Yesterday I reported on a new poll suggesting that Americans have decided that big can be beautiful, that being overweight is not incompatible with being attractive. Its actually pretty nice to hear this; people should be evaluated for who they are and what they do, not for what they look like. Although its difficult to believe people have really changed all that much. Today on CNN’s Situation Room, Jack Cafferty asked viewers whether they believed that Americans were really less judgemental toward overweight people. One viewer responded, “I’ll believe it when dancers in Gentlemen’s Clubs start wearing pastries instead of pasties.”

So what does this have to do with monkeys? Well, in a recent article in the New York Times called Cells That Read Minds, Sandra Blakeslee writes of the discovery of mirror neurons. These are a special class of brain cells that fire when a person sees or hears someone else perform an action in exactly the same way they fire when that person does that action himself.

These neurons and their function were first identified in monkeys about 15 years ago. In observations of lab monkeys, it was found that certain brain cells fired while they ate a peanut, and those same exact cells fired while they watched another monkey or a person eating a peanut. The indication was that the monkey experienced someone else eating a peanut as if it were itself eating the peanut.

Scientists were astonished by these findings, but they were even more astonished to find that humans have mirror neurons that are far smarter, more flexible and more highly evolved than any of those found in monkeys, a fact that scientists say reflects the evolution of humans’ sophisticated social abilities.

“We are exquisitely social creatures,” Dr. Rizzolatti said. “Our survival depends on understanding the actions, intentions and emotions of others.”

He continued, “Mirror neurons allow us to grasp the minds of others not through conceptual reasoning but through direct simulation. By feeling, not by thinking.”

The discovery is shaking up numerous scientific disciplines, shifting the understanding of culture, empathy, philosophy, language, imitation, autism and psychotherapy.

Everyday experiences are also being viewed in a new light. Mirror neurons reveal how children learn, why people respond to certain types of sports, dance, music and art, why watching media violence may be harmful and why many men like pornography.

I had another thought today as I watched a commercial on TV for a fast food chain. A family was happily devouring a high-calorie meal, an orgy of burgers, fries and shakes. The smiles on their faces indicated that this truly was a “happy meal”. I have recently sworn off the aforementioned “axis of evil” after receiving the results of my latest cholesterol tests. But as I watched this commercial I could feel the saliva collecting in my mouth. And although it was barely noticeable, I seemed almost to be chewing along with the family on my TV screen. I quickly ran to the kitchen and staved off my Big Mac Attack with a big bowl of oatmeal and dried fruit and some hearty multi-grain bread slathered with garlic humous spread. Ummmmmm! Delicious! Okay, well at least I can feel good about the 10 pounds I’ve lost during the past two weeks.

Now that we understand the truth about mirror neurons, it should be clear just how powerful an enemy these TV ads can be to the diet and health-conscious among us. I predict that the next big diet craze will be the “TV Diet”.

A large man walks about the grounds of the Maple Festival in Chardon, Ohio, April 17, 2004.Thin is still in, but fat is just fine!

Today the Washington Post reported on a new survey. Apparently, over a recent 20 year period the percentage of Americans who said they find overweight people less attractive dropped from 55 percent to 24 percent. About two-thirds of U.S. adults are overweight, and their attitudes about overweight have been relaxing along with their belts.

The late 80′s and early 90′s were our salad days. Nowadays restaurant salad bars are growing scarcer and nobody’s missing them. No wonder low-carb diets are all the rage now.

Regardless, its a new year and like many of us, you may have once again promised yourself the gift of a healthier body. For some good information on how to eat better and lose some weight in a healthy way, visit our nutrition and weightloss sections.

Okay, you may not want to hear about this, it would certainly be understandable. But it’s been on my mind and I need to get it out. I’ve been told that its nothing to be embarassed about, and you may have even experienced this very ugly problem yourself: toenail fungus.

