Super Foods

Critical thinking leads me to believe that all the talk about super foods is crazy. People read about some newly christened super food, adopt it in the hope of improving their lives, convince themselves that they feel so much better, and spread the word. This is particularly dangerous in the case of celebrities. 

Here is a sample I pulled from a Gannett article over four years ago.

Alas, for 2015 we find out that quinoa is out and kaniwa, “sourced primarily from the Andes Mountain region of South America,” is this year’s super-food, “high in protein, fiber, iron and calcium” and gluten-free!  In the search for a better sweetener, “coconut sugar is making its way onto the scene.” Actually, all things coconut are in fashion as part of the Paleo food trend.  Almonds are out and pistachios are in along with Nduja and spreadable salami.

Just last year I commented on a TV ad for beet powder as a circulation super food, with the power to support increased energy without stimulants, promote heart health and support healthy blood pressure levels. (Notice how these products sold as supplements always support and promote without really promising to do anything definite.)

Finally, here is one from this year that sounds extremely confident and enthusiastic. It begins: “Move over kale, quinoa, and coconut water! …There are some new superfoods on the block, packed with powerful nutritional benefits and exotic tastes.” To reduce the shock of finding yet another new super food, they remind us how the super-food trends of today would seem “rather bizarre” just a few years ago – now that’s comforting!

It continues: “These are the superfood trends you should not only watch out for, but get excited about.” Included in the list are nut oil, chaga mushrooms, cassava flour, watermelon seeds and tiger nuts; and try maqui berries, instead of the so-passé goji and acai. Wash it all down with some probiotic water. When making your heart-healthy smoothy, try substituting moringa for your matcha, maca or spirulina. (Who does this stuff?)

That’s why I was so pleased to find this article. Although when I saw the headline, “The Definitive Superfood Ranking,” I expected more of the same, the picture showed apples and broccoli, so there was hope that some sanity would prevail. 

The piece begins: “It seems like everything in the grocery store is labeled ‘super’…[but] which foods are actually proven, by science, to be good for you and which ones are all hype.” They go on to say that many dietitians think the term super foods should be eliminated because it is so misleading, sometimes intentionally so by food marketers. Such labeling raises the price and promises to do what no single food can do alone, make you healthy.

The article begins by exposing the gluten-free myth. “Unless you have celiac disease or suffer from a true gluten intolerance (example: you are doubled over and running for the bathroom post-pizza), there are no proven physical benefits from going gluten-free.” Then it explains how orange juice is not the best source of Vitamin C and adds that the benefits of coconut oil, chia seed, kimchi, sweet potatoes, almonds, acai and beets are more hype than reality.

At this point in the story, the emphasis changes to address truly healthy foods: eggs, cherry juice, broccoli, coffee, apples, green tea, black beans, dark chocolate, red wine, salmon, turmeric and blueberries. Each are backed by some valid scientific research and their prices are not inflated by fads and hype. (I also noticed that not a single one of them caused problems with my spell-check, unlike about half of the so-called super foods in the lists above.)

Wow! Are real foods eaten in moderation the answer? Despite that, the odds are good that in 2020 someone will discover another new super food in some remote jungle, and the masses will jump on board. (Excluding those who were mauled to death trying to harvest tiger nuts!)

Opposites Confuse

Observing the news and everyday choices, I find a series of opposite reactions that seem confusing. In one case, Americans have an overwhelming sense of safety, while being constantly on guard against a multitude of possible dangers. In another, they praise diversity while at the same time seem averse to the idea.

The first thought comes as a result of a news item on a proposed law banning texting while crossing the street in New York. As the USA Today reports, “The law would be simple enough, the bill states: ‘No pedestrian shall cross a roadway at any point while using any portable electronic device.’ ” Police could issue tickets charging from $25 to $50 for a first offense – “unless you can prove it was an emergency.”

Here is the contradiction. Americans were constantly reminded that texting and driving can be very dangerous. Now they must be told that texting while walking across the street is dangerous. Apparently “look both ways” is just for kids. We are too busy for that! States feel they must add the threat of a fine to get people to comply. The same applies to the 10% who still do not wear seatbelts on a regular basis. As a driver or pedestrian, Americans act as if they are indestructible.

Now shift the scene to the grocery store, and some of the same people go to the opposite extreme. Advertisers and food packaging attract customers by boasting that their products have none of the ingredients that have, usually erroneously, been tagged as scary or dangerous. Walking down the aisles we read of foods that contain no artificial ingredients, are gluten-free and contain no GMOs. They have no high fructose corn syrup but do contain sea salt and are locally sourced or organic. These scare tactics must be working because they spread with new fears being invented by influencers, celebrity chefs and marketing departments.

