Nutrition Miscellany: 3/25/12

Mayor Michael Bloomberg:
No Food Inspectors At Your Potluck
But If You Happen To Donate 
the Same Food To a Homeless Shelter...

[This is a revised version of a previously published commentary in my political blog.]

When I watched the embedded video clip below, a top 30 1979 Cheap Trick hit song, the "Dream Police", came to mind, and I decided to write a relevant parody:

The Food Police, They Come Into the Shelter
The Food Police, They Clear the Dinner Table
The Food Police, They Took the Salt Shaker
The Food Police, They Went Into the Kitchen
The Food Police, They've Raided the Pantry
The Food Police, They're Going to Arrest the Cook: Oh No!


I Try to Eat, They're Watching Me, They Won't Leave Me Alone
They Don't Get Paid to Mind Their Own Business, or Let Me Alone
They Stare, I Try to Hide My Plate, They Won't Let Me Alone
They're Stalking Me, They're the Judge and the Jury All in One.

Mayor Bloomberg has decided that since city bureaucrats haven't put their imprimatur on donated food to homeless shelters, because of insufficient data on various nutritional aspects (fat, fiber, and salt), donations are no longer accepted.  What about the homeless then without food donations? No doubt Bloomberg would say, "Let them eat (bland, city-sanctioned) cake..."


I mentioned before in past blog posts that I have a low tolerance for diets or guidelines which go beyond what has been established by controlled scientific results. I have struggled with weight issues most of my adult life; my mom will tell you I didn't have weight issues growing up. I'm the oldest of 7, and my mom, a housewife struggling to make ends meet on Dad's limited income as an Air Force enlisted man, had strict rules. I basically paid my way through college on a scholarship, work-study, and a small loan.

Like many freshmen on their own for the first time, I put on some weight, especially during my first two years. Now, I have to be honest and say things have vastly changed from the days of my eating at a college cafeteria, which mostly consisted of a single buffet line with servers and a choice from among 2 or 3 main entrees, self-served dessert portions  (plus dining area salad and yogurt islands). Don't ask me how in the world I gained weight; it's true I wasn't regularly exercising after having delivered newspapers daily on bike through high school. In fact, my first year in college I worked for the cafeteria and quickly got promoted from washing dishes to assistant cook. So I knew the games played with leftovers (in particular, mixing freshly fried frozen breaded fish portions).

[In 2008, I worked for a university ERP software company; I remember these private university clients wouldn't let me expense lunch but picked up my all-you-care-to-eat admission at their student dining facilities. This one campus (I think one of my two clients in the Los Angeles area)  had literally three different buffet lines (e.g., homestyle, natural foods/vegetarian, ethnic foods, etc.), a cook-to-order fast food island (burgers, fries, etc.), a freshly-baked bread/dessert island, etc. Heaven knows how much I would have gained if I had attended school there...]

Oddly enough, nobody really commented on my obvious weight gain, but I was determined to lose weight after seeing a snapshot of a rather portly, average-height me standing next to a very tall (over 6 feet in heels), thinly built coed (a sweet girl and a friend) at an academic awards presentation.  I bought into one of those liquid protein fads going on around the time; somehow 1 or 2 friends got wind of it, and they had a mini-intervention, worried that these diets were unsafe and I would kill myself. I reconsidered my decision and successfully got my money back; I then went on an old-fashioned, self-directed diet, literally willing myself to lose 75 pounds (just as my family returned from my dad's final Air Force assignment in Europe). This struggle would continue throughout my life, despite almost fanatical working out in the 1990's.

For example, during my brief service in the Navy, I gained enough weight during officer indoctrination at Newport that by the time I reported on duty in Orlando, I weighed in slightly over my weight limit and was assigned to the "fat boys program".  This meant after the end of my regular shift, say, 5PM, I had to report for daily workouts deliberately held in the open (so anybody off duty could see us, mock us, etc.)

