Don Andrew

Welcome to Follow Me Slim!

Articles, advice and insight that reveal powerful strategies to help you lose weight and keep it off for good.

Stop Dieting Forever!

Contact me with your questions or comments. Or make yourself at home and begin to discover the truth about safe, effective and permanent fat loss.

“Healthier” Does Not Mean “Healthy”

by Don on February 11, 2010

in Diet

A day hardly goes by when we don’t see some new media report talking about childhood obesity.

Today on BBC Breakfast there was quite a bit of fuss being made about a School Food Trust statistic that three quarters of the kids in 136 primary schools were choosing vegetables and salad as part of their school meal.

That’s great news!

Granted it’s only 136 schools out of more than 23,000 … but at least there’s some level of awareness.

Of course, Breakfast anchors wanted to know if the kids were actually eating it. And it would appear that this is happening because there has been no apparent upswing in recorded waste.

Again, progress!

Rob Rees, a UK chef who is relentlessly trying to instill a healthier food culture in the UK can be applauded for his passion.

He sees the efforts to prevent kids from leaving schools over breaks not as “lock ins” but rather as “stay on site” … a subtle distinction that perhaps illustrates how much a productive direction means to him.

Not only does he believe similar initiatives reduce obesity and improve behaviour, but he attributes such gains in no small part to the school chefs.

And here’s where I start to question the bigger picture.

I’m all for a departure from greasy burgers, fries and soft drinks. And I’m all for more salads and vegetables.

But I still think the program has what I call “Jamie Oliver disease”. What I mean by this is that the message is that cooked lean meats, grains and dairy products are nutritious.

They’re not!

In fact, so successfully have the big food companies brainwashed our population that even our most qualified nutritionists are singing this same song.

Drink your milk. Eat plenty of lean protein. Eat pasta. Pizza’s okay if the cheese is “low fat”. Chocolate is fine if the quantities are nominal.

With respect, none of these practices are “healthy”. Not one. Sorry … cooking destroys valuable nutrients. Animal products are loaded with fat, calories and excessive protein.

And 5-a-day is nowhere near enough … especially if the vegetables are canned or cooked.

Ironically, the view I have just expressed will be dismissed as non-conventional “hippie-speak”, with no scientific basis … by the very same people who call themselves scientists and maintain that everything they say is “evidence-based”.

I beg to differ and I will happily engage in debate with anyone who can give me scientific evidence to substantiate what exactly is healthy about the process of cooking.

Call it what it is … great strides are made when whole grain pasta and cooked brocolli are eaten in preference to french fries.

Please don’t keep telling people that “healthier” is “healthy”. The truth is that it’s only a step in the right direction. We should crawl before we try walking.

But don’t misuse science to pretend that walking is the same as running, or flying.

True nutritional progress starts with simple honesty.

{ 0 comments }

Fat Loss Diet Myths

by Don on February 2, 2010

in Diet

Most modern diet gurus define three common elements in any successful fat loss program.

First, calories do count … a deficit is necessary for weight loss and you can achieve this by eating less, moving more, or a combination of the two.

Without an energy deficit, your body has no reason to pull on stored energy.

Second, adequate lean protein blunts hunger. A generation ago, bodybuilders were claiming this … and the medical mainstream were dismissing it.

Current research appears to vindicate this theory. And of course, if you can put a rein on your hunger, then you’ll eat less which is more conducive to achieving a calorie deficit.

Finally, the miracle of fish oils and their essential fatty acids. Every cell in our body needs some of the right kind of fat. Omega-3’s “may” modulate  appetite … and “appear” to improve fat loss “a little”.

Research scientists love hedging their bets.

The theory is that EFA’s decrease fat storage enzymes, while increasing fat mobilization enzymes. Everyone whose anyone in the world of “fat speak” subscribes to this as gospel.

Aside from these three “sacred cows” it would seem that everything else “depends” … on an infinite number of variables.

No single approach can be appropriate for all people, all of the time. The more active you are, the more carbs you would appear to need.

Okay.

And a successful diet must be satisfying … so recommendations are usually in the 20-25% range for calories from dietary fat.

For taste and fulfillment, of course. As fat is relatively tasteless (at least in my experience) I’m guessing that satiety is probably what they mean.

