Let's Blame Harry Truman

For the childhood obesity epidemic that the United States faces currently. Okay, no, I don’t really mean that. But he is, indirectly, at fault for the high fat, high calorie school lunches we serve to our children on a daily basis. In 1946, Truman passed the National School Lunch Act, which was meant to counteract the high rate of malnourished children in the United States (boy have things changed since then.) The National School Lunch Act guaranteed that a hot lunch would be provided by the government to all students that could not financially afford it. Today the average school lunch contains approximately 600 calories, that’s more than half of what children up to the age of eight are recommended as a daily allowance. Combined with a school provided breakfast averaging up to 400 calories, the two school provided meals could actually meet a child’s daily caloric needs comfortably. To be fair to the government, the caloric recommendations they make for school lunches are meant as a safeguard against starvation and malnutrition. The idea is that even if the child doesn’t eat any other meal that day they would still be able to maintain necessary function. This is actually the problem. Most of the children in this country are not starving to death, and after they ingest a whopping 1000 calories between their school provided breakfast and lunch, they then go home and have a snack and dinner, leaving them way above their daily needs, resulting in excess weight gain.

In this past weekend’s New York Times Magazine, the feature article was titled The School-Lunch Test. It was an exceptionally eye opening article that dealt with independent groups throughout the country working with public schools to make their school lunches more nutritious, and to also bring about change in nutritional education to younger children. The key group the article followed was a group led by Dr. Arthur Agatson (otherwise known as the South Beach Diet author) entitled HOPS—Healthier Options for Public Schoolchildren. Dr. Agatson’s staff worked with a public school in the Kissimmee, Florida public school system, where most of the children were from low income families, and qualified for government paid-for lunches. Team HOPS, worked with the government rationed foods that the school district received, they traded tater tots for sweet potatoes, and breaded chicken patties for grilled chicken. The program also subsidized the substitution of whole wheat products for their government provided white bread counterparts, subsidizing the cost difference between low fat and standard issue government cheese, also bringing in more fresh vegetables, and substituted their school breakfast of Lucky Charms and Fruit Loops for Total and Raisin Bran. They also brought in a nutrition educator, partially paid for by the Kellogg institute, to come in to speak with the kids about nutrition, to teach them about it on their terms by incorporating into stories, and bring in exciting facts about different types of fruits and vegetables. The HOPS program even worked with teachers to adjust math and science programs to include nutrition in ways that would not interrupt their class plan or take away from their preparation for statewide tests.

The most surprising part of this article was the reaction by the staff and the families of these children. You would think that most parents would be happy that their children were learning to make smart choices, but most seemed aggravated and angry. Calling the board of education complaining that their children were being put on the South Beach Diet (having read the South Beach Diet book, the school plan and the diet plan have very little in common, but that’s just my opinion), and complaining that their children refuse to eat anything unhealthy any more and won’t eat what they put in front of them (Good for those kids!) I was most surprised by the response by Jean Palmore, the director of food services for the public school system, who in interviews publicly discussed her own dislike for whole grains and sweet potatoes, and she couldn’t even imagine children wanting to eat that. Talk about not having a good example for these children to follow.

And there’s been good news for the school, 23 of the 486 students classified at the beginning of the project are now considered normal or at risk of becoming overweight. Yes that’s only a 4.7% change in the status of overweight children, but that’s a great start. The study found that the control schools within the same district, had a slight increase in children deemed overweight.

The 2006-2007 school year, marks the first that public schools will receive government subsidies to help them create healthy eating, nutritional education and increased physical fitness plans for their children. This is a huge step in the right direction for our national public schools. The fact is that children are taught to eat badly. As adults, we consider children finicky eaters and give them foods that we think will satisfy them with little to no fuss, like chicken fingers, hamburgers, pizza, mozzarella sticks, french fries, and our school lunches reflect that. Schools provide food that they think kids will eat with no fuss, most of the food the government sends to our schools is deep fried processed foods that need only be reheated before serving, instead of fresh foods that need thought and preparation. By teaching our children from a young age that the foods that ‘they eat’ are fried finger foods, we are allowing them to go into adult hood considering those foods to be acceptable parts of a daily diet. Perhaps it is for this reason that the children of today are the first in history to be expected to have a shorter life expectancy than their parents! And that the Center for Disease Control has predicted that 30-40 percent of today’s children will become diabetic in their lifetime. If we don’t do something now to teach out children proper eating habits we will inadvertently kill them.

Arkansas Takes a Step Toward Healthier Children

In 2004 Arkansas became the first state, and remains the only state, in the United States to require mandatory testing of public school students BMI’s and to send the results home their parents. Unlike the adult test which classifies adults as underweight, normal, overweight or obese, the childhood test classifies the children as underweight, normal, overweight or at risk for becoming overweight, and gives their parents a percentage of their peers that they weigh more/less than.

I applaud Arkansas Governor, Mike Huckabee’s, initiative in this matter. Huckabee, has himself, lost 100 lbs, after being diagnosed with diabetes. In reports released today, Arkansas reveals a decrease in childhood obesity rates from 38.1% to 37.5%. Which is an admirable feet. The report also suggests that more physical activity should be introduced to children within the public school system and more healthy food should be made available to the public.

Strangely, I am not a proponent of required weighing of public school children, I think the experience can be traumatic when done improperly, and although I’m sure great steps have been taken within the public school systems to make the procedure as confidential and trauma free as possible, the fact remains that children can be mean, and sometimes so can parents. I’m glad that their efforts to curb obesity have been successful though, and hope they can continue to focus on this ever growing problem. I very much appreciate the states suggestions of increased mandatory physical activity within the school system and making healthier foods more widely available. I actually think that it’s sort of strange that this program has been going on for two years, and these suggestions are just now being made. But, better late than never. In my opinion these suggestions should have been the first step toward improving Arkansas’ health, and perhaps weighing should have come later.

My hope is that Arkansas efforts continue to influence their communities, as children and parents make healthy eating and adequate exercise a priority. Hopefully more states will make the health of it’s citizens the same kind of priority that Arkansas has.


Find out Your BMI
Arkansas Agressive on Childhood Obesity

Is there really an excuse?

In the news today there were two interesting tidbits about health and nutrition that really stood out to me. The first being, Overweight now outnumber under-fed around the world, and the second, A Biological Basis for Being a Couch Potato?


In the first article, Bob Popkin, a professor at the University of North Carolina states: "Obesity is the norm globally and under-nutrition, while still important in a few countries and in targeted populations in many others, is no longer the dominant disease." There are now 1.4 billion people in the world that are overweight, and 800 million that are under-fed. Now don’t get me wrong, I truly am thankful that the rates of global malnutrition are declining, but the fact that so many people are now overweight is really very startling. Obesity brings with it a multitude of other health problems; diabetes, increased risk of cancer, pulmonary and heart problems, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, are just a few. With this increase in global obesity comes another global crisis, perhaps we haven’t seen the full effects of yet, but we will in the coming years, and that’s health care costs. As more and more countries watch their populations go from normal weight to obese, their national costs of health care will skyrocket as these health issues begin to take place.

The Article discusses how China is a perfect example of the rapid increase toward obesity we’re seeing globally. In recent years the diets of the average Chinese citizen has changed from mostly grain based, to increasing amounts of animal products and vegetable oils. The changes in eating habits combined with more automobile use and television, in general a more Western lifestyle, has caused a dramatic increase in the average Chinese waistband. That information coupled with recent studies showing that people of Asian decent are more likely than other races to become diabetic due to dietary intake, is bound to result in serious increase in average Chinese health care, which in turn may cause a huge economic strain on the government.

Popkin goes on to suggest that there should be governmental response to the epidemic, and that the high costs of nutritious foods should be supplemented by the government. Something I’ve thought for a while. It is the responsibility of the government to make sure that the country is safe internally and abroad, and that includes the health of it's citizens. I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat myself now, fast food and processed foods are cheap, organic foods and vegetables are expensive and recently Americans have watched as gas prices and interest rates skyrocketed, while the average salary remains the same, and more and more people are unable to find moderate paying jobs, the government, by allowing big business to process our food the way they do, is veritably forcing it’s citizens to lead unhealthy lifestyles



The second article, I don’t agree with, and bothers me quite a bit. I’ll explain a little bit about it before I dissect it.

