Why do Americans eat junk food?

I had heard this before, but Food, Inc. developed the theme with a brief look at the eating habits of one lower income family. "I can't afford good food," says the mother. It would be far better for her family--and especially her diabetic husband--if they were to eat vegetables, but a small helping of vegetables would cost more than a hamburger at a fast food restaurant. So fast food it is . . . as the family suffers the consequences of obesity and diabetes.

Reader's Digest featured a brief "Best of the Blogs" article in its October issue called Why That Salad Costs More than a Big Mac.

Look where federal food subsidies go--and then compare them to government dietary guidelines (which have problems themselves, but . . .)

Meanwhile, the government is proposing to take over our healthcare system. Who can afford healthcare nowadays, right?

But the largest factor in medical costs today? --The result of lousy nutrition.

So the federal government subsidizes not just poor nutrition, but actually debilitating nutrition . . . so that . . . what? It can subsidize the resulting necessary medical expenses?

Does this make sense?

Life Extension Magazine, October 2010 said,

Similar to the deferred effects of cigarette smoking, medical costs associated with obesity-related diseases are mostly postponed. This means that society has only begun to pay the enormous healthcare expenses that will accrue as overweight individuals succumb to cancer, vascular occlusion, kidney failure, diabetes, arthritis, early senility, and other illnesses.

The federal government’s meager steps to combat this calamity have failed. The evidence can be seen by the fact that nearly three times more Americans are obese today compared to 1960. A more startling statistic is that six times more Americans are morbidly obese (body mass index 40 and above) than in 1960.

Obese individuals (body mass index 30 and above) now comprise over one-third of the American population. Another one-third is overweight (body mass index of 25-29). The majority of Americans are thus destined to suffer higher incidences of degenerative diseases than this nation’s healthcare system can afford.

There's more, but I'll stop here.

Maybe those of us who can afford to eat properly ought to eat properly, despite government incentives to eat poorly. After all, it wasn't that long ago the average American family spent 30 percent or more of its income simply to eat. Few of us would need to approach anything close to that number to eat only healthy foods and all organic all the time.

But let us not "even" go that far. What if we "simply" modulate our intake of the truly awful "foods" (y'know, like soda pop, white-flour-and-sugar based sweets, French fries, potato chips and other similar deep-fried snacks), and what if we determined to eat at least half a pound a day, per person, of the cruciferous and deep green leafy vegetables? Those few changes might create a revolution in our personal health statistics.

Death Clock

I've been working on a "200-year plan" for our family on my StrategicInheritance.com website. In one of my recent posts, "numbering our days"--simply beginning our plan with an acknowledgment of approximately how long we might expect to live . . . and using that estimation as a framework on which to build.

Well, I just found a tool that might provide more accurate numbers. Check out DeathClock.com. You'll find an estimate of your moment of death . . . down to the second.

As the owner of the website suggests, its purpose is to remind you that "life is slipping away . . . second by second" . . . though there are ways, potentially, for you to improve your chances for living longer.

One weakness in the site: it doesn't tell you how many seconds in a week (604,800), a month (approximately 2.5 million), or a year (31.5 million). So I could easily calculate that I'm looking at only about 20 more years, based on somebody's actuarial averages. (That sounds low to me--it has me dying at 74 years of age; but whether it's a bit low or about right, it's eye-opening.)

Even if I live to an "optimistic" age of not-quite-87, it's still eye-opening.

As for potentially extending your life . . . maybe you would like to . . .

• Quit smoking.


• Reduce your BMI (Body Mass Index) below 25. [The site even includes a handy BMI calculator.]


• Or, perhaps--with God's help--you can change your attitude. (Work on becoming more optimistic? --Definitely avoid sadism and/or pessimism!)

Enjoy!

A wake-up call

I spent all day Wednesday--I mean all day--at a doctor's office. Not just any old doctor, but a doctor who specializes in what he calls "vitality and longevity."

A majority of the day was spent going over a detailed blood analysis, bone scan, and body mass/fat analysis he had done for me.

What I learned shocked me.

First, I should probably give you a sense of exactly how "detailed" these analyses were . . .

• They tested 70 different . . . I'll call them "features" . . . of my blood.
• They checked for seven different substances in and two different features of my urine.
• They scanned my lower back (lumbar region) and my hips for bone density--then provided 10 specific analyses based on detailed analysis of the individual L1 through L4 vertebrae and 28 specific analyses based on detailed analysis of six different areas on each of the left and right hips.

Some of the numbers were distressing, but what really bothered me was how little I've ever heard about some of the tests that the doctor told me are extremely important. For example . . .

While my LDL (bad) cholesterol is high and my HDL (good) cholesterol is low, and both of these create what the medical profession calls a high "coronary risk ratio," my doctor told me that LDL and HDL, on their own, are not good markers or predictors for heart attack. A far more important indicator, he said, is the number of LDL cholesterol particles per unit of blood, and the particle sizes. Indeed, he said, LDL particle number is the #1 risk marker for heart attack.

Have you ever heard that before? I hadn't! And my LDL particle number is very high.

I haven't been able to learn much about this matter of particle numbers and particle sizes, but I have been able to confirm that Dr. Leonardi wasn't just blowing smoke.

There were some more surprises:

• My fasting glucose level was high.
• My HgbA1c (Hemoglobin A1c--glycosylated hemoglobin) was high.
• My testosterone was low.
• Though my hemoglobin and hematocrit levels were officially in the "normal" range, they are, said Dr. Leonardi, "low for Colorado." (When you live at relatively high altitude, as we do, your blood should have a little more hemoglobin and hematocrit then someone at sea level.)
• I don't know that I've ever heard of osteoporosis in men, but the bone density analyses were interesting as well. I have no osteoporosis, but I do have what Dr. Leonardi called osteopenia, or moderate bone loss, in portions of my hips.
• And then there is the matter of body fat. I have a BMI (body mass index) of 24.5 which is within the normal range. Most people when they look at me say they think I am almost on the slender side. But the fat analysis shows that my body is composed of 24.9% fat. The goal, Dr. Leonardi said, should be under 20% body fat, or 80+% of lean mass (bone and muscle). What's even more interesting is where the fat is located--hidden away in the middle of my abdomen. Dr. Leonardi says he wants me to lose 16 pounds of fat and gain 8 pounds of lean mass.

I listened to all of this and wondered why I have heard so little of it before. It's not as if I've been ignoring my health! I've been going to my doctor on a regular basis. But I've never heard most of these things before. Why? (Or, rather, why not?)

I thought Dr. Leonardi's answer to that question was rather interesting . . . and sobering. as his website says concerning medical insurance,

[I]nsurance companies typically don't pay for preventive care. Their job is not to keep you healthy. It is to provide standard care for covered illnesses in return for your monthly premium.

The traditional medical industry is all about treating illness. It is not about, as Dr. Leonardi would say, helping people to decelerate or even block our progress down the highway toward disease.

More on this stuff at a later date!