French Women Do Too Get Fat
What the best seller neglects to mention.
By Kate Taylor
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 23, 2005, at 3:23 PM PT
Mireille Guiliano, the French-born CEO of Clicquot Inc., Veuve
Clicquot's American subsidiary, has many things to toast these days.
Besides being 58 and still weighing what she did in her 20s, she is
now a best-selling author, too. Her recently published memoir-cum-diet
book, French Women Don't Get Fat: The Secret of Eating for Pleasure is
currently at No. 3 on the New York Times list for hardcover advice
books. Since the book's publication, she says, she has been inundated
with offers to write a sequel, host a cooking show, and wear various
designers' dresses to the Oscars. There has even been discussion of a
movie. While it's still too soon to tell, it is possible that Guiliano
has helped launch one of the periodic turnovers in American dietary
mythology. Out with carbophobia; in with Francomania.
-snip-
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Please Pass the Cake
Please Pass the Cake
By Sandy Szwarc
Published 01/18/2005
TCS
"You'll have to stop this now. It's getting altogether too silly." --- comedian Graham Chapman (1941-1989)
As incredible as it sounds, nutrition is no longer the priority for the government's Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The new guidelines put the entire nation on a diet and its key message is "eat less and exercise more to lose weight." This certainly isn't an unprecedented idea, but decades of following this advice has also shown it doesn't work. Tragically, the unsupportable and erroneous information about weight and nutrition in these new guidelines isn't just innocuous, but will likely have harmful consequences far beyond any good it might do, especially threatening our children and elderly.
When food guides were begun over 100 years ago, the government was tasked to make recommendations on the minimum number of servings of various food groups to ensure the general population could meet the recommended dietary allowances of nutrients. People were free to choose what additional foods they wanted to enjoy to make up their energy needs. That changed in 1977 when politicians got involved and its focus became outlining the goals for federal food programs, and hence what foods would receive government funding. From then on, as a glut of special interests sought to get their piece of the money pie, it has moved further from sound science. And not surprisingly, it's become increasingly questioned among nutrition scientists and health care professionals.
The 2005 Dietary Guidelines became untenable the instant they abandoned the long-term pledge to promote better health for all Americans and instead made everything about weight. "Weight" appears 150 times in the 84-page document. We're told that being thin is more important than being healthy and that good nutrition isn't just eating a healthful balance of nutritious foods. Our focus must become counting calories, restricting what we eat, eating low-fat or fat-free foods, and what size pants we wear.
While plenty rush to capitalize on these guidelines, others want to abolish our freedom to enjoy a variety of foods of our own choosing and are using these guidelines as their grounds. Already, there are calls for the government to take more aggressive action to enforce the guidelines. A press release by the Center for Science in the Public Interest wants vigorous governmental efforts made to publicize them, increased funding for programs that promote them, laws passed to require "calorie labeling on menus at chain restaurants," and regulatory agencies to require the food industry to implement them and eliminate the use of bad fats and lower the current limits on fat and salt.
-snip-
By Sandy Szwarc
Published 01/18/2005
TCS
"You'll have to stop this now. It's getting altogether too silly." --- comedian Graham Chapman (1941-1989)
As incredible as it sounds, nutrition is no longer the priority for the government's Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The new guidelines put the entire nation on a diet and its key message is "eat less and exercise more to lose weight." This certainly isn't an unprecedented idea, but decades of following this advice has also shown it doesn't work. Tragically, the unsupportable and erroneous information about weight and nutrition in these new guidelines isn't just innocuous, but will likely have harmful consequences far beyond any good it might do, especially threatening our children and elderly.
When food guides were begun over 100 years ago, the government was tasked to make recommendations on the minimum number of servings of various food groups to ensure the general population could meet the recommended dietary allowances of nutrients. People were free to choose what additional foods they wanted to enjoy to make up their energy needs. That changed in 1977 when politicians got involved and its focus became outlining the goals for federal food programs, and hence what foods would receive government funding. From then on, as a glut of special interests sought to get their piece of the money pie, it has moved further from sound science. And not surprisingly, it's become increasingly questioned among nutrition scientists and health care professionals.
The 2005 Dietary Guidelines became untenable the instant they abandoned the long-term pledge to promote better health for all Americans and instead made everything about weight. "Weight" appears 150 times in the 84-page document. We're told that being thin is more important than being healthy and that good nutrition isn't just eating a healthful balance of nutritious foods. Our focus must become counting calories, restricting what we eat, eating low-fat or fat-free foods, and what size pants we wear.
While plenty rush to capitalize on these guidelines, others want to abolish our freedom to enjoy a variety of foods of our own choosing and are using these guidelines as their grounds. Already, there are calls for the government to take more aggressive action to enforce the guidelines. A press release by the Center for Science in the Public Interest wants vigorous governmental efforts made to publicize them, increased funding for programs that promote them, laws passed to require "calorie labeling on menus at chain restaurants," and regulatory agencies to require the food industry to implement them and eliminate the use of bad fats and lower the current limits on fat and salt.
-snip-
Friday, September 03, 2004
The Skinny on Fat
The Skinny on Fat
By Sandy Szwarc
Published 07/16/2003
A host of sinful foods have been demonized as the root of obesity and poor health of American adults and children. Fast food restaurants have been sued, accused of contributing to customers' obesity because their food tastes too good and they tempt us by advertising. Taxes are being proposed on foods deemed fattening or bad for us, namely, anything with meat or fat, that is fried or processed or that is sweet.
Although these foods make intuitively appealing (and profitable) targets, the body of scientific evidence doesn't support the assertions. There is no scientific evidence that any specific food causes obesity. Like the American Dietetic Association (ADA), the American Council on Science and Health's (ACSH) position is: "There are no good foods or bad foods. The problem is not any one food, but one of dietary immoderation, imbalance and lack of variety." That's true for children as well as adults. The American Heart Association (AHA) Medical Scientific Statement, "Understanding Obesity in Youth," concluded, "Studies of diet composition in children do not identify the cause of obesity."
Let's consider the evidence about the supposedly most sinful culprits:
-snip-
By Sandy Szwarc
Published 07/16/2003
A host of sinful foods have been demonized as the root of obesity and poor health of American adults and children. Fast food restaurants have been sued, accused of contributing to customers' obesity because their food tastes too good and they tempt us by advertising. Taxes are being proposed on foods deemed fattening or bad for us, namely, anything with meat or fat, that is fried or processed or that is sweet.
Although these foods make intuitively appealing (and profitable) targets, the body of scientific evidence doesn't support the assertions. There is no scientific evidence that any specific food causes obesity. Like the American Dietetic Association (ADA), the American Council on Science and Health's (ACSH) position is: "There are no good foods or bad foods. The problem is not any one food, but one of dietary immoderation, imbalance and lack of variety." That's true for children as well as adults. The American Heart Association (AHA) Medical Scientific Statement, "Understanding Obesity in Youth," concluded, "Studies of diet composition in children do not identify the cause of obesity."
Let's consider the evidence about the supposedly most sinful culprits:
-snip-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)