It's not smog, it's haze

With the Olympics having kicked off a few days ago (was I the only one who fell asleep during the interminable opening ceremonies? Jeez; someone needed an editor), I'm fascinated at the political tug of war over the Beijing Smog Problem. To the naked eye, it's obvious that the Chinese capital has a lot of it -- in fact the air particulate matter on opening day was nearly three time that of Los Angeles and at levels that would normally keep school kids indoors during recess in my hometown So Cal (yes, that happened here. Not anymore, because air quality is so much better, but in the 70s, at least 10 times a year).

This is why I'm laughing out loud that this ridiculous story posted by Reuters in which some UN dork chastises the media for ragging on Beijing smog. The part I like is his comparison to the massively successful Los Angeles games in 1984 and its so-called smog problem. Which is crap. I lived in LA back then, and the air quality during the games was fine. The staggering woman marathoner he refers to staggered because it was really hot the day and she was dehydrated. It wasn't smog. Jeez.

It's apparent that Beijing suffers from a helacious inversion layer (or what we call fog), in which moist air traps in the smog. Kudos to them for trying to curb traffic to cut down on emissions, but in a city of 16 million, there's only so much you can do. LA's saving grace in '84 were the ocean breezes that sweeps everything away. Beijing's air is stagnant and still. The opening ceremonies made me sweat, and I was in my cool home sucking down a brew.

The athletes can compete in this environment because they're in world-class shape. If you or I tried to ride our bikes 150 miles in the chemical soup that passed for Beijing air last Saturday, we'd collapse in an asthmatic heap.

Photo credit: Getty Images

Smoking is bad for you

OK, I'll admit it -- I like smoking. I enjoyed smoking. I miss it sometimes. But, geez, the data keeps piling up on all the bad things smoking does for you: cancer, lung problems, heart disease, and on and on and on. And you stink, too. Teeth, yuck. So the folks at Health.com put together this little survey showing what your heart attack risk is if you do or you don't smoke. (Little hint: smoking is not good for you here, either.) What was interesting is that the risk gap shrinks significantly in your 60s. So when I hit my 60s, should I start lighting up again? Na. I like breathing.

Since I live in California, my drinking establishments have been smoke free for 10 years now, and frankly, we're better off for it. It's nice to see how the rest of the country ... and the world ... is following our lead and nixing cigs in bars and restaurants. Last year I was in Paris, and I was even surprised at how few Parisian were sucking down the cancer sticks. I reminded them that they were being good Americans. That went over well.

So much for exercise?

How much exercise does it take to lose weight? Apparently a lot more than you previously believe. A new study just came out saying that daily, moderate exercise of 30 minutes doesn't do much to remove the bulge. OK. Let's think this through. A pound of fat equals 3,500 calories; so when you eat fewer calories than your body naturally burns, that amount adds up, and when it reaches 3,500, you lose one pound. Exercise accelerates that count. Now, 30 minutes of moderate exercise burns off about 6-7 calories a minute. That's about 200 calories -- not a lot, but it adds up. So, let's put this all together. If you burn off about 200 exercise calories a day but still eat, let's say, an entire pepperoni pizza for dinner, you're not going to lose weight. But if you cut calorie intake and exercise, the long term benefit will be a healthier, thinner you. So don't give up that treadmill. Just realize that exercise alone won't do the trick. Unless you run marathons.

Illustration by Duane Hoffmann / MSNBC

Victor McKusick, a titan of medicine

One of the titans of medical research has died, and we should pay tribute. Dr. Victor McKusick of Johns Hopkins University was the first to apply the developing field of genetics to medicine, and the result revolutionized health care and medical research for the betterment of everyone. But enough of me yakkin; read this wonderful obituary in today's Los Angeles Times, and this one in the New York Times. Question: Why didn't this man win a Nobel Prize? Geez.

Three cheers for Fresh & Easy!

Back in my hometown of Norwalk, Calif., I dropped in on the new Fresh & Easy market a few blocks from my parents house. I've heard about the place, but had yet to visit.

Wow. What an improvement over regular supermarkets and that evil, elitist Trader Joe's. Fresh & Easy's concept is the return of the neighborhood market, and it works. The stores are smaller, but the selections of fresh, tasty foods is quite good and at excellent prices. Shopping there was actually an enjoyable experience.

Better yet, the F&E folks are opening these clean, easy-to-shop-in stores in lower income, minority neighborhoods like Norwalk and South Los Angeles, where normal grocers fear to go, or if they do, charge higher prices for food. Having access to quality, affordable food has always been a problem in poor, minority neighborhoods and a contributing factor toward the obesity epidemic in America today. So, from me, all hail Fresh & Easy! A special Nobel prize should be coming their way.

(F&E is only in Arizona, Nevada and Cali at this point, but we want to see them go nationwide. America needs this! Oh, did I mention they're British?)

Revenge of the fembots

Think the Los Angeles Times' Health section is trying to appeal to women readers? Read this and this. You tell me.

The South rises again ... in weight

Our friends at the CDC report in their catchily titled publication Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report that the South once again is America's most obese region. I quote:

By region, the prevalence of obesity was higher in the South (27.3%) and Midwest (26.5%) and lower in the Northeast (24.4%) and West (23.1%). State-specific obesity prevalence ranged from 18.7% to 32.0% and was <20%>30% in three states: Alabama (30.3%), Mississippi (32.0%), and Tennessee (30.1%). No state met the Healthy People 2010 target of 15%, and 30 states had obesity prevalence >25%.

It's not like they ran away with the title; we're only talking a few percentage points separating the regions. Among the most obese states, you can see that only three -- all in the South -- break the 30% barrier. Could be the food; could be the poverty; could be the culture. It's probably all three. I blame NASCAR. And the CDC, which is located in Atlanta. And Waffle Houses, which are pure evil.

Deeper into these stats, we can see that college-educated men and women are less obese. What's the tie? Folks with degrees earn more money, and thus can spend more on food. And healthy food costs more than fatty, calorie-rich food. When you're poor, you're not shopping at Whole Foods.