Donating to "the cause"

RebelHealth Chick has been distracted lately. I've had too many issues swirling around in my head and haven't been able to complete a thought. This, however, is one that is heightened by both the healthcare crisis as well as the recent financial crisis. (Crisis, crisis, crisis...I wonder how many times a day that words creeps into our head from the news? Anyway...)

Have you ever gotten slammed in the head by one of those "ah ha" moments? Well, I was driving home the other day, thinking about two friends who are walking in one of the breast cancer walks and it hit me - not totally or specifically about "the cause" of breast cancer, but somewhat. What hit me, specifically, took me back to a donation I had made last year for a friend's daughter who was jumping rope for the American Heart Association. I felt like a tidal wave of "donate for the cure..." causes came to mind, and frankly, I got angry. I started thinking about "the cure" for heart disease, lung cancer, type 2 diabetes, ...and to a certain extent, for breast cancer. These first three diseases are truly classified as lifestyle-related diseases, and with many forms of breast cancer, lifestyle factors such as poor nutrition, sedentary lifestyle and and obesity contribute directly to this disease as well. My anger came from the thought that we're donating money to cure diseases that are preventable. Why aren't we donating to "the prevention of" versus "the cure of" these diseases. It seems to me that if we took steps to prevent the disease, there would be no need to cure it. But perhaps that's too simple, or too logical. Or, get real, right? That's what politics and lobbyists for the pharmaceutical industry are for!

I went to the American Heart Association's (AHA) and Susan G. Komen's website to see if I could determine to what area (research, community education, treatment) donations actually go. A portion, approximately 30% (if I'm correct in my math -they make it difficult to decipher from the Annual Reports - and I welcome correction if I'm wrong) of the donations made to the AHA do go to community education and awareness. While this is admirable, heart disease is one of the conditions with so many risk factors related to lifestyle, I would have hoped the percentage of funds for prevention would have been equal to those for a cure or treatment. Heredity, age, sex/gender certainly may not be preventable or modifiable risks, but physical activity (exercise), a diet low in saturated fat and high in fresh fruits/vegetables/whole grains/lean protein, not smoking, maintaining a healthy BMI...all preventable. And I say "MAY not be preventable" in relation to the non-preventable/modifiable risks, because you are deemed to be at risk for heart disease if a first generation relative had a cardiovascular-related incident before a certain age, but what if their lifestyle contributed to the condition, and not heredity. Then, you may not be at risk if you don't make the same poor lifestyle choices. The same goes for lung cancer and high blood pressure - both diseases with preventable risk factors. And honestly, I didn't have the patience to dig through the Annual Report at the Susan G. Komen site.

So, now, every time I see a "donate to cure (insert name of disease here)", I look at it so very differently. I don't want to donate to pay, or even be forced to pay through taxes (Medicare/Medicaid) or high healthcare premiums, for other people's poor lifestyle choices. I'm not sure, however, what the answer is. So many Americans make not just poor, but the absolute wrong choices related to smoking, drinking, diet, physical activity and stress management, and they arrogantly refuse to make the right choice - even though the length and quality of their life depends on it. And frankly, it's not just their life, it's their family's life, as it's their family members who will be caring for them in poor health as they age with the diseases they caused.

We need to donate more toward the prevention of lifestyle-related disease, versus toward pharmacological and other medical treatment. I'm not saying not to donate to the cure at all, as so many people already suffer from these diseases, but to put more energy into prevention would reduce the incidence of the disease, thereby reducing the need for treatment/cure.

As I commented (or more likely ranted) in an earlier blog about "scrutinizing", employ some objective, distanced, critical thinking the next time someone asks you to donate "for the cure" - make sure you think how many ways the cure for that disease may not be needed if preventative strategies were more aggressive.

Eggs or Egg Beaters

I certainly have regard for our governments' caution flags related to general health metrics, recommended levels of nutrients, and clinical studies from which they base their recommendations. Mind you, I said "regard", not high regard. I believe these guidelines and recommendations are truly based on scientific research, but I also believe there are political influences on that research, and therefore we may be swayed in one direction or another to benefit, say, The American Dairy Association or The National Cattlemen's Beef Association. It is for these reasons that I heed the information provided to us as Americans, but also do my own due diligence with a critical eye.