As a result of misinterpreting this conventional wisdom we have a vast number of people who live in fear of protein deficiency. Even vegans hold the mistaken belief that nuts, for example, are a “protein food” and must be eaten in order to prevent muscle atrophy.

Or … you could exercise. Novel concept, but I digress.

I am constantly asked where I get my protein from if I only eat meat very occasionally. Shouldn’t I be worried?

In short, no!

It is a myth that people can suffer from a lack of protein.

Well before this is even a remote theoretical possibility, they will first show visible signs of malnutrition. In fact, our bodies are clever and recycle protein … something which is not commonly acknowledged, perhaps because its impact is hard to measure.

I accept that the protein in raw plants may not necessarily be as immediately digestible as that from animal products … but in a calorically-adequate diet, that is largely irrelevant.

Further, does anyone consider what happens to animal protein when it is cooked?

The proteins become denatured and this renders their component amino acids largely indigestible. The degree to which this is a factor depends on how long something is cooked and at what temperature.

So does cooked meat, eggs and pateurized dairy facilitate, or hamper, the healing process?

Or, are animal products really just a well-marketed, gratuitous source of excess dietary fat?

Saturated fat. The kind that clogs your arteries and screws up your cholesterol!

And causes inflammation!

And doesn’t excess protein from a diet rich in animal products also result in calcium being leached from bones and teeth and lost in urine?

That’s not a trick question. It does!

Which makes most conventional diets, no matter how temporarily effective, a losing proposition over the long haul.

Instead, we should learn how to consume far more fresh, raw, organic fruit and vegetables. And “sufficient” rather than “excessive” nuts, seeds, olives, avocados and other sources of “good” fat.

A diet that supplies no more than 10% of its calories from fat (and the same from protein) will have lasting benefits … regardless of metabolic type, ancestral origin or even genotype.

Such a diet will predominate in fresh, seasonal fruit and raw, tender greens … meaning of course that the lion’s share of your calories will come from carbohydrates.

Few things can be more satisfying to a healthy, active person than fresh, sweet fruit.

And few things will make you feel better than genuine freedom from addiction to cooked and refined foods … and to the condiments that are added to intensify taste.

In matters of diet, simple is always better.

Humans were designed to eat plants, not hunt animals. Can you imagine a lion picking a berry?

Being omnivorous is a survival mechanism … but also a compromise.

{ 0 comments }

Obesity Surgeons Hit In the Stomach!

by Don on January 21, 2010

in Insights

The Royal College of Physicians has lashed out at the NHS, saying its policy to fund bariatric (gastric bands or bypass) surgery is “inconsistent and unethical”.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!

NICE guidelines suggest that anyone with a body mass index over 40 is sufficiently at risk from related health complications to warrant referral for this type of stomach surgery.

Only problem is that primary care trusts are moving the goal posts and only 2% of surgeries are actually taking place. Apparently they have to balance the conflicting concerns of a limited budget and competing ailments … which means that only the “extremely ill” are getting referred.

Couldn’t see that one coming!

It’s been a long time since something has stirred up such a reaction in me. Let me attempt to explain why.

First, bariatric surgery is a lot like closing the door after the horse has long since bolted.

But we live in a culture that gives way too much credibility to twisted medical logic. We are brainwashed into believing that the only “solution” to obesity is either drugs or diet … poison, or deprivation!

What do either have to do with “healthy consumption”?

Then when people succumb even further to their addiction, they are told they need drastic surgery to save their lives, or at least improve the quality of their lives!

Highly qualified medical experts sit there and tell us that we are living longer and getting fatter and so demand for their services is growing and we should embrace this, not resist it.

And gastric surgery doesn’t come cheap, running anywhere from 6,000 pounds to over 10,000 pounds!

Not one of these “authorities” suggest that the real solution to the problem should be happening a long time before people eat themselves to a BMI of 40!

Their hands are tied. They can only deal with the sad reality. What’s a poor surgeon to do?

We hang on their every word. Our culture embraces their wisdom. Our entire health care system (including people working in the fitness industry) is set up to bring them customers.

All justified by the mitigation of reasonable risk, which of course is hard to argue against, especially for the unqualified masses.

And no-one seems to see anything wrong with what’s happening!

