Put Down the Doughnut
Put Down the Doughnut!
With all the rhetoric and heated debate going on about healthcare, there was one aspect that particularly intrigued me. Dr. Steven Spady echoed a comment made by many people, especially of the more conservative bent. He says that the concept of “personal responsibility” is missing from the debate. No need to go into the debate here, as there are many blogs that are currently doing that, but this particular aspect is right up our alley. He gets a little frustrated at people whom he is forced to treat that don’t take care of themselves. How so?
“I just had to go take care of a man that left our hospital this morning and now has gone and got drunk and will suck up more health care dollars,”
Hard to argue his point in this instance. But wait, there’s more:
That same day, he cared for a 358-pound man with diabetes who didn’t take his medication for two days and then stayed up all night playing poker, plus five different people who overdosed on prescription drugs. “It just makes me very upset when I have to pay more and more taxes to support government health care programs and have to work longer and longer hours to help a lot of people that just don’t seem to care,” he wrote.
I’m not at all saying that Dr. Spady is not compassionate. After all, he does indeed treat these types of patients. Moreover, he’s been on medical missions to Mexico and Haiti and has donated thousands of hours of free care in the Appalachian community where he’s worked for nearly a quarter century. However, I believe he reflects a view that doctors have concerning their patients that is highly destructive. They believe that part of the problem with those suffering from chronic disease, is that the patients don’t follow their prescriptions and that is why they suffer.
The medicine that this diabetic is being told to take is likely insulin which improves his symptoms by furthering the fattening process. The defect is in relative sensitivity of muscle and fat cells to insulin. The muscle cells become insulin-resistant in response to the repeated high level of insulinemia that results from excessive ingestion of highly refined carbohydrates but the fat cells fail to compensate. Diabetic drugs work to increase insulin sensitivity trying to overcome insulin resistance, but it only makes the fat tissue that much more prone to store fatty acids. The muscle tissue remains insulin-resistant. The patient reasons that if they take their insulin, they will only get fatter. Even insulin therapy is only a means to control the symptoms and certainly by no means a cure.
So the diabetic is left to decide between which way they would rather suffer the disease. Keep it under control while gaining weight and deteriorating further, or by staying thinner, and deteriorating that way. The entire emphasis in modern diabetic treatment is based solely on control of the diabetes, not curing it.
The doctors have no clue as to why people get diabetes in the first place, nor do they understand how to cure it. Prior to the discovery of insulin in the 1920s, the doctors had a very workable cure. They restricted carbohydrates and were able to reverse Type 2 diabetes. Nowadays, everyone prefers drugs.
“Seldom does anyone suggest how — or if — the individual’s role should be reformed,” argued Lisa Herrington, 46, a former health industry administrator.
“Having health insurance coverage doesn’t make a person healthy. It’s what you do with that coverage and your personal choices that make the difference,” she added.
There’s no doubt that health coverage doesn’t make a person health. However, the advice of the physicians doesn’t make anyone healthy either and that’s the point that seems to be missed. They don’t have the courage to tell people to put down the carbohydrates. Instead, they focus on deprivation and people’s ability to enjoy sweets and other so-called “pleasures” which make them sick in the first place. Their misguided advice on healthy fruits and vegetables only exacerbate cravings and make a person much more likely to consume sweets and sugary drinks. During my own low-fat diet, each meal had to have a desert to satisfy my out of control cravings.
The next part of the argument involves cost:
“If you talk about costs, there’s something here and now that you can do,” said John F. Banzhaf, director of the anti-smoking agency Action on Smoking and Health, which has pressured members of Congress to enact a $60 a month user fee to make smokers pay part of the health insurance costs of their habit.
“If you don’t have a user fee on smokers, that forces everyone else to pay those health care costs,” said Banzahf, who is also a professor of public interest law at George Washington University Law School. “One argument is that it’s simple fairness.”
Makes a lot of sense. However, where does the line get drawn? The medical community has convinced us that red meat is problematic. Should we have a beef tax too? They are convinced that sugar is harmless and they know they couldn’t get away with it, so there would never be a push to tax sugar, although there should be.
It’s hard to make public policy on things when you don’t know the cause. Making it a moral issue does not help because as the saying goes, one cannot legislate morality. Eating properly is about information and experience. It has nothing to do with adherence to prescribed advice especially when that advice is faulty.
The catch is, not everyone can agree which health problems are the responsibility of the individual, and which are wider social concerns. Rob Gould, president of the Partnership for Prevention, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit agency aimed at decreasing disease, said he’s all for individuals becoming invested in their own good health, but notes that the community must make it easier.
“We can’t allow ‘personal responsibility,’ in quotes, to become a polite way of saying, ‘You’re on your own, Mac,’” Gould said. “When kids don’t have a way to safely bike or walk to school because there are no sidewalks, that’s not personal responsibility.”
There’s also the question of where to draw the line on personal responsibility. If smoking and obesity can be fined, and motorcycle riders need to pay higher insurance rates, it opens the door to penalizing other preventable risks. Could the same logic be applied to people who have unprotected sex and turn up with a disease? Those who eat their beef on the rare side despite warnings about E. coli contamination?
The fact is, it’s okay to eat your beef on the rare side and not be concerned with E.coli as long as you cut out the carbohydrates, which weaken your immune system and make you susceptible to disease, but that’s another argument.
