There are many good reasons not to be a lawyer. The conversation stopping, effect at parties. The requirement to undergo body cavity searches are every airport where you fill in a customs declaration. And the most pressing of all, the constant need to be up to date.
If you give advice which is based on out-dated information, there will be no shortage of your colleagues happy to assist your former client in lodging his claim for damages. They will happily point out that of course you should have been aware of the High Court’s ruling in Muffy vs. The Crown handed down last Tuesday. And Courts will have little difficulty agreeing that you have been sadly remiss in your continuing education requirement, and strike you from the rolls.
We expect lawyers to be up to the minute because if they stuff things up, the consequences can be very dramatic indeed. Ok, bad advice won’t kill you but it might as well after they’ve carted off you last possession in the back of the repo truck. We have similar expectations of doctors, nurses and even paramedics for very similar reasons (except, when they stuff up it very well may kill you).
But for some reason when it comes to dietary advice all the standards of professional conduct appear to go out the window. Until now, that is. The word on the street today is that one of Kevin’s multitude of taskforce commission thingys wants to regulate the weightloss industry.
According to the Telegraph, the Preventative Health Taskforce wants a “wide-ranging review of diet products and a common code of practice drawn up covering the cost, the training of counsellors and the promotion of the diets”. The idea being that if they can’t prove the diet works (after say, two years), then it will not be approved for sale or the promoter’s license will be withdrawn or something like that (the details are a bit vague).
If this were to actually happen then it would be a giant step forward, but I’m not holding my breath. The little evidence there is on the effectiveness of diets (which hasn’t been paid for by the promoters) is damming.
One recent example is a study out of the University of Missouri. The researchers looked at two popular weightloss options and directly compared them over a 12 week period. What makes the study unique is that they didn’t just focus on the amount of weight lost. They dug a little deeper to determine exactly what kind of weight was lost. Was it muscle mass or fat? The news was not good for either option.
58 overweight, sedentary (less than 60 minutes exercise per week) women were randomly assigned to either a group completing a Weight Watchers program (the largest and oldest diet program in the world) or enrolled in Gold’s Gym’s weight loss program.
The average participant was 32 years old, had a BMI of 30 (just on the border of obese) and a body fat percentage of 40% at the start of the 12-week program.
The average gym member lost about one kilogram after 12 weeks and the average weight watcher lost four kilos (about 5% of their body weight). More importantly, neither group reduced their percentage of body fat. Whatever they lost it wasn’t fat (which means it was either muscle or water).
Neither group improved their cholesterol or triacylglyceride profile. If they were heart attack or diabetes candidates before they started they still were when they finished. So after 12 weeks of sweating at the gym or attending weight watchers meetings and eating special (and expensive) meals, the end result was exactly … nothing. Oh, except the weight watchers lost some of their muscle mass.
I can’t see the diet industry just standing there and taking the imposition of a regulator and professional standards without a fight. There is a whole lot of lobbying between a story in the Tele and actual legislation. But it’s a fight we need to have. Sure, bad advice from a doctor might kill you a lot quicker than bad advice from a nutritionist, but that doesn’t make the advice any less dangerous, the profession any less in need of regulation, or the “professional” any less legally (and morally) liable for their actions. Bring it on, and the sooner the better.
” The little evidence there is on the effectiveness of diets (which hasn’t been paid for by the promoters) is damming.” – just a quiet nit-pick, the spelling is damning!
OK so what is your answer,a combination of calorie reduction and exercise? It certainly worked for me , I reduced my calories to about 1800 and combined it with 1500m of swimming and was losing something of the order of 1 kg per week for a couple of months, that was 30 odd years ago. I have continued with the swimming, three times per week, and although a bit overweight, nothing like previously. I imagine if I gave up alcohol I would lose a bit more. But you need some pleasures.
I don’t have a problem with the idea that diets don’t work. Most ‘work’ short term if you simply measure weight loss, but all diets fail long-term.
The term ‘nutritionist’ needs some definition before you lump them all together. As one who did her 5 years at University and continues to accumulate the continuing education credits needed to be called an Accredited Nutritionist, I have problems when I’m confused with someone who has done a 3 hour course in how to sell a meal replacement weight loss product being called a ‘nutritionist’.
Naturally enough, not all accredited nutritionists agree on everything – neither do lawyers, architects, economists, teachers or any other professional group. But most ‘real’ nutritionists agree that prevention is probably the only ‘treatment’ for obesity. For those for whom it’s too late for that, we need to find out why the person eats more than he/she needs (bad habits, low needs due to sedentary lifestyle, emotional reasons for seeking comfort in food and drink) and find a way to deal with that for that particular individual. The treatment will be for life. Shakes, pills and various diet foods and products won’t cut it.
Stephen Martin – well done for finding something that suits you. If you had not found a reasonable way to eat moderately and increase your activity, it would be a reasonable guess that you’d probably be a lot fatter now. Maybe some walking as well as the swimming would help burn off the alcohol kilojoules.
Many of the weight loss products are sold in pharmacies, presumably to give them an air of credibility. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make them appropriate or safe – and it certainly doesn’t stop them making outrageous claims. These products would be a good place to start regulation.
I would welcome some government intervention on the claims people make – even if only to stop people claiming that you can lose x kg/week or that spending $60/litre on some exotic berry product or ‘fat blaster’ will help you lose weight. Couldn’t we at least regulate against such names?
I agree with you David that weight loss should not be the end point. Frankly, I consider a tape measure round the waist a much better indicator of fatness than scales. Unfortunately, the waist can sometimes be hard to find.
Dr Rosemary Stanton, nutritionist
One step in reducing obesity would be to join the animal liberationists and call for the banning of anything other than free range animal protein production. This would push up the cost of production and reduce the quantity available, which in turn would wreck the fast food industry and see meat protein reduced, as an economic necessity, at domestic and service industry level . We eat far too much animal protein and not nearly enough vegetable matter. Protein not used in cell rebuilding is stored as fat.
Another would be to regulate sugar loaded lollies and drinks, including fruit flavoured drinks posing as fruit juice in much the same way nicotine products are regulated. I know we consume mountains of it by just looking down the respective aisles at the supermarket, and to allow them to advertise on TV programs children are watching is nothing short of obscene..
Exercise is however, still the most important driver of metabolism. And an active metabolism is the first requirement of a healthy body.
The underlying rule of nutrition is that no single ingredient is used in isolation. Nutrition is about balance. Which brings us to dietary fads. It is an utter fallacy and if the job was fair dinkum promoters would be made accountable for their claims. How long before some ambulance chasing lawyer twigs that there’s money in them there pills? And more strength to his or her arm.
The weight loss industry is based on body image and preys on a society that is either lazy by nature or just too damn busy to follow a healthy lifestyle. Quick fix solutions will always sell. It’s our nature. look at the gambling industry. But the government will do nothing about that because they’re a major beneficiary of it.
So don’t hold your breath waiting for any action from Glorious Leader, Madam Secretary or any of their party hacks on obesity. At least Little Johnny Rotten set an example with his morning walk.