Tag Archive for: social media

Nobody Got It Right

/in /by

The topic of the last Memo came from an article co-written by writers from The Examination and the Washington Post. The “exposé” was that credentialed nutritionists and registered dieticians (RDs) were accepting sponsorships and payments from industries they covered, especially the cereal industry. The “angle” was that the influencers were using the anti-diet movement to promote the consumption of cereals to adults and children—not just granola and oatmeal, but every sugar-laden cereal.

I don’t watch TikTok videos, and I don’t have a TikTok account. But to be fair, I used the hashtag #DerailTheShame to check out some of the videos that were mentioned in the article. It was a couple of weeks after the article was posted, so there were responses from some RDs that typically use TikTok. To say they were upset was an understatement. But in the responses, no one addressed the real issues in the TikToks and the article, so I will.

Both Sides Made Mistakes

The writers who collaborated on the article were all investigative journalists with a lot of experience, but none had a nutrition background. How do you know what’s good or bad from a nutrition perspective? This happens a lot in non-scientific journalism. I’m not saying such articles aren’t worth reading, just keep in mind that an important viewpoint is missing.

Some of the RDs certainly made it seem like they were promoting the sugar-laden cereals only. That’s the problem with using short videos; you don’t get to address the issue completely, and it would appear you have to sell yourself more than anything else.

On the other hand, the RDs were using elements of “fat shaming is bad” together with eating all foods. Fat shaming is bad and should never happen; you don’t know what kind of stressors people are dealing with or the medical, physical, psychological, and budget issues that keep them from losing weight right now. But eating as much processed food as you want isn’t a good solution.

At least one of the authors of the article wrote about Big Food and their sponsorships of RDs. The results were new laws legislating that compensation must be revealed when it comes to such influencers. On the other hand, I didn’t find any criticism by the RDs of Big Food companies who oppose new and plainly written food labels to reveal exactly what’s in processed foods.

Partial Solutions

I think the article writers should have spent more time on the Big Food angle rather than the influencers, credentialed or not. Many health insurance companies will not pay for nutritional counseling for obesity. One of the results is that nutrition professionals turn to other venues to be able to earn a living, and sponsorships can help them do that.

As for the credentialed influencers? With all the mind-numbing music, graphics, and dancing around in kitchens, it seems appropriate to post the serving size and calories from the cereal (or whatever food is being promoted) and to emphasize sticking to reasonable portions per day. That solves the issue in my mind. I’m not opposed to earning a living.

The Bottom Line

While cereals and any processed food have their place in a healthy diet, they should be eaten in the proper serving size and servings per day. I am opposed to the anti-diet sentiment. The only way to lose weight and maintain it is to eat less, eat better, and move more. (Ozempic isn’t magic; people lose weight because the drug causes them to eat less.) We all have to figure out for ourselves how to do that, and it won’t be the same for everyone, but it’s the only way to solve the obesity epidemic we face.

However, a physician from across the pond says that eating less and moving more just won’t work. That’s our topic for next week.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: 04-03-24. Washington Post. As Obesity Rises, Big Food and Dietitians Push ‘Anti-Diet’ Advice.

What Should You Believe?

/in /by

What happens when you mix:

  • Social media
  • Certified expert influencers such as dieticians
  • The food industry paying or sponsoring food influencers
  • The message that dieting is wrong

You get up to 40% of the social media influencers saying, “Why diet? Love yourself and eat whatever you want!”—especially cereals or other highly sweetened grain products. You get partial truths that bastardize the original concepts of loving yourself and end up with people confused and, in some cases, fatter than they have ever been.

Welcome to a new reality. I think we expect that people who talk about health will have their own point of view; I certainly do. Some people believe that being a vegan is the only way to eat while others believe that a ketogenic diet is the absolute best. Both can selectively use research to support their opinion—and do. That seems normal because everyone can have a point of view.