One of those areas I'm mindful of, but still cautious of, is dietary cholesterol levels. Should I eat eggs or Egg Beaters?...and if I choose eggs, how many per week?...and what happens if I eat too many eggs?... The issue with eggs is the saturated fat (and hence, cholesterol) contained in the yolk. Here's a little breakdown on our friend, the egg: Of the 5.5 grams of fat in the average large egg, 2-3.5 grams (depending on the source) are saturated and found in the yolk of the egg. Saturated is the kind of fat we're supposed to limit in our diets to less than 10% of our calories per our "American Authorities". Additionally, of the 210 mg of cholesterol in the average large egg, all of it resides, again, in the yolk.. The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends that we consume no more than 300 mg of cholesterol per day, and if you have heart disease, no more than 200 mg per day. Dietary cholesterol, or that which we get from food, is considered a non-essential nutrient because our bodies (mainly our liver) manufactures all we need on its own. If you're interested, you can read more about what the AHA has to say about cholesterol at their website.

So, for those who consume cholesterol containing foods throughout their day (meat, poultry, fish and dairy) and who regularly have 2 eggs for breakfast (=420 mg of dietary cholesterol), you're exceeding the recommended limit before lunch...that is if you personally subscribe to the recommended limit. Now, enter the egg substitute.

I think Egg Beaters was the first, or one of the the first, "brands" on the market, although now there are several. Each grocery chain probably has their own generic version as well. The egg substitute concept made loving the taste of eggs without the yolk possible for many Americans. By taking just the white of the egg and adding coloring (of course, because if it's yellow it will taste like an egg), flavoring (to simulate the palatable, umami-like fat "feel" we get from the yolk) and, of course, preservatives. For most of us, the scrambled egg substitute takes hauntingly like whole eggs when served up scrambled.

The questions that arise from making this change to better our health by, once again, eliminating an alleged disease-causing natural food from our diets are:

1. Are we truly concerned that it is the saturated fat in the yolk of that egg that contributes to heart disease. Unlike other saturated fats (butter, animal fat), that yolk isn't solid at room temperature...heck, it's not solid at refrigerator temperature.
2. Are we at all concerned that whoever created the chicken that laid the egg we want to eat may have intended for us to ingest the nutrients from that yolk? I've only commented on the bad so far, but there's a lot of good in the yolk of that egg, specifically a decent source of phosphorus, selenium, folate, B12, vitamin D and Riboflavin, among others.
3. Why were our grandparents, who had less of an incidence of heart disease, able to eat whole eggs daily for breakfast and not suffer the same incidence of heart disease that our generation(s) do?
4. And finally, why do other countries who consume whole eggs daily, not have the same fear of the yolk as we do, and don't have the same incidence of heart disease as we do?

All of these are questions you need to wrestle with on your own, and determine what you feel is accurate, health-oriented and honest research/data. Personally, I hate wasting the yolks by cracking the egg and separating it just to use the white. But I hate using a man-made egg substitute even more. And really, I'm not so sure about the whole yolk/cholesterol thing. We're running our own little test case on this, as my husband, with a history of heart disease on both sides of his family, has returned to consuming whole eggs in addition to the other sources of saturated fat in his diet. Prior to this change, his cholesterol levels were perfect, certainly after a huge correction in his diet and activity level (See "Congratulations Hubby"). So, in about three months when he has his annual physical, we'll see what the results are.

In the meantime, use what we are given by the government as guidelines, throw a few egg whites in from time to time for balance, search for quality sources of eggs when eating the entire egg (organic, free-range/cage-free, antibiotic free, etc., etc., etc.). You have to feel good about the reason you make your choice, not because a label says "our chickens are raised in Ritz-Carlton-like facilities with rolling green pastures on which they run and are fed only the most natural foods". The choices you make for the food you eat and the food you feed your family are 100% within your control.