My toenail on my right big toe has been partially black for quite a few months now. Since it doesn’t hurt and hasn’t been getting any worse I haven’t bothered doing anything about it. I had hoped it would grow out by itself. But that just wasn’t happening.

So the other day I went to my doctor for my yearly physical. While I was there I showed him the offending digit. He said, “Yep, that’s toenail fungus alright”. I thanked him for his expert diagnosis and then asked him what I might do about it. He told me that there really was only one solution: Lamisil. I would have to take pills daily for three months. Assuming it worked, it would take about six months total for the nail to return to normal.

There were two problems to consider. First, Lamisil is very hard on the liver, so I would have to avoid drinking alcohol for three months and I would have to see the doctor once each month for a blood test to make sure my liver was not getting damaged. This concerned me a more than a little bit. I don’t drink much anyway, so I don’t mind avoiding it entirely for three months, but I don’t want to risk having the drug damage my liver just to fix a black toenail. The second problem was that the Lamisil prescription would cost close to $400 per month. At first I didn’t see the problem there. Surely the insurance company would cover it. But no, in fact the insurance companies consider this to be a “cosmetic” problem and would not pay for it. After all, my toe would not actually fall off. The fungus would not continue to grow until it consumed my entire body. I would just have an ugly toenail for the rest of my life. This was going to have to come out of my own pocket. Nearly $1200 dollars and a chance of liver damage to cure a case of toenail fungus.

Well, I was angry. Surely this could not be the only solution. So I went home and googled “toenail fungus“. I found some sites right off the bat listing a number of possible alternatives that people claimed had worked for them:

distilled vinegar
Vicks Vaporub
oil of oregano
tea tree oil
grapefruit seed extract
Pau d’Arco and goldenseal
colloidal silver
hydrogen peroxide
diluted Clorox
Lysol
urine

to name just a few. With the exception of the last three options, the items on this list seem reasonable to me. Most of them have disinfectant and antifungal properties. The last three; well, lets just leave them as a last resort.

I visited my local homeopathic pharmacy today, and they recommended a combination of tea tree oil and Vicks Vaporub. I bought the tea tree oil and decided to use some tiger balm that I have at home in place of the Vicks. He said that I had to rub the tea tree oil into the infected nail and nail bed, and then cover it with the tiger balm. Twice per day until the infected nail grows out and only healthy nail is left behind.

So, I’m giving it a try. My total cost is about $12 dollars instead of $1200 dollars. And instead of risking liver damage I’m risking… well, nothing. Thanks for listening and stay posted, I will let you know how it turns out.

Oh, and if you have any experience dealing with this dreaded fungus, please comment.

Political scientists have long believed that one’s political views were largely a result of upbringing and life experiences. I’ve always thought that seemed pretty logical.

But a recent New York Times article asserts that some politics may be etched in the genes.

But a new study claims that people’s gut-level reaction to issues like the death penalty, taxes and abortion is strongly influenced by genetic inheritance. So the political party you choose to afiliate with as an adult may have been determined at the moment you were conceived.

Hmmmm… seems to me that a political party leader with an eye to the future would be investing a large chunk of their bankroll into genetic engineering… not a particularly pleasant thought.

According to a recent article on CNN.com, researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands have determined in a recent study that

Women may be able to fool their partners by faking an orgasm but a brain scanner will catch them every time

Hopefully they will soon be announcing an inexpensive scanner for home use.

In an interesting editorial in today’s New York Times Mario Cuomo poses some important questions regarding President Bush’s refusal to fund stem cell research.

Firstly, the president’s own science advisor, Dr. John H. Marburger III, has said “I can’t tell when a fertilized egg becomes sacred,” adding, “That’s not a science issue.” If it is the case that science cannot prove that human life begins at conception, then the president’s reasons for not supporting stem cell research must be based purely on religious grouonds. And if that is the case, is it right for president Bush to deny all of the potential benefits offered through stem cell research to the majority of Americans who do not share his beliefs?

