The feds won't go after common dangerous drugs... or toxic chemicals used in food and drink containers.

But the Food and Drug Administration will go after food... Sort of.

Don't get too excited--they're not taking long-overdue action against toxic additives and artificial sweeteners, or finally realizing that all the diet advice dished out over the years has been flat-out wrong and unhealthy.

That would be a little too much like doing real work, and we know how much bureaucrats hate real work. Besides, just like the feds need to bow to Big Pharma and kowtow to the chemical giants, they wouldn't dare risk their food- industry friendships.

So they're going after serving sizes, finally recognizing that the amounts of food used on nutritional labels don't come close to what most people really eat in a single sitting.

Talk about screwy priorities. Of all the food and drug problems out there--and there are quite a few--I don't think this would even make the first page of anyone's list.

We can all agree that the serving sizes used on food labels are hopelessly unrealistic... take the Oreo cookie. One serving is just three cookies. For "Double Stuff" Oreos, it's two cookies. Do you know anyone who quits at two cookies?

And how many people really get four servings out of a pint of ice cream? Most of us are lucky if we can avoid eating the whole thing in one sitting. If you want some laughs, take a look at comic Brian Regan's view of serving sizes.

But let's be completely honest here--the real problem isn't the serving size. It's what we're serving ourselves in the first place, like those Oreo cookies. The only truly healthy serving of those is zero, but changing the label information isn't going to stop any real-life cookie monsters from turning a pile of Oreos into a plate of crumbs.

Most of us who have unhealthy eating habits don't need to change how much bad food we eat... we need to reinvent our dinner plates, before the junk on it kills us. Calorie counting works--eat less and you'll lose weight, it's pretty simple--but it's only a successful long-term strategy for the small percentage of people with great discipline.

Everyone else ends up frustrated on those low-fat calorie- counting diets. After a while, that frustration turns to failure when they give up and revert back to the same bad eating habits that got them into trouble in the first place.

That's what makes a low-carbohydrate diet ideal for so many people--there's no real need to count calories or worry about portion sizes if you're strict about keeping the carbs--especially sugar--off your plate.

And since the best low-carb diets are based on fresh meats and vegetables, you don't have to worry about interpreting labels--because there are no labels to interpret.

If calorie counting isn't for you, maybe it's time to skip all that math and talk to your doctor about switching to a low-carbohydrate lifestyle.

Printer-friendly version