McDonald's Brags About Their 'Healthy' Diet Shrek Promotion For Kids

Have movie tie-ins like Shrek and McDonald's taken marketing too far?

When is the craziness gonna end with these cross-promotions between blockbuster films aimed at children and fast food restaurants? We wonder why childhood obesity isn't getting any better and yet we continue to see such blatant abuse of the love and trust kids have in these characters they see on the silver screen.

McDonald's is notorious for feigning to be a supporter of health with gimmicks like their new R Gym and donating money to combat childhood obesity while still serving such high-carb garbage "food" products as French Fries, apple pies, and milkshakes. Now they've done it again with the release this week of what is sure to be the biggest animated film of all-time--Shrek The Third.

You'll recall my blog post about how ironic it is that Shrek was being used to promote exercise by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services while simultaneously pushing junk foods like Skittles, M&M's, Fruit Loops, and other sugary, carb-loaded products. Now the big green lovable ogre is pushing something strange again--"healthy" meals for kids at McDonald's?

This PR Week column says McDonald's has teamed up with Dreamworks on this massive Shrek campaign to try to encourage children to eat better. Ooooookay, so an ogre who eats anything and everything in sight wants kids to do as he says not as he does. I see.

The new Shrek Happy Meal gives the following "healthy" food choices for children--Chicken McNuggets (breaded and packed with carbohydrates), Apple Dippers with Caramel Dipping Sauce (as if the sugar from the apples wasn't bad enough, you have to give them a high-fructose corn syrup dip, too--oh yeah, it's LOW-FAT!), low-fat milk (um, that's not exactly healthy for you, I hate to break it to the head honchos at Mickey D's!) and a Shrek toy (well, at least SOMETHING is carb-free).

Isn't this just disgusting! The worst part of all is McDonald's can thump its chest at how responsible they are to offer such "healthy" options for their customers when they are doing no such thing. Of course, they're playing it up by claiming their Shrek marketing strategy is the "single biggest global promotion" of fruits, vegetables, and low-fat milk in the company's history.

You've GOT to be kidding me!

Well, goodie goodie for you, McDonald's! But don't give me the fruit and vegetable copout answer! You have YET to cater to the low-carber on your menu while you have bent over backwards sucking up to the nutritional advice of people like one of your health advisory board consultants, Dr. Dean Ornish. Even HE told me in my interview with him last year that you should be doing more.

Why is that, McDonald's? What's wrong with putting even a few token "low-carb" items on your menu so that we can find something healthy for us to eat when we are on the road, hmmm? Grilled chicken nuggets, blueberries and cream, sugar-free low-carb cookies, ANYTHING! Do you even care about having us as customers?

But all this talk of being about a "healthy" diet at McDonald's has led the British CEO to protest that they need to stop the masquerade and get back to selling bigger burgers instead. Ahhh, nothing like a little truth for a change!

Nevertheless, marketing promotions like the one with Shrek remain to give kids "choices." Sigh. While Shrek may be telling kids to "Go For Green," I have a feeling they'll keep on going for carbs instead (just look at the statistics from a recent American Diabetes Association report about what constitutes vegetable consumption by kids these days--it's a SHOCKER!).

This isn't just an American problem either as McDonald's has taken their Shrek campaign to over 100 nations worldwide. So, by all means go watch Shrek, Donkey, The Gingerbread Man, Puss In Boots, and Fiona in their magical tale this weekend. But tell your kids about what healthy eating is REALLY about by celebrating with a meal fit for a low-carb king.

It's NOT at McDonald's, I can assure you of that.

Study: Sugar-Free Schools Reduce Obesity Rates

Researcher Claude Marcus looked at impact of sugar-free schools

This Breitbart.com story about a new Swedish study was absolutely encouraging to anyone living a sugar-free lifestyle.

Lead researcher Claude Marcus, professor of Pediatrics at the Stockholm, Sweden-based Karolinska Institute (whose previous research has show the impact of high blood sugar on Alzheimer's disease and sugar's unique role in pancreatic cancer), wanted to see if an across-the-board ban on all sweets, junk food, and sodas in ten area schools would make a difference in the number of overweight children at those schools. These high-carb sugary garbage foods were replaced by high-fiber, lower-fat, low-carb foods.

Over a four-year period, the number of overweight or obese 6-10 year old children in the project called STOPP (Stockholm Obesity Prevention Project) dropped markedly from 22 percent down to 16 percent. WOW! That's a full six percentage points just by simply removing the sugar option from the foods available at school.

So what happened to the control group that changed nothing?

These sugar-eating, high-carb junk food-ingesting children saw the number of overweight or obese children RISE from 18 percent to 21 percent. Not surprising at all to those of us who are livin' la vida low-carb.

The results of Marcus' study were presented at the 15th European Congress on Obesity in Budapest, Hungary on Monday, April 23. STOPP was financed by the Stockholm County Council with contributions from the Swedish Research Council and the Masonic Home for Children in Stockholm.

Interestingly, Marcus said his study showed it is indeed possible to tackle childhood obesity without adding any extra expenditures to the existing school budgets.

"Our results show that programmes to reduce the increasing rate of obesity can be carried out within the schools' existing budgets," he said.

Sweet! So much for the excuse that serving kids healthy alternatives to junk food is too expensive. As long as those "healthy" alternatives have enough fat and protein to make them good for the kids, it shouldn't be a problem economically or nutritionally. That seems to be what this study indicates and the proof is in the astounding results.

There was one positive impact that the example from the sugar-free schools had when the children got home.

"We also interpret the results to mean that clear regulations in schools can help parents to set standards for their children and improve dietary habits at home," the study indicated.

What an excellent point! When parents who want to feed their kids the right kind of foods get reinforcement when their children go to school, then they are better able to effectively bring about improvements in their child's health without the fear of being undercut by the peer influences at school. We need something like this to be implemented in the United States--ASAP!

There is some hope already with kids like this refusing to sell sugary foods as a fundraiser. It's gonna take a lot more efforts like these to bring about the kind of results Marcus saw in his study. So let's get it started, baby!

You can e-mail Claude Marcus about this research at Claude.Marcus@ki.se.

Is Shrek Really A 'Good Model' For Exercise?

The Shrek character is being used to promote health to children

My wife Christine and I are BIG fans of the Shrek movies. We think Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy are a hilarious comedy team and the computer animation in these movies is just incredible. Dreamworks has been able to bankroll the rest of their entire lineup of films just with the profits they've made from the Shrek empire. We can't wait for the third installment in the series which hits theaters on May 18.

Because of the very high marketability of the characters from the movie, particularly Shrek and Donkey, all sorts of companies have lined up to use them in a cross-promotional effort to push their products. I was watching television the other day and noticed they put the M&M characters together with Shrek and Donkey in a 30-second spot. It was a cute commercial despite the high-sugar product that was being peddled.

You'll also see "Shrek The Third" promotions for other foods like Snicker bars, Skittles, Sierra Mist, Fruit Loops, Frosted Flakes, Pop-Tarts, Cheez-Its, Keebler cookies, and even a Happy Meal at McDonald's. With all this high-carb garbage being recommended by Shrek and his pals, it was more than a bit unusual to read this FOX News story about another surprising product Shrek has been asked to represent--EXERCISE!

THIS IS NOT A JOKE! Check it out for yourself by clicking HERE.

Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Small Step Kids campaign has Shrek with his big fat ogre face and body jumping up (did you feel the Earth shake when he landed? Hee hee!). There's also Donkey's Jumping Jacks, Fiona's Sit Ups, Puss In Boots Push Ups, Hopping With Gingy (the Gingerbread Man!), and The Running Of The Pigs. All of this is supposed to encourage kids to get in one hour of exercise daily. Hmmm.

Let me just say that I can appreciate the good intentions of this government-endorsed Shrek promotion of exercise. But you can't help but think about how confusing this must be to little Johnny or Jane who sees their favorite movie characters eating foods like Happy Meals, Fruit Loops, or M&M's and then those same character encouraging exercise.

So which is it, Shrek? Healthy or unhealthy habits?

Well, I'm not alone in my concerns. A group called The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood said these close ties between Shrek and the unhealthy foods makes the popular animated character a poor choice to represent exercise.

They have even organized this petition drive to Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt for him to "Fire Shrek" and to "start getting serious about combating childhood obesity."

Commercial-Free Childhood campaign director Susan Linn, a psychiatry professor at Harvard, wrote a letter to Secretary Leavitt on Wednesday stating the use of Shrek in their exercise promotion to kids demonstrates "an inherent conflict of interest between marketing junk food and promoting public health."

"Surely Health and Human Services can find a better spokesperson for healthy living than a character who is a walking advertisement for McDonald's, sugary cereals, cookies and candy," she exclaimed.

But Health and Human Services spokesperson Bill Hall said the Shrek promotion has been underway for several months and that nothing is going to change now. The public service announcement television ads are also a part of the efforts by the Ad Council's Coalition for Healthy Children. In fact, Hall says there nothing at all wrong with using Shrek in these ads.

"Shrek is a very well known character in the target population of this campaign," he remarked. "We have always promoted a balanced, healthy diet, which does not necessarily exclude the occasional treat."

Occasional treat, Mr. Hall? Of ALL of those foods promoted by Shrek, guess how many of them are NOT loaded with sugar, sugar, and more sugar?! Just one--the Cheez-Its--but even that product has so much flour in it that the carbs turn into sugar in your body which then make you fat. To purport that a "balanced, healthy diet" includes these products is about as naive as it is ignorant.

You and I both know that kids eat these foods as their PRIMARY source of energy, not as the "occasional treat." When they see Shrek on the television or on the packaging of these food products, children immediately start screaming "Mommy, Mommy, I've got to have the Shrek Fruit Loops and Pop-Tarts! Please, please, please?!!" Of course, that's what marketing is supposed to do and the parents give in. Welcome to modern day capitalism!

If the Shrek endorsement of these products only brought about a nominal increase in sales, then they wouldn't use that character again in future ads. But the fact is Shrek is very influential on young impressionable minds, which is why Linn says the conflicting messages about healthy living is confusing to little kids who idolize and trust whatever their movie star tells them.

"Why would young children follow Shrek's advice about healthy living and ignore his entreaties to eat Happy Meals and Pop-Tarts?" she wrote in her letter. "If government agencies are serious about combating childhood obesity, they should stop cozying up to industry and start taking real steps to end the barrage of junk food marketing aimed at children."

I don't personally have an issue with Shrek promoting healthy choices such as exercising for an hour a day. That's excellent advice in this generation of video games, computers, and other non-physical activities that our children are engaging in. But not in conjunction with these other ads promoting junk foods. Therein lies the conflict of interest.

But don't tell that to Health and Human Services deputy assistant secretary.

"Shrek is a good model, especially for children who can benefit from more exercise," Deputy Assistant Secretary Penelope Royall responded. "He doesn't have a perfect physique, he's not a great athlete. We hope children will understand that being physically fit doesn't require being a great athlete."

Yep, you read that right. Royall said Shrek is a "good model" for healthy activity and living. The character stuffs his mouth nonstop with all kinds of nasty stuff while his big ole belly and butt hang out like some kind of tumor. It's what makes Shrek the character funny, but most definitely NOT a role model for children when it comes to health.

Royall said the purpose of the ads was to get children to exercise, not eat right. But how can you promote health by pushing activity and not diet, Ms. Royall? That's a strange way to combat childhood obesity if that is indeed your goal with this ad campaign. The best approach would be two-pronged--promote healthy nutrient-dense foods along with moderate and fun activities that will get your heart rate up and burn calories.

Dreamworks says they just want to be "responsible marketers" in all of this with their Shrek brand. Well, you've failed miserably at that and the almighty dollar seems to supercede all your good intentions. If you had Shrek promoting sugar-free chocolates or eggs, then perhaps you could be seen as more "responsiible." But not now.

Don't forget to sign the petition to Secretary Leavitt.

Veronica Atkins Promises $10 Million To UC Berkeley For Childhood Obesity Research

Atkins pledged money to Pat Crawford and her researchers at UC Berkeley

In an official presentation at the 2007 California Childhood Obesity Conference in Anaheim, CA on Wednesday night, The Dr. Robert C. and Veronica Atkins Foundation agreed to pledge $10 million to the Center For Weight And Health at the University of California-Berkeley for research into eradicating childhood obesity.

The center's co-founder Pat Crawford, who is also co-director of the center, Cooperative Extension Nutrition Specialist in the Department of Nutritional Sciences, and Adjunct Professor in the School of Public Health and Department of Nutritional Sciences and Toxicology (whew, that's a mouthful for a title!), was thrilled by the donation from the widow of the late, great Dr. Robert C. Atkins and agreed to rename the center the Dr. Robert C. and Veronica Atkins Center for Weight and Health as a small gesture of her appreciation for the much-needed funds.

"What distinguishes our center is our focus on the prevention of pediatric obesity, and we are so grateful that the Atkins Foundation is supportive of that," she said. "With this pledge, we'll be able to continue the important work we've been doing to help reverse the troubling epidemic of childhood obesity in this country."

Stephen M. Shortell, who serves as dean of the School of Public Health, said the timing of this pledge could not have been better to continue on the legacy of Dr. Atkins and the center for the "generations" to come.

"The Atkins Foundation support will significantly strengthen our ability to solve one of the nation's most intractable problems--the growing percentage of Americans who are overweight and obese," he said. "The foundation's commitment means that we will be able to touch thousands more lives with our interdisciplinary research and teaching that ranges from basic science research to community-wide interventions."

You will recall that Veronica Atkins has been quite the philanthropist over the past year or so providing funding to solid nutritional research that furthers the cause that Dr. Atkins was pursuing--namely eliminating obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease and more through the use of sound scientific methodology. Other benefactors of these dollars include The University of Connecticut, The University of Texas-Southwestern, and Dr. Atkins' alma mater at The University of Michigan.

While funding alone is NOT the answer to the childhood obesity problem that plagues our nation, I like the way Mrs. Atkins is being discerning about who gets the money and who doesn't. If the potential recipients are unwilling to even consider the positive benefits of livin' la vida low-carb as the starting point for their research, then it's a sure bet the funding will go elsewhere.

While the new Dr. Robert C. and Veronica Atkins Center for Weight and Health does not actually promote or advocate the Atkins low-carb nutritional approach in its research, they are most certainly open to a wide variety of ways for handling the obesity problem from different perspectives customized to the individual. The researchers there are adamant that obesity be examined at every point in the proverbial food chain, including where the food is produced and distributed, how it is handled in the process of bringing it to the market, and the unique role played by the health industry, public education and even the pesky media who has a knack for conveniently leaving out pertinent facts regarding the treatment of obesity.

