Welcome to Diets in Review! If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Obesity - it’s all in your mind! There may be some truth to that statement if researchers are correct in their findings. They discovered a brain chemical that may play a role in appetite and obesity, which could lead to new drugs to help people with weight issues.

“We’re looking at a small part of what is really a large and complex puzzle,” says Dr. Jack Yanovski of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health.

Here’s more on the study.

There’s more news to fuel the debate over the government’s role in health issues. Alabama is going to start charging obese state employees $25 a month in 2011. It will be based on people with BMIs (Body Mass Index) over 35.

This may almost sound outlandish to some, until you realize that state employees are getting free health care, and that Alabamans are paying $1.32 billion a year in estimated medical charges. Alabama is the second heaviest state, behind its neighbor Mississippi.

Here’s more on the details of the debate, and feel free to chime in with your own opinions.

So, you think we need to worry about terrorism… try thinking about obesity as the biggest threat to your “security.” That’s not me speaking, it’s the warning of British public health expert Professor David Hunter. As outlandish as it may sound, there may be some sound advice in it all. Hunter warns that the British National Health Service could be seriously overwhelmed by sick citizens.

“The threat to our future health is just as significant as the current security threat,” says Hunter.

One would presume that the English are more open to government intervention on these issues, since there isn’t such a knee-jerk reaction as there is over here, but that’s just a hunch. The article on the BBC website goes into more detail on some of his suggestions for combating the threat that could double the amount of diabetics their healthcare system will have to deal with by 2025.

The debate over the fast food ban in South Los Angeles rages on. And there are good points on both sides.

As is often the case with well-intentioned do-good legislation, there are negative side effects. If fast food is simply defined as establishments that have “a limited menu, items prepared in advance, or prepared or heated quickly, no table orders, and food served in disposable wrapping or containers,” there could be unintended casualties.

“Our policy makers abhor nuance and the subtle but distinct qualities that differentiate fast food from food that can be served fast,” says Larry Bain, a businessman who could be adversely effected by the anti-fast food measures in South Los Angeles. He runs two hot dog carts that include high-quality dogs from cattle raised on pastures, served with fresh grilled onions. Not a grilled chicken salad, to be sure. But does it deserve to be banned, especially when you consider it’s a small two-person operation trying to make ends meet?

On the other side of the argument, you have to face the simple economic facts of the matter: personal freedom of choice is all well and good, but when cash-strapped lower income people have the choice between the quick drive-thru fast food “value meal” that costs $5 and the healthier sit-down meal that goes for $10+, which do you think will win?