Oprah Is At It Again And Other Disappointments

I've seen a lot of talk online lately about normalizing ideas and behaviors, mostly when it comes to mental health. It used to be that people equated normalizing with removing the stigma around a topic, and, in most cases, it’s beneficial to avoid negative stereotypes that tend to come up when this type of approach isn't used. Normalizing when it comes to talking about mental health is generally seen as beneficial. It helps people feel less ashamed and less alone for struggling with any kind of disorder or illness.

Because of the way social media and the media have evolved, normalizing now has both pros and cons but probably more cons than pros. It should be obvious that normalizing violence is not constructive while helping an individual who perceives emotions as negative or bad normalize his or her feelings can be helpful. 

The problem these days is that frauds, extremists, and insincere individuals attempt to gaslight others into thinking that certain actions they're engaging in are OK when these actions could be dangerous, deadly even. Trying to rationalize continuing a risky behavior under the guise of normalizing this particular conduct is despicable, yet influencers and actors do it all the time. There's a not-so-fine line between sharing struggles and promoting a soothing yet unsound coping strategy. More and more, individuals are crossing this line in order to rationalize their unhealthy obsessions.  

I see this type of conduct a lot in eating disorder communities. Allie Ostrander is a good example of someone crossing the line from sharing to self-indulgence. I have to preface this by admitting I lost any respect for her when she was outed as a liar and cheater. What a disappointment she turned out to be. 

For anyone who doesn't know, Allie is a runner who was busted and served a four-month ban for using canrenone. In her failed, "It's my acne medication! I didn't know!" defense, she admitted googling the drug to see if it had an effect on performance. It doesn’t, but sometimes it’s best to shut the fuck up if you want others to believe you. In trying to cover her tracks, Allie accidentally over-explained and outed herself as a liar. 

You see, when you google this drug in relation to performance or anything remotely sports-related, the very first thing that pops up is that it's a banned substance. There is no way she didn’t know about canrenone being on the banned list, absolutely no way. There’s a reason why she didn’t elect to get a therapeutic use exemption, and it’s not because this drug doesn’t improve performance. Canrenone is actually used as a masking agent, so god knows what else she was and probably still is taking. There’s no doubt in my mind that she’s a flat-out fraud, and any coach who would take her on as a client at this point is suspect, too.

Cheating in sports aside, Allie is also blasting her audience with questionable content under the facade of promoting eating disorder recovery. In one of her cringe-worthy videos that I won't link to because it truly is upsetting, her boyfriend suggests that the content she’s putting out might be triggering, but Allie doesn't give a fuck about other people. This is about HER. She's part of the ME ME ME ME ME! generation after all. 

I have to ask, though, what good does it do others if she mentions the crazy calorie totals she's consuming for a particular video take? Who, exactly, does it help when she shoves what she eats in a day in her viewers' faces, many of whom are struggling with eating disorders of their own, and what good comes of her posting videos of herself training hard while admitting she's not fully recovered from bulimia? The answer is that it benefits her. Her YouTube channel and social media accounts are for profit. She's creating content, and it doesn't matter who might be affected negatively as long as she gets paid. 

I'm all for honesty when it comes to recovery, but what Allie is doing isn't honest. This is narcissism on full display. And it helps no one. Anyone claiming the videos and posts she creates benefit others probably thinks other fads and online scams are helpful. There is a big difference, a huge one, between admitting you're struggling and going into the gory details that can traumatize and negatively influence others. If she wants to pretend she's edgy and post garbage like that without offering much, if anything, in terms of actual recovery, she should stop lying about promoting recovery. She’s posting content to continue her sponsorships and to attract rubberneckers and those who will be fans no matter what she does. She's posting for money at her followers' expense is what she's doing.

I’ve written about Oprah Winfrey being a huge disappointment before, and this year, she has proven herself to be even more of a scumbag. Back in 2015 when I created a blog post detailing her shenanigans with Weight Watchers, I didn’t think she would stoop any lower, but her recent actions only prove how obsessed this woman is with being thin. You would think that someone as accomplished and successful as Oprah, a billionaire and the owner of her own production company, would focus on other things or at least leave other people out of her neurosis, but she can’t seem to be OK unless she lets everyone else in on her rationalizations and excuses. 

In 2023, Oprah was still a board member of Weight Watchers, a company she bought stock in before she joined. In 2024, she admitted that she started using a drug to help lose weight, and by the time she made this confession, she had been taking it for several months. Oprah didn’t step down from her position on the board of Weight Watchers back in 2023 when she started taking the drug; she waited until this year to do so. Once she was outed, she threw some money at the problem by donating to charity, a common action frauds take to make themselves look less corrupt. 

That was bad enough, deceiving individuals by losing weight on a drug without disclosing this to any Weight Watchers members, but because, underneath all that sham confidence and real success, she’s an insecure woman, she decided to host a dishonest television special called “An Oprah Special: Shame, Blame, and the Weight Loss Revolution." She claimed this special was about normalizing talking about weight loss. What she should have titled it is, “An Oprah Special: I Want to be Adored.” Oprah doesn’t want to normalize talk about weight loss; she wants approval from her audience to take drugs in order to look a certain way, though she will probably tell you the drugs are for health. 

I didn’t watch the full special and have no desire to do so. Watching Oprah justify taking these kinds of drugs is like watching an active anorexic talk about the benefits of taking speed. These drugs she's taking and promoting are prescription drugs designed and approved by the FDA to treat diabetes. Some doctors provide them to individuals who are obese or who meet other criteria. The drugs were not meant to be given to people who simply want to lose weight and have money to buy them, but some shady healthcare professionals will sell them to willing customers. 