Right now, there are 30 different ongoing research projects, inlcuding a program aimed at poor black children with Type 2 diabetes, the removal of sugary soft drinks from public schools, and the impact of the frequency of meals on the weight of teenage girls. These are the kind of studies that will be funded thanks to the generous donation from Mrs. Atkins.

"The center at UC Berkeley is a tribute to my husband's belief in the power of influencing public health outcomes, particularly in the battle against obesity," Veronica Atkins stated at the obesity conference on Wednesday evening. "On behalf of the Atkins Foundation, I am proud to partner with a center as active and accomplished as Berkeley's, and excited to support the ongoing advances of its outstanding researchers."

Mrs. Atkins was especially drawn to the preventative nature of the research being done at UC Berkeley and how those measures could be clearly explained to the public for easy implementation. In other words, Atkins Foundation executive director Abby Bloch said, it's more than just coming up with a few theories for dealing with obesity, but actually identifying solutions that will have a greater impact over the long-term.

"The researchers at the center are out in the trenches, in the community, working hands-on to help people have healthier lifestyles," she noted. "The commitment of these researchers to this area of research and the translational application into the community are very much on target with the mission and goal of the foundation."

The center will continue to be funded by $500,000 grants from the College of Natural Resources and the School of Public Health until Veronica Atkins passes away. At the time, the center will inherit her $10 million gift.

Lost in the debate over the long-term health benefits of livin' la vida low-carb is the fact that the science is indeed coming, as Dr. Eric Westman from Duke University recently said in my interview with him, to prove the veracity of this diet. All those people who thumb their nose up at this way of eating smugly proclaim that there are no real studies showing low-carb is a healthy diet for the long-term.

Because of the generosity of the lovely and gracious Veronica Atkins and the money her husband made from the sale of his diet books, the next 5, 10, and even 20 years should be VERY exciting to watch as we continue to learn more about how safe and effective the Atkins diet is not just for weight loss, but improving overall health as well. Ready or not, here it comes!

McDonald's 'R Gym' Concept Just Another PR Stunt To Avoid Obesity Lawsuits

R U ready for McDonald's and their new "R Gym" exercise rooms?

Guess who's back in the news again as a heralded champion in the fight against childhood obesity? Yep, it's that bastion of nutritional and fitness goodness named McDonald's. They offer kids and parents the very best food money can buy for a healthy lifestyle like Big Macs, French fries, Coca-Cola, chocolate milkshakes, Chicken McNuggets, and so much more. I can't believe we have such an out-of-control obesity epidemic in this country with such a strong example coming from the Golden Arches!

YOU KNOW I'M KIDDING, RIGHT?!

But that's the EXACTLY the kind of image the corporate executives in the upper echelons of the McDonald's empire want people to have in their minds when they think about the world's #1 fast food restaurant chain. They have been working very diligently over the past year or so to shape and mold themselves as a company that truly cares about the overall health and well-being of its customer base.

You know, that's kinda like a drug dealer putting a filter on that marijuana cigarette he sells you to make it "better" for you. It's superficial change at best that still results in damage to your health. Nevertheless, McDonald's has certainly been trying to fool...er, I mean, convince the public that they have seen the error in their ways and are ready to make things right.

Here are just a few of the things they have done:

1. They encourage people this woman on a McDiet to counter the negative publicity they received from Morgan Spurlock and his "Super Size Me" movie and book. That unexpected hit film from a few years back has done more to expose Mickey D's than just about anything else in our culture. The heat was turned up on McDonald's yet again when Eric Schlosser's brand new film "Fast Food Nation" hit selected theaters in November 2006.

2. In a move that I applauded when it was first brought to light in late 2005, McDonald's is now printing the nutrition information on the packaging of the foods they sell. While critics complain that customers cannot see this information until AFTER they have purchased their meal, the fact is anyone can obtain this data anytime by visiting the McDonald's web site or referencing the big nutritional chart posted near the register inside the restaurant.

3. Many people were surprised to see in September 2006 for the first time in the history of McDonald's that they agreed to donate $2 million to childhood obesity and diabetes research. McDonald's claims they wanted to show the public that they are serious about helping to combat these issues and put their proverbial money where their mouth is.

Now we can add another element to the rebuilding of the McDonald's image with the introduction of their new "R Gym" concept. The days of kids playing around in a public pool of balls and crawling around in tubes like lab rats are numbered as a new generation of children will have a full workout activity room to climb a rock wall, ride on a stationary bike hooked up to a video game, and shoot some hoops--all while dining at McDonald's!

Click here to take a video tour of the "R Gym" in Santa Ana, CA.

McDonald's is dead serious about this and has already added an "R Gym" to selected units in California, Oklahoma, Colorado and Illinois. They hope to open many more in other states in the coming year based on the positive feedback they have been receiving from customers about the improved exercise facilities for kids.

Bill Whitman, a McDonald's spokesman quoted in the FOXNews.com article, said the company has every intention of expanding the "R Gym" concept as long as there is a "benefit in it."

"We have for many years supported programs that promote physical activity, and we will continue to do that," he said.

While it is admirable that a company like McDonald's supports exercise as part of their business model, Mr. Whitman, there's only one problem with your company's position. You assume that weight gain is ONLY prevented through the implementation of physical activity and has nothing at all to do with a child's diet. Am I the only one who notices this glaring factual omission?

If McDonald's wants to get people like Julia Havey to stop wanting them to be sued, then perhaps they should rethink some of those menu items they believe are good for kids and adults to eat. Yet, not even the British McDonald's CEO thinks the company should be serving salads, but instead needs to focus more on selling bigger and bigger burger meal deals! What about all this supposed care and concern about obesity, McDonald's? Are all these PR stunts just for show?

Having a fun and exciting place like the "R Gym" for kids to look forward to when they visit McDonald's is a great way to market your product. But studies have shown that fried junk food consumption like French fries among children has doubled and the products served at places like McDonald's have been found to make people one-third fatter than if they didn't eat them.

With this knowledge, how about offering some menu items that children and adults can not only enjoy eating, but are also good for them as well, McDonald's? Company spokeswoman Jennifer Smith believes they already do with such menu items as low-fat milk and yogurt, for example.

"The R-Gym is just another example of McDonald's dedication to helping customers live balanced, active lifestyles," she said.

These people just don't get it, do they? We don't need to remove the fat out of everything McDonald's sells to make the food healthy. How about offering some low-carb and/or sugar-free options as well to reach a broader base of health-conscious consumers? Why does McDonald's refuse to cater to this segment of their customer base?

Here are just a very few suggestions off the top of my head:

1. Grilled chicken strips with green beans and a side salad
2. Hamburger steak and onions with cauliflower and a side salad
3. Breakfast bowl with eggs, bacon, sausage, and cheese
4. Sugar-free ice cream or cheesecake with berries
5. Ham or turkey w/cheese in low-carb wraps

These are a few very simple additions to the food selection at McDonald's that would attract people like me and others who support livin' la vida low-carb and healthy living. Why must we be subjected to the Dr. Dean Ornish-approved low-fat specialty salads that contain gobs of sugar or apple dippers that feature high-fructose corn syrup in the caramel dipping sauce as the "healthy" options at McDonald's? Fixing these major menu problems would go a lot further in showing the public that you mean business when it comes to tackling childhood obesity.

