Michael Phelps' Diet - Don't Try This at Home

Like everyone else, I've been in awe of Michael Phelps' accomplishments at the Beijing Olympics with his unprecedented eight gold medals at a single olympic game. Certainly, it doesn't hurt that he appears to be a team player, grounded, as well as being hypercompetitive.

What is more fascinating is the amount of calories he ingests daily to keep up with his training regimen. If anyone of us tried to eat the same amount he does, we would gain about 3 pounds per day and definitely would not have his sculpted physique!

He has 12,000 calories per day. A typical American is supposed to have 2,000 calories per day. Given the increasing numbers of obese children and adults it would be safe to assume many of us are exceeding that suggestion.

For breakfast he has:

• three fried-egg sandwiches loaded with cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and mayonnaise.
• two cups of coffee
• a five-egg omelet
• a bowl of grits
• three slices of French toast topped with powdered sugar
• three chocolate-chip pancakes

And that's just breakfast!

As a quick reminder, it takes about 3500 calories to equal a pound. So for those of us who are inspired to lose weight, a brisk 30 minute walk uses about 200 calories. Therefore, if one walks this amount three times a week for a total of 600 calories, it would take six weeks to lose one pound! It's no wonder weight loss is so difficult.

Of course, you could do what Michael Phelps does and swim his intense training schedule where he burns 4,000 calories per day!

Learnings from Private-Label Groceries - Generic Drugs

Reports surfaced recently that growth from private-label (i.e. store brand) versions of groceries has risen dramatically as the economy has worsened and gas prices have increased. Even though thought to be inferior in quality or perhaps more importantly taste, these days the products are as good or perhaps better than brand names.

"Store brands have come a long way," said Tod Marks, a senior editor at Consumer Reports, which has tested store brands against national brands for quality and customer response. "Over the years, retailers realized that store brands were not just something to be floated out during hard times."

With consumers very price conscious these days, they should have no hesitation in asking their doctor for generic medications. These are medications that are proven but no longer have patent protection so the price is affordable. The public should not be fooled in thinking that newer is better. Most of the latest drugs are "me too" cholesterol, blood pressure, allergy, diabetes, and heartburn medications. Pharmaceutical companies spend millions of dollars equal or exceeding marketing budgets of alcoholic and soda companies to influence you to prefer their brand.

Evidently the makers of Ambien CR is acutely aware of this as in a television ad they note that Ambien CR is not available as a generic, even though there are plenty of helpful generic sleep aids that can provide sleep at a price that people can feel good about.

The Myth of Moderate Exercise

A recent article in Time magazine titled "The Myth of Moderate Exercise" I hope catches the attention of the public. It shows why moderate exercise, that is 30 minutes of activity most days of the week, is NOT enough to lose weight. It is no wonder why so many people feel frustrated they aren't losing weight fast enough. With the obesity problem now prominent among children as well as adults, it is important we all learn the following.

Although it is clear that more physical activity not only helps lose weight, but also it is important that the increased activity is sustained lifelong to maintain the weight. Calorie restriction also helps immensely as well. The trick also is that is too must be lifelong.

Find out how much activity you must do if you eat certain foods by reviewing the fun, interactive, and eye-opening experience Portion Distortion Quiz.

If we as a country are going to be healthier, then we all need to realize that the way to lose weight and keep it off is simply and as hard as eat less and move more.

High Gas Prices Save Lives, Kitchen Countertops Can Kill

Unintentional deaths are the leading cause of death for those under thirty-five with the most common due to motor vehicle accidents. Newspapers around the country noted that high gas prices have decreased the number of traffic deaths. Naturally one could assume that the number of those injured from accidents have probably fallen as well. This means that if healthcare costs should rise less than expected next year could it be because of decreased utilization of emergency rooms and doctor visits because of fewer motor vehicle accidents?

Of course in other news, more people as a result of high fuel costs are biking, taking golf carts, or scooters, as their mode of transportation. Is it possible the number of lives saved may be simply shifting to other ways of getting around? Too early to tell.

