don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

Silly arguments are not uncommon, particularly in connection with attempts to shift responsibility. A humorous example is seen in the idea, put forward last week, that the government's food pyramid contributes to, if it is not entirely to blame for, the current obesity epidemic. An article in the NY Times on June 13, for instance, went so far as to suggest that the government's food pyramid should go on a diet, meaning that it is too liberal (in other words, it condones excessive consumption of the wrong calories.)

The pyramid was first promoted in 1991 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It was intended as an easy to understand visual image that would help citizens comprehend and take account of broad guidelines for maintaining a healthy weight. Despite extensive promotions, most people pay little attention to government dietary guidelines in any form, including the multi-colored food pyramid. The reason so many are fat is because they eat too much and exercise too little. What they eat is not very healthful, and when they do exercise on occasion (lifting something, walking from the nearest parking space to a store, or "high-five-ing" another spectator when their designated exercisers or sports team scores a goal), is not extensive or vigorous enough to make much difference.

Are YOU familiar with the food pyramid? At the bottom of the pyramid are the grains-and-carbohydrates group. The idea is that you should eat a low-fat diet focused on the foods at the bottom of the pyramid, and go easy on the rest moving toward the top. For example, have six to eleven servings in the grains-and-carbohydrates food category, and generous servings of the next category rising up the pyramid (vegetables and fruits.) Go easy beyond this point (milk and meat categories.) There is, of course, not much room at the top of a pyramid, which is where the fats, oils and sweets are found. Here, you are advised to "eat sparingly."

A hungry person circling a McDonald's is not going to consult the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Dietary Food Guidelines or his handy food pyramid to make that "go/no go" decision. Instead, he will be guided by hunger pains and a desire for near-term gratification.

I'm not here to defend the government but let's be real -- the 61 percent of Americans that is overweight is NOT the fault of the Department of Agriculture! Rather, the people in that 61 percent group are the parties responsible for their situation, and only the 61 percent who ARE overweight can make improvements to it. Healthy diets will not become the norm as a consequence of reducing the recommended food pyramid serving sizes, specifying WHOLE grains or shifting the focus of dietary guidelines from fat reduction to refined carbohydrates, as some suggest.

Naturally, there IS a lot of political pressure on the government to make changes in the guidelines. However, this pressure comes from industry groups who fear lost sales if the guidelines are not sufficiently vague about or, worse from their perspective, clearly hostile to key ingredients in their products. For instance, in 1995 a change was offered to shift the language from a diet "moderate" in salt and sugar to "eating less salt and sugar." The sugar industry fought the change as if sugar were about to be classed with cocaine or heroin! What's more, the industry won that battle and so consumers were told only to "moderate your intake of sugars." Well, don't you think consumers already knew that?

Some of the biggest critics of the food guidelines focus on the seeming permissiveness regarding the number of calories recommended. Even low-fat foods contain tons of calories, they argue. This, the government critics contend, "has contributed to the explosion in obesity," says a spokesperson for the Robert C. Atkins Foundation. The latter promotes a low-carbohydrate diet, as did the physician after whom the foundation is named. So chalk that argument up to more politics, no matter which point of view you favor regarding the best recommendations for the revised guidelines now being studied and resolved. Whatever is decided, I hope that a spot will be found on the new pyramid for exercise and personal responsibility, for both have at least as much influence on the health of the population, in general, and individual waistlines, in particular, as does nutrition.

A professor of nutrition at Tufts University was quoted in the Times piece: "What I would like to see chiseled in the side of the pyramid are steps and someone running up them to emphasize exercise." Just so, professor!

I, myself, would like to see an image of President Kennedy at his inauguration when he spoke the following words, which should also be affixed to the bottom of the revised pyramid and which, by the way, should be called the Wellness Pyramid, not the Food Pyramid: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

For starters, how about this? "Eat well, exercise vigorously, be responsible and live a healthy lifestyle as part of your patriotic duty -- and look on the bright side of life."

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the PHYSICAL DOMAIN under the skill area of nutrition. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell