Whoo-Hoo!! As a registered dietitian, I am so thrilled to see you have chosen someone as qualified as Megan to report on nutrition-related issues. Yay!!!
If you want to understand how powerful, addictive and destructive high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is, consider this quote:
"Many animals aim to store as much fat as possible before winter's low food supply. They gorge themselves with ripe, fructose-rich fruit. The short-lived spike in fructose consumption during autumn drives foraging (food-seeking) behaviors and even increases violence and aggression. For the animal, this time of gorging on fruit is a life-or-death situation, and an influx of fructose turns on this survival switch that changes metabolism and behavior. The survival switch concept is from Dr. Rick Johnson, author of "Nature Wants Us to Be Fat." But now that ultra-concentrated high-fructose corn syrup is available 24-7, our survival switch has been used against us to turn us into aggressive food-seeking addicts, preparing for a hibernation that never comes." - From "Good Energy" by Dr Casey Means (page 128).
It's important to remember that our government currently subsidizes high-fructose corn syrup, which makes it a cheap and plentiful ingredient in everything from soda to hot dogs. Without subsidies, it would be more expensive, and by simple laws of economics, when price goes up, demand goes down.
Also, 10% of SNAP (food stamps) funds are spent on sugary HFCS-rich products from Coca Cola and the like. Yes, 10%. These products have no nutritional value and cause obesity.
I am all in favor of people making healthy choices, but when they don't, it's not fair for insurance subscribers and tax payers to bear the brunt of other people's obesity and poor metabolic health, which costs trillions of dollars annually. Each year we pay more for health insurance and get less in return, all the while, as a country we become sicker and fatter. Obviously, something is very wrong.
So I'm all in favor of the government limiting or outlawing HFCS. I'm all in favor of the government restricting food stamp spending to healthy and nutritious products. And I don't care if it's the democrats of the republicans who make these changes.
PS: "Good Energy" is by far the best book I've read in a long time. I am giving it out to everyone I know as a holiday gift.
Your concern about food stamps being spent on the wrong things is interesting. On the one hand, it can be viewed as "enabling" to permit it - as in we all have a moral obligation to discourage it by eliminating the possibility of food stamps being used for the "bad stuff". That justifies a strong governmental response. On the other hand, outlawing products is one thing when it is done for all as you also suggest, but another when it is done solely through changes in the food assistance program. There, it can be viewed as discriminatory and condescending treatment to "save people from themselves" when it actually is to save our dollars. And suggests that we will you use our superior power to effect changes in the diet of the poor, that we don't have the will or means to do to all.
You are right, if food stamp spending is targeted, it can be viewed as discriminatory and condescending.
Perhaps this is a stereotype (and my apologies if it is) yet I would assume that people on food stamps are more likely to suffer from obesity, metabolic issues and chronic diseases. So I think there’s an argument to be made that it’s also discriminatory to do nothing and let food stamp recipients continue buying products that are deleterious to their health - ie, the ultra processed foods that contain large amounts of HFCS.
To the best of my knowledge, one cannot use food stamps to buy alcohol or tobacco - so why are HFCS products ok?
Our obesity epidemic will soon bankrupt our country, not just financially, but spiritually. We need to get over the cowardly thinking that it’s better to do nothing because someone might attack us as having a condescending attitude towards people who need help because their brains and bodies have been highjacked by Big Food.
A significant minority of Americans doesn't want to give anyone ANY money or help. Thus food assistance by necessity is used on the cheapest calories. If you're hungry, you go for max calories first, and only when you are certain you'll get enough calories do you worry about health. If you spend all your SNAP money on fresh produce, you'll still be hungry. So without systemic change to the food system, people can't afford healthy food. Oh the irony.
I don't have experience with SNAP but I do have experience with WIC, and they issued VERY specific coupons (you couldn't buy whole milk, even though dietary fat isn't a problem for everyone; you had to buy the cheapest brand of 100% OJ). I don't mind saying yes please buy the cheap brand, but if you miss which one was slightly cheaper, then you held up the whole checkout line as they tried to work out switching them.
