Running so soon? 

 

When you pick up a pack of cigarettes, or even a beer, you can't help but
notice the warning label on the side of the container.
In the case of cigarettes, all manner of ailments can befall you. As for beer,
pregnant women shouldn't drink it, and people who do shouldn't operate heavy
machinery or drive cars.
And I think we all know that. Yet, many of us choose to use these two products
because, well, we're Americans, and we'll do what we damn well please -
despite any adverse side effects to our person.
Which brings us to potato chips. Or, more specifically, to the miracle oil
that lowers the fat content of what were once considered sinful foods.
The problem, however, is that this miracle product, Olestra (sometimes
marketed as Olean), also lowers the fat content of the individuals who eat it.
Or, at least, it could lower their content.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), served with the role of protecting us
against unhealthy products, has determined that this one is just fine.
But, the "foods" that use this product may come with their own warning label.
Use of this product may cause "loose stools and abdominal cramping."
Yummy. Pass the chips!
Makes you want to run right out to the store and snatch 'em up, eh?
Some apparently feel they can throw out their Jack LaLane videos, slide the
Stairmaster back under their beds, and eat their way to a glorious figure.
Fritos for fatsos. Just eat these, and we'll clean your pipes.
A consumer group has complained about the speedy approval, noting that 9,000
people had complained of adverse side effects. Among those were cramps and
diarrhea.
But damn the bowel movements, full speed ahead!
I guess it never occurred to people that they should, say, eat fewer chips?
Maybe a six pack and a bag of Doritos is a nutritious lunch for some, but for
others, it goes straight to their hips. Olestra, on the other hand, will make
those chips speed right past those hips, and continue moving south at a rapid
pace.
Perhaps the FDA, mindful of Republican moves to slash the budgets of such
agencies, are hoping that Congressmen will take a liking to the product - and
many will be forced to miss roll call when that crucial vote comes to the
floor.
On the other hand, those companies may be shooting themselves in the foot, as
the people they count on to buy their products may be spending their
commercial breaks in the bathroom.
Here's the bottom line (so to speak): Chips are not supposed to be good for
you. They are a snack, to be indulged in in moderation. But, much like the
brains behind taking all the flavor out of McDonald's french fries in order to
make them "healthier," producers feel that if they convince us it won't make
us fatter, we'll eat more of it.
It is the old "have your cake and eat it too" theory that we enjoy so much,
because we do want it all. We want our government to provide us with services,
but we don't want to pay more taxes. We want to police the world, unless it
means sending our boys in. We want someone to do something about pollution,
but we still want to drive our cars everywhere. We want to take our dogs for
walks, but we don't want to have to pick up after them. We want to eat fatty
foods, but we don't want to gain weight - and, quite frankly, we aren't all
that interested in exercise, either.
But we can't always have it both ways. Sometimes we have to be responsible for
our action, and suffer the consequences of those choices. Which is why so many
of us have "love handles."
Enjoy your fattening chips - and keep your exercise videos. Live a little, and
don't spend all your free time on the toilet.