How can we be so casual about truly dangerous behavior while being so hyper-vigilant about details that make little or no difference?

The second example came to light from a CBS This Morning report. “West Point says the class of 2019 is its most diverse ever, both by race and by gender,” including 34 African American women, the most ever to graduate. That is very nice, but look closely at the comments of a couple of the representative cadets.

"We don't want everybody in the Army to look like me," says First Captain David Bindon.  He believes that working with people who don't look like him “brings different perspectives” leading to better solutions. (That, of course, assumes that diversity of gender and skin color is always a reliable indicator of diversity of thought and experience.) 

Immediately following came the opinion of another cadet that “it really helps if you can look up to a leader who looks like you who comes from the same background as you." Everyone nodded in agreement.

Which is it? Does the army, and everywhere else, need diversity for different perspectives or do we need diversity so that those who identify a certain way can feel more comfortable? Do we need role models who look like us or role models who show that hard work and perseverance pay off?

The news media often celebrate firsts by race and gender to achieve certain milestones and positions. Those firsts had no mentors or role models that looked like them, yet they made a difference. Are we teaching our children that they are not capable of doing the same? Especially as society recognizes so many more ways to identify, that seems like a negative, defeatist message.

Instead of pulling everyone together to share perspectives and come up with better solutions, is the current emphasis on diversity actually highlighting and emphasizing differences, acting as a subtle divisive force?

Opposite reactions to similar situations can be very confusing, and it can’t be sorted out without some critical thinking.

Weight Loss and Diets

In America the news media tell us that we are in the midst of an obesity epidemic. This is clearly a discipline issue. As in most cases about the dimension of discipline, the answer is simple to understand and hard to do. Apparently though, and typically, a great number or people think there is some easy path to weight loss.

That’s why Americans buy about 5 million diet books every year. Millions are looking for that magic answer and presumably going back to buy a second and third book as each particular formula invariably fails them. Hundreds of different diet books are listed on Amazon, many labeled as best sellers. I found from another source a list of the ten best books on the Ketogenic diet. How many books do we need on a diet described as an “extreme form of low-carbohydrate diet” originally used to treat epilepsy in children a century ago. But today, by way of “celebrity endorsement it has become a popular weight-loss fad diet, but there is no evidence of any distinctive benefit for this purpose, and it risks causing a number of side effects.The British Dietetic Association named it one of the ‘top 5 worst celeb diets to avoid in 2018’.” 

This article in the Guardian from earlier in the year challenges these diet programs with all their accompanying hype by presenting five myths about weight loss. The thrust of the argument is that people tend to misjudge the dangers of their condition as well as their personal progress toward their goals.

People can hugely misjudge their calorie intake, and overweight people have a strong tendency to grossly underestimate the calorie content of their food (by about 47%). Those who believe they are fat but healthy, according to the writer, are deluding themselves. Being overweight is inherently unhealthy. “Their risk of becoming ill was eight times higher than that of the healthy group with normal weight. The risks include, but are not limited to: diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, sleep apnea, arthritis/joint problems, fertility problems, asthma, back pain, incontinence, gout and stroke.”

The BBC reinforces the seriousness by proclaiming in this headline “Obesity-related cancers rise for younger US generations, study says.”

The other side of the problem has to do with the fact that people also misjudge other factors including: how many calories they burn through exercise, how overweight they are, that the extra weight doesn’t slow them down or that they can blame it on genetic differences. (See last Friday’s comments.) 

The most reliable advice comes from people not trying to sell books or diet programs, for example, advice from the book, The Cure for Everything, which I also referred to last Friday. Exercise is necessary and healthy, but it does little toward weight loss without a change in eating habits. (This is backed up by over 60 independent studies.) It’s not about a diet, in the popular sense of the word, but in a lifestyle choice. To make good choices the author recommends paying close attention to what you eat, either by calorie counting or any other method. This “forced self-monitoring…causes you to eat less, which is the only way to lose weight” (p. 54). The tendency to give yourself special treats for being successful or to treat the whole exercise as a temporary “diet” yields only temporary results – an outcome familiar to so many. It’s all about portion size.

This certainly seems Spartan and the opposite of fun, but simple-to-understand-and-hard-to-do is the hallmark of discipline. Unfortunately, the search for magic answers continues; but doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome is the mark of insanity. Quoting from the book one more time: “If you see the word detoxify, cleanse, supplement or metabolism associated with a product or process, be suspicious. Someone is trying to sell you something that likely does not work and, in fact might be harmful” (p. 92). (I would add celebrity endorsements to the list of warning signs.)

