roomsix.com

I don’t watch A&E much anymore, not since they became overrun with shows like Family Jewels and Dog the Bounty Hunter and sold their souls to be a 24/7 ad service for Big Pharma. But Heavy looked interesting. Take a bunch of morbidly obese individuals and introduce some major lifestyle changes. See what happens.

We watched the debut episode and while it was great to see the intense exercise regimen providing benefit to the two participants, they barely touched on diet. No details were provided as to their before/after meal plans. The show mostly focused on getting the participants moving, with lots of intense workout footage in a special treatment facility. From what little they did show about nutrition, it seems the show is following the calories-in/calories-out model, with the emphasis on caloric reduction and lean choices.

While people who are morbidly obese obviously need to improve their motor abilities, exercise is only about a third of the story. Up to two-thirds of their success (maybe more) will rely on diet, and this is where the show fails. I guess food is boring when you can show “action” footage of obese people barely walking a few feet or collapsing in a whimpering, sweaty mess. Doesn’t compare to shots of them sizzling a chicken breast or steaming some fresh veggies. Indeed, aside from a comment that Tom needed upwards of 10,000 calories daily just to survive and a quick trip to the lean meats counter at a grocery store, there was nothing, nada, zippo, about what these folks were being fed or how they were being educated about meal planning and preparation.

The other issue that bothered me was the slight implication that these individuals are obese by choice. They are weak, they are lazy, they do nothing but sit around and eat junk food, etc. I used to believe that, but after learning more about how insulin regulates fat tissue (and how diet regulates insulin), I’m more inclined to think that in many cases there is a metabolic disorder at work. Some people are more or less victims of a genetic predisposition to store and accumulate more fat while their bodies try to conserve energy. This leads to excessive cravings for sweet and sugary foods while the body signals them to be less active. The idea that their lifestyles could possibly be related to a regulatory disorder was never mentioned or explored. So less weeping women on treadmills, more scientific theories about how and why people become fat.

For people who might look to this show for guidance about their own weight situation, they might find inspiration in seeing some of the success stories. But they will find very little information about how to properly adjust their diets. Exercise is the primary focus of this show, and while it certainly has its benefits towards living a healthier lifestyle, it is really only a supplement to proper nutrition. Without the diet component being properly dialed in, exercise will yield little or no results.

By choosing to focus on only one aspect of weight loss, Heavy seems to be  just another reality show designed more for high drama and emotional exploitation than an informative and inspirational approach to sustained and manageable weight loss. I applaud the participants for trying to change their lives for the better and I might watch a few more episodes to see if the format improves. But for now the show was an overall disappointment.

Look around. From kids to seniors, it seems like everyone is getting…well, thicker. Despite our best attempts to eat foods low in fat and stay moderately active, it seems we are all being fattened like cattle on a feedlot. Which probably isn’t too far from the truth, but we’ll get to that in a minute.

The traditional approach to obesity has been to say it’s a character defect. You eat too much. You’re lazy. Using the law of thermodynamics, you are simply taking in more energy than you expend. But maybe the “calories-in vs. calories-out” model isn’t the entire story. Maybe, despite eating the so-called “right” foods and getting more exercise, some people still get fat no matter what they do. Maybe obesity and overweight has more to with how our individual bodies store and regulate fat than with the amount of food we eat or the amount of exercise we get.

While our modern sedentary lifestyle usually gets the lion’s share of blame (kids playing too many video games, choosing to drive instead of walk, working all day seated in cubicles, etc), you can’t talk about weight gain and not mention diet. Unfortunately, we are still being told by our health officials and doctors that we should be eating foods that are low-fat and to consume at least 6-8 servings of grains a day. A quick look around, plus the proliferation of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, and all the other problems associated with being overweight (such as acid reflux and sleep apnea), should be telling us that this approach isn’t working.

Folks like scientific journalist Gary Taubes might be on to something. His book Good Calories, Bad Calories has taken the idea of reduced and low-carb eating out of the fad diet arena and into the realm of scientific plausibility. The idea of restricting carb intake isn’t anything new, but unlike many who have promoted this idea in the past Taubes isn’t trying to sell people a weight-loss system or a grocery-delivery service. He doesn’t care if you exercise or look good in your Lululemon pants.

Rather, he is interested in why the research showing the benefits of reduced and low-carb diets has been systematically suppressed or ignored and why we’ve been led to believe that dietary fat is responsible for obesity and heart disease, despite the lack of any conclusive evidence. The book is dense with research, packed with citations and footnotes, and argued very persuasively. After reading the book (as well as his recent follow-up, Why We Get Fat), I’m convinced.

The evidence, says Taubes, points to carbohydrate as the primary dietary factor influencing obesity. Carbohydrates spike our insulin levels, which destabilizes the hormonal balance of our bodies. Higher insulin levels cause our bodies to store more fat rather than release it for energy, which, for individuals particularly sensitive to this effect, can lead to obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Obesity is not caused by overeating and being sedentary; rather, obesity causes us to become lazy and overeat. How to control insulin levels and maintain hormonal balance? Restrict or eliminate carbohydrate from the diet, particularly those that are higher in refined sugars and grains as those cause the most dramatic spikes.

Our traditional “enemies”—saturated fat and dietary cholesterol—are not to blame. They neither cause nor significantly increase our chances of suffering obesity, diabetes, or heart disease.

