A commentary was published last month on the blog site of the prestigious British Medical Journal telling us, in essence, that lifestyle medicine is ineffective. Specifically, it said that screening for chronic disease risk factors in the general population, and addressing them with lifestyle counseling in the clinical setting, is of no value.
We may at times think too much. There is no shortage of very intelligent, highly educated people in my academic world. But perhaps there is something seductive about the pursuit of data that causes some in this domain to think that the pursuit of data is itself the objective. It shouldn't be. What most people want is for the data we derive to be applied to some
News came in the past week that the front-of-pack nutrition guidance program offered by Canada's Heart and Stroke Foundation, presented as a seal of approval in the form of a check mark, was being decommissioned. With all due respect to my friends at the Foundation, and the good intentions that brought the system into existence -- good riddance to it.
Personally, I have long thought that whatever the particular merits of breakfast, hieratic zeal as the main course was in fact a rather dubious way to start the day. So it is that I welcomed a new study that purportedly was about debunking breakfast, but was really about debunking dogma for breakfast.
A new study in the journal Obesity, comparing diet soda to water for weight loss, has resulted in extensive and worldwide media coverage -- some of it, to my surprise, directly involving me. My involvement derives from my published opinions about diet soda and artificial sweeteners, which thus far remain unchanged after reading the study in question.