Upon hearing about this new concept at McDonald's, the "R Gym" may sound like a good idea because it encourages kids of all ages--with sections for toddlers, elementary school aged, and pre-teens--to move their bodies and shake off those calories they just consumed. But how many parents are actually going to just sit around inside of McDonald's for hours on end while their kids use the "R Gym?" Not many, which doesn't give kids much time to use these facilities in a meaningful way to burn very many calories.

I can see the following scenario playing out now:

Johnny finishes his meal and goes to play in the "R Gym."

Five minutes later...

MOM: "Johnny, drop the basketball it's time to go."

JOHNNY: "Aw, mom, can't I keep playing, this is so much fun."

MOM: "Did you eat all of your 9-piece Chicken McNuggets and fries?"

JOHNNY: "Yes, ma'am, and I even drank every drop of my large Coke, too!"

MOM: "That's good, but we need to go now. We'll be back again soon."

JOHNNY: "Oh, alright. Can I get the Big Mac meal next time?"

MOM: "Of course, honey, cause you'll play it off in the 'R Gym!'"

JOHNNY: "Yeeaaaah! I just LOVE McDonald's!"

You may be laughing at my fictitious interaction between a mother and her child, but somebody tell me that's not EXACTLY what is going to play out in the real world concerning these "R Gym" facilities. Even worse is the fact that kids will start whining and complaining to their parents about going to McDonald's to "play," so moms and dads will rationalize to themselves that eating there is healthy so their kids can get some exercise. Can you see how twisted this marketing ploy by McDonald's has become?

And then riddle me this, Batman: McDonald's is not in the business of offering a place for kids to just come hang out and play, are they? No, they're not. Instead, their goal is to make money off of selling millions upon millions of high-carb, high-sugar, junk foods that are quite literally destroying the health of kids long before they become adults and then keeping them that way once they reach adulthood.

Fast food addiction is very hard to break (I know because I used to visit McDonald's and other fast food restaurants more than five times a week!). But it is possible to lose your desire for those disgusting carb-loaded foods if you simply refuse to settle for putting junk in your body ever again. Believe me when I say it is so much more pleasurable to eat healthy than it is to eat fast food. Give it up for 30 days and start eating real food for once and you'll see what I mean.

As healthy as McDonald's is trying to make their restaurants appear to the consumer, the fact is they still peddle garbage food. Nobody will ever argue this point because it is a universal truth that everyone already agrees with. In other words, just because McDonald's has come up with the "R Gym," that is no reason to start bowing down to them as a great example of how to combat the growing obesity problem. They still have a LONG way to go.

Case in point is found in this Orange County Register column about the opening of one of these "R Gym" facilities at a local McDonald's there. In the middle of that page, you will see an "If you go" feature box that states the following:

"The McDonald's at 1526 W. Edinger Ave. in Santa Ana is celebrating the debut of the R Gym, as well as the restaurant's remodel, at 11 a.m. today. Ronald McDonald will be giving out free cookies and balloons."

Ronald is giving out sugar-infested cookies, oh joy! That's REALLY healthy, isn't it? It's the irony of all ironies--opening a kids mini-gym and celebrating that by giving out free cookies. UGH! And we wonder why childhood obesity lingers!

British CEO Says Pushing Salads Over Burgers At McDonald's 'Alienating Customers'

Easterbrook says "healthier" options at McDonald's hurting business

One of the most recognized name brands is the #1 fast food company in the world: McDonald's. It's hard to imagine anyone on this planet who has never heard of the famous golden arches, Ronald McDonald, or what they have become most well-known for--Quarter Pounders, Big Macs, French fries and milkshakes.

And last week the company announced business was extremely good over the summer with third quarter sales growth of 5.8 percent throughout the chain worldwide which caused sales of McDonald's stock to hit their highest point since 2000 on Wall Street.

Corporate executives quickly rolled out their PR swagger on this positive financial news for their company by stating the upcoming release of nutritional info on their packaging as well their healthier menu items (which Dr. Dean Ornish helped encourage McDonald's to add to their menu) such as carrot sticks, apple dippers with caramel sauce, all-white meat chicken nuggets, fruit bags, deli sandwiches and walnut salads were the reason for the resurgence in sales as well as the outstanding performance of the UK chain of McDonald's restaurants. Makes you wanna go on a McDiet, doesn't it?

But somebody forgot to send the memo to the CEO of the 1,125 McDonalds restaurants in Great Britain, Steve Easterbrook. Despite the improved sales numbers and the public perception that McDonald's really does care about offering better food choices for their customers, Easterbrook said all the focus on these "healthy" menu items that have been added in recent years such as salads are actually bad for business.

"In the past we have seemed somewhat apologetic about who and what we are, but you have to believe in the brand," Easterbrook remarked. "Our menu has evolved, and we now have a much broader range of salads and sandwiches. But we were alienating customers by pushing our salads."

Easterbrook notes that 25 McDonald's units in Great Britain were forced to shut their doors due to poor performance which he blames in part on the artificial image that the food served at McDonald's is healthy.

Well, well, well, a little honesty from a top executive within the McDonald's empire certainly sheds some light on an issue that I have long had my concerns about. While it is understandable why McDonald's would so heavily promote their healthier menu options (although even that point is debatable considering all the sugar in these items) because of the negative publicity they have received in recent years regarding their role in the obesity epidemic, here we have the British CEO basically admitting the changes made to the menu are nothing more than window dressing.

But nothing has REALLY changed now, has it McDonald's?

The reality is that these "healthy" options at McDonald's are merely a fraction of their total sales figures. To illustrate this point, one internal report by the company found that for every salad sold at McDonald's, an incredible EIGHT double cheeseburgers are sold. Of course, putting the double cheeseburger on the "99 cent value menu" certainly doesn't hurt sales.

Add to that the fact that a "super-sized" Big Mac was recently added to the menu at the McDonald's restaurants in the UK and what you see is a company that is basically thumbing its nose at those of us who support having healthier choices available to us. Portion sizes have gone down a slippery slope at McDonald's and other fast food restaurants, although I am not in favor of forcing these restaurants to cut their portions or calories if the market doesn't want that to happen.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to focus on your core bestselling products as a business model, but this shell game McDonald's is playing with the consumer using their healthier menu as a bargaining chip is not impressing me one bit. If you wanna sell burgers and make that the product you earn a buck off of, then do it. But don't act like offering salads and apple dippers with sugary caramel sauce is endearing you to the health-conscious customers because it is not. I don't agree with Julia Havey wanting to sue your butt, but I think it's time to get off the fence on this issue, McDonald's.

Believe it or not, I am forced to go to McDonald's about once a week to get my wife Christine her favorite meal--a double cheeseburger with a large order of fries. Aside from the extremely slow, nonchalant, and very poor service that I almost always receive when I visit the restaurant, the disgusting stench that comes out of that place when I pull up to the window to pay for the "food" is enough to make me sick. I mean LITERALLY sick. But, I usually hold my breath long enough to get home with the high-carb processed junk food that makes my wife happy. She's lovin' it! UGH!

