Mark's Daily Apple

1 Big Mac Is Worth 60 Pork Rinds

Morning, Apples! Our editor, Sara, pointed out a few great blog conversations going on in regards to fast food restaurants making – or rather, not making – nutrition information available (and subsequently gave herself an assignment!). We all had a lot of fun just now coming up with some not-so-pretty comparisons for this and future Sisson Spoofs. (I blogged about the problem with making nutritional information available in fast food restaurants here.)

After checking out today’s Spoof, I encourage you to join the blogosphere conversation by heading over to the Calorie Lab News and Brian’s Lose Weight With Me blogs. Speak up! I know you’ve got opinions!

The issue at hand: nutritional information inclusion on fast food restaurant menus. I suggest the following visual comparison format so the patrons of America might get a more accurate picture of what they’re about to consume. When everything in the restaurant is high in calories, fat, sugar and sodium, what good does publishing the numbers do? Because if you knew that…

A Big Mac sandwich (540 Calories, 29 grams of fat)

(Jim Frazier Photo)

Was really like 60 deep fried pork rinds…

…then you might think twice.

(Click here for McDonald’s nutrition information.)

Remember when I blogged about KFC’s kick-the-bucket in a previous Spoof? You’ll be glad the Bees are such blog surfin’ fanatics, because this post from Jeff Kay at the Diet Blog is a can’t-miss. Scoot!

Next week’s comparison: What are you really getting when you bite into those avocado egg rolls from the Cheesecake Factory?

Posted By: Mark Sisson

2

Never Fails to Inspire

Have you gotten to know this little nutrition buddy brought to you by the FDA? If not, I think you ought to reconsider:

- Like many of the processed foods we enjoy in this great country, the exact nature of Labelman’s, er, origin, is difficult to ascertain. Is he a popsicle? A hot dog, perhaps? Maybe a tofu pup? I can’t stand it! I have to know!

- Fans need to know: Does Labelman work out? (If only we could all get muscles like that.) What is Labelman’s favorite shampoo? And is it true that Labelman is courting Zipperedtopgirl?

- Labelman decimates the burgeoning belief that the American government has become cynical and corrupt when it comes to health and nutrition. It doesn’t take a genius to see the level of creative sweat and tears that were clearly poured into this original, inspiring, visually dazzling creation! Like, duh! Even the unique and catchy name – Labelman – belies a sincerity and intensity of concern only our federal government is capable of.

I ask you, dear readers, if the Fuming Fuji met this vision of nutritional inspiration and personality (such brio!), what would happen? The world may soon find out…

Oh, who am I kidding? I’m totally disappointed by this half-hearted offering of nutritional guidance. I’m pretty sure even my pets could come up with something better. I mean, seriously – this is the best they can do with our tax dollars?

Posted By: Mark Sisson

2

Why I’m Never Eating Another Salad

I’m feeling a little lost, Apples. My readers know that for over 20 years now, I’ve enjoyed a massive veggie-packed salad for lunch. At this point, the daily Sisson salad is just part of my identity.
So imagine the sense of betrayal – nay, dear readers, bereavement – when I learned that it. has. all. been. for. naught.

The reason I am never eating another salad is because Flat Earth Baked Veggie Crisps are the healthiest thing to come along since, well, plants. These “veggie” and “berry” crisps are just like eating real vegetables!

Only not.

The brand marketing concept is so extended, it feels like homework: people used to think the earth was flat, just like people used to think that chips couldn’t be healthy. Get it? To help the message hit home, Flat Earth’s logo is a flying pig. Because people used to think chips couldn’t be healthy, because pigs would have to fly first, and…my head hurts. Read the fine print: “Beliefs can change!” says Flat Earth. I find this particularly amusing. A belief certainly can change, if you throw enough money and marketing at it. But beliefs aren’t facts – yet again and again, we act as if they are. Marketers know this.

Pigs don’t fly. Almost the real thing is nothing much at all. My politically incorrect opinion is that there is nothing admirable at all about the desire to create a “healthy” chip. In fact, I think it’s a big, fat ethical cop-out.

I know what some will say: at least it’s better than a regular old potato chip. We all need a few healthy indulgences. Their hearts were in the right place (psst…no they weren’t. Flat Earth is owned by Frito-Lay). Baloney. This is marketing, not health.

I’m so disgusted with this trend of making bad foods kinda-sorta healthy, as if mediocrity is an admirable quality. Compromise might feel nice, but how’s that health philosophy workin’ for us? Uncle Sam says “just try to make half your grains whole”. Wow, thanks for the vote of confidence in humans’ capacity for excellence, guys.

Flat Earth’s Baked Veggie Crisps may not be as ridiculous as 7Up Plus (known formerly as corn syrup and chemicals) or vitamin-enriched children’s “milk ‘n cereal” bars (known formerly as candy and sugary goo). But Flat Earth is not a “one serving exchange” of “real!” fruits or vegetables. A chip is not a vegetable, period. You can add in all the dehydrated stale carrots and tomatoes and berries that you want, but until I see Veggie Crisps growing on trees, I’m afraid I have to agree with their slogan: “Impossibly good”. It is impossible – hey, at least they’re honest!

