Abra Pappa for Nutritious America

I read an article in the New York Times a few days ago called “The Fat Trap” and I can’t seem to shake it. The article, written by Tara Parker Pope, highlights the newest research in what she called the ‘fat trap’, losing weight but not being able to keep it off.

I found the article to be a somewhat fatalistic snapshot of the journey from weight loss to maintaining a new weight. Some of the points made were valid, like the call to focus on prevention; helping people before weight gain becomes an issue, but most of the research sited in the article seemed fatally flawed to me.

“The Fat Trap” opened with a research study of 50 obese men and women. In the study they had the participants lose weight by going on an extremely low calorie diet of a mere 500-550 calories per day.

The research showed that despite best effort, the 34 participants that ultimately remained in the study regained an average of 11 of the pounds lost and also reported feeling far more hungry and preoccupied with food than they had been before.

What is most perplexing to me is why we continue to conduct research on obesity using the same methods that we know have failed time and time again. Of course, a dramatically reduced calorie diet will result in cravings. When one’s body is depleted of the very sustenance it needs to be satiated there will be cravings to follow.
Read Full Post >

Tara Parker-Pope may not a household name, but anyone writing about health news is sure to be familiar with author and columnist and editor of The New York Times Well blog. Just in time for New Year, she took one the question of weight loss in a long-from article title “The Fat Trap,” published in The New York Times Magazine this Sunday. Parker-Pope shifts through the research and combines it with personal interest to deliver a survey of the current understanding of the underlying genetics that cause obesity.

Much of the article focuses on the ways in which weight gain is caused by genetic and biological factors. This is not only important for understanding how to treat those who suffer from being over weight and obese not only physically, but also emotionally. As a society, we all too often see weight gain as a moral failing.

“Many times even health professionals view individuals who are overweight as lazy and unable to follow through with strict dietary recommendations because they don’t have strong enough will-power,” says R.D. Kati Mora. “I think as more people begin to realize that its not simply a matter of will-power and that other factors are at play, we will approach weight loss in a more compassionate, caring way. This will hopefully help individuals struggling with weight feel more supported by their healthcare team and be more successful in the long run at implementing the recommendations they are given.”

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced that screening for obesity and obesity counseling services will soon be covered. An estimated 30 percent of Medicare recipients are obese according to the CMS, and the prevalence is increasing.

Patients who have a BMI of 30.0 or higher will be eligible for one face-to-face visit with their primary care practitioner per week for the first month of their treatment, and a visit every other week for the next five months. At this point, patients who have lost at least 6.6 pounds will be eligible for a monthly visit for another six months. Patients who have not lost this minimum requirement are asked to wait six months before reassessing their readiness to lose weight.

This measure is a big step towards reducing the obesity epidemic in the United States, because the absence of reimbursement for weight loss counseling has often been cited as an impediment to effectively treating obesity. However, some worry that primary care physicians do not have enough training in nutrition and behavior modification. This is highlighted by recent studies that found Weight Watchers to be more effective than doctor’s care. An ideal solution might be to pair regular doctors visits with a proven weight-loss system such as Weight Watchers, but such a plan would be costly for the CMS to implement.

Read Full Post >

By Kelsey Murray

If you are a smoker, overweight, or have been diagnosed with high cholesterol, you may end up paying more for health care as many employers are following a new trend: penalizing those employees who have unhealthy lifestyles instead of rewarding those who have healthy lifestyles.

In the past two years, the percent of American employers who impose some sort of financial penalty on their employees has doubled, making it now 19 percent. This number should double again in 2012, according to Towers Watson, a benefits consultant company.

So why are these people being penalized for their lifestyle choices? It is common knowledge that those who smoke or are obese usually have higher health risks, which in turn leads to increased health care costs. As a result, some companies are now requiring these employees to pay more for their health coverage because it makes sense that these people will end up costing the company more in health care coverage.
Read Full Post >

There’s a chart that has been floating around the Internet for a while comparing various health effects of soda and marijuana. The agenda doesn’t appear to be pro-pot as much as it is pointing out societal hypocrisy and the serious dangers associated with foods most of us have no moral issue with.

I would be the first to get in line with people who think the demonizing of marijuana in Western culture has always been taken to an extreme level. However, if you think it somehow comes without any serious health risks, you need to consider putting the bong down for a moment and read on. Let’s take a look at how soda and marijuana really compare:

Carcinogens - Let’s start with the biggest hole in the chart’s argument: that there are no carcinogens in marijuana. According to Donald Tashkin, MD, a researcher at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, there are as many or more carcinogens and co-carcinogens in marijuana smoke as in cigarettes. Inhaling carcinogens for a long period of time can’t be harmless, can it?
Read Full Post >