But what if an organic farming association were paying the vegan supporter to promote a vegan diet? How about beef producers paying the ketogenic diet promoter to favor not only meat but especially beef? That connection must be reported in any scientific study about specific diets, but if you’re an influencer, that’s not mandated.

What about nutritionists and registered dieticians that are supported in part by the food industry? Could they take that too far? We’ll see on Saturday.

And just for the record, no company pays me—only you do when you join drchet.com, buy my health-info products, attend my seminars and webinars, or book me to speak to your group. I work for you.

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Reference: 04-03-24. Washington Post. As Obesity Rises, Big Food and Dietitians Push ‘Anti-Diet’ Advice.

COVID-19 and Social Media

/in /by

A long-time friend and Insider asked if the following were true. I’m going to use excerpts because I don’t want someone to mistakenly think I endorse what’s being said. I don’t, and this Memo is going to point out where the lies exist. I can’t think of a nicer way of saying it because the people who write this stuff are not concerned about your health in the least. Maybe it’s just a bid for attention, I don’t know.

“The Self Test”

From the first social media post (Paula asked me to tell you the copy from social media hasn’t been edited; her appraisal is “Yikes.”):

“The new NCP coronavirus may not show sign of infection for many day. By the time they have fever and/or cough and goes to the hospital, the lungs is usually 50 % Fibrosis and it’s too late! Taiwan experts provide a simple self-check that we can do every morning: Take a deep breath and hold your breath for more than 10 seconds. If you complete it successfully without coughing, without discomfort, stuffiness or tightness, etc., it proves there’s no fibrosis in the lungs, basically indicating no infection.”

The problem with many of these hoaxes is they contain at least one element of truth. COVID-19 may take a few days, maybe up to a week, to begin to show symptoms, generally a fever. The issue is that unless someone already has a fever, the infection would not have spread to the lungs.

There is no self-test that I could find. If it were true, wouldn’t everyone know it by now? (And that’s always a good question when you see health news that’s too good to be true.) More than that, fibrosis doesn’t seem to be the result of getting COVID-19.

“Serious Excellent Advice”

SERIOUS EXCELLENT ADVICE by Japanese doctors treating COVID-19 cases. Everyone should ensure your mouth & throat is moist, never DRY. Take a few sips of water every 15 mins at least. WHY? Even if the virus gets into your mouth…drinking water or other liquids will WASH them down through your oesophagus and into the stomach. Once there in tummy…your stomach ACID will kill all the virus. If you don’t drink enough water more regularly…the virus can enter your windpipes and into the LUNGS. That’s very dangerous.

Drinking fluids is important to your immune system, but there’s no relationship between your ability to drink every 15 minutes and killing the virus with stomach acid. Stop and think: this virus causes problems in the upper and especially the lower respiratory system. If water helps kill it, there are few places in the body more moist than the respiratory system.

“Spread the Word”

Pls send and share with family, friends and everyone about this ! Take care everyone n may the world recovers from corona virus soon. May all be well n happy.

There is always an appeal to share the posts, no matter which form of social media. I would recommend you not do that. These posts are misleading, and if your friends and family follow the advice and get sick… well. You get the point.

The Bottom Line

The medical news during a crisis is difficult enough to follow. Promoting people who post such nonsense slows down the process of educating people on what they really should do to protect themselves and reduce the risk of getting COVID-19. Part of helping others is not passing along incorrect information.

One More Thing

Dr. Chet’s seminar Nutrition for the 21st Century in Atlanta is in just two weeks! Reserve your spot today—when will you get another chance to hear me teach, live and in person? Check it out in the Dr. Chet store. Keep taking your vitamins and probiotics to keep your immune system strong, and I hope to see you there!

What are you prepared to do today?

        Dr. Chet

Be Wary of What You Read

/in /by

Did you think about Thursday’s Memo? Especially if you’ve gotten into heated discussions about health on social media? I feel bad for anyone who was a victim of bots and trolls. I generally get the aftermath of a discussion—people who read what I write about vaccinations or artificial sweeteners or some health issue and think I don’t know what I’m talking about because they’ve read something different online. If they’ve been victims of this intentional misinformation, I understand how they’ve been duped.