Posted By: Mark Sisson

2

Saving Sisson

What’s this? I’ll tell you what this is: nothing short of a tremendous relief for the health-minded!

With the new and improved 7up Plus, I’m well on my way to glowing good health and longevity. Wow, thanks, 7up! That 5% pesticide-laced apple juice concentrate, “plus” all that wonderful calcium, and natural chemicals (as opposed to synthetic ones) is nothing short of a magnanimous boon to public health. Why do I even bother? I might as well quit now.

Except that I’m Mark Sisson, and Photoshop is way too much fun.

Posted By: Mark Sisson

1

From Pharma, with Love

“The measures reflect a growing body of research about discrepancies between journal articles and the full results of the studies behind them. Journal editors are also responding to the escalating debate in Washington on ensuring drug side effects are properly disclosed. In the wake of the withdrawal of Merck & Co.’s painkiller Vioxx over cardiovascular side effects, some legislators are calling for tougher safety scrutiny of drugs on the market.

The JAMA study last year said articles often cherry-picked strong results to report, even if those results were in a different area than the study was designed to test. Typically scientists set up clinical trials to answer one or two primary questions — for example, whether a drug reduces the risk of a heart attack and stroke. These are called the primary outcomes. The JAMA study found that 62% of trials had at least one primary outcome that was changed, added or omitted.”

(Source: the Wall Street Journal)

UPDATE 3/25/07: We have removed our spoof image of JAMA’s cover because some of our readers have alerted us that, upon closer inspection, the thumbnail of the JAMA issue, which depicts a cartoon examination scene, contains nudity. This was a complete, unintentional oops on our part! No offense was intended. (Though we have to wonder…why on earth is JAMA putting these sorts of depictions in their cover art in the first place?)

It’s no surprise anymore that the major medical journals are plastered with pharmaceutical advertisements – after all, when was the last time you visited a doctor’s office that wasn’t drowning in pharmaceutical marketing widgets? Nor is it a surprise that the very studies in medical journals (not the advertisements) are deceptively skewed in Big Pharma’s favor about two-thirds of the time.

I would think physicians and researchers would be appalled by the replete corruption. But when your own federal government spends more time telling you that vitamins are deadly – because a handful of terminally ill patients weren’t able to stave off inevitable death with a dose of knowingly worthless synthetic E – than it does being concerned about 60,000+ deaths from one drug alone, is it any wonder? That’s a lot of people – that’s more than many entire cities!

For decent people, it’s just a natural inclination to trust authorities claiming to be both knowledgeable and ethical. After all, that’s what we’re paying them for. The problem is, the pharmaceutical companies are paying them more – to the tune of 19 billion dollars. I have no doubt that many people working in the pharmaceutical industry are there with the best of intentions. I am not against drugs necessary to improve and save lives, of which there are many successes.

But I do have a problem with an overly-lenient and largely voluntary drug approval process that is a mockery of ethical standards. Because we trust journals and doctors so implicitly, we forget that, like any business, pharmaceuticals are in it for the money. It’s just business. Sometimes, the business creates good; but increasingly, it doesn’t, and the guardians of public health – the FDA, peer-reviewed journals, physicians – are, at best, manipulated, and at worst, corrupt.

Can you imagine if 60,000 people died from, say, anything but a federally-approved pharmaceutical? Say, echinacea. Grape juice. Ketchup. Anything – imagine the outcry.

I wish this were a conspiracy theory. I wish this were a minor problem. I wish people could say, “There goes Sisson with his indignant ranting again.”

But the facts are clear:

- Pharmaceutical studies are deceptive at least 62% of the time,

- The FDA, through a combination of voluntary adherence protocols and a poorly-designed approval process that rushes drugs through and fails to adequately follow up, inherently supports unnecessary deaths,

- Major journals such as JAMA can’t claim to be independent – come on! – when their advertisers are, by and large, pharmaceutical companies,

- Result: hundreds of thousands of people are sickened or killed by drugs every year.

Can you imagine if these shenanigans went on in any other industry?

It’s like that humorous response Jack Welch gave to Bill Gates for claiming computers were more reliable than cars (an urban legend, by the way, but still entertaining).

Let’s call a spade a spade.

Is it really so “outrageous” to have a problem with drug advertisements in medical journals?

Is it that “paranoid” to demand a more rigorous FDA approval process?

Is it “off-the-wall” to be bothered by the fact that I have to wade through an avalanche of pens, post-it pads and coffee mugs from GlaxoSmithKline every time I go to the doctor? If that makes me “radical”…

We live in an advertising age – everything is brought to you by something else, and sports stadiums are named after office equipment. I can’t catch a game without being reminded to go stock up on ink cartridge refills. So it’s no surprise, I guess, that this extends to drugs. If pharmaceuticals are saving hundreds of thousands of lives annually, but at a cost of thousands of lives, let’s at least be honest about the costs in terms of human lives. Who is rational and who is emotional here? The folks questioning the disparity between the marketing and the facts, or the economically-motivated (read: fearful) folks deriding anyone who criticizes them as “radical”?

Posted By: Mark Sisson

1