Scams and Near Scams

Prepaid cards: It seems like once a week network news comes along with the story of a person, usually elderly, who has lost money to a phone or Internet scam. 

They probably use the elderly as examples because they are closer to the age of the people who actually watch network news, but the fact is that they are not the most vulnerable. About a year ago a survey revealed that Millennials are more likely to become the victim of a scam artist than any other generation.

In any case, almost every time, their money disappeared by way of a prepaid card. They may have been informed of a relative in trouble or that they had won some money but had to pay a service charge to collect. The creativity of scammers is remarkable. The caller or e-mailer presented them with the problem and told them to buy and mail a prepaid card to handle the matter.

This should be a clear give-away, a red flag as big as their house, but scammers keep calling until they find a victim. Obvious defenses include not answering the phone unless you recognize the number. Valid callers can always leave a message; scammers rarely do. (This also works as a defense against telemarketers and robo-calls as I have mentioned previously.) Likewise the written return address on an email should correspond with the actual email address that shows up when the cursor moves over it. But the biggest warning sign is the request for a prepaid card. 

Toxins: In all my years of researching miracle drugs in the form of dietary supplements and other health products, I have yet to find one that lists detoxing or cleaning the body of toxins to be legitimate. They do not and cannot prove that there are toxins in the body that the body does not naturally and safely get rid of on its own. The science that debunks all these claims is consistent on that point.

Despite this easily available evidence, the products just keep on coming. They promise to detox your body and magically make you feel so much better. Their celebrity endorsers and satisfied customers back these claims. But always in the fine print at the bottom of the ad is the required paragraph about how none of these claims have been approved by the FDA and how the product is not meant to treat or cure any disease. I even commented a while ago on shoe inserts that somehow had detoxing qualities – by supposedly causing wearers to use the bathroom more often.

This is beyond crazy, but it remains a big business. Detox, like prepaid cards, should be a clear sign of a pending scam. In this case, however, customers can always convince themselves that they really do feel better, but they are still out the money for a product that relies on the power of suggestion rather than on the power of science or real medicine.

Science and the Game of Telephone: When youngsters play telephone, they sit on the floor in a line. The leader whispers a sentence in the ear of the first, who repeats what he’s heard to the second, and so on down the line. When the last person relates what she heard it often bears no resemblance to the initial message. It’s a common analogy for miscommunication, but I recently heard it to explain science reports.

A scientist writes a scholarly article about a real finding. Even if she includes all the possible flaws or conditions that still need to be investigated, by the time it becomes an article for a popular magazine may be downplayed. The next iteration, a short news or “health minute” segment, omits most details. Finally, it hits social media, where all subtlety is lost, but people like and repost without a second thought. 

For example, how many stories have we heard about whether or not breakfast is important? Is it OK to skip it? In 2012 it was declared optional. Around 2014 there were some studies saying skipping it leads to weight gain, and others saying it wouldn’t. One in August 2017 said how important breakfast was for kids. Last year, everyone in a particular study gained weight, but the breakfast eaters gained a little less. This year a study says skipping breakfast is bad for your heart. 

Which study are we to believe? – How about none of them until the scientists actually pin something down. Until then, the news media will continue to report each one that comes along as if it is the definitive answer and social media will keep us all “informed.”

This degradation of scientific findings as they pass down the “telephone line” is not really a scam, but it’s something to be very wary of. Unfortunately too few people research the validity of posts before passing them on.

Always a Good Excuse

Studying pea plants during the years around 1860, Gregor Mendel, a scientist and Augustinian friar at St. Thomas' Abbey in Brno, suggested the presence of discrete inheritable units in nature. He studied inheritance patterns in 8000 varieties, tracking the transfer of identifiable physical characteristics passed down from the parent plants to next generations. Almost 50 years later Wilhelm Johannsen coined the term “gene.” After almost another 50 years Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins use X-ray crystallography to try to detect these inheritable units, leading to Watson and Crick’s discovery of the double-stranded helix DNA molecule.

Today we hear references to genes every day, but the science is still developing. Regardless of that, many people know just enough about genetics and inherited traits to use it as an easy excuse for any fault they don’t want to correct. Genes represent the hand nature has dealt us, and there is nothing we can do to change them – no diet, no exercise, no vitamin, nothing.

This point was made in a book I recently read, The Cure for Everything by Timothy Caulfield. In the introduction to the chapter about genes as health factors, he lists several headlines telling not of the scientific advances in the field, but of how the field has become popularized by promising cures for these immutable factors through some type of gene technology. (These are another variant of the news philosophy that I described back in early March when I wrote Stoking the Fear.)