But don’t think that every bot or troll took the anti-vaxxer position. In order to maximize the argument, they sent out responses supporting vaccination as well. Once an argument began, bots and trolls continued to feed the fire on both sides.

There are two questions that are obvious. Who would do this? And why?

Why Health Information Is Weaponized

Even writing that subhead seems surreal. Who would weaponize health information? Here’s who: people who want to negatively impact our health. Based on the analysis by the researchers, a known Russian troll account from the Internet Research Agency was a major player in this effort to spread vaccine fights. They’re backed by the Russian government; that means they were using disinformation about health as a weapon to create arguments, and more than that, create doubt.

It really doesn’t take much to do that. We are already suspicious of the pharmaceutical industry, and it’s well deserved based on some of their behavior. But that doesn’t mean that they’re in the business of selling worthless vaccinations as has been suggested by many tweets, posts, and websites.

Harming Our Health

What would be the end game for Russian trolls? The goal of creating doubt and suspicion about vaccinations or any issue related to health is sowing discord among readers, but ultimately they want to harm our health. Think about how many people won’t vaccinate their children because they don’t believe in vaccinations for one reason or another. If that proceeds to enough parents, there will be outbreaks of diseases that might have been prevented with vaccinations. It’s already happening.

Think. What if the outbreaks that are occurring in various communities are just the beginning? You can find posts that seem to carefully explain that this is normal and not related to the lack of vaccinations. Now think about it as a post from someone intent on harming the health of the U.S. and other wealthy nations. Puts things in a different perspective, doesn’t it?

The Bottom Line

As someone who writes and speaks about health, I’m deeply troubled by health misinformation and how easily it can be spread. You have to be a wary consumer of health information in these days of social media and the Internet. If what you read or what you hear sounds too good to be true or feeds into some conspiracy theory, keep looking.

Nothing in health is simple, but let me go a step farther. I’ll do my part by checking the research to help keep you informed, and I’ll never push you in a direction I don’t believe in. That’s why I’ll never sell foods or dietary supplements on DrChet.com: I want you to know for sure that what I’m telling you is based on my best reading of science and research, not a ploy to increase my income.

What are you prepared to do today?

Dr. Chet
Reference: Am J Public Health. August 23, 2018: e1–e7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567.

 

Of Bots and Trolls

/in /by

Have you heard any of these about vaccinations on social media or the Internet?

“Big Pharma only wants vaccine profits.”

“Natural immunity is better.”

“Vaccines cause autism.”

If you’ve read those articles, they seem to be full of truth about vaccinations, don’t they? Did you ever get into a conversation with someone who posted these types of articles? How did it go—especially if you disagreed with them?

Would you be surprised to learn it might not even have been a human doing the answering? It may have been bots or if actual humans, trolls.

Bots are social media accounts that automate content promotion. Trolls are people who misrepresent their identity and post inflammatory remarks with the express purpose of creating discord. The idea is to amplify the arguments to fever pitch so people end up angry at each other. They draw in friends and relatives to get them at each other’s throats with false narratives about health. You could use the same approach with cancer treatment or cholesterol levels.

Researchers at the George Washington University examined Twitter posts between July 2014 and September 2017 and did a computer search of close to two million tweets about vaccines and vaccinations. The most stunning revelation, at least to me, was that 9.3% of all tweets were sent by accounts that could not be verified as automated bots or trolls, yet exhibited malicious behavior by spreading misinformation about vaccines.

We’ll continue this on Thursday.

What are you prepared to do today?

Dr. Chet

 

Reference: Am J Public Health. August 23, 2018: e1–e7. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304567.

 

Are Prenatal Vaccinations Safe?