Certainly none of us expect our kitchen countertops to kill us, but an article from the NY Times found that inferior types of granite contained high levels of the radioactive substance uranium. Not only is the element radioactive, which in of itself is a concern, but it also emits the carcinogenic gas radon, which has been a risk factor for lung cancer. With homes sealed for energy efficiency, it could make levels even higher. Could this be the reason why many non-smokers are developing lung cancer?

Who would have thought it was more dangerous to be at home in the kitchen rather than on the road?

Newer Isn't Better. It's Unproven and Expensive.

There is a small trend among the media which is actively questioning the latest medical treatments and therapies on whether there is enough scientific evidence that would justify all of the increased costs. In an excellent piece in the NY Times titled - The Evidence Gap - Weighing the Costs of a CT Scan' Look Inside the Heart, Alex Berenson asks a simple, yet hard to answer question - is using heart CT scans worth it? The timing of the article was coincidental but was at the same time of Tim Russert's unexpected passing. Unlike many articles since Mr. Russert's death, this one asks us to think before we blindly believe that newer is better. Is there evidence-based research that says these procedures will save lives? From the article:

• Increasing use of the scans, formally known as CT angiograms, is part of a much larger trend in American medicine. A faith in innovation, often driven by financial incentives, encourages American doctors and hospitals to adopt new technologies even without proof that they work better than older techniques. Patient advocacy groups and some doctors are clamoring for such evidence. But the story of the CT angiogram is a sobering reminder of the forces that overwhelm such efforts, making it very difficult to rein in a new technology long enough to determine whether its benefits are worth its costs.
• Some medical experts say the American devotion to the newest, most expensive technology is an important reason that the United States spends much more on health care than other industrialized nations — more than $2.2 trillion in 2007, an estimated $7,500 a person, about twice the average in other countries — without providing better care.
• No one knows exactly how much money is spent on unnecessary care. But a Rand Corporation study estimated that one-third or more of the care that patients in this country receive could be of little value. If that is so, hundreds of billions of dollars each year are being wasted on superfluous treatments.

Bottom line? You and I are paying more for very expensive therapies that may not be better for us, but certainly appear cooler and sexier because they are newer. Those doctors and patients who dare to ask for proof will feel shunned. The former will be unable to make a living because the public demands these newer tests and will take their business to those who they perceive are giving them the best care even though there nothing to support that belief. The latter will feel like something is amiss even as their colleagues and friends flock towards these treatments even though it won't make a difference in their health, except for making them poorer. The pressure not to follow through is intense.

What to do? Be very skeptical. Align yourself with doctors who don't tout the latest therapies, except in the case of cancer treatment where the newest can be the difference between life and death. Seek out information. Hope that reporters like Mr. Berenson and authors like Shannon Brownlee can make their voices heard loud and clear, because it is unlikely that doctors as a group can avoid the seduction of new technologies, particularly since it drives more business and revenue.

Because if the media can't get enough of us to ask these important questions, is newer better, is it proven, you and I will simply pay more thinking we are getting better care, when in fact we are simply wasting money and getting no better care.

Tim Russert's Legacy on Heart Disease

Tim Russert's untimely death from heart disease has appeared to have many focus on decreasing their risks by quitting smoking, exercise, decreasing blood pressure and taking cholesterol lowering medications. Kudos to being unbiased in reporting that many of the fancy hi-tech scanners don't help determine whether a future heart attack is imminent. As the reporter correctly pointed out, no test is perfect.

The report also clarifies that Mr. Russert had everything humanly possible to decrease his risk from America's number one killer.

Medicine Loses Cardiovascular Surgeon Legend - Dr. Michael DeBakey

The world of medicine lost one of its legends, Dr. Michael DeBakey at age 99. He was the creator of many inventions and surgical techniques, including one named after him, which continue to save lives today. He benefited from his own surgical technique when he had an aortic aneurysm dissection repaired at age 97. The fact he received surgery when so many others at that advanced age would have never been offered the chance speaks to his greatness and the tremendous pressure as well as loyalty and obligations his surgical colleagues felt that something needed to be done. To be fair, Dr. DeBakey worked into his 80s and was in good health at the time of his aortic dissection.

Probably hundreds of thousands of patients, if not more, have directly benefited from his ideas which are the standard for cardiothoracic surgeons.

There is no one like him in medicine today. There will be no one like him for generations to come.