The article discusses an experiment where scientists bread two groups of rats, one group was bread to be obese the other to be thin. They then studied these two groups of rats and the study concluded that the lean group of rats where more responsive to a chemical that the brain produces called Orexin A. While the obese rats, were not particularly receptive to the hormone. Orexin A, is a chemical that “stimulates appetite and spontaneous movement such as fidgeting and other minor unconscious movements.” So, in short the thin rats wanted to move more and wanted to eat more, the fat rats wanted to sit around and be slovenly. Thus, the scientists concluded that human beings who are overweight obviously do share the same problem as the fat rats.

This all seems simple enough, but I don’t buy it. One reason is that these rats were not living within their normal environment, they were living in a test lab, that probably gave them a maze or two and a spinning wheel to get on if they wanted to do some mindless activity. And they probably had regular feeding times. In their actual environment, even the most slovenly of rats would have to move regularly, the would have to travel back and forth to scavenge for food, find secure shelter, find a mate, etc. They would be forced to burn more calories in a real life environment. My next point is that if the rats breed toward obesity were not receptive to this hormone than they would not be stimulated to eat as much, considering one of the hormones main attributes is it’s endorsement of appetite. Small appetite = Small food intake.

I also don’t agree with scientists using this study as an excuse for human beings. Rats don’t have food pyramid, and research showing that activity and healthy food are good. Human beings do, and as much as I like to blame the government and big business for our global obesity epidemic, that doesn’t rule out personal responsibility. We know that we need to move more, and a simple walk around the block after meals can help maintain proper aerobic health. Current guidelines recommend about 45 minutes of aerobic activity a day to maintain heart health, and weight maintenance. We know that eating a low fat high-fiber diet is best for us, lab rats generally don’t have any choice in the food they’re given to eat.

And the simple fact is--we are not rats.

When to Go Organic

This Arcticle by Jean Tang, was originally published in Womens Health Magazine"