The undergraduate loss of 75 pounds would only be exceeded by the loss during my low-carb days from 2003 to 2004. As I may have mentioned in a prior post, I had met a fellow DBA during a gig in the Chicago area during the late summer and early fall of 2002. He had noted my weight issues and said that he had run into the same problems, but told me about Atkins and this curious claim that as long as you held to the rules about strict carb limits (no "white foods"--flour, potatoes, sugar, white rice, etc.), you could eat however much you wanted--even a 2-lb steak--and you would lose weight. I will say this much: the first time I tried a modified Atkins approach, I was effortlessly dropping 2 to 3 lbs. a week over a sustained period of time. I decided to go off the diet temporarily for a couple of reasons--an upcoming big family event and the boring nature of the diet. I never really went back on the diet for a sustained period, and I'm gearing up for a second try.

One of the reasons I mention this is I got on the Atkins diet boards in Internet groups during my time on the low-carb diet (by the way, I still avoid the white foods, except for occasional trips home or business travel).

Along the way I educated myself on basic nutrition. I learned, for instance, on fats, that even much-maligned saturated fats were essential: the issue was getting too much of a good thing. Many of the Atkins dieters were judging vegetables strictly in terms of carbs per serving. I looked at foods on a more holistic level in terms of nutritional diversity--what about other vitamins, minerals, etc., from eating a variety of vegetables and fruits? I didn't like the fact that 20 carb gram limit held true whether you had limited mobility or led an active lifestyle.

 In an anecdote I probably mentioned in a past post, I remember that one day this one lady had despaired that she was on this diet but she didn't seem to be losing weight. She published what she was eating, and I remember looking at it and thinking to myself, this is a great, healthy diet. Meanwhile, the Atkins diet wolf pack was busy speculating on whether the corn in her mixed vegetables was responsible for holding back her weight loss,  and I basically flamed back, "STOP THE MADNESS!"  (I asked her what she was doing for exercise, and she mentioned being wheelchair-bound and didn't know what exercises she could do. Our email exchange changed the nature of the thread as a flood of suggestions on exercise for the mobile-impaired came in.)

So when I see or hear about government leaders or bureaucrats impose certain guidelines as inflexible,  iron-clad rules, my instinctive response is for them to mind their own business for much the same reason. Apparently when you are homeless, public assistance comes with strings attached--including taking away the liberty to choose what you can or should eat. By shutting off wholesome, nourishing food donations, the government artificially raises the cost of feeding the homeless (all for their alleged own benefit, of course).

The Donna Simpson Story (Updated)


[Being a fat person myself, I hesitate to be critical of other obese individuals. There are reality TV shows based on people losing weight; I must see a dozen TV commercials a day on Weight Watchers, Nutrisystem, Jenny Craig, etc. Many people would rather stand up rather than sit next to an obese person; most single obese people find it difficult to date other people; buying clothes that fit is next to impossible, expensive and a hassle (i.e., alterations). Do some obese people eat too much of the wrong fools? No doubt, but I can tell you  that I've also known thin or medium-weight people whom eat more than any obese person; just look at who wins hot dog or other eating contests: the winners are usually not the biggest guys with double chins. I can tell you that I never buy baked goods or desserts, I can't recall the last time I bought ice cream or frozen yogurt, I've occasionally purchased nuts, but no other snack foods. If you look at my Sam's Club tape, you'll find things like skim milk, frozen blueberries, fresh strawberries, kiwis, apples or blackberries, mushrooms, lettuce or spinach, eggs, frozen chicken breasts, fresh broccoli and brussel sprouts,  salsa, and some cheese (mostly for omelets).

So two years ago I had written a post draft on the Donna Simpson story making the newswires, about an obese woman whom had drawn the attention of men with a fetish for obese women and was actively trying to become the world's largest woman. I have a miscellany format I've used for my daily political blog posts, and I had adopted the format on occasion  for this blog; it normally involves two or more smaller commentaries. There is a follow-up to the story; what you'll see first is my original unpublished commentary. I've had to drop a currently unavailable link.]