In a lot of ways, I feel sorry for Oprah. To be that much of a powerhouse and still be caught up in an illusionary beauty image that's circulating in her own head is depressing. In her special, she stated, "I come to this conversation with the hope that we can start releasing the stigma and the shame and the judgment, to stop shaming other people for being overweight or how they choose to lose -- or not lose -- weight, and most importantly, to stop shaming ourselves." But how is taking a potentially dangerous drug in order to lose weight and conform to society’s warped beauty stereotypes removing the shame around anything? 

For obvious reasons, Oprah didn't go too deeply into the side effects and dangers of these drugs in her little special. From what I gather, Ozempic and other related drugs are medications used primarily for Type 2 diabetes. They’re used off-label for weight loss as well, meaning this isn’t the suggested usage. The common side effects include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, belching, stomach pain, fast heartbeat, and constipation, to name a few. Severe side effects of these prescription drugs include gastroparesis, allergic reactions, changes in vision, kidney failure, gallbladder issues, and pancreatitis. Also, Ozempic carries an FDA warning on the box for the risk of thyroid C-cell tumors.

Ultimately, Oprah is and already was free to do whatever the fuck she wants. She’s so desperate for approval that it’s mind-boggling, though. The fact that she had to hold this televised rationalization fest shows how stuck she is in obsessing about her weight. I agree in part that society did this to her. The public has never been kind when it comes to her or anyone else's weight, but maybe if she hadn’t made it such an issue by promoting fad diets like Slim Fast and flaunting her slim body and then hiding it when she gained weight, people would have lost interest. I don’t blame her for being a product of our society, but I will call her out on inflicting her unhealthy obsessions and behaviors on all of us. 

Women Are No Better

**Contains possibly triggering content related to fad diets, exercise, and weight.**

Underneath anger often lies sadness or fear. Other times, it's an appropriate response to that which is unjust.  -- Anonymous

I should do myself a favor by ignoring the hypocrisy and dishonesty, all the contradictions and inconsistencies that plague social media and the media in general, but what affects me more specifically is the deterioration of running publications. I'd probably spend less time in a state of anger if I could bring myself to look away, but I'm someone who was brought up to always try to do the right thing. Though I'm not perfect in many ways, having integrity is important to me, so when I see those who publicly stretch the truth or intentionally send the wrong message, it bothers me, even when it's something that looks minor on the surface. It would be easy to keep quiet or complain to friends and then move on, but ignoring wrongdoing doesn't feel right. Sometimes, it's better to take some kind of action, and writing is my way of addressing what I see as problematic.

General Dishonesty 

With the Olympics approaching, more people are commenting on the issues athletes face as they prepare to head to Japan where some hospitals are still struggling to treat COVID patients, and government officials are not exactly on the ball when it comes to rolling out the vaccine. Despite the uncertain state of affairs there, some women in the United States are complaining that mothers won't be allowed to bring babies to the Olympic track. If this were a general rule applied in the past and expected in the future, I would understand the upset, but we're in the middle of a fucking worldwide pandemic. That's it. The rule applies to the sons and daughters of all Olympic athletes, coaches, and officials, male and female. Nobody making this rule that isn't set in stone yet did so strictly to punish women, and according to the article people are linking to, "the IOC said requests to bring children will have to be resolved by individual countries’ Olympic committees." In other words, individual cases can be argued. 

The above posts point to a legitimate concern. Erin Strout and Lindsay Crouse are both journalists who remind others on social media that there's a pandemic going on, and rational people wonder if it's a good idea to travel to a place when the CDC is basically advising against it. But...

To note, Aliphine didn't become a mother before she became an Olympian. She qualified and then had her baby. The bigger issue is the contradiction between suggesting that's it's unsafe for the Olympic Games to be held at all, but then demanding the inclusion of babies and kids at the venue. Notice how Crouse leaves out the fact that this ruling is strictly in response to COVID. 

The above tweet is similar in its misleading take. It was in response to the tweet below regarding a volleyball tournament in Colorado. The restrictions were listed under the "2021 Crossroads Current COVID Procedures and Requirements." 

. 

It's 100-percent dishonest to present these situations and omit the fact that the new rules are specifically in response to COVID. Safety precaution suggestions such as wearing a mask and avoiding gathering in close quarters or being in large crowds are fine when it comes to other people, I guess. Whether or not I agree, the rules were clearly visible on the website of the tournament. I can imagine how difficult it must be for new mothers in general and especially during a pandemic, but these guidelines are there for a reason, not to victimize women. Implying these are old rules specific to women is deceptive.

The Weight Game

Obviously, considering my history with an eating disorder, I'm probably going to notice potentially triggering content more than the average person, even if I'm no longer triggered by much, but I would hope that someone who wrote about an athlete who struggled with an eating disorder would be more sensitive. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Nor is it the case when it comes to women's running magazines, though one would hope some backlash might cause those in charge to be at least somewhat sensitive to the women with eating disorders whom they occasionally profile. The linked article is actually a very good one. I would definitely suggest reading it. 

Occasional good content aside, promoting weight loss is still more common than not in women's magazines. Back in the 80s, content in running magazines focused more on training and results. Today, a subscription to Women's Running Magazine offers you tips on diet, fitness, health & wellness, mental health, running, and nutrition, pretty much in that order. A subscription to Runner's world in 2021 offers you "exclusive access to the tools you need to become a better runner."  

From 2013- 2016, Women's Running Magazine was big on pushing diet plans for runners. If you subscribed back then, you would receive "even more weight loss tips!" You still get diet tips if you subscribe today, but they are often disguised as suggestions on how to "manage" your weight. 

In 2016, the magazine posted an article about weight loss that has since been deleted. They linked to it on their Facebook page with a comment about how great the "cough drop trick" is. This comment is referencing a suggestion to suck on a cough drop in order to curb your hunger. Think about that for a minute. In a world in which people like Evelyn Tribole and Elyse Resch, Tracy Tylka, Susie Orbach, and Geneen Roth encouraged or legitimized some form of intuitive eating long before the year 2000, a women's running magazine was publishing garbage fad diet tips in 2016, and they haven't stopped. Today, you can get advice about clean eating, diet and meal plans of all kinds, and lessons on how to eat a certain way or remove certain food groups. With all the information coming out about RED-S, does it make sense that an athlete should be trying to lower her appetite, especially after exercise? There can be serious health consequences from not eating adequately to fuel your activity level. 