When McDonald's donated $2 million to childhood obesity research last month for the first time in the history of their company, I was cynical about their motive for making the gift. With such forthright comments from Easterbrook, my skepticism about why they did it is all but confirmed.

Keep that in mind the next time you think you're eating "healthy" at McDonald's. If I can ever get my wife over her addiction to their French fries and burgers, then I'll never darken the doors of their restaurants again for as long as I live.

Kimmer's Kimkins: Fast Low-Carb Weight Loss With Lifetime Support To Boot

The post that appeared here has been removed for not promoting the low-carb community in the professional manner I have come to expect from myself. THANK YOU!

Read this blog post for more information.

Study: Increased Exercise For Children Must Be Accompanied By Diet Change

Researchers found exercise by itself will not help kids lose weight

This MedPage Today article pours buckets of cold water over the notion that young children are not getting enough exercise to ward off obesity.

Lead researcher Dr. John J. Reilly from the Division of Developmental Medicine at the University of Glasgow along with his fellow researchers wanted to look at the effectiveness of physical activity on the prevention of childhood obesity in a randomized controlled trial. Specifically, they were looking at the reduction in the body mass index (BMI) of preschool-age children over a one-year period.

The research included 545 children from 36 preschools in Glasgow, Scotland with a mean age of 4.2 years old when the study began. They were required to participate in three 30-minute exercise sessions each week in the first six months of the study as well as health education courses in the home to foster increased physical activity among the young study participants outside of school rather than doing such slothful activities such as watching television, playing video games, or any other non-exercise activities.

While the primary focus of the study was on the BMI, Dr. Reilly also wanted to see how much exercise the children got versus their sedentary behavior and whether that made any measurable difference.

The results? NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT WAS MADE ON BMI AFTER SIX MONTHS AND TWELVE MONTHS! The control group and study group were virtually the same with a standard deviation score for BMI at 0.46 after six month and 0.41 after twelve months. The control group BMI was exactly the same at 0.43 after six and twelve months.

However, one difference was the kids who had increased exercise did have significantly better motor skills than their control counterparts when adjusted for sex and baseline performance.

As a result, Dr. Reilly and his researchers concluded that physical activity is not a factor in weight loss among children. They state that perhaps other changes are necessary to turn the tide of obesity among young children.

"Successful interventions to prevent obesity in early childhood may require changes not just at nursery, school, and home but in the wider environment," the researchers found. "Changes in other behaviors, including diet, may also be necessary."

This study was published in the October 2006 issue of the British Medical Journal.

So all the talk about kids needing to sneak in more exercise has been just a smokescreen to avoid dealing with the real culprit in childhood obesity--POOR DIET! While ideas such as weighted toys sound like a good thing to do at face value, this study by Dr. Reilly clearly shows exercise alone is not the answer. It MUST be in correlation with other changes, including what we are feeding kids.

Whether people realize it or not, this is a very serious issue that has potentially lethal consequences for overweight and obese children when they mature into adulthood. Fat babies make fat adults and there's no getting around that fact. If we can stop the obesity epidemic while children are still young, then a lot of the health problems that are plaguing the adult population today can be avoided. That doesn't mean we need more money thrown at the problem either.

But the changes in diet have to make good nutritional sense for our children as well. Kids these days are eating way too much sugar and other refined carbohydrates for their bodies to use for energy. You've got people like former President Bill Clinton pushing for healthier food choices in schools, but many of these recommended foods are still LOADED with carbohydrates!

Considering the state of childhood obesity is where it is today, it may not be a bad idea for parents to start looking at the low-carb lifestyle for their children and themselves for that matter. It's certainly something worth a closer look in light of the failure of what we are doing right now.

Clearly, something is NOT working, so making measureable and meaningful changes in the diet we are feeding our kids is sorely needed. Your children can exercise to your heart's content and that's a good thing--A VERY GOOD THING! But if you keep feeding your family garbage foods that are doing nothing to add value to their health, then all that exercise is negated.

Of course, critics of Dr. Reilly's study will claim the children did not get the 30-minutes-a-day minimum amount of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity recommended recently by the American Heart Association. But it may not make a difference if they're still eating all those high-carb, high-sugar foods that tend to plague our diet in modern times.

The study was paid for by the British Heart Foundation, the Glasgow City Council, and the Caledonian Research Foundation.

You can e-mail Dr. Reilly about his study at jjr2y@clinmed.gla.ac.uk.

Bill Clinton, AHA Should Stop Their Childhood Obesity Masquerade

Bill Clinton is the consummate politician taking credit for simply trying

Like I have said many times before, I really don't like talking about politics at my health and weight loss blog. Most of the issues that are dealt with in this forum are political only in the diet and nutrition world, but not generally in the realm of governmental politics.

But sometimes these two worlds inevitably collide and that's exactly what this Washington Post story about a new deal to limit junk foods sold in school vending machines does with a vengeance.

It seems five of the top junk food vending machine companies--PepsiCo, Mars Inc., Kraft Foods Inc., Campbell Soup Co. and Dannon Co.--have vowed to take their high-carb, high-fat products out of the schools in favor of "healthier products" (we'll get into what that means in a moment).

The voluntary agreement was made possible by the ever-present elder statesman himself, former President Bill Clinton, along with the American Heart Association (AHA). They wanted to help make the nutritional choices for kids better while they are in school because many blame these foods on the rise in childhood obesity rates (I do not blame the junk food companies, but rather the parents for making poor nutritional choices and for not educating their own children to discern between what is good for them and what is not).

Isn't this agreement quite an ironic twist considering the man involved? Here we have the former leader of the free world who was infamous for eating cheeseburgers and French fries while he was President telling junk food manufacturers what they can and cannot sell in schools to children. Furthermore, he will now go around taking credit for bringing an end to childhood obesity in America because he cared enough to "work hard to TRY" to do something about it. What a freakin' joke!

This is nothing more than political posturing by Clinton to shift attention away from his little temper tantrum with Chris Wallace a couple of weeks ago. The negative publicity that he received from that infamous fiasco undoubtedly led him to go into damage control mode, so a trumped-up positive story like this one where he is seen as helping the children is just what the doctor ordered.

PUH-LEEZE!

What is going to happen as a result of this need I remind you VOLUNTARY agreement Clinton helped bring about? It's VOLUNTARY which means any of the parties involved can most certainly back out at any time and Clinton still can say, "Well, at least I TRIED to tell them this would be good for the American children, but they wouldn't listen to me." Either way, he comes away looking spic-n-span squeaky clean in all of this even if NOTHING changes at all. That's not leadership, that's politics as usual!

Unfortunately, that's politics for you. It's all about who can take credit for non-action that looks like action today. But if Clinton or any other politician is sincerely interested in helping protect kids from the junk food that entices them, then why not get Congress to pass a law to make it mandatory to ban these from schools, hmmm? If they really want these junk foods out of schools, then make it a requirement with a law. That would certainly add more teeth to the argument that you care about improving the health of children if you think the presence of junk food is the culprit.

Gary Ruskin from the non-profit childhood obesity education group Commercial Alert had a rather terse response for Clinton questioning the "healthy alternatives" that will be allegedly offered as well as what's in this deal for the former president.

"Who is Bill Clinton kidding? Baked potato chips and sweetened bars are not substitutes for apples and carrots, beans and greens," Ruskin exclaimed. "Has the Clinton Foundation received any contributions from any of the companies that are a party to this agreement? How about the American Heart Association?"