In fact, when they nod their heads sagely and point to “new UK research” that suggests responsibility for 75% of the problem can be attributed to our genes, we actually buy this stuff … hook, line and sinker.

“I knew it … it’s not my fault! I am absolved and now someone else can fund me out of this self-imposed nightmare”.

In spite of the fact that someone has died from complications arising from this type of surgery!

“You can’t possibly appreciate just what a burden this is to me”.

People are getting sicker because we’re eating too much of the wrong stuff. The “victims” (there’s no shortage of these) feel that if the fallout from other lifestyle choices like smoking, alcohol and drug addiction can be funded by the NHS, then why not food addiction?

Funnily enough, I actually see no flaw in this logic.

In fact, food addiction is perhaps even more insidious because you cannot quit eating “cold turkey”, so you have no choice but to exercise restraint and apply intelligence.

Only problem is the “intelligence” is not coming from the “intelligent”!

That’s why we think that sugery, drugs and dieting are the only solutions.

Because we’re told they are! That’s why bogus diets are one of the biggest industries known to mankind … and why any doctor or individual with a few letters after their name can write a book about controlled deprivation and make millions.

We let them. Atkins, et al. What did we learn from them? That carbohydrate restriction doesn’t work?

That’s precisely my point. We learn nothing!

And that’s precisely why we will not solve the problem by continuing to embrace this neanderthal mentality. In our headlong, phobia-based rush to rout out “quacks”, we have succeeded in creating a good old boys club that writes its own pay cheques with absolute impunity.

In a culture that hangs on its every word out of nothing but insecurity.

Because, quite frankly, that’s the best we got!

And these “economic geniuses’ (sorry, did I say that?) have succeeded in turning “health” into “medical”.

Don’t believe me?

Google anything with “health” in your search query. Do you see stuff about drinking clean water and eating more fruit and vegetables?

Occasionally.

But ninety nine times out of ten (settle down boys, deliberate error), you’ll see either someone trying to hock supplements, or information about ailments and disease.

We have succeeded in making “health” entirely about managing a “lack of health”.

What a beautiful business model!

All based on fear and desperation … and the knowledge that people will pay just about anything for relief, but can be counted upon to ignore all the signs, even as they court their addictions like a drunken teenager hoping to get lucky.

Now all we have to do is battle amongst ourselves to see which of us get the lion’s share of the NHS pie.

Oh … and keep trotting out important-sounding stuff about “evidence-based” research, so that the average working schill will continue to fund the gravy train and not ask too many awkward questions.

Bariatric surgery … 35 compensation claims in the UK since 2003.

21 in the last two years alone!

1 death.

When will someone wake up and realize that our most capable resources should be channeled into prevention rather than another highly profitable cure?

My guess?

No time soon.

{ 0 comments }

Food Reform Before Health Care Reform

by Don on January 19, 2010

in Random Musings

Sadly it takes someone as outspoken as food activist and author Michael Pollan to highlight just how misguided the logics on proposed US health reform are.

Pollan notes with absolute conviction that efficiencies in health care reform are irrelevant unless we first face the cause of the unprecedented increase in diet-related, preventable disease … specifically the obesity epidemic.

75% of current US health care expenditure goes towards preventable disease. There has been a 30% increase in these costs in real terms over just the last twenty years.

The US may find themselves in the unenviable position of subsidizing both the cost of diabetes and the production of High Fructose Corn Syrup, which would be a tragic irony.

Obesity currently costs the US health care system about 147 million a year. Add to this the 116 million a year cost of diabetes and the billions spent on cardiovascular disease and related cancers.

All of which could be largely preventable if people just changed their consumption habits.

Of course, this will never happen.

The food manufacturing industry is too powerful and is perhaps matched only by the strength of peoples’ addictions to cooked meat, refined carbohydrates and reconstituted who-knows-what.

Because of the security it provides, we naturally think of the NHS as a wonderful institution here in the United Kingdom.

And yes, in many cases there are people doing miraculous things to save lives and mitigate suffering.

But the NHS is up against the same inexorable tide. Over-consumption of high-calorie/limited nutrient “food” is creating a groundswell of people who are succumbing to premature, preventable disease.