Certainly we could stop subsidizing corn that isn't being used as whole corn. Like if we're going to subsidize anything let's make it fresh fruit and veg.
If you're determined to limit the purchase of products "deleterious to health," how about getting laws passed that limit the amount of such products that can be produced and sold? Otherwise, you'll be denying the bad stuff only to impoverished families, when upwards of 66% of Americans are now obese.
I'd love to see cooking classes required in middle schools and high schools nationwide. That's how I learned to cook from scratch, back in the early 1960s. Otherwise, how will people who serve junk foods learn to prepare meals without them?
If people want to drink Coca Cola, why can’t it be sweetened with regular sugar? Why does it have to be highly addictive, government-subsidized high-fructose corn syrup?
And if sugar is used, why can’t they use a little less?
As a pediatrician, I would also advocate for focusing on the diet of newborns which affects overall health later in adulthood. Exclusive human milk (if possible) until 6 months of age (ie no foods or human milk substitutes) followed by continued human milk until over 1 year of age has been shown to have health impacts as adults (ie less obesity and cardiovascular disease). I would love to see improved community support for human milk! More ads, improved reimbursement for prenatal and postnatal lactation consultants, even including more discussion and depictions in popular shows would all be helpful. 😊
"Diet is now the number one risk factor for premature death from chronic conditions (after recently surpassing tobacco use)." This sobering statement makes it clear that science-based nutritional information needs to be widely disseminated. Good work!
Thank you. And the comments also very interesting. Is it too broadening to think about the effects of our modern diet on international health? It is bad for our nation but maybe even worse for the poor in other countries.
Yes, good thought! A few years ago I made a trip to Mexico and was very struck by how many "obese looking" people I saw. They appeared to be locals. Of course sugary soft drinks and greasy packaged snacks were in evidence in all the food & corner stores I saw. My partner visited India a few years ago after a 40 year absence and was struck by a similar observation. (She thought Mexico had more obesity, though).
Merging YLE and NYT reading this morning brings up the topic of high fructose corn syrup. I think there is a high quality of research supporting that HFCS has significant detrimental effects on cell biology and physiology. The nephrologist, Richard Johnson, was one of the researchers who published on the topic. This may be one of those areas where just because RFK, Jr. says something doesn't necessarily make it crazy. May I suggest that a column on HFCS be one of Ms. Maisano's early projects.
I am growing weary of hearing about RFKs being right on some issues. I would note that even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. He is a dangerous man and should not be able to impact the lives of so many of Americans.
As a physician, former state public health officer and aging Boomer, I will add some personal comments.
I have shed 45 pounds over the past 3 years: got to stop one hypertension med and cut the dose of the other in half. My metabolic profile could be from a healthy teen and my blood pressure is normal, had a normal echocardiogram. I feel better - or, better appreciate how good I feel - than I have in decades - maybe ever. Positive contributions to this outcome in order of importance:
1) 3 years ago and 45 pounds heavier, my internist showed me my numbers (weight, metabolic profile) and - worse - their trends. He said "You are at a point in your life when you can recover your health." I cried. I sat down. I knew he was right, but that recovery would take commitment and making room for changes in my life. I did my planning and a year later, I retired.
2) Watching what I ate and - most especially - what I drank and how much. My alcohol consumption is a small fraction of what it was and I can feel the benefit of that reduction every day.
3) Getting started moving. Anything is better than nothing. At first, I literally could not jog 10 paces. I started with just walking several times a week. Now, I "slog" (slow jog) several miles a week. Drag the upper body to the gym 3 or more times a week. I get compliments on how I look. Vanity is a great motivator. Next I'm gonna get a (fully human powered) bicycle.
4) Retirement helped a lot. I realize that is not something everyone can do, but the real point is that if you want to recover (or preserve) your health, those behaviors have to have a place in your everyday life. The decreased stress helps. Only in retrospect do I appreciate how much work-related stress was impacting my health. Gosh darn pandemic!
Lastly, a sour note. [And no, it's not about apple cider vinegar.]
This YLE is pretty clear about how little evidence there is for much of what passes for beneficial health advice. I will push it further: most of the ads I see for various supplements are pure snake oil quackery.
Federal law is supposed to prohibit non-pharmaceutically approved products from being promoted as being able to diagnose, treat, or cure disease. Yet, to my eyes and ears, I see and hear such claims made constantly. I guess if you are a lawyer you can parse the language of the vast majority of the ads and - with a straight face - argue that the ad makes no such claim. [sigh]
That's not good enough for me. Common sense tells us that the ads are cleverly designed to tell people who buy the product that they will improve their cognitive function, etc. These ads take advantage of people, especially those most vulnerable due to declining cognitive function itself. Shame on these charlatans! And, BTW, we have oodles of Cabinet nominees who have hawked bogus products.
I have read that the abuse of the federal prohibitions regarding false or exaggerated claims is so widespread that the regulators simply cannot keep up with the violations. Add to that the easy profits to be made and the influence those profits buy and one understands why the regulatory watch dog is toothless.
Lastly, keep in mind how much society has changed over the past half century or more. We live our lives in the context of society - what it promotes and what it makes difficult. I believe much of where we find ourselves has its roots in who we have become.
If you follow the basics as championed by YLE, you have all the solid knowledge you need.
I would love to see posts on HOW to eat a better diet. I know the nutrition stuff (ok, not at a nutritionist level, but for example I already knew all the guidelines for individuals in this article)—but if I don't have a chef to cook and serve me every day, how do I do it? How do I make vegetables taste good? How do I eat enough protein while eating less meat when I barely have the patience to make rice-a-roni?
Unfortunately we can't help you slow down and learn patience. I can suggest that instead of trying to make food "taste good" you learn to appreciate the taste of food in it's natural state. This is how toddlers learn to eat new foods. One bite at a time until they get used to the taste. No dowsing it in salt, sugar, butter, etc.
Most importantly eat foods because they are Good For You, Not because it tastes good! Eating is to be healthy, it should not be done as "entertainment". Eating at special occasions is to bring people together, not to just eat. And yes, special foods are prepared that taste good to celebrate getting together!
Many younger people don't know what "real" food tastes like. And guess what? All apples don't taste the same. Neither do other fruits and vegies depending on where they come. Be adventurous, try new things. And eat all of it even if it's one bite per meal for three days. By day three it's likely you won't mind it so much anymore. And remind yourself, it' good for your health.
Lastly, do a sugar detox. It takes about two weeks without any sugar ( or artificial sweeteners) for the cravings for something sweet to to go away after you stop completely. Chances are high you will fail repeatedly, because it is an addiction. It'll be tough but once you succeed you'll taste many more subtle flavors and appreciate food more. And you can have sweet things on a limited basis, you just won't be craving sweetness only anymore. Good luck on starting your new journey to better health!
Megan, Thank you for a wonderful review. One topic that has frustrated me is the claim that lectins in certain foods (eg. oat meal, blueberries, peas, beans, almonds) represent a risk to GI health. A certain cardiac surgeon has been pushing this idea for years without any real scientific evidence. Could you please comment at some point.? Dr. Daniel H Frenning
Thank you for Megan’s addition to your team. Expert, professional health information is a bonus.
Cheers,
Michael
Thanks for the strong emphasis on population-level measures to improve health.
Megan, you are a fantastic addition to Team YLE. Welcome aboard! Great, info-filled post, and I look forward to learning more. Thank you both.
Whoo-Hoo!! As a registered dietitian, I am so thrilled to see you have chosen someone as qualified as Megan to report on nutrition-related issues. Yay!!!