In 2020, an article was published that taught readers how to manage their appetite, but if you look at the link, you can see it initially said "lower" appetite:   https://www.womensrunning.com/health/food/how-to-lower-appetite/ 

Regarding tips to manage the out-of-control beast that is your hunger, the article states, "If you're feeling hungrier after increasing your training, it may be worth trying a few out to lower your appetite." Read that again. The idea is that if you increase your training and have the natural response of increased hunger, you should try to control that shit. I don't care that there are some additional sensible bits of information sprinkled throughout the rest of the article; I care that the bigger message to women is stated right there in the first paragraph: Don't trust your body. God forbid you end up giving in to your hunger. But body positivity! Just suck on a cough drop if you get hungry. Christ. 

Occasionally, a really good article will emerge among the typical reads that support diet culture. In 2021, they contradict their "control your appetite or all hell will break loose" stance with a much more sensible take about intuitive eating. Managing your weight is the new weight loss, though, and losing weight still seems to be the goal, even if you're cautioned to lose the weight sensibly. When the article is about mental health, there still have to be several mentions about the benefits of weight loss. In short, magazines, even those about running, always seem to showcase a mess of contradictory articles regarding weight, and tips about eating this or that way are constantly shoved in the faces of readers. It's almost funny that lists of articles about how and what women should eat are followed by one that suggests, "Can we just get back to how we innately learned to eat before there were any rules around our food and food choices?"

How does anyone sort through all of this contradictory bullshit? If you want diet advice of any kind, go see a registered dietitian. That's my advice.

It shouldn't be surprising that women's running magazines also present information on eating disorders, but it's odd that journalists who cover stories about those who struggle can't seem to understand what could be considered triggering content by the very individuals they profile. 

A constant focus on weight and size, jokes about binge eating, or suggestions about training that could easily be considered detrimental to anyone struggling with compulsive exercise are not helpful. In fact, it's insulting to that particular audience. I probably wouldn't address any of this if writers didn't aim to reach a specific audience. They want to be free to say whatever the fuck they want to get a few laughs or likes, any kind of attention, but also pretend to give a shit about those of us who struggle with eating disorders, compulsive overtraining, fear of not training, and body image. These types encourage fear around issues related to training, diet, and body, and they don't care to change or even acknowledge that what they are doing is harmful to some of their targeted audience members. 

Who Gets Support

I don't really like torturing other writers or being the critic's critic, but sometimes what I see makes me want to yell, "Don't make me be a bad guy!" I don't actually believe that calling out other people is bad, but it forces me to take a stance opposite that of the main running journalists and their followers. And these days, when you call out anyone, you automatically become the bad guy, even if you don't pop a guy's eye out of his fucking head. There's an old saying a friend shared with me, though, that if you don't want people to write criticisms about you, behave in a way that doesn't invite it. In other words, don't lie, don't cheat, and don't be an asshole.

I've already addressed transgender athletes, and Kevin Beck beat me to the punch when it comes to pointing out how journalists often skew the facts regarding intersex athletes. It's dishonest to address athletes who are intersex and fail to mention that the "genetic condition where she produces testosterone in higher levels than what is considered the normal range for women" is due to her XY chromosomes and the likely development of internal testes. Why would anyone leave that part out but to try to dupe her audience? Hell, the linked article doesn't even mention that Semenya is an intersex athlete. I'll repeat a quote from Amby Burfoot when he stated, "All clear-thinking individuals believe that transgender women and men should receive the same social, cultural, educational, financial, etc, rights as others. Not all agree about athletic rights." I would say the exact same about intersex athletes. I honestly don't have the answer when it comes to how to be 100 percent inclusive in sports without being unfair to either women or to intersex and transgender athletes, but intentionally misleading reporting is definitely not going to help. 

It's easy to want to support professional athletes no matter what their gender. Athletes work hard and most set a good example. Unfortunately, most professional runners don't make a living wage. Things have improved from the time I was running when we couldn't accept a dime or sponsorship, but if you're not among the very best of the best and even if you are, you might struggle financially. What's difficult to understand is the mad rush to support and sponsor influencers over athletes. Considering it's more about money, it's a little easier to grasp, but I don't get the overwhelming support around one influencer in particular who has lied, bullied others, and has suggested that she's in it for the money. When there are so many people in the world who actually want to help others and live an honest life, the crazy dash to fall all over someone who has no problem threatening others is bizarre. Seriously, how often does Latoya's name come up in articles, despite the fact that she is often the bully who plays the victim? 

Derek of Marathon Investigations is someone who has been criticized for simply calling out cheaters. He has also been praised by those who don't appreciate cheaters wrecking a sport. Unfortunately, he is also someone who has been harassed and bullied online, and he has been honest about how difficult it is to receive emails and comments relating to a situation in which someone took his own life. 

Below is a response from Latoya to Kevin Beck on Twitter. If you don't see how terrible this is, there's something really wrong with you. Who does more damage, someone pointing out that another person cheated, or someone really digging into a person's psyche by publicly throwing out false allegations in an attempt to shame him? Derek and Kevin aren't the ones who need to do better in this case, but despite this instance of clear bullying and another in which she told a person that she would "walk his dentures from his face", she's still sponsored by Hoka One One. Go fucking figure. 