You can't blame people like Ruskin for having questions like this based on Clinton's past behavior. But it does make you wonder if anything really will change or if this little media fanfare around what Clinton TRIED to do is all that will come of this. Awww, wasn't he so great for trying to help the fat little kiddies get healthy? Awww, he just cares so much for the little ones. Can I BARF now?! It's sentiments like this that make some want to throw more money at childhood obesity, but that is clearly not the answer.

This isn't the first time Clinton and the AHA have come together in a similar arrangement regarding junk food in schools. Earlier this year, they got Coca-Cola Co., Pepsi and Cadbury Schweppes PLC to stop selling non-diet soft drinks in schools since so many kids were chug-a-lugging on sugary sodas during the daytime. Now they will be guzzling sugary pseudo-fruit juices and energy drinks instead. Like I said, where are the MEANINGFUL changes? Hello?

I remember those snack food machines and the vendors during lunch when I was in high school in the late 1980s and never gave a seond thought about the nutritional value of what I was eating. If it tasted good and I wanted it, then I bought it. Of course, that may explain how I got to be so fat, too. :)

While I like the idea of giving kids a choice of better food options while at school, this agreement does NOT stop kids from going by their local corner convenience store on the way to or on the way home from school. It's like banning the sale of drugs on school grounds. That's all well and good until the students step off of school property and on the streets. At that point, all bets are off and the net result is the same as it was before.

An agreement like this one from Clinton and the AHA is like having a nonsmoking section in a restaurant that allows smokers to puff away without the use of a smoke vent. You can ban smoking all you want in the nonsmoking section, but you and I both know that doesn't keep the smoke from traveling into that section, thus rendering the distinction between the two sections completely irrelevant. The same goes for what Clinton and the AHA have brokered. This deal won't stop childhood obesity. Not by a long shot!

Okay, let's just pretend for a moment that these changes WILL make a difference. What are they asking these companies to alter about their products to make them "healthier?" Here are the new criteria for allowable foods sold at schools under the agreement:

1. Calories from fat limited to 35 percent
2. Calories from saturated fat limited to 10 percent
3. Sugar by weight is limited to 10 percent
4. Sodium is limited to 480mg, except for soup

Again we see the continuing ramifications of how scared people are of fat and even saturated fat. While it is noble they are limiting sugar to 10 percent by weight, that's still not doing anything about the excessive carbohydrates that many of these products contain which then turn into sugar when it is absorbed by the body. Are we so ignorant as a society that we think sugar is the only thing that makes your blood sugar rise? Finally, salt is a non-issue except for those who are salt-sensitive.

Even low-fat diet advocate Dr. Dean Ornish said in my recent interview with him that he doesn't like the influx of low-fat and fat-free snack food products because they are still not healthy choices for people to consume.

"People are going out and eating the Snackwell cookies and the fat-free desserts and cakes that may be very low in fat, but very high in sugar--I've never recommended that which is why I've been more explicit in clarifying that," Ornish said during the interview.

Despite all of this, data will begin being collected by the AHA and the Clinton Foundation to measure the impact of these changes ever other year over the next four years. Again, any changes will be minimal at best until we get a better handle on what is causing obesity--namely the excessive consumption of carbohydrates, including those found in low-fat products like baked potato chips, pretzels, 10% fruit juices, and so much more. Selling these as "healthy" foods is a farce!

Now the junk food companies involved in this agreement are going to begin "taking steps to make snacks more nutritious."

Oh joy, what do we have to look forward to? Hmmm, how about low-fat, whole wheat Twinkies sweetened with aspartame and/or maltitol? Yummy. Or perhaps we'll see, as one of my readers shared with me, vendor sandwiches made with Wonder Bread, anti-bacterial-sprayed bologna slices, and eggless Miracle Whip? Oh, the kiddies will be clamoring for them!

Who are we kidding people? Kids won't go for this stuff unless they are educated better about why they shouldn't eat the junk food. Our education system is eager to tell children about sex and sharing with them information about that, but there's nary a mention of how fat, protein and carbohydrates work to fuel the body and make it work. Now THERE is something meaningful to start teaching kids in schools.

We're stuck in a nutritional abyss nowadays and there doesn't seem to be an easy way out of it. Childhood obesity can be prevented, but that won't happen until some major barriers are torn down for good--namely that eating fat is bad for you, eating excessive carbohydrates is good for you, and that there are no consequences to eating junk food. All of these so-called axioms in our society are WRONG as wrong can be. We must continue to strive to share with others the truth.

10-8-06 UPDATE: You really should check out some of the comments I'm getting to this post over at LowCarbNewsline.com. Many of them think my points are invalid. What say you?

10-8-06 UPDATE: The response to this post continues with the following e-mail I received about it today.

I go to your web site because I am very interested in keeping up my low-carb lifestyle. When I want GOP political BS I can go to FOX news. By the way, you lost 180 pounds and good for you but you did not cure cancer! Maybe you should lose another 180 pounds of ego and your self-importance.

OUCH! LOL! Sigh, I miss stirring up political debate like I did long before I ever thought about livin' la vida low-carb. But, alas, I don't do that on a regular basis anymore. As I said at the very beginning, I don't like to bring up politics in this forum unless it is pertinent to what I discuss here on a regular basis. Today, it was.

By the way, I have a parting question for this person who raked me over the coals--Did Bill Clinton cure cancer?

UK's Conservative Party Cites Low-Carb Blog For Information On Junk Food Ad Debate

The Conservative Party in Britain set to meet in Bournemouth October 1-4

My educational background is deeply rooted in politics and government from my studies of political science at the University of Tennessee at Martin and of public policy at Regent University. While I take painstaking measures to remain relatively apolitical at my blog, sometimes the topics I discuss lend themselves to political debate sometimes within people of the same ideological ilk.

Such is the case with the topic of junk food marketing to children and whether it is contributing to the obesity problem. This is a hot potato political topic in Great Britain right now and The Conservative Party will be discussing this issue in greater detail at their upcoming conference the first week of October.

Not to bore you with the details of this meeting of the minds within British politics, I couldn't help but notice at this page under the listing of this topic about junk food ads catered to children an interesting source for information AGAINST this proposal to ban them--livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com. WHOA! How'd that happen?! :)

I suppose the following blog posts are what they are referencing:

- Childhood Obesity: Caused By Junk Food Ads Or Parental Irresponsibility?
- Posters Displaying Typical Ingredients In Fast Food Used To Educate Kids
- Childhood Obesity Doesn't Need More Money, But Better Education

WOW, that's pretty cool that they cite this blog for information against pulling junk food ads from television. It's not our right to tell businesses how to market their products, but it is our choice and decision to refuse to buy their products if they are not healthy for us. That's my position and what The Conservative Party in the UK is trying hash out about what they believe.

I sent them an e-mail today thanking them for referencing my blog and to contact me back if they need any other information. What an honor to have my little blog among the sources for information about this important topic of discussion. Small world, isn't it?

McDonald's Fighting Childhood Obesity And Diabetes? Ha! Now That's A Good One!

McDonald's President Alvarez says they are committed to making healthy kids

You'll know we are in the last days on Earth when:

- The Chicago Cubs win the World Series
- Rosie O'Donnell gets married to Tom Cruise
- Hillary Clinton becomes President of the United States
- McDonald's donates $2 million to obesity research

Oh, wait a minute, that last one is actually TRUE! REALLY!

