Slim Shots?

I get really ticked off when I see advertisements for diet products. So of course I had to snap a photo while waiting for the F train recently.

If Spain is considering banning diet commercials before 10 p.m., why can't we start taking some measures to lower the number of times a day we're bombarded by these kinds of images and ideas?

I examined the smaller print on the ad, and of course, it said that most people ate between 12.5 and 30 percent less when they took these "slim shots." Appetite suppressants and anything that claims to have "all natural" or "safe" ingredients in it freak me out. Their need to state that makes me feel like they're hiding something.

Let's take a look at the ingredients. These contain oat oil and palm oil, along with water, "natural and artificial flavors, aspartame, and beta carotene color." That's it? I don't know, something just seems off to me...

So how does it work? Here's what it says on the website: "SlimShots™ triggers the body’s natural appetite control mechanism, the ileal brake, satisfying users for long periods of time and in turn, allowing them to eat less, without sacrifice and without depriving them of their favorite foods."

What's more, I don't think appetite should be suppressed in the first place. It's important, instead, to try to understand our appetites—what is our body trying to tell us? How can we give it what it really needs? It exists for a reason! Clearly, attempting to rein our appetites in has gotten our culture nowhere. In fact, you could almost say that as a whole, we've become so out of touch with our appetites that it seems to be out of control. Scary stuff.

I wonder what it would take to get people to realize that there is no magic bullet for weight control, and that "weight control" is no way to talk about how you eat. It implies a power struggle—one we don't need to partake in. Still, I suppose healthy living and conscious eating don't sell as much ad space.

Cookie Diet Founder is Suing Kim Kardashian

In today's hilarious news, Dr. Siegel, founder of the Cookie Diet, which I posted about several weeks ago, is reportedly suing Kim Kardashian for calling the cookies "unhealthy" on her Twitter page. Oh dear...

First, the actress sent a cease and desist letter to the company, accusing them of falsely claiming that she was endorsing the diet. Siegel and Co., in turn, are seeking damages again Kardashian. What they reportedly claim is that she had a "commercial motive" to bash the weight-loss cookies, given her work with QuickTrim, another weight loss program. You can read more here.

Yet another reason I hate quick-fix, product-based diets. It's kind of amusing, though. I mean, celebrity names aside, someone is that invested in freaking cookies that they're suing someone over negative comments about said cookies. What is our world coming to?

The 100-Mile Diet

Cheesy name, interesting concept: Do you think you could eat only food grown within a 100 mile radius?

People in favor of the "locavore" lifestyle support the idea that locally-grown produce is fresher, more nutritious, and tastier. Purchasing only local foods can also help support your community and its farmers. Not only that, but it's thought that eating within that 100-mile radius can cut down on transport time, saving precious fuel and money and reduces the carbon footprint of one's food.

I don't know, sounds kind of trendy to me, but interesting.

So how much of this is actually true? Is it a good idea to be a locavore? UC Berkley's July Wellness Letter, examines this topic and offers some tips on how to take a more real-life approach.