight status and lifestyle habits constitutes an unfavorable context for healthy body weight management." Sadly enough, part of the problem is that like most parents, most doctors are also turning a blind eye to this problem.
This was seen in the 2011 study published in Pediatrics (Parental Perceptions of Weight Terminology That Providers Use With Youth). Parents of overweight children from all over the US were quizzed about the potential words their doctor might use to describe the fact that their child was in fact, overweight (extremely obese, high BMI, weight problem, unhealthy weight, weight, heavy, obese, overweight, chubby, and fat were some of the terms used). On a scale of one to five, "the terms 'fat,' 'obese,' and 'extremely obese' were rated as the most undesirable, stigmatizing, blaming, and least motivating." Parents will put their kids on round after round after round of OBESITY-CAUSING ANTIBIOTICS, but they don't want their doctor telling them their kid is more than just a little chubby.
I have gone as far to tell people that if your kids are fat and you are CHOOSING NOT TO ADDRESS IT, you are condemning them (a difficult word, but true) to a life of physical and emotional misery. Katz would undoubtedly find me a bit harsh (he believes that this problem can be solved with, "a focus on health, family, and love") but would probably agree with me in principle. "Our disinclination to weigh our kids routinely is not sparing them our culture's unfortunate preoccupation with weight. It is merely distorting their perspective of their own weight, what is healthy, and how to get there from here". In this context, there is a normal weight, and here would be overweight or obese.
Katz himself admits that his views on how to fix this are quite possibly a pipe-dream, when he reveals that what he said in the quote at the very top of the page might be one of the many things that sound so good on paper, but don't always work out so well in real life (Communism is another that comes immediately to mind). "Knowledge may or may not translate into power. Obliviousness far more reliably translates into powerlessness. Parents cannot ignore the threat of obesity to our children and still hope to fix it." There is only one way that parents can even hope to fix this problem --- leading from the front. Unfortunately, here in America most parents are leading from the couch. If you are 100lbs overweight, can no longer climb a set of stairs without huffing and puffing, are making constant trips to Dairy Queen, and spending your evenings in front of the TV eating chocolate cake and Cheetos, do you really think your kids are going to listen to anything you have to say on the subject?
If you want to see what it's going to require to take your life back, get your weight down, and beyond that, get healthy; you need to read THIS POST. And while measuring how overweight one is is certainly a starting point in the discussion of health and sickness, it is by no means the only one --- especially when you factor in the people who are either SKINNY FAT or are measuring their health by whether or not they can still get into that old pair of jeans. But until we can be completely honest with ourselves, nothing is going to change.
Dr. Schierling completed four years of Kansas State University's five-year Nutrition / Exercise Physiology Program before deciding on a career in Chiropractic. He graduated from Logan Chiropractic College in 1991, and has run a busy clinic in Mountain View, Missouri ever since. He and his wife Amy have four children (three daughters and a son).
|
|
RSS Feed
BLOG ARCHIVES
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
|
|
|
BLOG CATEGORIES
All
Addictive Carbs
Adhd
Adrenal Fatigue
Aging Gracefully
Allergies
Anemia
Antibiotics
Apex Energetics
Arthritis
Aspartame
Aspirin
Asthma
Atstill
Autismvaccines
Autoimmunity
Beta Blockers
B.J. Palmer
Blood Sugar
Brain Based Therapy
Breakfast
Breast Cancer
Bursitis
Cancer
Candida
Can You Help
Cardio Or Strength
Carpal-tunnel-syndrome
Case Histories
Cheat Days
Chiropractic Miracles
Cholesterol
Christianity
Chronic Pain
Cold Laser Therapy
Colic
Core
Corticosteroid Injection
Coughs
Current River
Dangerous Foods
Death By Medicine
Degenerative Disc
Degenerative Joint Disease
Depression
Dequervains Syndrome
Diet Soda
Drug Culture
D's Of Chronic Pain
Dysbiosis
Ear Infections
Elimination Diet
Endocrine System
Erectile Dysfunction
Estrogen Dominance
Ethiopian Adoption
Evidence Based Medicine
Evolution
Ewot
Face Pain
Facet Syndrome
Fascia Disease
Fascial Adhesions
Fever
Fibromyalgia
Fish Oil
Flu Shots
Football Concussions
Functional-neurology
Functional-problems-vs-pathology
Geriatrics
Gl1800
Gluten
Gluten Cross Reactivity
Gout
Gut Health
Gym Equipment
Headaches
Health Pharisees
Healthy Children
Herniated Disc
Hfcs
H Pylori
Hypertension
Ice Or Heat
Infertility
Inflammation
Inversion Tables
Jacks Fork River
Junk Food
Ketogenic Diet
Kettlebell
Knee Pain
Leaky Gut Syndrome
Ligaments
Low Carb
Medical Merrygoround
Migraine Headaches
Mold
Mri Overuse
Msg
Muscle-strains
Narcotics
Neck Pain
Neuropathy
Number One Health Problem
Nutrition
Obesity
Osgood Schlatter
Osteoporosis
Oxygen
Paleo Diet
Parasites
Pcos
Piriformis Syndrome
Platelet Rich Therapy
Post Surgical Scarring
Posture
Prostate Cancer
Re Invent Yourself
Rib And Chest Pain
Rotator Cuff
Royal Lee
Salt
Scar Tissue Removal
School Lunch
Sciatica
Setting Goals
Sexual Dysfunction
Shingles
Shoulder Dislocation
Shoulder Impingement
Shoulder Pain
Shoulder-separation
Sleeping Pills Kill
Smoking
Soccer Headers
Soda Pop
Spanking
Spinal Decompression
Spinal Stenosis
Spinal Surgery
Standard Process
Statin Drugs
Stay Or Go
Stool Transplant
Stretching Post Treatment
Sugar
Sympathetic Dominance
Sympathetic-dominance
Systemic Illness
Systemic-inflammation
Tendinosis
Tendinosis Treatment
Tensegrity And Fascia
The Big Four
Thoracic Outlet Syndrome
Thyroid Epidemic
Tissue Remodeling
Trans Fats
Treatment Diary
Trigger Points
Unhealthy-doctors
Universal Cure
Vaccinations
Vertigo
Video Testimonials
Weight Loss
Whiplash
Whole Body Vibration
Winsor Autopsies
