Around the same time I was born a man with a guitar in a bedroom in coastal New Jersey said:
- Well now everything dies, baby, that’s a fact. But maybe everything that dies someday comes back.
It’s been 28 years and Atlantic City has not “come back” in any measurable way. But unless you’re a Turritopsis hydrozoa you can certainly bank on the first half of that statement: everything dies. Baby. And while there are some folks out there making a bid for immortality, the rational thing to do would probably be to live in a way that guarantees getting the most out of the time one has.
So we try to live healthy lives. Or at least try to manage our health in a way that it maximizes our happiness. And it’s not so easy. First off it seems that our bodies aren’t quite used to the idea of being able to eat any old time we want. As calorie-rich foods have become more and more abundant in the developed world, this has really started to become a problem as more and more folks have struggled to maintain a healthy weight:

Which is a real problem because so many things are so delicious. And it’s not always easy to tell what’s “good” for us and what’s “bad,” or even what “good” and “bad” even mean. I mean, clearly, if I ate at Taco Bell every day it would probably be deleterious to my health, not to mention my relationship with my wife. And I don’t exactly think eating reconstituted vegan bean mulch is going to make me fill happy and fulfilled. But most things tend to be of more ambiguous value. For example, all throughout the 80s and 90s there was a sort of comical dance in the nightly news media as eggs would become “good” or “bad” depending on the knee-jerk oversimplification of whatever study had recently come out in regard to their value. Having had an omelet for breakfast Sunday morning I can assure you that, regardless, they are delicious and good for nursing hangovers, which are, in turn, bad.
So if we toss out meaningful definitions of “good” and “bad” then just about anything can be “good” or “bad” for you. While direct claims to improving well-described signs of health such as “lowers blood pressure” may fall under the domain of the FDA here in the US, there’s still plenty of room for nebulous buzz words: “improves vitality!” “Contains antioxidants!” “All-natural!”
That last one’s especially devious. At some level, assuming the supplement or food product in question doesn’t contain, say, plutonium, it is natural in the sense that it can exist in nature. But the “all-natural” gambit is more drawing on the idea of the “good old days” when people were healthy because they didn’t eat processed foods “one molecule from plastic” or made out of trans-fats or… whatever. And there’s truth in the idea that the American diet is unhealthy, for sure – probably more due to portion size than anything else – and so the market out there for better living through lack of chemistry seems to be rooted at least in the sound hypothesis that we as Americans could be taking better care of ourselves.
But this brings up a sticky situation in that, if “all-natural” is better for us, why are we living longer now than ever? It’s a very contentious issue: as of the time I wrote this there were over 330 comments on that linked SBM post by Dr. Amy Tuteur. I tried reading some but… man. Everyone’s got their own ideas: child mortality versus adult mortality, quality of live versus longevity, artificial versus natural means of life extension, blah, blah, blah. It becomes a form of information overload, and, when presented with too much information all at once, we tend to ignore almost all of it and remain under-informed.

Green portion may be exaggerated
Which would be okay if everyone presenting their potentially life-improving products were being equally honest with the data they use to back up their claims. Of course, that’s rarely the case. Taken out of proper context, evidential claims can be made that run completely counter to what’s actually going on. Should you believe in the OMG magical healht power of acai berries or ACCAI BERRIES EXPOSED? Honestly, to me they both sound pretty moronic.
The one thing we can say for sure after centuries of searching for simple answers to maintaining good health and being largely sold various forms of snake oil is that there is no simple answer, no magic cure-all for what ails ya.
So what to do, then? Certainly moderation in anything is probably the best idea, but, more than that, when considering whether or not any sort of potentially health-improving technique to employ – whether a supplement, diet or lifestyle change – is to research it as best as possible. Using the power of awesome thinking means being informed about important decisions, and health is pretty important. After all, everything dies, so you might as well make the best of what you’ve got by optimally managing health and happiness. And if that’s not awesome I don’t know what is.
('
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:09 am
Ahh, remember oat bran? Whatever happened to oat bran? What magical health powers was it that people claimed it possessed? Good bowel function? I forget.
I find it really interesting that while obesity rates have climbed across the boards, the number of 20-74′s who are overweight but not obese hasn’t changed much. I wonder if that has something to do with the increase of people going to the gym more nowadays- I don’t know, but I reckon in the 50s and 60s, only serious athletes hung out there. So the food portions got larger over the years, but people also started going to the gym more and tried to control their weight more, hence they break even. Meanwhile, those who were eating the modern larger portions but didnt go to the gym became obese. Just a speculation.
We’re all lucky though that it isn’t the 50s anymore and we’ve figured out that liver isn’t really that good for you after all.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:36 am
[...] GD235HZ vs Alienware OptX AW2310 [3D ...Big women instruction manual | Pop gucci handbags on saleScience Makes You Awesome! 009 ? Informed Consent _uacct = "UA-690162-3"; _udn="articleberry.com"; [...]
February 22nd, 2010 at 7:52 pm
Which definitions of overweight and obese &c. are we using here? Because if we’re using the BMI to determine this, then people going to the gym so much will skew the results towards overweight and obese. Y’know, seeing as George Clooney is obese according to the BMI.
February 24th, 2010 at 12:46 am
Mandy Moon wrote:
Ahh, remember oat bran? Whatever happened to oat bran? What magical health powers was it that people claimed it possessed? Good bowel function? I forget.
My turn:
I don’t remember its supposed magical health powers but it DID work some. Eat enough “non nutritive fiber” as it was one called and you will feel full enough to turn down the extra hamburger. The low(er) fat diet provided the magic imputed to oat bran.
February 24th, 2010 at 8:15 am
I don’t think the individual values are what’s as important as the very real trend. Sure, BMI is a load of bull, but, as someone who has tried – and failed – to do weight training, I don’t believe that the amount of people who do weight training is even a significant part of the cause of the increase.
What I’m saying is, “bloobity blah 50% of all Murkans are obese” is what you hear on the news and that’s probably overblown but there are numerous other bio-markers that all say “Americans are getting fatter at a rather alarming rate and are now bringing much of the rest of the world with us” and that’s what the real message is, I think.
Oh, and George Clooney is so heavy because he’s got a fat head from being a pinko commie liberal. I don’t believe any of that but I thought as long as you brought him up I might as well see what kind of spam/traffic that generates
April 1st, 2010 at 7:54 am
[...] system in place. Until then the best we can do is to know that drugs – and, in fact, all substances we consume – are neither “good” nor “bad” but just are. It is what we make of [...]