Is organic worth the extra green? We dig in and find out

Shopping smart at the grocery store used to be fairly easy: Pass up the Ding Dongs and chips in favor of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables. But these days the shelves are packed with products bearing the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) round green "Organic" label — and a heftier price tag. (see "Behind the Label") Something about the word "organic" automatically implies a pure, healthy, overall better-for-you product. But is that really true? Will eating Paul Newman's Newman-Os instead of regular cookies shrink your waistline — or just your checking account? Will a kitchen stocked with organic snacks make your kids healthier or just more prone to wear hemp? And does the world really need organic wine? To find out, we interviewed a slew of doctors, scientists, nutritionists, and chefs. The consensus: Some organic foods are worth the extra money because they've been proven safer, tastier, and more nutritious than the conventionally grown kinds. But they won't make you thin or guarantee good health for life. Others you can leave on the shelf; even though they may be slightly better for you, they're not so much better that they're worth paying extra for. After examining all sides, we've put together a definitive list of 19 foods — fruits, vegetables, meats, dairy, and more — that deserve the splurge, and 13 that don't. Between the brass tacks and the grass roots, we've got organic figured out.The Pesticide ProblemWhen you wheel past the organic section of the produce aisle, no doubt you start thinking a little harder about those tomatoes you picked up a few paces back. Suddenly all nonorganic fruits and vegetables seem tainted by horrible, bug-killing chemicals, and you can't help but wonder what all those foreign substances are doing to your body. Well, easy does it: Not all conventionally grown produce is coated in the stuff. That said, we don't know what the long-term effects are of consuming any amount of pesticides. What we do know is that for certain people, pesticides are dangerous.Consider a widely used category of bug killers with an appropriately nasty name: chlorpyrifos. The Environmental Protection Agency calls them the most potentially harmful kind of pesticide. Older kids and adults can safely detoxify chlorpyrifos using an enzyme called PON-1. But children under the age of 2 have much lower levels of this enzyme, which means their bodies are exposed to up to 165 times more of the stuff than ours are, says Alan Greene, M.D., pediatrician and founder of DrGreene.com, an award-winning pediatric-care Web site. Pregnant women should also be careful. Doctors used to think pesticides did not pass through the placenta, but new studies have found evidence that they do — and that prenatal exposure to chemicals can have serious results. A study released in April 2004 by scientists at the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Washington showed that babies who had been exposed to pesticides in utero (that is, through food their mothers ate) were more likely to be born prematurely and have abnormal reflexes. A study from Columbia University found that fetuses who were exposed to these chemicals in bug-spray form were born with smaller heads than babies who were not exposed. Yet another study found a connection between pesticide exposure in utero and abnormal _neurological exams — a good predictor of behavioral problems like attention deficit disorder and hyperactivity down the road. Bottom line: It makes sense for pregnant women and children under 2 to avoid conventionally grown fruits and vegetables that contain high levels of pesticides (see "It's Worth It" ). And the rest of us? If you can afford to buy everything on our "Worth It" list, go for it. But if you're not pregnant, there's no reason to lose sleep about the level of pesticides in your foods. "When we look at the best estimates of an adult's typical exposure on a daily basis over the course of a lifetime, it's generally 10,000 times lower than levels we feed lab animals — and we don't see measurable negative effects in the animals," says Carl Winter, Ph.D., food toxicologist and director of the FoodSafe program at the University of California at Davis. How Bad Are Hormones and Antibiotics? Organic meat, dairy, and eggs are healthier than the regular varieties because of what they don't contain — namely, the hormones and anti_biotics given to conventionally raised livestock. Farmers often give synthetic hormones, including estrogen, to animals so they can produce more milk or more eggs and grow faster. This practice has prompted some to blame synthetic estrogen in animal products for the early onset of puberty in girls. However, there's little research to bear this out. On average, menstruation today begins just 2 1/2 months earlier than it did 25 years ago — and estrogen in animals may not be the culprit. More likely, obesity and other factors are to blame, researchers say. If you really want to get worked up about something, it should be antibiotics. The close living quarters in which most farm animals are raised encourage the rampant spread of infection, so farmers often lace their feed with antibiotics to keep the animals healthy. Farmers have also found that anti_biotics increase growth in animals — yet another incentive to use them. Problem is the bacteria that survive a dose of antibiotics only grow stronger. And when you eat those meats, eggs, or cheeses, that stuff enters your body too. That means the next time you have a bacterial infection, there's a greater chance the antibiotics prescribed by your doc won't work. Reaching for organic milk, yogurt, cheese, eggs, and meat is a certain way to avoid excess antibiotics and hormones. If you have trouble finding these products, look for beef that's labeled "pasture-raised," "grass-fed," or "natural." Also look for meat or dairy products labeled "hormone-free" or "antibiotic-free," which may not conform to all organic standards but will not have added medications. And take note: The government doesn't regulate these claims as carefully as it does "organic," so organic is still the gold standard. Growing More Nutrients If you're the type who opts for a bag of pretzels — or worse — over a helping of spinach, going organic should get you more of the vitamins and _minerals you need. In 2001, nutritionist Virginia Worthington, Ph.D., compared the nutritional value of organic fruits, vegetables, and grains with conventional ones. She found that organic crops contain greater amounts of magnesium (29 percent more than conventional crops), vitamin C (27 percent), iron (21 percent), and phosphorus (14 percent). Dr. Worthington thinks the synthetic fertilizers used on conventional crops may cause them to soak up excess nitrate, which lowers the production of vitamin C and other good-for-you compounds.You've heard all the good things about the powers of antioxidants, which help ward off heart disease, Alzheimer's, and other inflammation-related illnesses. On average, organic produce is 30 percent higher in antioxidants, says Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., chief scientist of the Organic Center, a nonprofit clearinghouse for research. Organic corn seems to be the star: Researchers found that it contains up to 50 percent more antioxidants than conventional corn. The "why" is simple: When a plant doesn't have pesticides and chemicals to help fight off disease, it develops stronger natural compounds to protect itself. And you gain those same benefits when you consume the plant. In the animal category, research shows that cattle that eat grass (as many organic cows do) produce beef lower in total fat than cattle fed a grain diet. What's more, grass-fed beef and milk can contain as much as two to three times the amount of omega-3 fatty acids in the regular kind. These omega-3s have been known to boost good HDL cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart disease. The Taste Test Think of a juicy, tender organic tomato, rich in color and flavor. It's way tastier than your average pale tomato. Most conventional produce is picked before ripening so it can survive the trip on a semitruck to a supermarket across the country. Most organic food is grown locally and available only in season, so it travels less and has more time to develop flavor on the vine. What's more, organic farmers frequently grow "heirloom" versions of tomatoes and other crops that have been bred for taste, not toughness.Likewise, organic chicken is much less rubbery than your run-of-the-mill bird, thanks to higher-quality feed and extra room to roam. And if you've ever done a side-by-side comparison of organic and nonorganic milk, you know that, at the same fat content, the former tastes far fuller and richer. Experts say this difference is due to the varied diet of most organic cows: Eating grass in addition to standard feed boosts their milk's flavor.Which is why more and more chefs — and consumer foodies — are cooking with organic ingredients. Organic food still accounts for only 2 percent of the food industry, but sales are shooting up at a rate of 16 percent a year. "Most of the time, organic foods are grown with more care, and you can really taste that," says Akasha Richmond, author of Hollywood Dish and cofounding chef of Eaturnia, an organic catering company in Los Angeles. "Fruit in particular — there's a huge difference. The taste is much richer, much deeper, much cleaner." What Price Organic? While there's huge variation in how much more organic foods cost than their conventionally grown counterparts (see the charts), you'll wind up paying around 50 percent more, on average. And let's face it — unless you're loaded, that can be a problem. Even though Richmond loves buying organic for her family, "If it's too expensive, I won't," she says. To keep costs down, she shops for organic fruits and vegetables only when they're in season — and therefore cheaper. The good news: Experts predict that the cost of organic food will soon start to decline, thanks in part to monster retailers interested in capitalizing on the nation's new hunger for organic products. Increased mass-market interest encourages more land to be farmed organically, intensifying competition and lowering prices. Wal-Mart, for instance, has announced plans to sell organic food for just 10 percent more than food grown the regular way. But in the end, if an extra 35 cents or 75 cents or even a dollar is guaranteed to give you healthier food that delivers more flavor with every bite...well, giving up that next pair of cute little slingbacks just might be worth it.