[Original Unpublished Post, 3/10]

Donna Simpson is a 42-year-old New Jersey woman, mother of two, whom happens to be over 600 pounds, 4 times the weight of her supportive boyfriend (with a fetish for obese women). Not satisfied with having been the biggest woman on record (532 lbs.) to have given birth (she's the 43rd heaviest woman on record), Donna is aiming at eclipsing the 1000-lb. mark over the next 2 years, insisting she is in good health (but relies on a scooter to move about). Donna's regimen includes a food budget of some $3000 a month, supported by a paid-subscription website for fat-admiring men wanting to see her eat.

I don't intend to judge Ms. Simpson; generally speaking, I think it's important for obese people to have a positive self-image. But the level of her involvement in the fetish world can distort her perspective, and the mobility and related health issues can affect her quality of life and performance of her parental responsibilities. Most of us gain weight not intentionally but as a consequence of other issues (e.g., weight creep via slowing metabolism). My personal philosophy is not driven by some externally recognized status or achievement (e.g., an entry in the Guinness World Records book or Pulitzer Prize) but my personal goals and objectives, which can be motivated by certain external heuristics (e.g., a normal weight range for my height and body build).

[Follow-Up, 3/12]

A year later Donna Simpson had broken up with her 5-year fiance Phillipe Gouamba, the father of her youngest child, and decided to move back to her hometown of Akron, OH from New Jersey. Although some reports had her weight as high as 730 lbs., she claimed she never exceeded 600 lbs. and said the stress of moving had dropped her weight down to 540 lbs. She said that without a significant other to help her take care of herself, it was unfair of her to expect her kids to take on that responsibility; hence, she intended to get down to a more self-sustaining weight of 370 lbs, although she was open to future relationships with men having a weight fetish and even the possibility of resuming her weight gain track.

By a second follow-up report late December, Donna Simpson had closed down the pay website which reportedly had earned her up to $90K/year, so men with a weight fetish could watch her eat. She had dropped another 25 lbs., down to 515 lbs., and is still aiming at reducing to 370 lbs. although she no longer seemed to be talking about finding another soul mate with a weight fetish.

My comments? First of all, I think the fact that Donna lost 85 lbs. in less than two years is a great accomplishment; I did it myself in 2003-2004, and it's easier said than done. It's a fantastic first step, and I congratulate her for acknowledging that she has a way to go to reach a healthy sustainable weight. I don't think 370 lbs. is sufficiently ambitious, even if she was over 7 feet tall. It's not enough for her to wish to be independent, to not be a burden to her kids; I think she needs to want to be there for her own kids' benefit. The single best thing she can do for her kids is to take responsibility for her own health and thus set a good example for their future. I feel that once she gets to 370 lbs., she'll realize that the goal is just a number and she'll continue on her journey to regain robust health. I do understand that setting an ambitious goal of losing over 300 pounds can be demoralizing because it'll take years to get there.

The Harvard Red Meat Studies: Some Comments

Sensational newspaper headlines highlighted the results of a recently released Harvard study, ominously The first thing I saw when I took a cursory look at the study's extract was the name of Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at Harvard's School of Public Health. Willett, of course, is a widely-known nutritionist, known for his influential criticism of the traditional USDA pyramid. Willett is a well-known proponent of the Mediterranean diet, which limits red meat to a few servings a month. In response to the new USDA My Plate metaphor, Willett criticized the approach for focusing on portion size at the expense of nutritional specifics: "It really makes a difference whether the grains you eat are whole grains or refined grains. It makes a huge difference what kind of proteins are being consumed — to be healthy, we need to be replacing the meat with a mix of chicken, nuts and legumes."


Let me think about this: Dr. Willett has spent the last several years publicly advocating for eating less beef; are we really surprised to find his name on this paper? Did we expect him to say, "Whoops! Never mind... Excuse me; I have a reservation at Ruth's Chris Steak House"?


In the interests of fairness, I've embedded the second video below summarizing the studies and the authors' conclusions below. But what are the laymen like me to think? In fact, just two years earlier, a different meta-analysis (basically a study that looks for patterns across various empirical studies) found issues with processed meats (hamburger, chicken nuggets, kebabs, bacon, cured or dried meats, corned beef, various cold cuts, hot dogs and sausages, etc.), but not with fresh meat cuts (steaks, roasts, etc.)


