|
| Did Dr. Walker notice Coca-Cola is not only the maker of soft drinks, but also Minute Made Juice, Dasani Water and Powerade? I agree a huge bottle of SURGE or VAULT would not be a good thing to promote, but what happened to teaching patients and clients how to make good choices. Because even with only fruits, veggies, whole grains and lean meats and dairy, we could still have overweight people. Obesity is not just about sugary beverages. And besides, in our society we encourage people to make their own decision about things. Is what we eat any different? ***Dr. Walker Resigns Membership in American Academy of Family Physicians to Protest its Partnership with Coca-Cola
More than 20 doctors joined Contra Costa Health Services Director Dr. William Walker on October 28 at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in Martinez to protest the new partnership between the American Academy of Family Physicians and the Coca-Cola Company. Dr. Walker, a 25-year member of the AAFP, resigned from the organization saying he could not support an organization that claims to promote public health while joining forces with a company that promotes products that put our children at risk for obesity, heart disease and early death.  Dr. William Walker's Statement on the AAFP partnership with Coca ColaMy name is Dr. William Walker. I'm the Director of Contra Costa Health Services, the Health Officer for the County and until this month a 25-year member of the American Academy of Family Physicians. I'm here today to announce my resignation from the organization and to explain why the doctors who are here with me today and I feel so strongly about recent action by the organization that we are publicly acting. Recently the American Academy of Family Physicians announced an alliance with the Coca Cola Company to promote healthy eating. I am appalled and ashamed of this partnership between Coca-Cola and the American Academy of Family Physicians. How can any organization that claims to promote public health join forces with a company that promotes products that put our children at risk for obesity, heart disease and early death. When I sent in my resignation, their response was that the Coca-Cola partnership offers AAFP an opportunity to work with a major consumer products company to educate patients on making better choices. That is ridiculous. Having the soda industry create materials about making the right choices is like having the fox guard the hen house. This is reminiscent of when the tobacco industry enlisted doctors to endorse cigarette brands as 'mild'. Some of you may remember the 1940s and 50s when physicians were used on billboards and magazine ads to promote tobacco smoking. Then came the Surgeon General's warning that smoking was harmful to your health. We discovered that the tobacco industry was deceiving us into thinking that smoking was safe. In response, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association all stepped up to take leadership roles in alerting the public that cigarettes & secondhand smoke contain cancer-causing products. These respectable organizations joined our efforts at the local level to protect our residents. They worked side by side with us for years helping City Councils pass ordinances and communities learn about the problem. I would expect no less than that kind of leadership from the American Academy of Family Physicians—an organization I've proudly belonged to for 25 years—I would expect them to join doctors like me in the latest epidemic we are facing: obesity. Sadly, the AAFP has done the opposite. The AAFP is supposed to be an organization that works to protect the health of children not put them at risk. Their decision to take soda money is all the more unconscionable because, unlike doctors in the 40s, they well know the negative health impact of soda. There is no shortage of documentation that soda is a major contributor to our nation's obesity epidemic. With the epidemic of obesity we are seeing an increase in risks for heart attacks, strokes and diabetes. According to a study by the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, 41% of young children aged 2 to 11 drink at least one soda or sugar-sweetened beverage per day . - Even more alarming, the study found 62% of older children youths aged 12 to 17 drink one or more sugar-sweetened beverage per day —the same as consuming an amazing 39 pounds of sugar each year in sugar-sweetened beverages alone.
- The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that if current trends continue, as many as 1 out of every 5 children today will grow up with type II diabetes.
- A recent report shows a 33 percent rise in obesity rates statewide and the reported economic impact of being overweight, obese and physically inactive has nearly doubled, now costing California as a whole an estimated $41 billion a year — $1.3 in Contra Costa alone in health care costs.