Mr. Cuomo goes on to point out that “true believers”, those who are morally opposed to stem cell research, would never be compelled to use any of the products or breakthroughs derived by it, just as no one who is opposed to abortion will ever be compelled to have one.

But is it fair to force those who believe that stem cell research is morally wrong to sit by and allow it to happen? One might ask the same question regarding the millions of American who oppose the death penalty and must sit by and allow it to happen.

I really wish they’d make up their minds, these scientists. They’ve been telling us for the longest time that being fat is bad for you. Just a year ago a report from the disease control centers warned us that obesity and overweight were causing an extra 400,000 deaths a year.

Then, in the past couple of days we’ve been hearing reports that being fat isn’t quite so bad as they thought.

And now, in today’s New York Times, and apparently coming up on tonight’s TV news, they are telling us that a new study says some extra heft may be helpful. Yeah, a little chub is a good thing. Not obesity, mind you, but just a touch of dough in the middle. They say it may actually be a protective factor in old age.

Still, researchers warn that there are plenty of health risks caused by being overweight, and all should be taken into account before one decides to return to his or her daily diet of cheeseburgers, fries and triple thick shakes.

Dr. Williamson, who is overweight, said that “if I had a family history – a father who had a heart attack at 52 or a brother who developed diabetes – I would actively lose weight.”

But “if my father died at 94 and my mother at 97 and I had no family history of chronic disease,” he said, “maybe I wouldn’t be as concerned.”

Dr. Barry Glassner, a sociology professor at the University of Southern California, had another perspective.

“The take-home message from this study, it seems to me, is unambiguous,” Dr. Glassner said. “What is officially deemed overweight these days is actually the optimal weight.”

Yeah, but how good does it look in a bathing suit?

Two interesting and strangely complementary stories came out in today’s news.

First of all, according to the AP news service, apparently the obesity danger MAY have been overstated:

Last year, a CDC study listed the leading causes of preventable death in order as tobacco; poor diet and inactivity, leading to excess weight; alcohol; germs; toxins and pollutants; car crashes; guns; risky sexual behavior; and illicit drugs.

Using the new estimate, excess weight would drop behind car crashes and guns to seventh place…

Whew! What a relief. I guess I can quit that nasty diet and exercise program I’ve been putting myself through and get back to enjoying life, including my beloved french fries.

But… maybe not.

Another article from the AP claims obesity creates need for oversized caskets.

Yeah, you heard me right. With an ever increasing number of obese Americans, funeral directors have been faced with a BIG problem. They can’t fit the people into the caskets.

But never fear, casket building companies have risen to the occasion. Just as a new category of clothing stores for big and tall men flourished in the 1900′s in response to increased demand, we are now seeing a whole new line of “big and tall” caskets becoming available to fill the needs of the twenty first century.

Not just your basic oversized casket, mind you, but an increasing range of colors and styles.

… Lynn, Ind.-based Goliath Casket Co. has continued to increase the size of its offerings.

“We make very large oversize caskets. Oversized is kind of an understatement. They’re ‘supersized,’ to coin a famous term,” said Keith Davis, who owns the company with his wife, Julane Davis. ”

Hmmm… supersized? Can you get fries with that?

Sales have doubled in the last month, he said. The company could sell 800 caskets this year, and it recently rolled out a 52-inch casket.

“That is a little bit wider than a standard pickup bed size,” he said.

“The 44-inch, 48-inch, 52-inch are for body weights between 650 and 1,200 pounds. There are people that large, believe it or not,” he said.

There are extra supports to make sure the weight doesn’t cause the casket to break.

If you have the time I recommend that you read the entire article. Its not very long, but it is quite shocking.

And if you feel you weigh more than you should… if its been too long since you last saw your feet without the aid of a mirror… don’t wait until its time to buy an oversized casket of your very own. Take a visit right now to our weight loss and nutrition sections. It just might save you some money later on. And help you enjoy the rest of your life a whole lot more.