But I’m glad that they make this concession in the article. I don’t think the solution is more bike paths and parks to get exercise in. The fact is, when we were children, we ate less sugar than children today. We exercised more because we were more fit than the children today. These children stay in the house because their systems are so badly compromised that they can’t play in the sun. They can’t even share a basketball lest they get swine flu from one of the other kids. This is totally ridiculous and the experts continue with more and more misguided advice. The doctors claim that people are not following their advice yet the symptoms in the greater society indicate that people are indeed following their advice to the letter. Most people burn in the sun, most people get susceptible to sickness and disease every winter. This means that they are eating a diet high in carbohydrates and low in fat. People who eat a high-fat diet don’t get sick like this.
The sun is the most abundant resource that we have and now we’re told that it’s unhealthy. We are all advised to use sunscreen (which I don’t) and then we wonder why everyone is so vitamin D deficient. They say, take a man-made supplement to fix the problem. Many are deficient in vitamin D, yet the doctors say, we don’t follow their advice?
Well, public, since you’re so good at following directions, let me give you another: Put down the carbohydrates!
Share on TwitterIn: Diet, Disease, Exercise, Immune System, Obesity, Vitamins
8 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
on August 12, 2009 at 2:07 am
Permalink
I’ve bookmarked this article and hopefully I’ll be back to give a more extensive comment, although it’s growing already! Given the link to it I automatically ended up, as is human nature, trying to perceive it through a “what’s his motive” lens. Sorry.
Glad to see an article that is quite balanced and informed.
My initial response is about the more fundamental issue: that the medical system in so many countries is more concerned with effect than cause. Drugs are usually the response.
Of course, if the causes are misunderstood, then it’s all fallen apart at the root of it. If the research and treatment systems are set-up with an idea already in mind of the cause, there is absolutely no way it can grow. I love science, and as a pure concept it works, but I’m constantly frustrated how natural human behavior keeps screwing it up. I’ve read too many studies that essentially come down to disproving the hypothesis that fat is bad, but in the end they say, “But we still recommend that people reduce the fat in their diet and eat more grains.”
Speaking of the root… it’s really quite sad, and I fell for it for the longest time with my own personal depression and anxiety, that there’s some sort of specific and fundamental flaw in being a human being. That’s we are somehow so different, given our sentience, than the bear in the woods or the lion on the savanna. I have a gene that makes me depressed, or an alcoholic, or ADD, etc. It’s a top-down approach. I’m not saying genetics research is totally misleading, and there aren’t inclinations to be a certain way, but I found my way out of a crippling depression that claimed the lives of my uncle and grandfather before I even knew them. The top-down drugs didn’t help, but the root up needs of being a human animal did (diet, sociality, productiveness, etc).
But…. I digress….! Just free-thinking publicly, thanks!
on August 12, 2009 at 5:48 am
Permalink
No problem. Welcome to the blog!
I think the gene identification theories are fascinating, but they just don’t help much because this doesn’t identify anything that the individual can influence or manipulate. Sure, it’s a given that we all have genetics which make us more prone to certain things due to the food choices of our ancestors, but at the same time, even the experts recognize that the symptoms of metabolic syndrome seem to be preventable, yet they lack the understanding of how to accomplish that.
Thus the fundamental argument that these experts go about like drunks searching for keys under the lamp post simply because that’s where the light is shining.
Thanks for reading.
on August 12, 2009 at 8:28 am
Permalink
[...] quarter century. However, I believe he reflects a view that doctors … View original here: Zeroing In On Health – The Blog! » Put Down the Doughnut Share and [...]
on August 12, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Permalink
Charles,
Long time lurker. Just wanted to say I really hope you keep the well-thought out posts coming. You give us small time bloggers something to aspire to.
Though I’m not a true zero-carber, I’ve improved almost every aspect of my health by eliminated refined and starchy carbohydrates from my diet. Though I do eat fruit, I try to have a few days a week that are close to zero carb, and a fast day here in there. It works great for me, and without you as inspiration I’d never have been able to rationalize a true zero-carb approach even part of the time.
Thanks for your blog, and keep em coming!
-Bryce Lee
on August 12, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Permalink
Thanks for the kind words, Bryce. Congratulations on making better choices with your diet and thanks for reading!
on August 12, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Permalink
Hi Charles,
I ‘m ZC as you know…but the larger issue is getting people to think for themselves. It’s as if they are zoned out on carbs and they are believe me!
How can we motivate these people to drop the donut and the pizza? They are bombarded with ads glorifying HFCS foods. Its a drug like Soma…it anesthetizes them.
I give them the diet and they refuse… even when faced with amputation of a limb!
It’s a sad thing.
LaurenR
on August 12, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Permalink
It is indeed a sad commentary that people would much rather take a drug than heal themselves naturally. But on the other hand, people are so fed up with diets and suffering, that they would much rather hope in the promise of a drug. It’s a sad state of affairs when all the experts can’t seem to get it right. People always wonder what it would be like if the whole world went ZC and then perhaps there would not be enough meat. This would never happen and natural selection will eliminate those who don’t come to understand how to take care of their precious bodies.
Thanks for reading!
on August 15, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Permalink
Good post. The other place I think about is those following the Food Pyramid, yet continuing to get obese and diabetic.
I’m working on a post on Emotions for Engineers about how each of the medical specialties tries to optimize its part, and as a result sub-optimizes our total health.
At the end of the day, we have to be educated information consumers.
Tony