This Reuters story provides all the details about how McDonald's Corp. has agreed to make the large donation to fund childhood obesity and diabetes research. I'm not kidding, they really are donating money to look into why kids are getting chubby.

Obviously feeling the public pressue regarding their high-carb, junk food offerings, McDonald's decided it was time to partner up with biomedical scientists at the California-based Scripps Institute for the first time in their company's history to look into ways to curb childhood obesity rates.

McDonald's President and Chief Operating Officer Ralph Alvarez said it is the goal of McDonald's to "make a difference in the lives of children."

"The collaboration with Scripps Research is an extension of McDonald's long-standing commitment to the well-being of children around the world," he said. "Everything that we keep on seeing is the whole issue of childhood obesity and the early onset of Type 2 diabetes has grown exponentially. We felt we needed to get greater education in this area."

Am I the only one who sees the incredible irony in this? Here we have the head of the #1 fast food company in the entire world talking about how much his company cares about the health of kids while at the same time they are marketing products directly to children that are arguably one of the root causes of childhood obesity. The fact that they threw a few pennies of their hundreds of billions of dollars in sales annually at obesity research does not get them off the hook from their culpability in the debate over rising childhood obesity. They hope it does, but it does not.

Fried junk food consumption has doubled among kids and a recent study showed that eating fast food makes you one-third fatter. Anyone who denies the contributing role of fast food in the current childhood obesity epidemic is either ignorant to the clear facts staring them in the face or they are simply protecting the financial interests of an industry that has a lot of explaining to do.

Meanwhile, McDonald's is working overtime trying to come across as a caring company when it comes to healthy living by doing such meaningless gestures as removing the "Super Size" from the menu and showing Ronald McDonald playing sports in television ad. Whoopdee freakin' doo! You're gonna have to do better than that if you're gonna convince people like me you are REALLY serious about improving the health and weight of the children you claim to care so much about.

Ever since Morgan Spurlock released his movie and book about McDonald's, the golden arches have been on a mission to convince the public that their food can be a part of a healthy diet. They even had people like this woman go on a McDiet to show you can lose weight eating at Mickey D's, too. While I don't think fast food is the only industry to blame for rising obesity, their unique part in this cannot be overlooked. If that's being too hard on McDonald's, then that's their problem. IT'S THE TRUTH!

So what does Alvarez think about the irony of McDonald's supporting scientific research into childhood obesity when most people universally agree that they are part of the problem?

"Ironic or not we're going to make a difference," he told Reuters. "You won't see those benefits short-term, in one to three years, because habits change over time. But as a major restaurant company, we need to be on the cutting edge of what's happening."

Okay, so you give a little money to this research--NOW WHAT?! What is going to change at the restaurant level, Mr. Alvarez? Anything? Sure, you come up with these high-sugar apple dippers that are about as unhealthy as everything else on your menu. But don't you market them as one of your healthy new products? Where's the integrity in that? Is that really all McDonald's can do is push some high-carb, low-fat products and think they're helping improve the health of children?

McDonald's certainly has the right to sell whatever they deem necessary to turn a profit, but what are the logical consequences of continually feeding that market with junk and more junk and more junk year after year? Obesity rates will just keep going through the roof with no end in sight. But McDonald's can proudly say they donated $2 million to childhood obesity and diabetes research, can't they? HA! Now that's a good one! What good does that do when people are still getting obese?

As I stated in a blog post earlier this week, childhood obesity doesn't need more money from companies like McDonald's to be solved. What we need is better education for children about what is causing them and their parents to get so fat. WAKE UP, AMERICA! We don't need to be eating fast food as part of our healthy lifestyle changes. We are partially to blame, too, because we keep subsidizing this garbage that companies like McDonald's is serving daily.

It's not the fat in the foods we are eating, but the excessive amounts of refined carbohydrates, starchy vegetables, white flour, and most of all SUGAR! Ironically, all of these things are VERY prevalent in the food at McDonald's. How does someone like Alvarez keep a clear conscious about what his company is doing to children and adults while spouting off the company line that McDonald's cares about the kids? That's the biggest load of corporate crap and he knows it, too!

The ultimate responsibility about what children are eating still falls on the parents and they need to practice restraint even when their children beg and plead to go to McDonald's. Trust me, when they get older and have a healthy body because of your wise decision to avoid McDonald's, they will thank you for it. Maybe if my mom had skipped taking us to McDonald's so much as a kid, we wouldn't have all ballooned into the morbidly obese adults that we all became.

Thankfully I was able to overcome my obesity problem, but it still haunts my brother Kevin and, to a lesser degree, my sister Beverly. These are the unintended consequences of the existence of companies like McDonald's. Whether they give $2 million, $20 million, or $200 million to childhood obesity research, nothing is going to change the fact that they are one of the primary reasons obesity is as bad as it is today. Call me whatever you want for saying that, but I challenge anyone to tell me it isn't true.

Childhood Obesity Doesn't Need More Money, But Better Education

Dr. Koplan lobbies for more funds to reverse childhood obesity rates

The barrage of bad news regarding childhood obesity continues with this Associated Press story about a new report released this week by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) detailing a gloomy forecast for America's youngsters and their ever-increasing weight problem.

In the report from IOM's Committee on Progress in Preventing Childhood Obesity entitled "Progress in Preventing Childhood Obesity: How Do We Measure Up?," the panel looked at childhood obesity to see if any progress had been made over the past two years regarding turning the tide towards further weight increases by children as the trend has been. What they found is that the problem is getting worse despite attempts on the federal government level to implement pro-active ways to combat it.

One of the key findings of the IOM panel was that one out of every five children in the United States will likely become obese by the year 2010, just three years from now. Because of this, the experts at IOM who participated in this report lament the seeming lack of funding for programs that have been implemented to help combat childhood obesity.

Lead panelist Dr. Jeffrey P. Koplan, former U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) director, chairman of the IOM Committee on Progress in Preventing Childhood Obesity and the current vice president of Academic Health Affairs at Woodruff Health Sciences Center at the Atlanta-based Emory University, said he is encouraged by the number of initiatives that have been sprouting up in pockets across the country to help reduce childhood obesity, but admits they still don't know which programs are working the best to help kids lose weight and get healthy.

Dr. Koplan added that a task force needs to be created to determine the best methods for bringing about the necessary changes that need to happen and that national health leaders need to step up to the plate to help with this "major health problem."

"Is this as important as stockpiling antibiotics or buying vaccines? I think it is," Dr. Koplan exclaimed. "It's of a different nature than acute infectious threats, but it needs to be taken just as seriously."

Absolutely, Dr. Koplan! But why do we expect childhood obesity rates to change when the same old recommendations that have been used for the past three decades have remained unchanged? There are many reasons why childhood obesity has not gotten any better, not the least of which is our government's lack of acknowledging that we have a problem in the first place.

However, even if they do fess up to the fact that our kids are getting fatter and fatter, all we get from our government is another gimmicky answer like the Kid's Food Pyramid that doesn't translate into sound nutritional advice for children to adhere to. Kids these days are bombarded with junk food ads but it is the parents who need to take ownership for this problem and responsibility for their children's eating and fitness routine.