You’re in a restaurant and you’ve just ordered a thick juicy steak. But your waitress tells you that she is a devout vegetarian who finds the killing of animals for food to be morally objectionable, and refuses to serve you that steak. How would you feel? And that’s just a steak. In the case of the morning-after pill, the stakes are much higher.

The latest lefty v. righty medical conflict to dominate the news is the battle over whether pharmacists have the right to dispense drugs based on their religious and/or moral values. At the center of the firestorm is the morning-after pill, which can be taken within 72 hours of having sex in order to prevent pregnancy.

Some states are attempting to pass laws allowing pharmacists to refuse to sell the morning after pill, or any other drug they deem morally objectionable. Other states are pushing for laws to do the opposite; that is, to require pharmacists to sell any legal drug to their customers regardless of the pharmacists’ personal beliefs. Several similar federal bills have been floated, which would nullify any contrary state laws, but apparently they have little chance of passing.

The morning-after pill is legal. People who want it have the right to get it in a timely manner. If you have a pharmacy, then you should be there to serve your community, not yourself. That means that you treat people like adults and allow them to make their own decisions, and then you honor those decisions, as long as they are legal, regardless of your own beliefs. If you can’t do that, then maybe you shouldn’t be a pharmacist.

As far as being a health care professional, I don’t think I should be injecting my moral values on other people,” Rod Adams, a pharmacist at the Colorado Pharmacy in Denver, said in an interview last week. “Obviously a morning-after pill is a personal choice that someone has to make. They’ve already made that choice when they come in here, and I don’t think – I’m not a counselor – I don’t really think that’s my job.

For me that says it all.

Now here’s some scary news. There is growing evidence that a chemical called bisphenol A used in common plastics, one of the world’s most widely used chemical compounds, may pose a serious health risk.

So says an L.A. Times article entitled “Study Cites Risk of Compound in Plastic Bottles”.

The article reports:

The authors of the report, who reviewed more than 100 studies, urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to re-evaluate the risks of bisphenol A and consider restricting its use.

Bisphenol A, or BPA, has been detected in nearly all humans tested in the U.S. It is a key building block in the manufacture of hard, clear polycarbonate plastics, including baby bottles, water bottles and other food and beverage containers. The chemical can leach from the plastic, especially when the containers are heated, cleaned with harsh detergents or exposed to acidic foods or drinks.

The chemical is the focus of a contentious debate involving industrial compounds that can mimic sex hormones. Toxicologists say that exposure to man-made hormones skews the developing reproductive systems and brains of newborn animals and could be having the same effects on human fetuses and young children.

I, for one, am very concerned. Our children don’t need us feeding them a chemical that may be “impacting negatively” on their developing reproductive systems and brains.

The article goes on to say:

In the new report, to be published online in Environmental Health Perspectives on Thursday, scientists Frederick vom Saal and Claude Hughes say that as of December, 115 studies have been published examining low doses of the chemical, and 94 of them found harmful effects.

In an interview Tuesday, Vom Saal, a reproductive biologist at University of Missouri in Columbia, said there is now an “overwhelming weight of evidence” that the plastics compound is harmful.

“You can’t open a scientific journal related to sex hormones and not read an article that would just floor you about this chemical�. The chemical industry’s position that this is a weak chemical has been proven totally false. This is a phenomenally potent chemical as a sex hormone.”

In their study, Vom Saal and Hughes suggest an explanation for the conflicting results of studies: All 11 of those funded by chemical companies found no risk, while 90% of the 104 government-funded, non-industry studies reported harmful effects.

Now, its no surprise that every single study funded by the drug companies found no risk to using this chemical — just as the studies funded by tobacco companies find no risk to smoking cigarettes. But considering the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I find it inexcusable that the EPA has not already taken steps to restrict the use of this dangerous chemical.