What does this mean? Basically that foods such as meat, eggs, fish, butter, vegetables, fruits, and cheese are on the menu. But foods high in refined and processed carbohydrates, such as breads, cereals, pastas, potatoes, milk, and baked goods have to go. Carbohydrates are really just a combination of simple and complex sugars (glucose). With less circulating glucose in the blood (and thus less insulin), the body is forced to release stored fat for energy. The result? Manageable weight loss and maintenance, better triglyceride and cholesterol profiles, and a generally improved sense of well-being. In many cases, people with type 2 diabetes have had their symptoms drastically reduced or completely reversed.

Taubes explains it all in painstaking detail in his book, so if you want the nitty gritty along with the science to back it up, go pick it up. In the meantime, you can read more at the following sites:

• What if It’s All Been a Big Fat Lie? – The original New York Times article that led to Gary Taubes writing his book.
• My Big Fat Diet – CBC documentary that follows the Namgis First Nation of Alert Bay as they give up sugar and junk food, returning to a traditional style of eating for a year to fight obesity and diabetes.
• Fat Head – Comedian (and former health writer) Tom Naughton replies to the blame-McDonald’s crowd by losing weight on a fat-laden fast-food diet while demonstrating that nearly everything we’ve been told about obesity and healthy eating is wrong.

About the cattle on the feedlots. They are fed mostly grains to plump them up more quickly for slaughter. So if it’s good enough to fatten the cattle, why not us? Think about that while enjoying your recommended 6-8 servings per day (as per the Canada Food Guide).

What a bunch of douchebags. Proving that they have no concept of “context” or “irony” when it comes to art, the CBSC have ruled the Dire Straits song “Money for Nothing” as being offensive and unworthy of radio airplay in Canada  (story).

Gee, the song has only been in constant rotation since the mid-80′s. Sung from the perspective of a bigoted and politically incorrect blue-collar worker, the word “faggot” is used to describe the long-haired girly-looking musicians that he sees on MTV, making all that mad cash “for nothin’” while he breaks his back doing manual labour for modest pay. Remember, this was the era of Boy George and effeminate looking pop stars. What prompted this banning after almost 30 years? Why, someone in St John’s, NF complained that the song made a booboo on their precious feelings.

If the CBSC panel had any brains or integrity, they would have examined the lyrics, discovered the obvious context and intent surrounding the use of the word, and politely told this idiot to stop wasting their time. Rather than issue a ruling that makes this country a laughingstock, they could have advised this clown to nurse their butt-hurt by turning off the radio when the song comes on and, if they own a copy, selling their Brothers in Arms record. Then they could go back to their warm safe world where nothing bad ever happens and nobody ever says or thinks bad things.

This wouldn’t have pissed me off so much if the politically-correct historical revisionists hadn’t recently attacked Huckleberry Finn. Sorry folks, but one of the purposes of art is to point out and make us think about the unpleasant things in life. The words being excised and glossed over are not discriminatory or hateful within their intended context. Seeing how we once were helps us to appreciate how far we’ve come. Or, in the case of revisionist publishers and “standards” councils, how far we still need to go.

There’s an interesting problem with Harmony remotes and Panasonic plasma TVs. Seems the InputTuner command, which is supposed to switch the TV to the “TV Tuner” input, does not work. At least it doesn’t with our Panasonic TC-P50G20 and Harmony One series remote.

For example, we recently gave up our cable subscription so our coax runs straight into the TV tuner. If we choose an activity, say “Use PS3″, the TV switches to the HDMI input as instructed by the InputHDMI1 command. Fine. But when we select “Watch TV”, the remote sends the InputTuner command but there is no response from the television. It remains on whatever input was last used. The only way to change it is to select “Input” and then scroll to the desired input. Gah, manual labour. The horror.

Still, you pay big bucks for a remote, you want it to simplify your life.

As a test, I selected the TV from the remote Devices menu and tried all of the InputXxxx commands. All of them worked except for the InputTuner command, which had no effect. So I’m assuming that the command is either null or was mistakenly coded in the Logitech database.

As a workaround, I configured the TV to switch to a channel as opposed to the tuner input. Like this:

I had to go back and add a “new” TV as this screen did not present the channel option after the activity had already been configured. So first I created a custom activity, tested, then renamed it to “Watch TV” and deleted the old one. This always starts the TV at channel 6, but as we don’t have regular cable and only get a few channels, not a big deal. At least it accomplishes the goal which is to switch back to regular TV after using the HDMI (or whatever) input. You could also use a ChannelUp or ChannelDown command to do the same thing.

And that’s one to grow on.

Jeff Bridges and Hailee Steinfeld star in True Grit

I’ve never seen the John Wayne version of this movie and until spotting it on the racks at the local HMV, never laid eyes on the Charles Portis novel. Which is strange for me as I’ve always loved the Western genre. (I do remember, however, reading the Mad magazine parody of the film, True Fat. Does that count?) So it was nice to see this movie fresh, untainted by any expectations or knowledge of the plot. And hey, it’s a Coen brothers flick, so I was pretty sure it was going to be decent enough.

Great flick. Enjoyed it immensely. Give cinematographer Roger Deakins a freakin’ Oscar already.

Have to admit though, when Jeff Bridges started his Rooster Cogburn voice I was waiting for him to say how much he sure liked them “french-fried potaters.” Still, it didn’t take long to get lost in the story, with Bridges giving a characterization you can almost smell coming off the screen. And Hailee Steinfeld. Wow. Without this young girl being able to carry her own this film would’ve failed miserably. But she carries herself and this film into greatness.

Go see it.