If you want to understand how powerful, addictive and destructive high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is, consider this quote:
"Many animals aim to store as much fat as possible before winter's low food supply. They gorge themselves with ripe, fructose-rich fruit. The short-lived spike in fructose consumption during autumn drives foraging (food-seeking) behaviors and even increases violence and aggression. For the animal, this time of gorging on fruit is a life-or-death situation, and an influx of fructose turns on this survival switch that changes metabolism and behavior. The survival switch concept is from Dr. Rick Johnson, author of "Nature Wants Us to Be Fat." But now that ultra-concentrated high-fructose corn syrup is available 24-7, our survival switch has been used against us to turn us into aggressive food-seeking addicts, preparing for a hibernation that never comes." - From "Good Energy" by Dr Casey Means (page 128).
It's important to remember that our government currently subsidizes high-fructose corn syrup, which makes it a cheap and plentiful ingredient in everything from soda to hot dogs. Without subsidies, it would be more expensive, and by simple laws of economics, when price goes up, demand goes down.
Also, 10% of SNAP (food stamps) funds are spent on sugary HFCS-rich products from Coca Cola and the like. Yes, 10%. These products have no nutritional value and cause obesity.
I am all in favor of people making healthy choices, but when they don't, it's not fair for insurance subscribers and tax payers to bear the brunt of other people's obesity and poor metabolic health, which costs trillions of dollars annually. Each year we pay more for health insurance and get less in return, all the while, as a country we become sicker and fatter. Obviously, something is very wrong.
So I'm all in favor of the government limiting or outlawing HFCS. I'm all in favor of the government restricting food stamp spending to healthy and nutritious products. And I don't care if it's the democrats of the republicans who make these changes.
PS: "Good Energy" is by far the best book I've read in a long time. I am giving it out to everyone I know as a holiday gift.
Your concern about food stamps being spent on the wrong things is interesting. On the one hand, it can be viewed as "enabling" to permit it - as in we all have a moral obligation to discourage it by eliminating the possibility of food stamps being used for the "bad stuff". That justifies a strong governmental response. On the other hand, outlawing products is one thing when it is done for all as you also suggest, but another when it is done solely through changes in the food assistance program. There, it can be viewed as discriminatory and condescending treatment to "save people from themselves" when it actually is to save our dollars. And suggests that we will you use our superior power to effect changes in the diet of the poor, that we don't have the will or means to do to all.
You are right, if food stamp spending is targeted, it can be viewed as discriminatory and condescending.
Perhaps this is a stereotype (and my apologies if it is) yet I would assume that people on food stamps are more likely to suffer from obesity, metabolic issues and chronic diseases. So I think there’s an argument to be made that it’s also discriminatory to do nothing and let food stamp recipients continue buying products that are deleterious to their health - ie, the ultra processed foods that contain large amounts of HFCS.
To the best of my knowledge, one cannot use food stamps to buy alcohol or tobacco - so why are HFCS products ok?
Our obesity epidemic will soon bankrupt our country, not just financially, but spiritually. We need to get over the cowardly thinking that it’s better to do nothing because someone might attack us as having a condescending attitude towards people who need help because their brains and bodies have been highjacked by Big Food.
A significant minority of Americans doesn't want to give anyone ANY money or help. Thus food assistance by necessity is used on the cheapest calories. If you're hungry, you go for max calories first, and only when you are certain you'll get enough calories do you worry about health. If you spend all your SNAP money on fresh produce, you'll still be hungry. So without systemic change to the food system, people can't afford healthy food. Oh the irony.
I don't have experience with SNAP but I do have experience with WIC, and they issued VERY specific coupons (you couldn't buy whole milk, even though dietary fat isn't a problem for everyone; you had to buy the cheapest brand of 100% OJ). I don't mind saying yes please buy the cheap brand, but if you miss which one was slightly cheaper, then you held up the whole checkout line as they tried to work out switching them.