In conclusion, it's really hard to stomach a lot of what goes on in the world today. Running used to be a way for me to escape or cope. As difficult and painful as my relationship to the sport has been, I still love it on some level. I just don't like seeing some of the more grotesque aspects of it like the dopers, the cheaters, the liars, and the bullies. I never thought running would be like this. I have to continually remind myself to look to those who are still inspiring and honest. They do exist. In fact, even though I have no real ties to New Hampshire, something that brought me great joy was watching the videos that NewHampshireTrackAndField.com put out. It's unfortunate they don't get more attention, but that's another story. 

When You Really Don't Get It But Pretend You Do

We are constantly and relentlessly bombarded with messages about how we should look and what we should weigh. I'm sure some people mean well, but if underneath your "healthy eating" plans, your body acceptance, your "stop binging now!" promotions, and all your promises of getting to the root issues, you're still pushing weight loss, you 100 percent don't get the damage you are potentially causing.

Many people, and I agree, argue that promoting weight loss violates dietetic clinical ethics. Read that again so it sinks in. There's a good chance that promoting weight loss does a lot more overall harm than good. Any dietitian, coach, or nutritionist who constantly shoves weight loss tips in your face is more concerned with self-promotion than your health, and this kind of gimmicky ploy to get you to buy the program or book is a pretty shitty thing for anyone who puts himself or herself in a position of authority to do. These kinds of people reinforce outdated ideas around health and beauty. Maybe, instead of looking at whether or not you need to lose weight, eat healthier, or exercise more, you should question the motives of individuals who push weight-loss rhetoric.

I used to follow a dietitian on social media but lost respect for her and stopped when she posted a few unsettling comments that reinforced diet culture. One of many comments was subtle, a joke about eating during the holiday season that promoted the idea that you need to earn your food, but it was enough to put a sour taste in my mouth. I may have mentioned this before.

Every now and then I check back, hoping this woman would finally understand how potentially damaging her constant weight-loss plugs are and how unnecessary her focus on posting images of her every meal is. She hasn't. What often starts out as something sensible with her, a suggestion that you look at what's underneath the urge to binge or encouragement that you accept your body, always, always comes back to weight loss and being lean. This kind of obsession is unhealthy and reflects both her own insecurities and those generally adopted by society.

The hook is telling you that she has the answers to your happiness, and of course this ultimately means losing weight. At every turn, that's really the main goal. Keep in mind that this is all about aesthetics. There's no real evidence that being thin over having a healthy lifestyle is better. Quality of life isn't really about looking lean; it's about feeling good and being healthy, both physically and mentally, and on the surface, it sometimes looks like that's what she's promoting, until she circles around once again to land on weight loss.

What's scary is that so many people refuse to acknowledge that weight loss doesn't necessarily translate into being healthier, and fat doesn't necessarily mean unhealthy. Weight loss doesn't mean more successful, and weight should never be a determining factor of self-worth or value, yet the prize is always that, to be thinner.

I stumbled upon this article recently and thought it fit right in with this blog post: "Science just clapped back at people who say body acceptance contributes to obesity" Actually, fat shaming contributes to it more than body acceptance: https://www.revelist.com/science/fat-shaming-health/6715

Fat shaming can be done in subtle ways with constant low-grade prodding to lose weight and offers of gimmicks, diets, and plans to lose weight instead of anything that encourages true body acceptance. See, if you really support body acceptance, you wouldn't have to whisper, "and once you do that, you can lose weight!", and if you really believe in the harm fat shaming causes, you wouldn't have to say, "that's when the weight comes off!" in the middle of a conversation about healthy eating. Your desire to see everyone thin is your issue, and people keep inflicting their issues onto others. No wonder so many people are obsessed with being thin, and all these warped ideas about health and body get passed to children and those around us.

This goes for any age, really. People who constantly promote weight loss, suggest being thin is a main goal, and talk about being lean over being healthy are really just promoting toxic beauty culture and set the stage for an increase in the development of eating disorders.

Kids learn by example, so if you spend your days working out, documenting every meal by photo and by log, and using schemes to lose or control weight, your child will be aware of your behavior, even if you try to hide it. Kids are very intuitive that way. I've already bitched about people who feel the need to share their insecurities by obsessively posting every morsel they consume during the day on social media and brag about their daily workout sessions that take several hours, so I won't rehash these topics here. Suffice to say that this is not helpful and promotes unhealthy comparisons. Nobody needs to see that shit.

I recently visited an online "healthy eating" forum and instantly regretted it. There were people sharing every detail about their meals from the weight of the food to the number of grams of protein, carbs, sugars, and fat they consumed, and this was all encouraged by the moderator. How is this healthy or a productive use of anyone's time? This is a huge step away from those who take photos of very nicely prepared arrangements of food for viewing pleasure. I'm not addressing true foodie posts and have no problem with them.

It has become more widely accepted that focusing on weight loss isn't fixing anything, and switching this outdated way thinking to one that includes a focus on promoting general healthy habits is far more beneficial. Unfortunately, not everyone gets this. Those who continue to promote weight loss feed into society's fears, biases, and assumptions about weight and health. They perpetuate myths and weight stigma that have become embedded in our society and encourage unhealthy thinking around body and food.

Bombarding people with weight loss fantasies potentially increases discrimination against overweight individuals and ignores the true causes of poor health. And it puts in danger those susceptible to eating disorders. Focus on health over weight loss or body size. Promoting weight loss means the pusher is focused more on aesthetics and warped beauty standards, not true health.

I will end with this, from the National Eating Disorder Organization:

"Weight loss diets, fitness programs, and detox programs are abundant but most of them come with restrictive eating habits, a big dose of weight shaming and a level of obsession around food that is neither healthy nor sustainable."

Everyone wants to claim their method is the exception, but if the end goal comes down to "You can be thin!" it's really not a program that supports body acceptance and overall health and well-being.

