I swear I had no intentions of writing another post for a few days. Promise. Scout’s honor (too bad I wasn’t a Scout). It’s not even 6am on Monday morning as I start this, but leave it to morning TV to prep my soapbox (in my defense, I have to monitor morning news programs as part of my current work, which starts just before 5am—yes, please shoot me).
The object of my ire this morning is Guiding Stars. This is the first I’d heard of them (being a Monday, it would make sense to start the ads now), and I guess some long-running insomnia is catching up with me because I was ready to put my coffee mug through the TV screen (after finishing the coffee, of course). In the commercial—dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, of course—we’re told that grocery shopping just got easier. All we have to do is look for products labeled with one (good), two (better), or three (best) stars to gauge a food’s nutritional value. My first reaction was: so we’re too stupid to read nutritional labels? Okay, fine, I’ll grant you that those labels are increasingly complex and wholly misleading, playing on the lack of education and/or income for a lot of the customers in the stores (initially) using this metric (hey, don’t hate, that’s just the facts of the matter). My second reaction was: what’s it saying that the government’s nutritional authorities admit these complexities and, instead of standardizing labels, instead choose to create a visual system to “guide” people toward better food choices? Are we generally more illiterate and uneducated, or are we generally less English-proficient, or both? I’ll leave that argument for another time and place, but suffice to say that I’m not exactly feeling this to be the Second Coming.
First, let’s take a look at the advisory panel. Looks pretty educated and accomplished, no? Well, that’s because they are. Just look at all those letters after the names. Without knowing any of these people and instead going on my own overwhelming skepticism, let me say a couple things:
1. Letters don’t mean jack. Sure, it means you’ve passed some tests at some sort of subjective proficiency (based on the accrediting institution), but that doesn’t necessarily translate to reality. For example, you’re familiar with my opinion on the vast majority of personal trainers. Technically, they all have “letters” or certifications—this is in no way an indication of their ability to create and personalize training and nutritional programs for their clients. Instead, it only says that they can take a test to the satisfaction of some entity (often just the gym where they work). Consider this: I have “letters.” Seriously. Graduate from college, and you get “letters.” In my case, I have B.A. and M.A. after my name (I can convincingly argue that both should be B.S.), but they only mean that I put in some time and demonstrated some level of subjective aptitude, not that I know what I’m talking about, which I usually don’t.
2. On a related note, see those “R.D.” letters? That means “registered dietician.” Registered by whom? Again, who knows, but generally speaking, their nutritional education is based on US government guidelines, which as I’ve opined before, have had a devastating effect on our society’s mindset toward proper diet. Now, just like having letters doesn’t mean you know what you’re doing, there are exceptions where people overcome standardization and actually learn more and think for themselves and keep up with the latest research. I may even know an R.D. or two who’ve done that, but by and large, most I’ve heard of work for LA Weight Loss and Jenny Craig. I am SO not going down that path right now…
3. Note the asterisk denoting what “international health organizations” are involved: US Food and Drug Administration, US Department of Agriculture, US Health & Human Services, National Academies of Science, World Health Organization. Sweet, more government oversight. I know I’ll sleep better tonight.
Okay, so what? Maybe, just maybe, this system is legit. Let’s look at how they determine which foods are healthier than others (enable JavaScript in your browser to see the pop-out window). Here’s how it breaks down:
—Fat is bad.
—Cholesterol is bad.
—Sugar is bad.
—Fiber is good.
—Vitamins and minerals are good.
—Protein is insignificant.
*ahem* You might want to cover the kids’ ears for a second…
HOLY F*CKING SH*T, ARE OUR NUTRITIONAL GUIDELINES STILL STUCK IN THE F*CKING 1970s???
In short, yes, but then, we’re living longer lives, right? Wrong. We’re enjoying healthier lifestyles in that longevity, right? Wrong. But, just look at the benefits of Guiding Stars, printed right there on the website:
—It’s easy – you can see at-a-glance how similar products rank for nutritional value (read: you don’t have to be literate to any degree).
—It’s fun – even kids can use Guiding Stars to pick out more nutritious options (read: you’re stupid and easily entertained at any age).
—It’s fast – less time studying labels – we’ve done the work for you (read: go ahead and be lazy because GovCo is here to serve YOU).
—It’s good for you – ratings help you make better nutrition choices for you and your family (read: see any of the above comments).
—It’s grounded in science – the program reflects the most current nutritional guidelines from the FDA and the USDA (read: just forget the last few decades of government-backed recommendations that have had a huge hand in hiking the heft of our nation, even though these suggestions are the same thing a different, shinier wrapper).
—It’s fair – Guiding Stars rates foods with the same formula, regardless of brand, price or manufacturer (read: pay no attention to the fact that this system is being rolled out to lower-income consumers first).
Do I really need to say anything else? Please, even though it’s your tax dollars paying for this spewage, don’t let them patronize your intelligence. Just pay attention, use your noodle, and do what you know is best for you and yours, and watch out for those weekends.
History:
—More on how exercise may slow/prevent brain atrophy linked to Alzheimer’s.
—Childhood statins is a firestorm topic, but that doesn’t mean kids aren’t already taking adult drugs for obesity-related conditions.
Here-and-now:
—If the above rant wasn’t enough to get you going, Craig offers seven ways to get motivated for your workout.
—Speaking of that last link, congrats to Kevin Larabee (host of The FitCast podcast). After a brief tryst to the West Coast to pursue a career in the video game industry (creating, not just playing), he decided to return to his fitness experience back east.
—Happy National Salad Week!
—Coach Steer provides a good analogy for why buying local and/or organic does a body (and mind) good.
—Alwyn had his “carpe diem” day over the weekend (this is a good place to plug a related project).
—Vanity trumps health when it comes to skin care (if you can pay, of course).
—Pregnancy may convince some smokers to quit, but really, why not do it for yourself first (or maybe, oh I dunno, not start at all)? It’s your choice, of course. (I can hear the analogical logic now: I want to quit smoking, so let’s have a kid! I want more government cheese, so let’s have a(nother) kid!)
—You’ve heard of the Humane Genome Project. Now get ready for the hyper-personalized version.
—This week is NASA’s 50th anniversary, so here are some pictorials in mini geek-out fashion: extraterrestrial vehicles, spacesuits, big goofs.
—Geek-out: biological body armor, Model-T hacking, nukes may not be the best way to save the planet, happy belated birthday to Stanley Kubrick, MP3s will not die (yet), mixed-use development demand is still strong.
Horizon:
—Last time, I spent some time talking about regeneration and restoration. This time, Philip Walter puts some better-quality meat behind the idea.
—”Grinding” is idiotic and monotonous, but at least it promises progress (note: don’t bail when you see this is an article about a video game—look beyond—and no, I’ve never played World of Warcraft, but I can relate to the concept).
