I'm feeling a bit philosophical today, so here's a bit of an unusual theme for me: speculation about my generation's longevity.
My grandfather is 93 and is in great health. My grandmother is in 90 and she too is in great health. Can my parents beat that? Can my generationbeat that?
(Grandpa Geraldo, then 89, now 93)
I hope so. But I wonder. I think these two generations -- my parents and mine -- may be the exception and our longevity could be less (on average) than my grandparents.
Why?
Well, it's a pure guess based on a few casual observations (i.e. totally unscientific guesses -- you've been warned).
First, let's think back as to why my grandfather, who was born in 1918, is in great health today. Many will point out to advances in medicine. That would be correct. But I think this is only part of the story. And a small part, since my grandfather has never had any kind of serious disease nor been operated on (no fake hips or knees nor heart bypasses or anything). He also doesn't take much medicine. Not because he's stubborn or anything, but because he doesn't need any.
So, okay, from this sample of one, I'm saying medicine didn't play a huge role on his longevity. Then, it's just good genes and coincidence, right?
Well, maybe not entirely.
His generation was born at a much different time. A time when abundance wasn't the norm. Food was simply food. Unprocessed, natural, local grown plants and animals.
It's not that there weren't cookies, Pringles and Coca-cola back then -- well, some of that didn't really exist back in 1918 -- but if they did exist, they were expensive. And again, this generation was not used to having plenty. And specially they didn't have lots of choices either. Again, they were limited -- and grew accustomed to -- simple foods, in modest quantities.
But diet alone was probably not the only reason.
Back then, if you wanted to visit a friend who lived 10 blocks away from you, what did you do? Did you call him up on the phone and then drove there? No and no. There was no phone, and when there was, it was expensive to use. They simply walked everywhere.
My grandfather's generation was more active than ours and my parents, on average.
Video games didn't exist. The iPhone and the internet hadn't been invented yet, so to stay in touch with people, you actually had to go and meet them.
Okay, but when Pringles, margarine, corn-fed beef, cell phones and cars were invented, why didn't they become fat and sedentary like the rest of us? My theory is that habits formed during this generation's youth persisted for a very long time. My grandfather still eats simple foods and does not have a cell phone. And meanwhile, medicine improved. So he got the best of both worlds.
My generation and my parents' generation got used to medicine bailing them out. Pain here? Take this pill! Deficiency there? There's a pill for that too! And while that was happening, food became a chemist's concern and herbicides and pesticides became more of a necessity in a mass-produced food market. All while food prices plummeted, making it cheaper and easier for people to load up on calories. And empty ones at that.
Let's not forget about modern-day stress that was a little less prevalent back then: my grandfather didn't have to worry about who could see his pictures on Facebook nor did he check his stocks holdings daily, in real-time, obsessing about tomorrow's economic indicators.
So, I do wonder if the two generations between my grandfather's and mine (inclusive) are doomed to have an average longevity that is less than that of my grandfather. And whether this next generation will be the one to truly benefit from a new conscience of health eating and living, while taking advantage of the continuing improving medicine.
Or will it take yet another generation to hammer home the message that medicine can only fix what is broken, but it's our responsibility to prevent things from breaking in the first place?
Stay smart. Stay healthy. And live a long and prosperous life. Like my grandpa.
The obesity pandemic is all that's talked these days. Since movies like Super Size Me and Food Inc first gave the warning on the big screen, there are news articles and research after research talking about obesity. In his book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan talks about the corn problem in America, where all that is sweet comes from corn and it's dangerous sweetness. A recent report from the Organization for Economic Co-Operation And Development talks more about the obesity pandemic:
Since the 1980s, obesity has spread at an alarming rate. Changes in food supply and eating habits, combined with a dramatic fall in physical activity, have made obesity a global epidemic. Across OECD countries, one in 2 adults is currently overweight and 1 in 6 is obese. The rate of overweight people is projected to increase by a further 1% per year for the next 10 years in some countries.
What can you do about it? Well, if you don't already eat a wholesome diet full of fresh vegetables and fruits everyday, you should start now. If you already eat well, it's time to tell others how to do it: teach your kids, parents and friends how to eat well and avoid sugar and refined foods (cookies, chips, white bread, etc). Do a random act of kindness and tell a stranger at the grocery store who's going to reach for that sugary soda that there are better options, and that sugar -- especially from corn syrup -- is bad.
Obesity is not a virus that infects people. We can control it. All we need is better nutritional education. And education starts at home.
So, the corn industry is seeking a new name for high-fructose corn syrup. They want it to be called "corn sugar". They claim this change is intended to clarify confusion about whether corn syrup is a special kind of sugar. Consumers feel that corn syrup is an evil kind of sugar or that it's somehow not as natural as sugar, and the industry wants to clarify that, with hopes that demand will grow again and that producers of all kinds of stuff -- cookies, sodas, candies -- will start using corn syrup again.
Their position is understandable. Structurally speaking, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is very similar to sugar (sucrose), so it does make sense to call it "corn sugar".
And I actually think this renaming is a good thing. And I support it. You know why? Because the consumer is mistaken. The problem is not corn syrup. Nor cane or beet sugar. It's sugar in general.
The obesity epidemic in this country and in other countries (Brazil is set to surpass the US in 10 years as the leading country in obesity -- it's currently second) is because of sugars and refined carbs. And that includes a lot of things, not only HFCS. Things like honey, sugar, white flour are simple carbs with zero nutrients (other than their 4 calories per gram) whose main use in the body is to eventually be stored as fat. Before it turns into fat it causes ups and downs in the insulin level, which with lots of time and repeated stress on the pancreas leads to diabetes.
Heck, even some natural juices are mostly sugar, like apple juice and pineapple juice. These are used to sweeten drinks as well, but consumers don't notice them because labels say "apple juice" instead of sugar or HFCS. But they fill the same purpose, to sweeten. And people continue ingesting empty carbs not realizing it.
So, I do support this name change. Kill the false villain, the scapegoat and let people focus once again on sugar and other simple carbs.
The fat party in this country is not going away with this name change. And neither it was going away by consumers shunning HFCS in favor of cane sugar or other simple carbs. This will put all sugars back where they belong, with no scapegoat to blame: the bad carb category. Maybe America will start fighting the real culprits now. I can only hope.
I've long said sugar is bad. But I haven't said it on this blog yet, so there it is: avoid unnecessary sugar. Avoid it more than you avoid fat, salt, caffeine or alcohol (if you avoid these at all).
The reason is simple: it provides little in nutrients and wrecks havoc with your insulin.
A new research came out recently -- which does not surprise me a bit -- that some cancer cells feed on glucose and fructose, two types of sugar present in many foods, from cookies to sodas and anything else that contains corn syrup.
"Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways [...] Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose to proliferate."
For better alternatives to sugar (if you must have it), try Stevia leaves or Agave nectar. Both are low on the glycemic index, hence they are a little healthier than pure sugar.
Researchers have discovered a pattern of genes that predicts a person's longevity. My impression is that this discovery should make no difference on people's plans to eat right, exercise and live a healthy life. I, for one, continue on my plan to live to age 120.