Let me be clear about something: as disappointed as I am with the American Academy of Family Physicians for being duped into thinking that Coca Cola wants to help promote health, the real problem here is our children are being put at risk. Companies like Coca Cola are polluting our communities with deceptive advertising promoting products that put our children's health at risk. We're vaccinating people all across the country this month for H1N1 and as a result, we should be able to control that outbreak. We can and should do no less to stop the obesity epidemic. Unfortunately there is no vaccine against obesity, but as a family practice doctor and the Health Officer for Contra Costa, I do have a prescription for every parent, teacher, community leader and student: Look beyond the glitzy advertising that makes you think pouring liquid containing sugar into your body is healthy. Read the label. Look at the ingredients. I'm not suggesting that you boycott sugared drinks, but please make an informed decision about what you are consuming. I'm calling on every city and neighborhood in our County to fight back against the industry the pushes these harmful products. I ask the American Academy of Family Physicians to end this unhealthy partnership and to join us in leading this important campaign to take back the health of our residents and end the obesity epidemic. | Press ReleaseAudio and Video- Download video of the press conference (25M Windows Media, duration 13:33) — Note: This video file is large and may take several minutes to download. Media Coverage |
 | |
| | |
| Swine Flu Precautions
 | | |
| Scientists say brain is the best judge of salt intake Thursday, October 15, 2009 By China Millman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette U.S. public health guidelines have pushed for lower sodium consumption for more than 30 years. Since 2003, healthy adults have been told to limit sodium intake to 2,300 milligrams per day, while those at risk for hypertension were told to limit it to 1,500 mg per day. The 2010 Dietary Recommendations for Americans may recommend even lower levels, while setting in motion policies to limit salt in processed foods. But what if we eat so much salt not because we just like the taste or can't avoid it, but because we need to for our bodies to function normally? What if our brains are controlling our appetite for salt? David A. McCarron, Alexandra G. Kazaks and Judith S. Stern of the Department of Nutrition at the University of California at Davis, along with Joel C. Geerling, then at the Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology at Washington University, have discovered new evidence that suggests normal sodium levels are substantially higher than the level recommended by government guidelines. Although first set to address the health risks of hypertension, the guidelines have expanded to include healthy people. This study is concerned with the advice that people not at risk for hypertension lower salt intake. It examined neuroscience research on sodium appetite as well as data from sodium intake studies worldwide. The analysis, "Can Dietary Sodium Intake Be Modified by Public Policy?" was posted online this morning in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology. It concludes that the data suggest physiological controls maintain sodium levels within a narrow range, so public policy intervention is unlikely to have an effect on human salt consumption. Neurological research has demonstrated that animals in the laboratory "expressed an ingestive behavior designed to assure survival when threatened by sodium depletion." In other words, when salt levels fell dangerously low in animals, they sought out foods that were higher in salt until they re-established normal levels. Dr. McCarron and his colleagues posit that human beings engage in similar behaviors in order to maintain a normal sodium level. In order to determine what that level might be, they evaluated 24-hour urinary sodium excretion from 19,151 individuals collected in 62 previously published surveys from 33 countries. They determined that adult human sodium intake ranges between 2,700 and 4,900 mg per day and concluded that "the likelihood that these diverse sources of data ... have defined the same range of sodium intake in adult humans purely by chance is exceedingly small." They believe this data contradicts the idea that salt consumption has drastically increased in Western societies, since the range was the same across diverse cultures. "We've been wired in our brains to consume salt within a very narrow range, to maintain our bodies' functions," said Dr. McCarron. "That range, at its very lowest limit, is 20 percent higher than what the government is telling us is the upper limit for the normal population. The average around the world ... is over 60 percent higher than what the government is telling us that we should consume." Ed Stricker, a professor of neurology at the University of Pittsburgh and an expert in salt appetite, raises objections to the way Dr. McCarron and his colleagues analyzed data, but he ultimately supports their conclusions. Dr. Stricker pointed out that while some animals will seek out salty food to replenish low sodium levels, there is no evidence that human beings have evolved similar behaviors. Instead, he thinks that Dr. McCarron and his colleagues should have paid more attention to the physiological mechanisms that conserve sodium when sodium levels are too low. What Dr. McCarron attributed to human behavior (seeking out food with more salt), Dr. Stricker attributes to physiological conservation of salt. Dr. Stricker also said some people do follow the low-salt diet recommendations; consequently, he expresses concern that low sodium intake could be just as dangerous as too high an intake. "Your blood pressure is going to be too low, your kidney function isn't going to be what it should be, there are a host of secondary problems," he said.
Correction/Clarification: (Published Oct. 16, 2009) Dr. Ed Stricker's name was mis-spelled in this story about a new analysis of salt requirements for humans as originally published Oct. 15, 2009. China Millman can be reached at 412-263-1198 or cmillman@post-gazette.com. Follow China on Twitter at http://twitter.com/chinamillman.