Progress is Progress

This may be true, but trying to think about progress being progress when you're still slow as fuck isn't as exciting as it could be. Don't get me wrong, I'm really happy to be running at all, but of course there's a part of me that is disappointed to be running races at what used to be a slow jog pace. I look at the results of older women running any kind of national race, and I'm instantly embarrassed about my race pace. God, I would love to be a minute or more faster per mile than I am. At this point, I don't even know what's physically possible, 10 seconds? 15?

Complaints aside, I really love the Aids run in Denver. It's a very small race with the main focus on the walking event and Diva Dash that follow. The whole day is scheduled full of activities, so the 5K is down on the list of priorities, but it's still a great race. It rarely starts on time, but I like the low-key feel of it. Everyone is SOOOO nice, from volunteers to participants.

The course changes every year. It's the same basic route, just with slight variations, which some people hate, but I don't mind. This year we started on the opposite side from where I ran it last. Rather than immediately get in over my head, I tried to take the race in sections, easing off the pace here and there and then leaning into it again. It's less stressful, and I think I run better this way, though I'm still experimenting.

One positive thing is that I felt pretty good. Unlike a lot of races recently, I can look back and see that maybe I could have gone faster here and there had I been blessed with the kind of confidence I wish I had. I didn't feel wrecked at the end, just tired and sore from my uneven gait. A really nice gentleman who passed me toward the finish offered some words of encouragement, and that helped me dig a little deeper in the last stretch. When we congratulated each other after the race, he gave me a hug, and this friendly gesture touched me deeply.

My feet held up OK, but they were both a little sore after the race. I'm still landing wonky and not able to fully push off my left foot. As a result, my left side can get pretty sore, and my right side compensates by getting tight. I had some trouble on my cool down, so it's something I continually need to watch.

I don't know my official time. It looks like it might have been just under 22 minutes; I'm not sure. Whatever the case, I'm OK with it or trying to be. Found it later:  194 5k Lize B 50-59 F 1 5 21:57 7:04.

In other news, I thought about writing a blog post about the idiotic Weight Watchers app for kids, but I don't even want to give them any attention. I've said enough on Twitter, and there are plenty of other people who have already tackled that idiocy. The company is one big cesspool of fuckedupness. I hope the backlash they're receiving causes sales to perpetually plummet, and someone takes all their shitty food products and shoves them up the CEO's ass.

Et Tu, Bon Appetit?

It used to be that gourmet food magazines were a great way to escape the stresses of everyday life. With a few flips of the pages, you could vicariously travel to Paris, Rome, Kyoto, New Orleans, or Copenhagen and learn about the food, the history, and the culture of these great cities. Talk of calories was avoided, and the true passion around food and cooking shone.

And then, without warning, bread became taboo, a "cheat" food, and food magazines started buying into the myths embedded in diet culture. These once interesting publications started interviewing people in the fashion and entertainment industry so everyone could see how and what they eat in a day: plain vegetables and protein with a rare splurge of a few potato chips if they earned it. And the stomachs of readers everywhere who used to enjoy beautiful presentations, elegant recipes, and fine dining in general turned.

It's bad enough that cooking magazines now promote warped ideas around health and diet, the kind of junk one finds in fashion magazines designed to take advantage of people's insecurities around beauty, but it's particularly appalling when coaches, nutritionists, or anyone acting as such does. For example, a nutritionist who uses social media to post links to "articles" on how to have thinner thighs and lose belly fat is probably more concerned with getting attention than doing what's right. It's clear that there are many people who are struggling or have unhealthy beliefs around diet that still insist on dictating what others should do. They don't care that joking or silly comments about diet and body can be harmful as long as they get a few extra likes or reposts.

I understand that many people want to lose weight, but our society's constant obsession with weight loss and the perfect body is unhealthy. It's tiresome to see just how many people buy into and then promote this idea that losing weight is the answer to all your problems. It's so ingrained in our culture that many people don't even realize just how harmful what they promote can be, but anyone in a position of calling him or herself any kind of coach, mentor, or provider should be more aware.

I always come back to how deadly eating disorders are, so if you are actively encouraging individuals who are already at a healthy weight to lose, lose, lose! you are a big part of the problem. Consider your audience and ask yourself if what you're suggesting could be potentially triggering. It takes so little effort to reword a comment or avoid posting a link in order to do right by those who are more vulnerable. I'm not saying you have to completely censor yourself; I'm just saying think about the messages you're putting out there.

Low-Carb Diets

"What do you need a qualification for? To talk common sense? Why do you have to study something that is outdated, that is industry backed, that is biased, that is not getting the results? That would be insane to study something you're going to waste your time with. That's just crazy," - Pete Evans, celebrity chef & creator of "The Magic Pill"

It seems like not that long ago someone told me I should watch a documentary about going vegan. I reluctantly did and cringed thinking about all the people who believe, incorrectly, that if something is in a documentary, it's true. This isn't always the case. I watched "What the Health" and decided it was not all bad, just not well cited and filled with a good amount of misinformation. At the suggestion of a friend, I also watched "The Magic Pill", a documentary that's also filled with inaccuracies. When there was talk about certain vegetable oils being poison and toxins in the film, I had to roll my eyes. The film is actually identical to "What the Health" right down to the guinea pig trials in which several people who are on loads of pills, have all kinds of illnesses, and are eating all the "wrong" foods try a diet for two weeks and are magically cured of everything they ever had. I don't think anyone would argue that taking a child off a diet of sheer junk and adding pretty much any real food would likely produce beneficial results, but since this is a film about a low-carb diet, that's the one that gets credit for the improvement in one young girl's health.

Almost right out of the gate, there were a bunch of lies in the film "The Magic Pill" that focuses on the Paleo diet, not necessarily the Keto diet, though there is some overlap with low-carb diets and their effects (or lack thereof) on health. Still, people conflate the two, so I will do my best to make the distinction when possible and necessary.

