October 11, 2007

When new diets raise old issues

By Stan Dyer

There was a doctor on CNN not too long ago telling the world how his research confirms that eating carbohydrates causes cancer. If you buy his book, you can read all about it. Really? Isn't it funny how all these new ideas sound so much like old ones? I just laughed. Ever since the days of the four food groups, the same diets keep circulating back around under different names, with different research and for different reasons. If you want real research, just take a look around.

For starters, take a look at Jack LaLanne. This man didn't do research, he lived it. He started way back in the 1950s when most people thought a continental breakfast was a cup of coffee and a cigarette (the breakfast special was a pot of coffee and ten cigarettes). Yet, Lalanne challenged convention and made a good living wearing that peculiar jump suit while teaching housewives how to stay fit using just a kitchen chair and a few simple exercises. Now the guy is around 200 years old, still working out and still going strong. He could probably still knock most of us into next week as well. His life was his research and he shows how important diet and exercise are to overall good health. Still, maybe even he takes things a bit too far.

The short version of the Jack LaLanne diet is, "If a human made it, don't eat it. If it tastes good, spit it out." That rather limits one's options, doesn't it? When I heard that, I asked, "Are you sure this guy is still alive?" No one can argue against his success, but, c'mon, let's be realistic here. There are some good, decent foods out there both made by humans and that taste good. When my girlfriend went to the doctor recently, she was told to eliminate certain items from her diet. Her doctor told her to give up tomatoes (our favorite fruit), to give up chocolate (one of the five food groups), and to give up wine (another of the five food groups). My comment was, "You should have asked her to euthanize you. Tell her you prefer a "quick" death to the slow, tortured one she prescribes." For me, I'll exercise with Jack LaLanne, but I want to diet more like Bette Davis.

It cannot be confirmed, but rumor has it that Ms. Davis consumed a fifth of whiskey every day as she polished of five packs of cigarettes. She lived to be 81 years old. That's a pretty good record for anyone. Now, I don't smoke anymore, but I remember what a joy those fiery little nicotine sticks were. My problem was I couldn't control the addiction, so I gave them up. As for the whiskey, that's as American as George Washington, but a fifth a day is probably too much for most people. Make mine gin, put it in a martini and stop me after the second one. Bette Davis obviously had different ideas, but there is still something to be said for the way she chose to live her life. Just as LaLanne was extreme on one end, Davis was extreme on the other, but both were happy with their choices. Can't the rest of us be just as happy with some sort of compromise and find personal happiness somewhere in the middle? Do we have to be perfect to live a perfect life? Maybe and maybe not. That depends on what one thinks perfect is.

Jack LaLanne is still alive and probably will live forever. Bette Davis passed away at 81. Yet, I wonder who had the most fun. I'd wager Ms. Davis had more wild, Mardi Gras-type fun in her 81 years than Jack LaLanne will ever have even if he lives until the Apocalypse. After all, isn't life for the living and meant to be enjoyed? We only go around once, and there are no do-overs. Most nutrition and health experts will agree that moderation is the key. Moderate exercise, moderate eating and moderate consumption of the five food groups are more likely to improve one's quality of life than any extreme, including chasing each new diet fad that comes down the road. When the next new diet starts raising issues in your neighborhood, just remember to keep it in the middle. Avoid too much Jack LaLanne and avoid too much Bette Davis. You're smarter than you think, and no one knows what is better for you than you do.