Scientists, U.S. government: Did we say eggs were bad for you — for decades? Oops! Sorry.

EggsYears ago this blog covered the U.S. government’s decision to change the food pyramid. When it turned out that the guidelines federal bureaucrats were putting out for years on what constituted a “healthy” diet were indeed a recipe for obesity, they quietly made the change and whispered in our ears, “Shhhhh. This old food pyramid never happened.” Now they’re doing the same thing as it pertains to cholesterol.

The Washington Post reported Feb. 10:

The nation’s top nutrition advisory panel has decided to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, a move that could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption. …

The finding follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that, for healthy adults, eating foods high in cholesterol may not significantly affect the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease.

The greater danger in this regard, these experts believe, lies not in products such as eggs, shrimp or lobster, which are high in cholesterol, but in too many servings of foods heavy with saturated fats, such as fatty meats, whole milk, and butter. …

Adding to the complexity, the way people process cholesterol differs. Scientists say some people — about 25 percent — appear to be more vulnerable to cholesterol-rich diets.

“It’s turned out to be more complicated than anyone could have known,” said Lawrence Rudel, a professor at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine.

People turn to personal trainers because each person is different. How your body responds to an exercise program may be very different than mine. For similar reasons, we should question the masterminds crafting laws on how much sugar, salt, fat, etc. we should eat. I’m sensitive to spicy foods, but my wife could probably down a bucket of hot peppers and not worry about it. The point is that too many people have blind faith in what nameless, faceless bureaucrats tell them instead of doing their own research and then trusting common sense to guide their decision-making.

Remember the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax (SWEET Act) submitted to Congress by Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.)? For those who don’t remember, she literally wants to tax every teaspoon of sugar you consume. Why? Because she thinks she knows what’s best for you. The same goes for former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg and a whole host of others.

Growing up in the 80s, I remember teachers telling me that eggs were “bad,” and that if I ate them I should try and just eat the whites. When I told my grandmother (who lived to be 98-years-old), she just laughed and told me to eat my eggs and not worry about it. My grandmother did not know more about food science than the nutritionists working for the federal government, but I’m inclined to believe that she did have more common sense.

Today, there are a whole host of issues where questioning “settled science” is met with the reply, “Are you anti-science?” Well, no. I’m anti-stupidity, and it is stupid to laugh at the men and women who acknowledge years before their so-called intellectual masters that some issues are “more complicated than anyone could have known.”

There are millions of Americans who have made science their religion, even as they mock the spiritual faith of their friends and neighbors.

Do your research. Be diligent. Take responsibility for your own life, and don’t apologize when what you determine is best suited for your health and wellness conflicts with conventional wisdom. You’ll be glad you did.

The cup is full, so stop pouring. The same advice goes for your bowl of Coco Roos.

Dog food cereal bags

Years ago American families were quite large. While we can discuss the many different factors for that reversal, the bottom line is that we’re not having kids at a rate that is conducive to the long-term health of the nation.

A recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services bears this out.

The number of births declined 1 percent in 2011 to 3,953,590. The general fertility rate also declined 1 percent, to 63.2 per 1,000 women 15 to 44 years.

The teenage birth rate fell 8 percent to 31.3 per 1,000. Birth rates declined for women in their twenties, were unchanged for women 30 – 34 years and rose for women aged 35 to 44 years.

The total fertility rate (estimated number of births over a woman’s lifetime) declined 2 percent to 1,894 per 1,000 women.

The odd thing is, while the birth rate continues to decline our obesity rates seem to be getting worse. It’s so bad, in fact, that the AMA recently decided to categorize obesity as a diseaseeven though it’s not.

The reason? In short, they’ve taken the “Umm, let’s do ‘something’ approach.”

The American Medical Assn. voted Tuesday to declare obesity a disease, a move that effectively defines 78 million American adults and 12 million children as having a medical condition requiring treatment.

The nation’s leading physicians organization took the vote after debating whether the action would do more to help affected patients get useful treatment or would further stigmatize a condition with many causes and few easy fixes. …

Recently I was in Wal-Mart with my wife and I became fascinated by jumbo-sized bags of cereal. They reminded me of the dog food bags I used to stock as a college student working Target’s overnight shift. While I’ve been aware for years of the jars of mayonnaise that would last me a decade or the bags of rice better suited for restaurant owners, I still couldn’t help but stop and stare.

As a conservative, the question “What American family with one or two children needs to buy giant bags of  ‘Coco Roos’ every week?” is simple: “It’s none of my business.”