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09288/1005672-114.stm#ixzz0UPbHTdGY
******* I'd have to agree - that eventually there is a lower limit of everything. More isn't better (in this case more lower...). And this makes me happy I can stop advising folks to eat bland food on the chance it might help them. | | |
| Sugar-Sweetened Beverage TaxesSugar-sweetened beverages (also known as soft drinks) are those sweetened with sugar, high fructose corn syrup, or any other caloric sweetener. The beverages include soda, sports drinks, sweet teas and coffees, flavored waters, fruit drinks, and energy drinks. Taxes would also apply to syrups which are used in soda-dispensing machines. Sugar-sweetened beverages with little or no nutritional value and a significant number of calories are staples of today's American diet. These beverages are inexpensive, in abundant supply, and appeal to our taste for sugar. They are heavily marketed, especially to children, often using celebrities, sports stars, and cartoon characters. More than for any category of foods, rigorous scientific studies have shown that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is associated with poor diet, increasing rates of obesity, and risk for diabetes. These links are strong for children. Chronic diseases related to poor diet cost the country billions of health care dollars each year and are complex problems which must be addressed with multifaceted strategies. Taxing certain classes of products to reduce consumption has been proposed as one such strategy. Policy makers and pubic health professionals across the country who are concerned about nutrition are considering the implementation of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverates to complement other public health initiatives. (From Rudd Center For Food Policy and Obesity: http://yaleruddcenter.org/what_we_do.aspx?id=271) *** This wouldn't be my choice in "fighting" the "obesity epidemic" which is really an epidemic of physical inactivity and poor nutrition, but that would be another blog entry and seeing how I only average about one post every two months, I better not get ahead of myself. The reason that riled me up today is the line about sugary drinks including sports drinks. I am one of the first people to point out to my clients that they may be consuming more calories than they realize, especially post workout, if they drink a Gatorade or other similar type of drink. These drinks do contain calories and can lead to a caloric balance in those who the drink was not intended to be used by. That's right, these types of drinks serve a purpose to many people. They already are more expensive than other beverages. (Ok, maybe not as expensive as adult beverages, but while I'm on the subject, why aren't they being included in this sugary drink tax? They contribute extra calories and can lead to weight gain. Do I need to remind anyone it's called a beer gut after all?) I guess what I'm really getting at is I, as an athlete who needs something besides water on my long bike rides (long as in 3-6 hours or even 13 hours), am now going to have to literally pay for all those who improperly used something that was never created for most of the population. I have no problems saying everything can fit into a healthy diet and that a person really can eat and drink what they want, or at least have a bite or sip of it. But unless you're working out at a moderate to high intensity for about 90 minutes or more, just drink water. Leave the Gatorade and Powerade for those of us who are active for hours and need the calories, fluids and electrolytes. Bottom line: why should a product I regularly use be regulated by the government because someone got the bright idea to market it to a group it was not intended for? Maybe that person should shell out the extra sales tax? | | |
| Bike Nashbar annoys me. Here's my latest correspondence with Nashbar's customer service. -----Original Message-----
From: me
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 7:10 PM
To: Nashbar Customer Service
Subject: customer information compromised online
I recently read online that Nashbar had a security breach and did not immediately inform customers. Then, when customers were contacted, no messages were left to those who were not available.
A few months ago I noticed two charges on two different cards that I did not make. At the time I did not know my information may have been compromised. Now that I have learned someone may have been using my information to make online purchases, I am dissapointed that I still have not been contacted by Nashbar and am upset I am having to spend my time contacting my bank and credit card companies to dispute the charges I did not make.
This lack of customer service will not soon be forgotten when I making future online bike-related purchases. *** From: Nashbar Customer Service <customerservice@nashbar.com>
Subject: RE: customer information compromised online
To: me
Date: Thursday, August 20, 2009, 9:50 AM Dear Customer,
You may call our security breach line at 1-800-999-1224. They will be able to help you.
Regards,
Kimberly
Customer Service *** From: me
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 1:16 PM
To: Nashbar Customer Service
Subject: RE: customer information compromised online At this time, my bank is taking care of the fraudulent charges, so I am not as concerned about the security breach as I am about the service I received from Nashbar. In fact, I was writing to let Nashbar Customer Service know that as a customer, I am disappointed in the service I received. That service was related to fraudulent charges, but that was not why I contacted Nashbar; therefore I did not feel I needed to contact the security breach department. However, it is not good customer service, nor does it make sense, to respond to my email by telling me to contact another department. You, as the company, should make every effort to put me in direct contact with the department I need, rather than telling me to do the networking myself. This just appears to be yet another example of the poor customer service Nashbar provides. As I stated above and in my previous email, I want Nashbar to know I am disappointed in the service I received because I was never informed about the possible security breach. Expect these interactions to deter me from using Bike Nashbar and its related companies in the future. Sincerely,
me *** Dear Ms. Me, I do apologize. We at customer service do not have any of the information about the security breach. If you call the security breach hotline and talk to them about it, they can give you the details. Regards,
Kimberly
Customer Service |
| | |
|
|
True