How Much is Your Health Worth?

I have a serious problem with how much money it costs to live a healthy lifestyle, when processed foods and sugar laden drinks are dirt cheap. Isn't it the responsibility of our government to assure that healthy food and active lifestyles are available to it's citizens? In response to the growing obesity epidemic in this country, the United States Government has issued new health guidelines that seem extensively rigorous to follow. Wouldn't it be more responsible of them to subsidize food costs? As things are now, the most cost effective way to eat is also the most direct way to a heart attack. I can buy a litter of Pepsi, a weeks worth of macaroni and cheese, ground beef, potato chips, cookies and processed cheese for less than $10. But weekly I spend well over $20 on a weeks worth of fresh vegetables. As a nation, Americans eat more chemicals, growth hormones, and saturated fat, than any other country, seconded closely by Australia and Canada.

Today I read a really interesting article about obesity and environment that was published in the San Francisco Gate. The article highlights a staggering problem in the food choices available to us today. The food that we eat is extremely processed, and I’m not talking about candy, and soda, things that we all know are processed, foods. But the basic foods we eat are processed. Wheat is stripped of it’s natural fiber and vitamins when it is ground and bleached to make bread, later vitamins are added back into the wheat as supplements, which is where we get the term enriched from. The food is not actually enriched, made healthier that it was to begin with, it’s stripped of it’s natural health benefits, and then processed to add some of those benefits back.

Doctor Robert Lustig of the University of California, San Francisco discusses the real problem with processed foods:

The processed food that is most readily available to Americans -- from potato chips and cookies to yogurt and white bread -- is loaded with sugars that cause the body to believe that it is hungry, which makes people feel compelled to consume more calories and conserve energy, he said. Sugar makes the body produce more insulin, which blocks hormones that would normally tell the brain to stop eating

Lustig goes on to discuss, that this constant spike in insulin, makes people almost defenseless against constant hunger, and it’s not a lack of will power that causes most people to be overweight, but their inability to whole, unprocessed foods.

Do I agree with all of this? No, not really. I do agree that there is way too much sugar in the foods that we eat, I agree with his insulin theory (well it’s not really a theory, it’s been proven that a constant spike in insulin can lead to obesity), but I don’t agree to the idea that we are helpless against this evil monster sugar. We aren’t helpless, we always have a choice. No, there isn’t always a healthy choice, but there’s always something. If you’re waiting for a train and you go to one of those handy-dandy newsstands chocked full of magazines and chips and candy, chances are there going to have an overpriced packet of cashews or almonds you can grab. Which brings me back to my first point, yes it is unbelievably expensive to live a healthy lifestyle in this country, but how much is our health worth? Lustig goes on in his article to say that “in California, families on welfare can buy juice with food stamps, but not fresh fruit.” I think that about sums up just about how much our government really cares about our health.