At the beginning of the film, we are told that there are no fat wild animals, which discounts the fact that some animals need to be fat in order to survive their cold climates. It's a slight error, but not the greatest way to start a documentary. Can you imagine a skinny seal doing well in the Arctic? Obviously, this is relative fat and not quite the same as being overweight, however, bears and other wild animals get fat seasonally to prepare for hibernation. If rodents get lucky and find a luxury wooded area that supplies loads of nuts and berries, they, more often than not, get fat. Most animals are too much on the go and can't afford to carry a lot of extra weight, so they are very lean. The movement and lack of an abundant, steady food source are what keep them lean more than their actual diet. Elephants must eat a tremendous amount, so it would be almost impossible for them to be outright fat. They are large animals but relatively lean. Again, this is a minor error but sets the tone for more misleading information to come. But I digress...

Diet for some people is like religion. For many, science doesn't matter when they believe in a way of eating. I'm fine with people digging in their heels and insisting on eating a certain way, but I'm not OK with people spreading lies in an effort to support their ways of eating. Perhaps I'm being harsh, however, the science around nutrition is evolving and largely based on anecdotal and observational data, not hard evidence. It almost has to be. Controlled human studies are rare mostly because they are incredibly expensive, and it's not always considered ethical to place humans in disciplined conditions to run experiments. One problem with observational data and surveys is that they can't control every aspect of a given person's life, even if people were 100 percent honest about their diet and exercise and general lifestyle habits.

Surveys and anecdotal information can be useful in terms of encouraging more credible studies to be done, but even then the promising studies have to be recreated in order to really suggest any kind of cause and effect. Simply noting a possible correlation doesn't mean there is. Vegans are notorious for twisting bits of fact about studies or incorrectly calling surveys studies to support their beliefs. The idea that milk causes cancer is a big one that's not accurate, for example. Now I see that the Keto and Paleo communities are doing the same thing, even though there really are some promising studies relating to insulin sensitivity, obesity, and even heart disease they could be citing instead, though there have yet to be any reliable long-term, repeatable and reputable studies done. A word of caution is that nearly every study relating to heart disease and this kind of diet shows an increase in cholesterol before any notable drop.

Despite the fact that Gary Taubes, an American science writer, is very careful about calling what he promotes in terms of diet a hypothesis and acknowledges that science hasn't yet proven the direct correlation between carbohydrates and sugar and fat storage, people still take this possible link as fact. Most of us can agree that eating more whole foods and less refined sugar is probably beneficial, but there's more to eating Keto and Paleo than that. And people love to take a small bit of truth from a flawed study and twist it into something to support the way they want to eat. For more on that, this article addresses what some of the critics are saying about the whole Paleo movement.

So much of the information relating to diet is based on flawed studies, partly because it takes flawed studies to generate enough interest to get anyone to fund more controlled studies and duplicate studies. Let's face it, though, if the Keto or Paleo diets really worked, obesity and diabetes would be on the decline, not increasing. One of the biggest issues with low-carb diets is that they're difficult to adhere to long-term, so many people get into yo-yo dieting, which wrecks havoc on both the body and mind. A balanced diet is much easier to follow, and general lifestyle is also important. Diet, exercise, sleep, and mental health all play a role in overall wellness. It's ridiculous to think that addressing only one of these would lead to complete health or drastic changes in health.

If the film focused only on diabetes, obesity, and sustainability (and there were some errors in the film regarding that last department as well) I probably wouldn't have felt the need to write such a long blog post. The fact that people try to claim a low-carb diet cures everything from autism and asthma to genital warts (not really) makes me want to write for days, and given all the bullshit in this film, I probably could. On that note, I couldn't help but notice a large number of Dr. Oz types associated with this production. It's funny that TV and celebrity doctors are taken much more seriously than most credible ones, but we live in the age of reality TV.

One of the main contributors to the film, William Davis, author of "Wheat Belly" is fond of claiming that wheat has changed, become some kind of Frankenstein grain that makes people addicted and makes their bellies explode into fatness. This, of course, is based on a study of one, himself, cutting wheat out of his diet in an effort to address his own diabetes and weight. Actually, there was one other study he cited that was done on dead rats. Oh, he also heard a few other people were successful after doing the same, cutting out wheat and becoming superheroes.

When it comes to Dr. Davis' claim that this new wheat is addictive, according to Joe Schwartz, a chemist a McGill University, food, or really the peptides that are created after a person digests food, can bind to opiate receptors in the brain but do not produce a morphine-like effect. I will address so-called food addiction in a separate post, but sorry, Dr. Davis, your theory isn't completely accurate. Also, Dr. Ravi Chabbar, the head of the Saskatchewan project, confirmed that even though wheat has been modified to produce high-yield crops, the basic structure of the grain including the gluten and gliadins is the same as it was in "ancient" times. Strike two. Strike three against Dr. Davis' claims could be some information about low-carb diets being correlated to a higher "all-cause" mortality, but I haven't done enough research to stand by that one yet, though it seems legit.

When it comes to diets curing cancer, "The Magic Pill" uses another anecdote and a hell of a lot of speculation, my God there is a lot of speculation in this film, to suggest that a low carb, high-fat diet can cure cancer. Many research titles are shown, but if you look at the results of these studies, they are not clear-cut. Showing titles like that is misleading. Some of the results of the studies shown read like the following below, promising but not definite. Others aren't even that favorable, and showing the title only, not the method, results, or conclusions, tells viewers zero, absolutely zero:

Although the mechanism by which ketogenic diets demonstrate anticancer effects when combined with standard radio-chemo-therapies has not been fully elucidated, preclinical results have demonstrated the safety and potential efficacy of using ketogenic diets in combination with radio-chemo-therapy to improve responses in murine cancer models. These preclinical studies have provided the impetus for extending the use of ketogenic diets into phase I clinical trials that are currently ongoing.