Certainly we could stop subsidizing corn that isn't being used as whole corn. Like if we're going to subsidize anything let's make it fresh fruit and veg.
If you're determined to limit the purchase of products "deleterious to health," how about getting laws passed that limit the amount of such products that can be produced and sold? Otherwise, you'll be denying the bad stuff only to impoverished families, when upwards of 66% of Americans are now obese.
I'd love to see cooking classes required in middle schools and high schools nationwide. That's how I learned to cook from scratch, back in the early 1960s. Otherwise, how will people who serve junk foods learn to prepare meals without them?
If people want to drink Coca Cola, why can’t it be sweetened with regular sugar? Why does it have to be highly addictive, government-subsidized high-fructose corn syrup?
And if sugar is used, why can’t they use a little less?
Welcome Megan and thank you!!
As a pediatrician, I would also advocate for focusing on the diet of newborns which affects overall health later in adulthood. Exclusive human milk (if possible) until 6 months of age (ie no foods or human milk substitutes) followed by continued human milk until over 1 year of age has been shown to have health impacts as adults (ie less obesity and cardiovascular disease). I would love to see improved community support for human milk! More ads, improved reimbursement for prenatal and postnatal lactation consultants, even including more discussion and depictions in popular shows would all be helpful. 😊
I think it should have been mentioned that Megan is employed by the National Dairy Council.
Thank you for pointing this out! We have added it to her bio and noted this in today's post.
"Diet is now the number one risk factor for premature death from chronic conditions (after recently surpassing tobacco use)." This sobering statement makes it clear that science-based nutritional information needs to be widely disseminated. Good work!
Thank you. And the comments also very interesting. Is it too broadening to think about the effects of our modern diet on international health? It is bad for our nation but maybe even worse for the poor in other countries.
Yes, good thought! A few years ago I made a trip to Mexico and was very struck by how many "obese looking" people I saw. They appeared to be locals. Of course sugary soft drinks and greasy packaged snacks were in evidence in all the food & corner stores I saw. My partner visited India a few years ago after a 40 year absence and was struck by a similar observation. (She thought Mexico had more obesity, though).
Welcome to community Megan Maisano!
Merging YLE and NYT reading this morning brings up the topic of high fructose corn syrup. I think there is a high quality of research supporting that HFCS has significant detrimental effects on cell biology and physiology. The nephrologist, Richard Johnson, was one of the researchers who published on the topic. This may be one of those areas where just because RFK, Jr. says something doesn't necessarily make it crazy. May I suggest that a column on HFCS be one of Ms. Maisano's early projects.
I am growing weary of hearing about RFKs being right on some issues. I would note that even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. He is a dangerous man and should not be able to impact the lives of so many of Americans.
IMHO this phrase " calorie-dense, nutrient-poor, and hyper-palatable," deserves expansion and explanations" for change to happen
Add my thanks to the growing list, Ms. Maisano!
As a physician, former state public health officer and aging Boomer, I will add some personal comments.
I have shed 45 pounds over the past 3 years: got to stop one hypertension med and cut the dose of the other in half. My metabolic profile could be from a healthy teen and my blood pressure is normal, had a normal echocardiogram. I feel better - or, better appreciate how good I feel - than I have in decades - maybe ever. Positive contributions to this outcome in order of importance:
1) 3 years ago and 45 pounds heavier, my internist showed me my numbers (weight, metabolic profile) and - worse - their trends. He said "You are at a point in your life when you can recover your health." I cried. I sat down. I knew he was right, but that recovery would take commitment and making room for changes in my life. I did my planning and a year later, I retired.
2) Watching what I ate and - most especially - what I drank and how much. My alcohol consumption is a small fraction of what it was and I can feel the benefit of that reduction every day.
3) Getting started moving. Anything is better than nothing. At first, I literally could not jog 10 paces. I started with just walking several times a week. Now, I "slog" (slow jog) several miles a week. Drag the upper body to the gym 3 or more times a week. I get compliments on how I look. Vanity is a great motivator. Next I'm gonna get a (fully human powered) bicycle.