No system, no matter how brilliantly constructed, will be able to remain viable in the long term and meet the future drain on its resources until the truth is faced.

We don’t need more expensive drugs.

We need a total reframe of our consumption culture. And regrettably that is highly unlikely when the top nutritionists in the country are still singing the praises of the grain, dairy and meat industries.

I know people will never give up cooked food. It tastes too good, its addictive allure is subtle yet brutal … and people use cooked meals as the foundation for almost all social interaction.

But people also deserve to know the complete truth about the food they love so much, so that they are at least able to make informed decisions and head in a direction that is more sustainable on a macro basis.

We should be setting agendas aside and calling things as they are.

Then responsible adults can make responsible choices. Until our consumption habits are seen in the same context as smoking, we will continue to kid ourselves that moderation is all that’s needed.

This will provide an endless stream of customers for the pharmaceutical and medical industries and we will never come to the realization that we have everything upside down.

In simple terms, unless the culture changes, the health care system will not cope. Economically, the implications are dire.

Socially, they are even more serious!

{ 0 comments }

Politics and Alcohol

by Don on January 13, 2010

in Other Lifestyle Factors

Since my previous post on alcohol, much has been said in the media regarding opinions on irresponsible consumption.

The Tories have now come out with a plan that proposes to scrap the term “unit of alcohol” in favor of the European standard “centilitre”. This despite the fact that a “unit” is a “centilitre”!

In fairness, they also want to make this information mandatory for drinks manaufacturers to put on labels, as well as adding information on “calories” and what constitutes “normal” consumption amounts.

The goal is to allow people to make informed choices, creating a positive climate for behavioural change.

A noble aspiration indeed!

But one I fear will fall short of what the real objectives should be, which are to make people more responsible, more considerate and more healthy.

The reality is that drinks manaufacturers have been on the honor system when it comes to disclosure since the late 90’s. Only one half of all bottles of alcoholic drinks contain information about “units”. Less than 20% give advice about “sensible” drinking levels.

Why?

Because they run the risk of making their products less atrractive than their competitors.

Most people have no idea what a unit is, or how many units in any given favorite tipple. I don’t think they actually care, or could be bothered to find out.

So rubbing their noses in unsolicited information will only create animosity and consolidate resentment towards a culture that already uses terms like “mandatory” and “improving compliance”.

We are humans, not robots … and it is our responsibility to take charge of our own health, not the remit of our governments.

Of course, governments will argue that they are trying to reduce unacceptable behaviour and are looking out for our health. But my view is that they could reduce unacceptable behaviour through punitive sanction (rather than molly-coddling, excusing, or rehabilitating).

And with respect to health, I have long since come to the realisation that you can take a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.

Unlike many humans who can’t stop drinking!

Bottom line: stop appealing to the better natures of people with an inconsiderate nature … and stop trying to control behaviours by expecting people to be responsible “if they get informed”.

Who are you kidding? People know that alcohol is bad for health, is loaded with empty calories and can be antisocial in excess. They just don’t care. More information won’t make them start to care.

Want to stop binge drinking? Punish the perpetrators where it hurts … in their wallets. Don’t negotiate with them, fine them. Heavily. Relentlessly. They’ll soon learn.

And if people want to kill themselves through irresponsible consumption, make them pay for all alcohol-related treatment. Society already picks up a big enough tab!

And please, stop excusing bad behaviour “because they didn’t know what they were doing”. Before they got going, they were absolutely aware of where things might lead.

And just as aware that the “inconvenience” consequences were minimal.

The booze industry makes money by capitalizing on human nature, human physiology and gross inconsistencies in the logics behind the legislation governing substances that harm human beings. People will never accept they are addicted and they will make every excuse to keep drinking whether they know the facts or not.

Bans just create opportunities for illicit business and drive the price up making the risks justifiable. That’s obviously not an option.

So whack the price up and use the tax windfall to fund the salaries of the poor people who have to deal with the offensive fallout for a living.

Subsidise these costs heavily with outrageous fines.

People will soon get the message. Oh yeah … but you may not get elected into power any time soon.

I forgot.

Addiction doesn’t care. The tax payer funding the NHS should.

So what does that tell you about the democratic process? The mind boggles.

{ 0 comments }

← Previous Entries