/in /by

Vaccinations for infants and children always inspire debate. Sometimes, fierce debate. Today I’m going to look at a study that examined whether it’s safe for pregnant women to get the tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis (Tdap) vaccination or if it increases the risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in their babies.

Researchers examined the records of over 81,000 mothers and offspring who were continuously in the care of the Kaiser Permanente Southern California Hospitals. They determined which pregnant women were vaccinated with Tdap. Those women and their children along with the women who were not vaccinated with Tdap and their children were monitored for four to seven years.

The rate of ASD diagnosis was 1.4% of the total subjects. The rate for the children was 3.78 out 1,000 per year for those who were exposed to the vaccination and 4.05 per 1,000 per year for those who were not. In other words, there was no impact on the children of the Tdap vaccination during pregnancy. The researchers concluded that the use of Tdap vaccinations was supported during pregnancy.

But my focus isn’t really on the use of vaccinations; you can look at the data and decide for yourself. It’s on the controversy around vaccinations.

Debate is good, especially as it relates to health, and nothing inspires more debate than vaccinations. But are all debates a real discussion of the issues or are they an attempt to create discord? A recent study may give us some insight. More on that Thursday.

What are you prepared to do today?

Dr. Chet

 

Reference: PEDIATRICS 14(3) September 2018:e20180120

 

Digital Media and Relationships

/in /by

In observing the people at Paula’s high school reunion, the one thing that stood out was that the relationships the classmates had formed during their time together had endured. True, they had a small graduating class with fewer than 75 students, but even in bigger schools with hundreds of graduates, there are groups of students who still know each other well because of activities they participated in together.

What impact would digital media have had back then? Paula was asked to speak as a representative of her class and in looking back, she said this:

We didn’t have an amazing computer in our pockets that we use for vital things such as taking pictures of our food and watching cat videos and texting each other: “What do you want for dinner?” “I don’t know, what do you want?” But we had down time, free time to spend just being a teenager. No one stared at the phone—that would have been silly. We looked at the scenery and at each other.

How would social media have affected the class of 1967? They were a social network. They were involved in each other’s lives during school, sports, and other activities, live and in person. I’m sure it would have had an impact; I just don’t know if it would have been in a positive way. There would most likely have been less live social contact and instead a lack of human contact. There would have been less time to talk face to face because there would be so much more access to more people, even in a very impersonal way.

The irony of digital media today is that social media is how many members of the class reunion found each other; it certainly helped spread the word of the reunion itself. They had gotten reacquainted before they got together in person and had seen pictures of each other’s spouses and kids and grandkids on Facebook and Instagram. Digital media are just tools of communication, and that’s how the reunion class uses them.

Digital Media and the Class of 2018

Don’t for a minute think I’m a Luddite. After all, I’m communicating with you three times a week via email and many of you read this on your cell phones.

Whether the use of digital media contributes to ADHD is not certain, but it does contribute to one thing for sure: isolation. A 2016 article in Psychology Today said:

Humans are hardwired to interact with others, especially during times of stress. When we go through a trying ordeal alone, a lack of emotional support and friendship can increase our anxiety and hinder our coping ability … Other studies confirm that loneliness isn’t good for anyone’s health. It increases levels of stress hormones in the body while leading to poor sleep, a compromised immune system and, in the elderly, cognitive decline.

Texting and commenting on social media platforms cannot convey true emotion, no matter how many emojis you use. The only way that works is live social interaction where you can look someone in the eye when you talk to them or at the very least hear their tone when speaking on the phone.

When you think about health and what can impact it, the bonds we make with other humans is important. It can help our mental health in many ways and that can impact our physical health. To me, that’s what the class of 2018 might be missing: the social interaction and personal bonds that transcend decades. When they meet in 50 years, will they talk about the great text or Tweet someone sent or the excellent Instagram story someone put together? I doubt it. And that’s their loss.

What are you prepared to do today?

Dr. Chet

 

References:
1. JAMA. 2018;320(3):255-263. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.8931.
2. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-ooze/201611/the-perils-social-isolation