I admire people a hell of a lot when they are honest and choose whatever kind of diet they do for ethical reasons or simply because, fuck it, life is short and who doesn't want to eat bacon? Whether it's the Keto, Paleo, or vegan diet that calls to you, most people can admit that these are not necessarily the easiest to follow or best diets for the health of every single person worldwide, though some will try to persuade you otherwise.

In conclusion, just like with "What the Health" there are a few good takeaway points with "The Magic Pill." Unfortunately, both films are too filled with dishonest reporting to be all that useful. Take what you see and read with a grain of salt, or wheat, whatever floats your boat.

Oddly, I believe that the producers of these two films probably mean well, but they are so set in their beliefs that they twist the facts. In an interview last year with Sam Harris, I thought Gary Taubes did a good job of being fair. This article sums up a lot of what others think about his take on diet. He always cautions and lets listeners know that he is presenting a hypothesis that needs further testing, which I appreciate. He might be right, but the science just isn't there yet when it comes to overall wellbeing. He got a lot of flack for not properly quoting individuals in his famous New York Times article and misrepresenting some of the findings in various studies, but I have more respect for him than I do many of the others who promote low-carb diets.

I have no dog in this fight. If someone told me this or that diet would make me feel great, run the way I would like to, keep me healthy, and the science was really there to back it, I might give it a try. There are too many conflicting voices in the nutrition and science of nutrition worlds, and none of them address our spiritual or emotional side.

Maybe I do eat too much sugar and refined foods, and that's something I can work on. I'm not going to discount the part of me that occasionally needs food for comfort. I believe that's OK when we are aware, but I also acknowledge that a good diet can make us feel emotionally better, too. It's a lot to consider, but I don't think I will start my day with eggs, bacon, and cheese tomorrow or anytime soon.

Eating Disorder Recovery Handbook (2)

What It’s All About

“Count your blessings, not the calories. Weigh your options, not your self-worth. Starve your self-hatred, not your body. Hate the disorder, not yourself.” --Anonymous

Understanding some of the contributing factors that led to your illness and getting to know the driving forces behind any unhealthy actions and urges can help you heal. For many individuals, eating disorders are a coping strategy, a logical way to feel safe and in control in a chaotic environment. We are not able to control the world around us, so those of us who are susceptible to eating disorders will often turn to unhealthy and even dangerous behaviors as a way to give ourselves a false sense of control or to distract ourselves from reality.

Throughout your recovery, you must continually ask yourself, “What is driving these unhealthy thoughts” or “What’s behind my self-destructive actions?” Your thoughts and actions are a symptom of something deeper. What is going on in your life now, or what happened in the past, that is pushing you toward engaging in disordered eating? Always ask yourself if you are hungry (physically or emotionally), angry, lonely, or tired (the HALT question common to numerous recovery programs). Ask yourself what additional stresses you are facing, and never be afraid to ask for support.

If you have trouble identifying your emotions, use a chart of emotions or a feelings wheel, such as this one: http://humanemotionschart.com/. Go through a list and ask yourself if the descriptions on any of the emotions on a chart fit with what you are experiencing. Try your best to describe what you are feeling in a journal or diary. Sometimes the mere act of describing what you feel can ease the actual feelings. Try to distinguish between what you are thinking and what you are feeling. If you have ever lived with dysfunction -- and almost all of us have; whether it’s in the family, with friends, a coworker or with a significant other, truly healthy and functional relationships are rare -- chances are that you learned at some point to suppress your feelings. When we shove our feelings down and can’t fully express what we feel, we end up behaving differently. Over time, discounting and continually holding in emotions can even lead to feeling physically sick.

Many other conditions, such as anxiety, depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), are often comorbid with eating disorders. In fact, quite often, treating an underlying condition such as depression helps with the treatment of an eating disorder. Antidepressants, either synthetic or all-natural (e.g., SAM-e, TravaCor, or St John’s wort) can take the edge off the depression and anxiety that often accompany an eating disorder. If possible, work with a therapist, doctor or someone in the medical field who can determine if you are dealing with a mood issue with roots outside your eating disorder. Don’t be afraid to try suggested medications if your treatment team feels it’s necessary.

Above all, give whatever you try or whatever therapy in which you engage time to have an effect and communicate with your treatment providers how you are feeling along the way. If this is difficult, look into finding a patient’s advocate to guide you.

No News

Writing can be a lot like training. Unfortunately, I go through long periods of not writing, and when I start back, it feels awkward and difficult. Sometimes it's best to dump something on the computer screen, just to do it, even if it looks uninspired and unsophisticated. Considering what's going on in this country right now, my blog post might seem even more trivial, but here goes nothing...

I've mentioned before that no news doesn't always correlate to good or bad news, and in my most recent bout of internet silence, it has simply meant no news is no news, at least no news of substance. Actually, I do have some positive information to relay. It's hardly news, but since I can't think of anyone who would be interested to share these little victories with, I might as well dump them here.

Diet - Working with a nutritionist has been incredibly helpful. I have made a lot of progress and I'm healthier than I was a few months ago. I feel good about the direction I'm heading, but I'm aware that things aren't perfect. My diet is varied and relatively healthy, but I know I can improve here and there. Still, I see many others who are struggling with eating disorders and have to acknowledge how far I have come. The changes I made might look small or easy on the surface, but anyone who has struggled knows what kind of courage it takes to step outside of your comfort zone when it comes to diet. I can be scared and uncomfortable at times while still moving forward. It helps tremendously to have support here.

Running - PT has been HARD and sometimes painful. I'm working my ass off to do what some people might take for granted, little foot movements or balance exercises or hamstring curls. All these small exercises are helping me activate muscles that had shut down. It's almost more mentally hard than physically, but I'm making progress in both areas. Here is where I also know I have a long, long way to go. Things still pop and creak and hurt when I run, and I'm not able to open up fully. On the other hand, I have had some brief and wonderful moments of running with less pain.