Dr. Koplan is right to be concerned about the issue of childhood obesity because he knows the problems that lie ahead for those children who cannot manage their weight heading into adulthood. A recent Harvard study revealed the startling news that children who are obese at the age of 18 were much more likely to die prematurely as early as in their 30's! EEEK! This is EXTREMELY serious and real changes need to be implemented as soon as possible. And, no, giving our kids weighted toys is NOT the answer!

But neither is throwing more money at the problem. I disagree with Dr. Koplan on this point because pumping more tax dollars into programs that are dubious at best will do nothing but waste the funds that are supposed to be helping educate kids about proper nutrition and fitness. Pointing fingers at budget cuts certainly does not address the root cause of the problem.

This issue reminds me of the subject of education spending. People get in such a tizzy when you talk about cutting funding for schools and education. BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT, IT'S FOR OUR CHILDREN! Um, yes, it is for the children which is important, but there are ways to better maximize the use of those funds in a manner that will produce better results with less burden on the taxpayers.

And the same goes for childhood obesity. Increasing the budget for programs like VERB, a $59 million government marketing campaign in 2005 to make exercise look "cool" to tweens, is unrealistic to sustain over the long-term without a measureable difference in childhood obesity rates. Nevertheless, the IOM panel said the withdrawal of funding for VERB shows the lack of "commitment to obesity prevention within government."

Oh please, no it doesn't. It simply means the government is wanting to get more bang for the buck with the tax dollars spent on such programs and they didn't see that happening. If childhood obesity was cut in half because of VERB, you better believe they'd be lined up with the funding quicker than you could say "Skinny Jimmy!"

But Dr. Koplan contends that the VERB program was working well enough and that the funding was pulled from it prematurely.

Now, the CDC is urging state and local governments to take the lesson learned from VERB to apply in every area of the country to see if childhood obesity rates can come down any at all. The story also cites a school snack program pushing more fruits and vegetables that has been implemented in 14 states, but again whines that there just isn't enough money to get the word out.

WAH WAH WAH! If the people who truly cared about childhood obesity would simply stop their bellyaching just long enough to realize how ignorant they sound asking for more money to address a problem they themselves even admit they don't know the answer to, then perhaps they would start to see there are viable and effective solutions to help curb childhood obesity that exist right under their noses.

Here are just a few of my suggestions:

First, parents need to stop turning a blind eye to their child's obesity problem. This is an issue that needs to be addressed by the mother and father of that obese child, even if it means they need to do something about their own weight problem.

Second, we need to stop fooling kids into thinking they have to eat a low-fat diet to be healthy. With the negative effect of sugar and refined carbohydrates on our bodies, it's certainly not a bad idea to get children used to eating a controlled-carb diet with nutritious meals loaded with essential nutrients their growing bodies need without the excessive amounts of sugar, high fructose corn syrup and just plain junk food that they are stuffing in their mouths these days.

Third, while many believe a 100 percent obesity rate is inevitable in America, it doesn't have to be if each individual family unit does what it has to do to bring about lifestyle changes that need to happen within themselves. Why wait on a government education program to tell your kid how to eat and exercise right when YOU CAN DO IT RIGHT NOW?!

This most certainly isn't the end of this discussion about childhood obesity, but rather a starting point that government and health leaders in the United States should be focusing their attention on rather than the next great "cool" ad campaign. Please stop bemoaing about how things aren't changing quickly enough and start looking at why the advice we've been spoon-fed for generations has been such a miserable bust! Therein lies the coveted answer to the childhood obesity crisis that could be reversed in very short order if we would enact meaningful changes like the ones I have suggested.

I remain hopeful, but realize the chances of this are slim to none.

You can e-mail Dr. Jeffrey Koplan at tthorst@emory.edu.

Carb-Heavy Baby Food Leading To Obesity?

Is there something about baby food that is making infants fat?

As I was reading this Cincinatti Post story about three of the world's largest health advocacy groups--World Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Academy of Pediatrics--putting out a warning call regarding rising obesity rates among babies, it reminded me of a recent e-mail I got from one of my readers that may help shed some light on why this is happening.

The e-mailer told me she hasn't heard anyone deal with this topic and it seems all too obvious to her now as someone who has been livin' la vida low-carb for a while now. It has to do with what we are feeding our babies. That's right, we're gonna talk about baby food today and how something about it may be contributing to the rise in childhood obesity rates.

My reader wrote this regarding baby food and formula:

"One of the first ingredients in almost every baby formula is corn syrup in some shape or form. It seems like everyone has been baffled about why bottle-fed babies are more likely to be overweight later in life and have diabetes, and the connection is so obvious to me now. It just screams for the world to know. Well, duh! We are addicting our bottle-fed babies to corn syrup long before they can make any choices. How rotten is that! I did it without even knowing it, as 99% of the population probably does as well."

Have you ever thought about this before? I don't have any kids yet, so this didn't immediately pop into my head. But it really does make sense when you stop to think about it.

Have you ever REALLY read those nutritional labels on the baby food and formula you are giving to your child? Or do you just trust companies like Gerber are giving your baby exactly what is needed to be healthy and strong?

The unfortunate thing is people who buy baby food in those distinctive jars may be depriving their little one of the essential nutrients he or she needs to grow up to be a strong kid and healthy adult. I'm no expert on this subject, but it seems the children who are breast-fed by their mothers tend to be less likely to become obese because they are not exposed to the carb-heavy baby food that is on our shelves today.

Don't believe me that today's baby food is unhealthy for your child? Just take a look at the macronutrient ratio on that jar the next time you go to the grocery store. What you will find is a TON of carbohydrates and very little protein and fat. It is not uncommon for the carb/protein/fat ratio to be around 85/10/5 or even worse. EEEEK!!! GO SEE FOR YOURSELF! It really will open your eyes. 8-O

Even worse is the ingredients list which contains so much corn syrup as my reader wisely noted in her e-mail to me. All of that sugar and the obvious lack of protein and fat which is sorely needed to help growing babies develop properly is one of the reasons why I think we have seen obesity among children and even babies become so bad.

Food companies have been steadily sneaking in sugar and its evil twin high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) into the vast majority of foods we eat for a long time now and it's starting to catch up to us with rising obesity and health problems. Even worse is the facade that feeding babies foods such as rice, fruit, veggies, etc. is healthy. IT IS NOT! Most of these foods are jam-packed with so many carbohydrates it makes those poor little babies start becoming addicted to carbohydrates long before they can even talk.

Additionally, the lack of protein and fat in these baby foods don't allow the baby to develop as well as he or she should because they aren't getting the essential building blocks that come from these macronutrients responsible for healthy brain function, strong bones, and muscle growth, too! And whatever you do, DON'T neglect the role of saturated fat in a baby's development because it plays a vital role in their brain health as well. And where are the omega-3s and omega-6s? Hmmm?

Essentially what you are doing if you are feeding your baby out of a jar is putting him or her on a low-fat, low-calorie diet that is sugar and carbohydrate-heavy--a far cry from the excellent nutrition provided by the mother's breast milk.

That's some food for thought to chew on today, especially if you have the thrill of a baby in your household or will soon be hearing the sweet sound of pitter-patter in your household. Enjoy that precious gift that God has given to you, but be aware that the food companies don't care if they are addicting your kids to sugar. They just don't as long as they are making a buck. Sadly, it's the same philosophy they take with adult food, too!

You have been fairly warned now.