Indeed, from a freedom and liberty perspective it is none of my business. Buying in bulk is cheaper and there are thousands of other reasons why a family might feed their children like they feed the family pet. However, I still can’t help but think the only people who would need to regularly buy such quantities of cereal would be those who consume unhealthy amounts of it and women like GloZell.

GloZell bathtub cereal challenge

The 9th Verse of Lao Tzu’s “Tao Te Ching” tells us:

To keep on filling
is not as good as stopping.
Overfilled, the cupped hands drip,
better to stop pouring.

Sharpen a blade too much
and its edge will soon be lost.
Fill your house with jade and gold
and it brings insecurity.
Puff yourself with honor and pride
and no one can save you from a fall.

Retire when the work is done;
this is the way of heaven.

America has always been about bigger, better, faster — and that’s great — but at one time it was also about prudence and common sense. Somewhere along the way we seemed to abandon the principles that kept everything in balance, and it is reflected in our national debt, our waistlines and our mental health.

We are fat and we are falling. That combination is recipe for disaster.

When the cup is full, stop pouring. The same advice goes for your bowl of Coco Roos.

CDC on salt: We were wrong (i.e., Michael Bloomberg and his friends are thugs)

Remember the old food pyramid? The one that encouraged all Americans to eat a diet heavy in carbohydrates? I do. The federal government got it ass backwards, and then guys like NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg went nuts trying to control the will of entire city populations. Now the CDC gives us another example why we should not take general consensus among scientists as a green light to start regulating the food you eat, down to the number of grams of salt you consume each day. It turns out that your body needs salt — something sane people, who don’t live to become government bureaucrats, have known for quite some time.


A recent report commissioned by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reviewed the health benefits of reducing salt intake and the take-home message is that salt, in the quantities consumed by most Americans, is no longer considered a substantial health hazard. What the CDC study reported explicitly is that there is no benefit, and may be a danger, from reducing our salt intake below 1 tsp per day. What was absent about the report was is the difference between healthy mineral salts and iodized table salt.

It may be that we’re better off with more salt than less, up to 2 or even 3 tsp per day. How did it happen that such standard medical advice drifted astray, then went un-corrected for so long?

This review by the National Academies Institute of Medicine (IOM), commissioned by CDC, considered dozens of studies, from cross-cultural (less reliable) to prospective, randomized with control (most reliable). Most studies showed no relationship between salt intake and any health outcome. Some seemed to indicate that more salt had a beneficial effect.

Hotair’s Mary Katherine Ham nails it:

As with so many bad public health ideas, the idea of cutting salt found its national footing thanks to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose primary public service as head of the largest city in America has been to ban and discourage as many delicious foods as possible. In 2009, Bloomberg started the National Salt Reduction Initiative, led by the New York City health department in an effort to push major food companies into “voluntary” lower-sodium standards. The goal was to reduce sodium intake by 25 percent.

There was push-back on the initiative from the scientific community here and there, but that didn’t stop Bloomberg’s strong-arming quest. …

Bloomberg, in concert with the American Heart Association and other alarmists, got more than 20 food companies to cut their sodium in February.

The federal government, its scientists and the media might as well just consolidate and work under a new name: “The Fear Factory.” Every day researchers find new ways to get you paranoid. Some new food gives you cancer while a previous item thought to be dangerous is taken off the list.

Newsflash: On a long enough timeline we will all get cancer. Instead of freaking out about it or trying to control the behavior of hundreds of millions of free Americans, a better option is to live a healthy lifestyle, find a way to exude love and kindness wherever you go, use common sense and ultimately come to terms with death.

And if you don’t? Then you can continue to let guys like Brian Williams scare you about prostate cancer, which might (or might not) happen if you take supplements daily. “Someone get Michael Bloomberg on the phone, pronto! We need to curb the amount of omega-3 fatty acids people can buy.”

The talking heads are now worried about fish oil, which means politicians will seek to control its use. Ten years from now they'll conclude otherwise, but the regulations will stay in place. Do you really want to live you life in fear? Turn off your television and get out more.
The talking heads are now worried about fish oil, which means politicians will seek to control its use. Ten years from now they’ll conclude otherwise, but the regulations will stay in place. Do you really want to live your life in fear? Turn off your television and get out with your loved ones more often.

I would argue that living in anger and fear is much more likely to give you weird health problems than fish oil. If you watch television daily you’re exposed to programming geared towards pitting you against your fellow man. Watch the “news” too much, and it’s a good bet you’re irrationally living in fear over any number of things, from sodium consumption to what your neighbor will think of you if you don’t buy the newest cell phone on the market. Turn off the television more frequently. Your body, mind and spirit will thank you.