4) Retirement helped a lot. I realize that is not something everyone can do, but the real point is that if you want to recover (or preserve) your health, those behaviors have to have a place in your everyday life. The decreased stress helps. Only in retrospect do I appreciate how much work-related stress was impacting my health. Gosh darn pandemic!
Lastly, a sour note. [And no, it's not about apple cider vinegar.]
This YLE is pretty clear about how little evidence there is for much of what passes for beneficial health advice. I will push it further: most of the ads I see for various supplements are pure snake oil quackery.
Federal law is supposed to prohibit non-pharmaceutically approved products from being promoted as being able to diagnose, treat, or cure disease. Yet, to my eyes and ears, I see and hear such claims made constantly. I guess if you are a lawyer you can parse the language of the vast majority of the ads and - with a straight face - argue that the ad makes no such claim. [sigh]
That's not good enough for me. Common sense tells us that the ads are cleverly designed to tell people who buy the product that they will improve their cognitive function, etc. These ads take advantage of people, especially those most vulnerable due to declining cognitive function itself. Shame on these charlatans! And, BTW, we have oodles of Cabinet nominees who have hawked bogus products.
I have read that the abuse of the federal prohibitions regarding false or exaggerated claims is so widespread that the regulators simply cannot keep up with the violations. Add to that the easy profits to be made and the influence those profits buy and one understands why the regulatory watch dog is toothless.
Lastly, keep in mind how much society has changed over the past half century or more. We live our lives in the context of society - what it promotes and what it makes difficult. I believe much of where we find ourselves has its roots in who we have become.
If you follow the basics as championed by YLE, you have all the solid knowledge you need.
Thanks again Ms. Maisano and YLE!
Brava!! Great read, and so helpful that (as always) you provide all the context + keep us all focused on what factors can really "move the needle."
Well said! Can't wait to read more about these topics .
I would love to see posts on HOW to eat a better diet. I know the nutrition stuff (ok, not at a nutritionist level, but for example I already knew all the guidelines for individuals in this article)—but if I don't have a chef to cook and serve me every day, how do I do it? How do I make vegetables taste good? How do I eat enough protein while eating less meat when I barely have the patience to make rice-a-roni?
Unfortunately we can't help you slow down and learn patience. I can suggest that instead of trying to make food "taste good" you learn to appreciate the taste of food in it's natural state. This is how toddlers learn to eat new foods. One bite at a time until they get used to the taste. No dowsing it in salt, sugar, butter, etc.
Most importantly eat foods because they are Good For You, Not because it tastes good! Eating is to be healthy, it should not be done as "entertainment". Eating at special occasions is to bring people together, not to just eat. And yes, special foods are prepared that taste good to celebrate getting together!
Many younger people don't know what "real" food tastes like. And guess what? All apples don't taste the same. Neither do other fruits and vegies depending on where they come. Be adventurous, try new things. And eat all of it even if it's one bite per meal for three days. By day three it's likely you won't mind it so much anymore. And remind yourself, it' good for your health.
Lastly, do a sugar detox. It takes about two weeks without any sugar ( or artificial sweeteners) for the cravings for something sweet to to go away after you stop completely. Chances are high you will fail repeatedly, because it is an addiction. It'll be tough but once you succeed you'll taste many more subtle flavors and appreciate food more. And you can have sweet things on a limited basis, you just won't be craving sweetness only anymore. Good luck on starting your new journey to better health!
I have had toddlers, so that resonates with me!
Megan, Thank you for a wonderful review. One topic that has frustrated me is the claim that lectins in certain foods (eg. oat meal, blueberries, peas, beans, almonds) represent a risk to GI health. A certain cardiac surgeon has been pushing this idea for years without any real scientific evidence. Could you please comment at some point.? Dr. Daniel H Frenning