I have not done empirical research in the nutrition or more general health areas, but I have conducted applied behavioral research and have served as a peer reviewer for various journals; there are a number of things that we researchers look at in studies, including not restricted to, the following:

• the type of research (experimental design or exploratory: in experimental studies, we are generally trying to establish causation of a treatment/variable under rigorously controlled conditions (e.g., regular consumption of standard unprocessed meat portions results in some predicted outcome (weight, lifespan, or catastrophic disease)). Generally we prefer the more direct evidence of  experiments over exploratory study results, which yield correlation or suggestive results. Correlations are often incidental or spurious in nature, linked to some other, more salient, but unspecified variable.
• the nature of the data collection (qualitative versus quantitative; objective vs. subjective, independently observed or self-reported: there are known biases with dependence on self-reported measures.  J. Stanton, in his critique of the current meat study, cites an amusing observation from another study where nearly two-thirds of self-reported vegetarians ate meat at least one time during 2 days of observation.)
• use of reliable, valid, standard measures
• questionable statistics for low volume outcome measures (e.g., study mortality) 
• use of standardized materials/dosages (for example, if we were testing the effectiveness of a nutritional supplement, we wouldn't want results to be confounded by the amount or purity of the investigated substance)
• the nature and extent of study participants (ideally we want randomized participants, not self-selected study participants, or with some unspecified disproportionately represented characteristic with a moderating affect on outcomes; moreover, we prefer greater sample size for purposes of statistical power)
• interpretation of results: do the study's authors generalize beyond what the study design and results legitimately allow?

What do we know about the latest study? The most important point is that what we have is correlation, not causation. Study limitations include, but are not restricted to: self-reported data collection (this goes beyond various social desirability, halo effects, etc., but in terms of the use of faulty memory, the sheer length of categories and fuzzily defined categories); poorly operationalized variables (e.g., hamburger, nearly half of the beef consumed in the US, or composite dishes (say, meat sandwiches, curries or kebabs) as unprocessed vs. processed meat: this is a problem in the sense that you have other ingredients which could obfuscate meat's relationship with outcomes); and the nature of study participants (primarily white, healthy; there were also a number of characteristics that had to be controlled for, e.g., active vs. sedentary lifestyle, calorie consumption, smoking, drinking, weight, etc.).

I won't go into a detailed review of study methodology and analyses here, but I can recommend the following relevant posts for interested readers: Predator Nutrition; Denise Minger/Mark's Daily Apple; Zoe Harcombe; and Gnolls.org.

There are certain things that these authors point out that the study authors failed to take into account and I've noted in past posts: the quality of red meat can vary by source, and the method of preparation can affect nutritional value.

First, the way cattle are raised and the nature of their food will affect the balance of Omega-3 to Omega-6 fatty acids. (The saying "you are what you eat" also applies to animals: the more natural/unprocessed, the better.) Generally speaking, the ratio is more balanced and natural when cattle are able to eat from pastures versus foods they can't metabolize very well (e.g., corn), commonly used in factory farms to fatten cattle for slaughter. We generally think the standard American diet has too much Omega-6 from a number of processed foods in our regular diet. What many natural food proponents point out is that Americans over the past century  have shifted from eating more unprocessed foods (like whole grains and grass-fed animal meat, e.g., venison) to processed foods, many of which are high-carb or contain harmful trans fats.

Second, we need to be very careful of how we prepare meat: cook it low and slow, avoid charring the flesh.

What was I thinking about as I read the Pan et al. study extract? The time I went to visit my first married sister in east Texas. My brother-in-law's father raises a few head of pasture-raised cattle on his nearby ranch. My sister prepared a nice roast that came from "Blue Eyes". I think she spread a can of cream of mushroom soup over it. Very tasty; I think it's been too long between visits...

2010 Meta-Analysis Study Renata Misha, Dariush Mozaffarian, and Sarah Wallace, Circulation, 5/17/10


2012 Study Pan, Sun,  Bernstein, Schulze, Manson, Willett, & Hu,

Big Little Nannies: Government and Food Choices

Introductory Note


I have multiple blogs; the main blog is a currently daily-published libertarian-conservative (political) blog. In practical terms involving diet and exercise, I am generally skeptical about government involvement beyond general food safety issues and ensuring proper disclosure in transactions (e.g., valid representations of food source, quality, ingredients, processing, etc.)


