The Four Fat Groups

Some of our discussions lately have focused on food and nutrition. We've discussed the new requirements for chains to post nutrition information on their billboards and menus, and we've talked about who is responsible for the health choices we make (the restaurants, the government, the advertisers, individuals, etc.) The result of these discussions: pure awesomeness. It seems that none of us approaches food and nutrition in the same way. While one person nearly always looks at nutrition information when purchasing soda, or dressing, or a microwavable meal, another doesn't even notice their existence. While one person feels that no information should be kept for consumers (that people have the right to know), another feels it unnecessary and even unfair to certain restaurants.

Today, The United Notions was not in session, but its members did have a few noteworthy things to say over email in regard to a related article, "End the War on Fat: It Could be Making Us Sicker."  Here are my thoughts:

It is interesting how we seem to revise what we “know” about nutrition every decade or so.  When I was a kid, we had the four food groups, and we were told that we had a balanced diet if each meal contained items from at least three (but ideally all four) food groups.  Then, when I was in high school (I think), we were told about the food pyramid, which placed grains on the bottom (6-11 servings per day), and proteins like meats and eggs at the top (with only 2-3 servings per day).   Then, when I was in college, I heard about how “bad” carbs are for me, and I was encouraged (mostly by Dr. Atkins and his skinny followers) to ditch carbs altogether and eat lots of protein (sausage, bacon, and butter were okay, but bread and tomatoes were not).  And now we are told about saturated and unsaturated and polyunsaturated fats and how there are “good carbs” and “bad fats” that we were all supposed to somehow keep track of (like fats from avocados were good, fats from certain kinds of oils were good, but fats from other stuff were “bad”).  (Is your head spinning yet?)

I guess what I am saying with all of this is that it is no wonder that people are confused about what they can eat (without guilt and a larger waistline) and what they shouldn’t.  With each decade and new research study, the issue of nutrition seems to get more complicated (from 4 food groups to whatever the heck we have now).  And with advertising like it is (where unhealthy foods are advertised as healthy and “low-fat”, and where unhealthy foods are cheaper than healthy ones), I just don’t see this “problem” having any quick and easy resolutions.

I am a believer in counting calories (or at least keeping them under control), basically eating right, and exercising regularly, but even my method doesn’t address cholesterol and other diet aspects that lead to heart disease.  I hope that by the time I really HAVE to understand nutrition, “they” have found a simpler way to break down food choices for me.  I hear the Michael Pollan argues that people need to use simpler, more honest language to discuss food (so that people actually understand what it seems to have “NO TRANS FATS”).  I think that it is a good idea, but I also have to admit that I’d like to return to the days of the four food groups.

Psychic Pills

Today we talked about the pharmaceutical industry, specifically the popularity of medications, the advertising for medications, and the attitudes and stereotypes surrounding medications for adults and children.  All of this was based on an article that seemed to disprove the stereotypes that I personally had about a hyper-active medical community pushing drugs on hyper-sensitive, hyper-anxious parents.    Everyone had some great insights and personal anecdotes describing people they know with depression or ADHD or sleep problems or anxiety.  Basically I saw how widespread these issues are and was encouraged by the groups' empathy for and acceptance of a person's decision to take a pill to try to be a better functioning human being.

In addition to this discussion, we also touched on the idea of the supernatural, or more specifically, if the Mormon community is "right" to celebrate the prophetic nature of certain leaders' dreams that predicted the Chilean earthquake.  I think that most of us in the room felt like we understood why the community is so pleased - it validates and reinforces their own beliefs - but we weren't sure if we could go so far as to call the dreams "prophetic" when history, probability, and science could help predict the earthquake.

In a follow-up discussion, a couple of us began to ponder the supernatural. We wondered if something could be labeled as "supernatural" in one century (because it couldn't be described with natural laws known at that time) and labeled as "natural" in the next century once it could be described.  I think we both agreed this to be true.

Based on this agreement in logic, then, I want to pose a scenario:

A person in 2010 America is described as having "psychic" abilities - she claims to be able to tap into some kind of larger thing (like the universe, like the earth, like other people's minds or souls).  She makes predictions about the world, she can read your future, and she can accurately describe scenes of places where she has never been.   Her "gifts" are considered "supernatural" and, as such, are generally dismissed by the educated, skeptical crowds.  She is called crazy, and her correct predictions are chalked up as coincidences or hoaxes.  

In 2011, she takes part in a scientific experiment where doctors measure her brain waves and find evidence that she can, in fact, see things on that higher plane and tap into something that other people can't see.  There are charts and numbers to explain her gift, so it is no longer considered "supernatural."

The end result: her gifts and her claims and her actions do not change into 2011, but the way they are preceived and the number of people who acknowldege her gift change dramatically.  Even the skeptics become okay with the idea that she can read their thoughts, etc.

With that said, could we agree, then, that what we call "psychic" and "supernatural" today should not necessarily be dismissed out of hand?  Could it be true that people can do the things they claim, but we just don't have the knowledge/evidence yet to explain why or how they can do them? 

I am not arguing here for acceptance without critical thinking.  I am not advocating gullibility or choosing the supernatural (necessarily) over science.  I am just taken by the reluctance that people seem to have of the supernatural, the things we cannot explain with natural laws.  It seems like we need to be open to the idea that there are more things going on in the universe than we can currently fathom and that our minds are capable of things that we cannot yet describe.  Thoughts?

Not Always Sunny in Philadelphia

So I missed out on today's lunch-time discussion because of an icky cold, but that doesn't mean that I haven't been thinking about stuff to talk (and write) about.  Over the course of the day I've thought about the American health care system, social hierarchies, the 1.26 microseconds that will be lost every day because of the Chilean earthquake, Facebook as a cultural phenomenon, and AIDS.  (Staying home from work really gave me time to think about the really important things in life, you know?)

Writing a blog about all of these things would take far too long, so I guess I wanted to focus my energies on the last topic since I just recently saw Philadelphia for the first time.  For those of you who haven't seen the movie, it is about a lawyer who sues his law firm for unfair dismissal.  Over the course of the movie, we see how people (in public, on the prosecution, and on the defense) respond to the issues of homosexuality, homophobia, and AIDS.  

As I watched the movie, I wondered how much things have changed since the early nineties.  My first inclination is to say that things have changed a lot.  I don't think people fear AIDS like they did when Philadelphia came out - probably because we understand the virus better now.  People no longer see AIDS as a "gay cancer" or think that it can be contracted by handshakes or toilet seats.  (I think that the face of AIDS changed when Magic Johnson's came out and told the public in 1991 that he tested positive for HIV; rich, otherwise healthy, heterosexual people could get AIDS, not just gays or drug users.)  I don't think people would shy away from an infected person or avoid handshakes or hugs anymore.  Things seem to be improving.

I also think that things are in the process of changing in terms of the homophobia shown in the film.  I don't hear people say that gays "make them sick" or blow up at the very suggestion that they might be queer.  Of course, those people might still feel angry or hate gays inwardly, but our society is showing signs of progress when that kind of behavior is deemed unacceptable.  This step may not be big enough for proponents of gay rights and social change, but I think it is useful to look back at movies like Philadelphia to remind us that progress has been made. 

I don't have a whole lot more to say on this topic right now.  Basically, I just wanted to reflect a little bit on this movie and get some feedback on whether things have changed as much as I'd like to think.  I welcome feedback, though I realize that this entry could just be for me and my musings about a great movie.  

-----

Gage just came in to my office, and when I mentioned Philadelphia, he directed me to this clip.   Hmm.