Blog

Gallup on Obesity Causes

Yesterday the Gallup organization recently released the results of some analysis they conducted using survey data from 139,000 Americans.  ​Here are their key results:

As is easy to see, obesity is correlated with a bunch of bad stuff: not exercising, not eating healthy, not having a dentist, being poor (as reflected in the "food struggles" question), and being depressed.  It's also correlated with at least one positive outcome: not smoking.  

Interesting correlations.  The problem are the inferences Gallup draws from these data.  Here are their recommendations:​

To reduce the costs associated with obesity, employers can start by helping employees improve on the behavior with the strongest link to obesity -- infrequent exercise. Employers can consider opening an office gym or offering gym membership discounts to incentivize frequent exercise and provide a safe place for employees to work out. Gallup research also finds that engaged employees exercise more frequently and also eat healthier than those who are not engaged or are actively disengaged. Therefore, employers who prioritize employee engagement may see a double benefit of healthier and happier workers.
​The problem is that their data support no such claims.  Does lack of exercise cause obesity? Yes, it probably has some role.  But, if you're already obese, chances are you're probably not much interested in exercising (i.e., it is probably the case that obesity is also causing a lack of exercise).  It's the same with many of the other issues in the above table.  Does obesity cause depression.  Or, does depression demotivate people to eat well and exercise, leading to obesity?  

There are a number of randomized-controlled-trial type studies that have been conducted looking at the effects of targeted interventions ​in the workplace.  Some appear to have some promise.  Many appear to have no long term impact.  That's the kind of research one would need to review and draw from to make the kind of recommendations Gallup does.  No matter how big the sample, we shouldn't interpret correlations to imply anything meaningful about the effectiveness of interventions by private companies or governments.     

​

Assorted Links

Whole Foods and Trader Joe's sued​ (also don't miss the last paragraph on bacterial contamination of organic vs non-organic)

Evolution of agricultural practices apparently had a long-term effect on views about gender 

​Teenagers with high blood pressure appear to have better psychological adjustment and enjoy higher quality of life than those with normal blood pressure (file this under correlations don't equal causation)

A positive externality from obesity?​ (gaining weight leads to more thoughtful decision making?)

​

Salt, Sugar, Fat

That's the title of Michael Moss's new book which, a few weeks back, was on top of the New York Times best seller list.  ​

I debated Moss last week on the Michael Medved show and the discussion of his book and mine is set to air sometime next week (I will post a link when it is available).​

In the meantime, you can read some of my thoughts about his book in my newest piece over at Townhall.com.​  Here are some excerpts:

Moss reveals a shocking secret: food manufacturers diligently and deliberately try to make foods we like to eat; foods that are alluring and tempting. If food companies aren’t doing that I’m not sure why they exist. Martha Stewart, Mark Bittman, and Paula Dean don’t explicitly refer to the science of bliss points in their kitchens but you can bet they intuitively know how much sugar is too little and how much is too much. Their published recipes almost certainly reflect hundreds of attempts to find the ingredient combinations that taste best.

and

Despite their supposed prowess in food science and advertising, Moss barely alludes to the fact that food companies normally fail. Yet, his own statistics, offered in passing, reveals that two-thirds of all new food products fail to survive on the market after the first few months. But, this isn’t a side-line fact. It is key evidence against his argument that food companies are foisting anything they want on gullible consumers.

​in conclusion:

 There is, however, one sentiment of Moss’s that I can whole heartedly endorse, and it is his last: “They may have salt, sugar, and fat on their side, but we, ultimately, have the power to make choices. After all, we decide what to buy. We decide how much to eat.”
If you want the Food Giants to sell healthier food, then buy their salads, wraps, and low-fat alternatives. Pointing the finger at Food Giants may sell books but it doesn’t absolve us of the responsibility to choose wisely for ourselves.

​Read the whole thing here.

The New Food Police Are Out of Touch

That's the title of my piece that ran today at TIME.com.  ​

Here are a few excerpts:​

We can be thankful that these folks have reminded us of the joys of cooking, of fresh food, and the long term health of our families and the environment. The resurgence of farmers’ markets and the availability of heirloom tomatoes, free-range eggs, and organics owe at least some of their success to the food movement they’ve backed.
But somewhere along the way, the values of convenience and thrift took a backseat.

Here is the conclusion:

If one is looking for good advice on how to eat and cook well, the food elite have a lot to offer. The trouble comes when their pronouncements take the form of dictates and regulation that we all must heed regardless of our tastes, incomes, or time constraints, and when they deviate telling good stories and divining tasty recipes to projecting the medical and economic consequences of federal food policy that impacts us all.

​