When Diet “Experts” Do More Harm Than Good

Did you hear the one about the diet guru who thought kids should be rewarded for being skinny?

Yeah, it’s a little disturbing.

Pierre Dukan of The Dukan Diet* fame, has suggested kids who stay at a healthy BMI should receive extra marks for being the right weight. His diet plan is really nothing special, think Atkins with a twist, but hey Kate’s mom◊ lost weight on it! Or something?

The flaws, of course, are quite obvious, schools are for learning, not dieting.

Not that I have a problem with teaching healthy eating, and I think schools could be doing better than they are. Most cafeteria lunches are pure junk, pop and candy is often available in the school hallways and to top it off school’s often promote unhealthy food like pizza for school fundraisers. Unfortunately the athletics portion is in disarray as well, not only is there constant pressure to cut back time and/or funding for physical exercise but it is often set up in such a way that those who are most likely to need it (aka, the less athletically inclined) are also the most likely to be discouraged from pursuing physical activities in and outside of class time. Policing weight loss, however, is not the responsibility of the school.

In fact weight loss should probably not be considered a primary goal for most overweight children. The pressure of dieting is something that should not be placed on the youth. Unless a child is suffering additional complications, other than “fat,” priorities should be placed on better eating and encouraging an active lifestyle. Schools can teach it, but it’s up to parents to implement it.

Which exactly why awarding grades for weight loss is doubly pointless. Teenagers certainly have more control than their grade school counterparts but even if they are educated on healthy eating they are hardly the one’s doing the grocery shopping. Not only does awarding points for being an “ideal weight” reward those who are naturally svelte for simply living, it will reward the better education of certain parents, or parents who have more time on their hands to cart little Timmy back and forth from all his extra-circulars. It has very little to do with the merits of the child themselves.

Sadly Dukan states that he’s using grades to encourage parents, even sadder, he thinks it’s a feature rather than a huge red flag.

Also I have to say, for someone who was apparently a general practitioner before he became a diet guru he seems to have a stunning lack of knowledge of children’s growth and development. In an interview for the Canberra Times Dukan suggest that kids should lose 2kg (or about 4.5 pounds) over a two year period. Do you see the problem here? A child can easily gain five pounds over two years and yet be at a healthier body composition. They grow and fits and spurts, body composition fluctuates greatly (especially during puberty) and height tends to achieved more quickly than weight. Seriously I’m having a hard time believing a doctor said something so silly.

Not that BMI is any better at figuring out whether someone is ‘healthy’ when it comes to the quirks of puberty. So is Timmy at a better BMI because he’s been making better food choices? Or has he just grown a foot over the past year, because that’s what boys tend to do? Oh wait, it doesn’t matter if he’s scarfing pizza, it’s all about appearance.

So, this plan attempts to burden young children, is discriminatory and to top it off the potential implementation is horribly thought out. ‘Nuff said.

* Seriously how did something with that name ever get popular?
◊ A pox on both our houses if you know who I’m talking about here.

Prostitution: Take 2

I ended my last post with this little tidbit:

Those who would argue otherwise care more about appearances than reality.

The “otherwise” being the idea that striking down all the the gotcha laws surrounding prostitution in this country’s criminal code would somehow be damaging to our society.

Well folks allow me to introduce you to Mr. George “Cares More About Appearance Than Reality” Jonas.

In general his article is complaining about judges doing their job, sorry, interpreting the law and then making a judgement on it. Susan G. Himel is only a judge in the highest court of Ontario, I mean what could she possible know about the law? Right?

However the overall thread running through his writing is outright denial of the way things actually are. Like suggesting that Canadians don’t actually have issue with sex workers but if we have brothels we’re going to be concerned about the hygiene issues. (?!)

The probable answer is that prostitution doesn’t bother us very much. Questions of public hygiene do, tenderloin districts do, occupational hazards to hookers and johns do, but prostitution as such doesn’t.

Is this more condoms in the street? Because I’m telling you, your prime suspects are the teenage boys. The real translation however is, ‘I don’t have a problem with prostitution, as long as I don’t have to know it exists or hear about sex workers being assaulted or raped or trafficked; all problems that we could help prevent if we started treating sex workers like people instead of criminals.’

See shallow people like these laws because they keep strict divisions; as long as prostitutes are punished in some way, they are the ‘bad’ people. If we stop punishing them how will they know they are bad? And then those poor shallow people will have no one to look down upon. It’s called dehumanization; tough on crime crackpots do it quite well.

And it’s all about the superiority complex.

Let me approach it this way. When I was young, “nice” girls didn’t. (They did, of course, but nowhere nearly as often or as casually as in the last 40 years.)

Ah, revisionist history! This is then used to segue-way into the fact that even though girls are giving it away for free there is still rampant prostitution. Of course anyone with the most basic of google-fu skills knows this to be utterly false. Teen pregnancy in the United States peaked in 1957, there was plenty of sex going on, there just happened to be a lot of shotgun marriages as well.

Let’s face it; no matter what period in history, if people wanted to have sex, they had sex. Even if they were wearing a poodle skirt.

But that would be reality when people just want to keep up an appearance. Right now the appearance everyone wants is the idea that there is no problem with the way we deal with prostitution. The truth is our laws put sex workers in danger and at risk.

Subscribe

  • Facebook
  • RSS Feed
  • Twitter