This weekend, I did another time trial at the CU cross country course and ran about a minute and a half slower than when I raced there years ago. The best part of my effort is that I felt good and actually had some fun. For the first time ever, I didn't head into the second loop feeling overwhelmed and tired. Unlike in the past when I wondered if I could even finish the course, I stayed on top of the pace the whole way. I'm still too afraid to race, really, but it was so nice to have a moment of hope.

In other news - I have been volunteering a lot at the Humane Society. The other day, over 100 dogs and puppies arrived from Puerto Rico. Most of the puppies that went through the vet clinic were adopted out before their second day on the adoption floor. It's great to see. The Humane Society here does such a great job of rescuing animals.

Lately, I've also given a few speeches and went down to Arvada to help a cross country team with some running drills. I guess this is more in the no news is good news category.

To be continued.

What the Health

At the suggestion of a friend, I watched "What the Health," a documentary about diet and health. Actually, it's more of a one-sided, biased look at diet and health.

The good points of the film, unfortunately, are buried under a lot of bullshit spouted by both the interviewer and the people being interviewed. It's strange that Kip Anderson, the director, producer, writer, and editor of "What the Health" makes quite the fuss about certain studies being funded by specific groups, while pretty much everybody involved in this film is a vegan and very vigorously promotes a vegan lifestyle. For example, Dr. Neal Barnard, one of the many vegans interviewed in the film, is the president of a vegan and animal rights group that has a budget of well over 7 million and was a regular contributing writer for PETA. He and others interviewed in the movie have written books promoting veganism and are activists for the cause. They're not merely suggesting that eating a vegan diet might be good for your health, which isn't actually confirmed by this film, they want you to buy their shit. Meat, after all, causes everything from endometriosis to cancer, and these guys have the books, programs and advice to help you give it up.

There are plenty of other blog posts or articles debunking the obscure and questionable studies Anderson focuses on in the film. I don't think I can do a better job than either of the two linked to below. At one point, Anderson calls a survey a study that supposedly confirms eating an egg a day is as bad as smoking. I addressed a similar survey situation here when a vegan activist woman implied that filling out a questionnaire is as valid as an actual study.

To give you an idea of some of the more ridiculous myths that are promoted in this film, there was a comment in "What the Health" about cheese being coagulated cow pus, which is as absurd as claiming chocolate is really dismembered spider parts because the FDA allows a certain amount of critter pieces per 100 grams in the chocolate making process. That's not even a good analogy because there really isn't any pus in milk, while, sorry to tell you, there might be some spider parts in your Hershey's bar. Nearly every study presented in the film was twisted or bent beyond recognition.

Debunking "What the Health" I  https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-health-a-movie-with-an-agenda/

"In the first of several phone call vignettes, the filmmaker, Kip Andersen, calls the American Cancer Society to ask why they don’t warn about the dangers of meat on their home page. He is put on hold, but is eventually granted an interview. The interview is cancelled and the ACA stops responding when they realize he only wants to argue with them about diet and cancer. I’m not surprised. Their recommendations are based on expert evaluation of all the published evidence and they are not likely to change their minds because a single nonscientist with an agenda walks in off the street to argue with them. 

The phone call gimmick is repeated for the American Diabetes Association. He wants to know why they don’t clearly state on their home page that meat causes diabetes, and how dare they include a recipe for baconwrapped shrimp! He eventually is able to interview an ADA spokesman who very reasonably tells him there is insufficient evidence that diet can cure diabetes, and says “We recommend a healthy diet.” He acknowledges that there are studies, but points out that many of them have never been replicated or are wrong; that’s why we do peer review. Andersen keeps bringing up individual studies until the spokesman loses patience and stops the interview, saying he doesn’t want to get into an argument. Andersen interprets this to mean that the ADA is not interested in prevention or cure. 

Then he calls the American Heart Association to ask why they include beef and egg recipes. He gets a similar response. He interprets these failed phone call inquiries as stonewalling and an organized effort to conceal the truth. He discovers that the ACA, ADA, AHA and other mainstream organizations are funded in part by food manufacturers like Dannon, Kraft, Tyson, and fast food restaurant chains like KFC. He says we can’t trust them because they’re taking money from the companies that are causing the very diseases they are trying to prevent. 

As an analogy, I couldn’t help wondering how the American Academy of Pediatrics would respond to a random phone call demanding that their home page warn that vaccines may cause autism and complaining that doctors can’t be trusted because they are paid by the Big Pharma companies that sell vaccines. I wouldn’t blame them for hanging up."  -- Harriet Hall

Debunking "What the Health" II  https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/7/25/16018658/what-the-health-documentary-review-vegan-diet

"What’s more, the WHO did not say that eating meat was as deadly as smoking. Rather, it determined that the strength of the evidence linking processed meats to colorectal cancer is similar to the strength of the evidence linking tobacco and cancer, meaning there’s convincing data here. This certainly doesn't mean that eating processed meat is as bad for you as smoking. It means that according to the agency's assessment, the links between processed meat and certain types of cancer are well-established.

So when the filmmaker asks, “If processed meats are labeled the same as cigarettes, how is it even legal for kids to be eating this way?” he clearly didn’t understand the WHO’s read of the research. (To be fair, a lot of other media outlets got the WHO warning wrong too.)"  -- Julia Belluz

In general, "What the Health" is too filled with errors to be any good. One positive thing about the movie is that it calls attention to some of the unethical and inhumane factory farming practices in the United States and encourages people to eat more fruits and vegetables, something your mother probably told you to do, too. Oh, and Steve-O made an appearance because he's an expert on scientific research pertaining to health and diet, I guess. Lastly, the success stories of people who, after two weeks of eating a plant-based diet, were transformed from crippled and sick individuals on cabinets full of medications to happy shinny medication-free specimens of health were cool. In general, though, this flick is two thumbs down for me.