Step Up

American Fitness, Nov, 1999

Where There's Smoke ...

Your feature "A Smoking Gun" (September/October 1999) really hit on a key point that is often neglected among people trying to achieve a healthy lifestyle: You can't expect to improve your body by merely eating better and doing a little exercise. Activities like drinking and smoking cancel out the beneficial effects of proper diet and exercise. Part of a proper diet includes abstinence from alcohol, drugs and tobacco. Individuals who smoke, drink, etc., may be putting themselves at risk because of the added taxation on the body's immune system. Thank you for addressing the issue of smoking, especially the role of media in persuading our youth to light up.

Patrick Kofsky Allentown, PA

Shop, Shop, Shop?

It was great to see such an impressive display of practical items in your "Shop AFAA" catalog (July/August 1999). You had everything from heart rate monitors to thermometers. I hope to see a section like this more often, especially featuring combination packages like the "Fit Kit" Bag. Just that item alone--at such a great price--could provide a practical springboard for someone starting out in the personal training business.

Lori Miller Santa Cruz, CA

"X" Marks the Spot

I am writing in response to the article "X-Termination" in your July/August 1999 issue. James Berger does not provide sufficient information regarding anti-irradiation arguments.

Although irradiation may have the same effect as cooking in the depletion of vitamins and nutrients, Berger neglects to point out a fact that should be obvious: you still have to cook the meat, and sometimes the vegetables! Therefore, for example, if irradiation has already depleted 20 percent of the vitamin B-I, when you cook the meat and potentially lose another 90 percent of what's left, you're receiving almost no nutrition from your food! Without irradiation, you're still receiving something.

Another neglected point is that although irradiation "kills bugs dead," as quoted from Nutrition Action Health Letter, May 1999 (published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest), "it involves moving radioactive material around the country--always a risky proposition. And it doesn't prevent sloppy handling at the plant, home or in restaurants, which could recontaminate food after it's been zapped." Irradiation is a waste of money and resources, not truly effective in managing disease, something of a distraction from the real issues and unhealthy if people are misinformed about its so-called benefits.

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) states that "because irradiation breaks down cell walls, irradiated foods which are stored for long periods may lose 70 percent to 80 percent of their vitamin content." Berger neglects to speak to any irradiation-opposing specialists or offer any specific quotes from such "crackpot `consumer advocacy'" groups. It's strange that one of the goals of irradiation stated by Berger is to "retard spoilage of certain foods and increase their shelf life." The combination of the so-called "increased shelf life" and irradiation's effect of breaking down cell walls guarantees a major decrease in the original amount of vitamins and nutrients in food. Yet all this is overlooked as long as it meets the irradiator's goal and can sit on the shelf for an extended period of time, especially under fluorescent supermarket lighting which destroys nutrients like vitamin C just as sunlight can.

The OCA also informs us that "it is unclear what effects eating irradiated food will have on humans. Studies on animals fed irradiated foods have shown increased tumors, reproductive failures and kidney damage. Chromosomal abnormalities occurred in children from India who were fed irradiated wheat."

As stated before, irradiation does not prevent recontamination along the line of distribution and marketing the food. Berger should have pointed that out, as well as the fact that focusing on irradiation to solve outbreaks of foodborne illness such as E. coli and listeria will not help solve the real problems and causes of such diseases. The meat industry is pushing irradiation as a miracle cure and, as the OCA states, "at the same time, the industry has vigorously opposed efforts to clean up filthy slaughterhouses, slow down meat production processing lines, stop the feeding of antibiotics and rendered animal protein to livestock and increase the number of federal meat inspectors--all more productive measures to reduce foodborne illnesses."

I'm sorry if I frighten you, but this does not sound like fanatical raving to me. It is by far more logical to address the real issues in ways that waste fewer financial resources, thereby benefiting the entire food industry and the public with results that can be sustained throughout the long-term, rather than humor, indulge or pacify proponents of an expensive, ineffective and fantastical technology.

Christine A. Caton-McGill Framingham, MA