This post includes edited versions of two previously published commentaries in the main blog dealing with recent nutrition issues. 

It's Time To Fire Big Little Nanny

[This is an edited version of a commentary I originally published on February 16.]

The First Lady, a trained lawyer (not nutritionist), decided that a key education priority that can't be trusted to local school administrations but requires federal intervention is school lunches. (She must wonder just how kids, given their parents' obviously deficient dietary decisions, ever made it to her nutritionally sound school lunch programs.) We've also chuckled at Mayor Bloomberg's nutritionally dubious concerns with salt content of foods ("no salt for you!") or intake of alcoholic beverages.

But this story out of North Carolina (hats off to the Carpe Diem blog) astounds me:

A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because the school told her the lunch her mother packed  [turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice] was not nutritious [i.e., did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home]. [The missing portions (i.e., chicken nuggets) resulted in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.]

Where do you start with this? Even if you ignore the state's questionable authority over family dietary decisions, the child's lunch, in fact, fully complied with specified guidelines. Moreover, the fix? Three chicken nuggets in place of a sandwich consisting of white whole wheat bread, cheese, and turkey? If you assume the nuggets weren't deep-fried (with possible trans fat issues), chicken and turkey are both excellent sources of protein (and cheese is an excellent dairy choice), but the breading on nuggets compared to whole grain bread? Kudos to the mom who prepared a more nutritious lunch for her child than the school!

By any objective standard, the bureaucrat inspecting the children's homemade lunches was incompetent. Guidelines are just that: guidelines, not inflexible standards which have been proven in a scientific context. A school official (or state/local bureaucrat) doesn't know and shouldn't care how a family distributes its nutritional targets during family and school meals. Short of  parental negligence (e.g., the parents sent the child to school for an extended period without a calorie-sufficient child's meal or money for lunch), I think the school or bureaucrat needs to respect a parent's authority. If the school has concerns, it should address those concerns in a nonjudgmental, respectful way directly with the parents. (For example, a school bully may have stolen a child's lunch.)

There is no reasonable justification for  government bureaucrats analyzing the content of student lunches. It is not the function of government to look over our shoulders and stand in judgment.  Government must stick to its core competencies. Will we always make the right or best decisions for ourselves and our families? Perhaps not. But liberty means being able to make those decisions: for the government to serve us, not our serving the government.

Big Little Nannies 


[This is an edited version of a commentary I originally published on March 17. I realize that I have discussed raw milk sales previously in this blog, but there are nuanced differences in content and presentation.]

Some Big Nannies never forget their roots as Little Nannies; they will tell restaurants how much salt they can put in their foods or size of their portions.

The First Nanny is determined that on her watch what your child eats at school will be by Big Nanny guidelines. If you dare ask 'Why?', she'll tell you: "Because I said so."

I want to specifically point out the topic of milk in particular. My Dad is the youngest in his family. I never knew my paternal grandfather whom died just before my Dad hit his teens. As I recall, my Dad worked during the summers on a small Massachusetts farm owned by relatives. Dad recalls that one day the ladies of the farm baked fresh blueberry pies and set them out to cool. He and the other guys swiped a pie and grabbed a cold bottle of farm-fresh milk, with that natural layer of cream at the top; my Dad's eyes light up as he recalls eating that glorious warm blueberry pie washed down with raw milk. (Of course, he and the guys thought that they had gotten away with it as the ladies of the farm went around looking for their missing pie. Until she made them stick out their tongues for inspection...)

Where do I stand on this? As a scientist, I would have to carefully look at the empirical evidence and any relevant research methodology. Note that any food source can be contaminated--including the handling of food at home. Clearly the farmer needs to ensure that his cattle are healthy, pastures or other feed and water are safe,  fecal matter is properly controlled,  milk-related equipment and containers are well-maintained, the milk is properly sealed and cooled as soon as possible after milking, etc., but these things are true for any dairy operation.