Making Choices

I’ve been struggling for the past few weeks. Like everyone my motivation goes in and out. So last night as I ate my Haagen-Dazs Cookies and Cream ice-cream I thought about what I could do to find that motivation again. Yes I’ve made excuses for myself like, it’s too hot to cook I need to eat out, I’m going through a really emotional time right now, I’m studying for the LSAT and junk food helps me study, etc., etc., etc. But the conclusion I came up with is that motivation is not magical being that comes into and out of our lives like the wind, it’s a series of choices. We make the choices that lead to our lifestyles. I am making the choices that allow me to lead an unhealthy lifestyle. And that’s all it is. It isn’t that my magical motivation is on vacation this week, it isn’t that life has left me with no choice in what I do. I make all the choices. I make the choice not to say no when people want to go out, I make the choice not to say no when vendors send packages of goodies to my office, I make the choices to order a deluxe when I go to the diner, I make all of these choices.
I like to think about things from a historic standpoint. Human beings are amazingly adaptable, as are all animals. We are created for survival and varying climates and conditions. There have been groundbreaking stories lately that have shown that people with periodic times of starvation tend to live longer than those who don’t. Why is this, because as animals we faced periods of starvation, and our bodies expected and were adapted for those times. It’s almost like we’re poisoning ourselves with too much food. Now, I’m not about to give up one of my three meals a day to go back to my pre-civilized roots, but I do think it’s important that we consider what our body is capable of and what is most beneficial to its maintenance. What would we have been eating if we were still dependant on tools for hunting, and not a sale at the grocery store. We’d be eating mostly fruits and vegetables, because they’d be most readily available to us. We’d eat eggs that we could steal from nests. And once and a while we’d be eating a lean gamey meat. Would we be eating bread? No. Do I like bread? Yes, very much. And am not willing to give it up, but I am willing to eat it in moderation. Would we be eating dairy products, that’s seriously doubtful, unless we had an extremely overbearing and slightly demented mother who forced us to breast feed well into adulthood. Why, well because it’s weird that we drink and eat dairy products. Except for a small percentage of Caucasian people of Northern European decent, most of the world is lactose intolerant. Now, I really love dairy, really, really love it! Does it love me, not so much. Why, because like most people, I’m slightly lactose intolerant, much like most of the adult population. Most people are born able to digest milk, but only a certain type of milk, their mothers milk! And once they stopped requiring their mother’s milk, they lost their ability to produce the lactose digesting enzyme lactase. I’d like to dissect milk drinking for a second. Human babies drink human milk, which is made to help them grow in to strong reasonably sized toddlers before they can start chewing their own food, human milk is meant to help human babies more than double their birth weight. Cow’s milk is meant to help new born calfs turn into adolescent cows. To do this they have to multiply their birth weight by 5-8x. So Cows milk is meant to make a baby cow turn into an multi-hundred pound adolescent. We only want our babies to get up to 20-25 lbs before we stop them drinking milk. So why do adults drink cows milk, because we have been conditioned to. I admit that I have a carton of skim milk in my fridge. It’s seriously become such a strange part of our daily life that we need milk.
The Dairy Industry has paid for many studies that show that milk helps build strong bones because of the calcium levels associated with milk. Do you know that the dairy industry puts the calcium in the milk themselves? It’s a supplement; just like all the vitamins that wonder bread puts in their bread. Pasteurization takes out most of the natural nutrients in milk, leaving it sort of like white water, then the milk producers (the companies that pasteurize it not the cows themselves) add in calcium and vitamin D (vitamin D aids in the absorption of calcium.) Now do I plan on never eating Brie again, absolutely not, that’s some great stuff right there! But, once again, those are things that should be limited and not ingested every day. I’m going to try and wean myself away from regular milk and work on using more soy or rice milk. (Although my mother is convinced that soy milk is evil and poisonous, but I’m still waiting to see how she proves it.)
I’m not sure how I got on this tirade, but the point is that our bodies should be respected and appreciated for all of the wonderful work they do for us. We need to take responsibility for our actions, for the foods that we eat, for the way we choose to live our lives. Get back to basics, walking to places instead of using the car, buying organic foods and limiting things that we’re not well equipped to handle. You don’t have to stop living your life, just live it responsibly.