The reader is encouraged to do his or her own due diligence. For example, you can look at CDC public information on raw milk (e.g., here). For an alternative point of view, you can review reports at the Real Milk website.

But my quick takeaway: the fact of the matter is that raw milk has been SAFELY consumed by humans for literally thousands of years before the birth of Christ; pasteurization is a very recent phenomenon. By the most reasonable estimate over 9 million people regularly consume raw milk in the US in those states where it is legal. Yet roughly around 42 cases of raw milk issues per year have been reported. Whereas any contamination case must be taken seriously, one should realize that many LEGAL foods (including pasteurized milk) have as many, if not significantly more, reported safety issues.

In my opinion, it looks as though CDC is acting on an agenda and is engaged in policy fear-mongering. It seems that the federal government is abusing its interstate commerce authority in an intentionally discriminatory manner

Let me quote from a timely post today; keep in mind the sale of raw milk in Pennsylvania (less than an hour's drive away from me) is legal. (For the record, I've never purchased raw milk, but I would try it if I didn't live in a Nanny state like Maryland)

Last month, a federal district judge banned an Amish farmer in Pennsylvania from selling raw milk to Marylanders who were members of a local food club. 'The ruling followed a two-year undercover investigation of the online club, Grassfed on the Hill, by the Food and Drug Administration. 

An FDA agent used an alias to become a member of the club, and ordered large quantities of unpasteurized milk to test. After lab tests proved the milk was raw, a fact the farmer Dan Allgyer openly admitted, Judge Lawrence Stengel issued an order blocking milk sales to the club. 

Is this the kind of thing we've come to expect from the federal government? Treating Amish farmers like criminals for selling healthy, wholesome foods to fellow Americans? Wasn't the whole purpose of interstate commerce regulation to eliminate state barriers to entry in commerce (including disparate taxes)? The unalienable right of liberty has gotten lost in the weeds.

Going back to the politicization of milk in general, here's an additional (edited) note on milk sales from Wikipedia:

According to an article in The New York Times, milk must be offered at every meal if a United States school district wishes to get reimbursement from the federal government. Some school districts have proposed or enacted bans on flavored milk because of added sugars. 

I don't like the federal government manipulating local school meal policies. And from my perspective, milk is a healthy food, flavored or unflavored. If the point is getting kids to drink milk and they prefer chocolate or strawberry-flavored milk to plain milk and are more likely to finish drinking it, what's the big deal? If a choice is to be made, empower the child's parents to make that decision.

A final note: Big Dairy clearly is unnerved by the encroachment of increasingly popular raw milk sales (up by double-digit percentages in California, for instance). We have, of course, concerns about large-scale farm operations and their intrinsic vulnerability to the rapid propagation of health risks. Big Dairy isn't going to admit that it wants to shut down small independent dairy operations (that Goliath picking on David image: not good for business). Big Dairy works arm-in-arm with government food propagandists to posture itself as the "Safe Milk" choice.  I have seen a couple of blogs out there that are thinly-veiled fronts for Big Dairy; I will not promote them in this blog. (One of them has a misleading name that seems to suggest that it's a raw milk advocacy. It zealously exposes every new allegation of contaminated raw milk it can find.)

Natural foods activist Mike Adams (involved in the below embedded interview with a California grocer) has an interesting anti-protectionist style argument, which should be familiar to my fellow free market readers. Adams argues that the pasteurization process (much like the effects of a subsidy or tariff on imported competitive goods) can mask the effects of poor dairy management, unduly  relying on pasteurization to offset the risks associated with a lower-quality, less healthful natural product.


Video Liner Notes: "From the August 3, 2011 raid of Rawesome Foods by government [personnel] who conducted a SWAT-style armed raid on this store selling raw milk and cheese." Rawesome Foods is cited in the above Stossel video.



I would tone down the rhetoric in the following interview (e.g., use of the term "torture"), but keep in mind that we're discussing a grocer--not a member of organized crime, a murder suspect, etc. Why is he being held at all?  Why the handcuffs? Were the law enforcement officers worried that the 65-year-old grocer would overpower them and shove raw milk cheese down their throats?