His list of popular headlines included:

• Is Laziness Gene to Blame for Couch Potatoes?
• The God Gene, Does Our DNA Compel Us to Seek a Higher Power?
• Always Lost? : It May Be in Your Genes
• Party Animal: It May Be in Your Genes
• Marriage Problems?: Husband’s Genes May Be the Problem
• Genes May Affect Popularity, Researchers Say.

Since the book was published in 2012, I thought I could go on line and add to the list of handy  excuses:

• Pity the poor murderer, his genes made him do it
• "Mom gene" discovered in mice: Do you have it?
• "Binge-drinking gene" discovered
• Intelligence genes discovered by scientists
• Sweet-tooth Gene Discovered
• Obesity gene Discovery Could Lead to New Treatments
• Anxiety, Aggression Gene Discovered

So if you are not too bright, overweight due to your sweet tooth, tend to binge drink, are lazy, unfaithful to your spouse, a bad parent, unpopular and may be prone to anxiety or aggression or even more brutal forms of violence, not to worry. It's not your fault; you're not responsible. You can blame it all on your genes, sit back and wait for science to fix you! Of course if the headline, “First 'placebo gene' discovered” applies to you, you don’t even have to wait. With your increased susceptibility to the placebo effect, you can look up the first charlatan or natural medicine guru selling a sham treatment or a miracle cure and talk your self into getting better.

Gene research is important and may lead to some significant progress toward real cures, but so far all these somewhat outrageous health-related headlines are just a distraction. Responsible people don’t go looking for easy excuses.

How Sweet It Is!

A couple of things came together over the last few weeks that brought up some interesting questions. The first was this video from John Stossel using the sugar industry as an example of crony capitalism or corporate welfare. The second was the bold print on the side of a bread package announcing that the product contained no high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

Most of the Stossel video, “Sugar’s Sweetheart Deal,” is about how the industry advertises that they are not subsidized, but government bailouts (using our tax dollars) when the price falls, keep them rich and happy. The government also helps keep the price up with artificial quotas on domestic production and imports. So much of our food costs more, because sugar costs more, and it’s in so many products. 

When I looked at the ingredients on that bread package, the one proudly proclaiming that it contained no HFCS, I was not surprised to see sugar near the top of the list. Perhaps the sugar industry also is behind the bad reputation that most people associate with the cheaper substitute. Is there something behind the halo-effect of “No High Fructose Corn Syrup” or is this another case of hype?

This source gave me a clue: “There isn't enough evidence to say that HFCS is less safe to eat than table sugar, according to the American Medical Association, which has stated that HFSC does not appear to be more harmful than other caloric sweeteners.”

The HealthLine site goes into more detail. “There are only tiny differences between HFCS 55. – the most common type of high-fructose corn syrup – and regular sugar. A major difference is that high-fructose corn syrup is liquid – containing 24% water – whereas table sugar is dry and granulated.” The differences in chemical structure between the fructose and glucose in HFCS and the sucrose in sugar is not significant and “do not affect nutritional value or health properties.” After they are broken down in the digestive system, they end up looking exactly the same.

In a discussion of recipes on howstuffworks.com, they point out that there is a small difference. The HFCS has slightly higher levels of fructose, but the difference is very small and not particularly relevant from a health perspective.

So the package posting no HFCS is not really a reassurance; it only means they used sugar instead. It’s just another advertising trick. Both are about the same thing, neither is particularly good for us, and both should be consumed in moderation.

But what of the packages that say “no sugar” or “sugar-free.” Therein lies another can of worms. Most of the time those products don’t contain HFCS either; they contain artificial sweeteners. But wait! Aren’t artificial sweeteners a kind of slow-acting poison? Some will tell you exactly that.

It turned into another research project. This time I went to Mayo Clinic's site. “Artificial sweeteners are synthetic sugar substitutes. But they may be derived from naturally occurring substances, such as herbs or sugar itself.” They can be “attractive alternatives to sugar” because they contain virtually no calories and do not contribute to dental problems. Artificial sweeteners may also help with weight control and diabetes.

They go on to say: “Artificial sweeteners have been scrutinized intensely for decades.”  Studies from the 1970s “that linked the artificial sweetener saccharin to bladder cancer in laboratory rats” led critics to claim that they are unhealthy and carcinogenic. “But according to the National Cancer Institute and other health agencies, there's no sound scientific evidence that any of the artificial sweeteners approved for use in the United States cause cancer or other serious health problems. Numerous studies confirm that artificial sweeteners are generally safe in limited quantities, even for pregnant women.” 

The sole choices left are the so-called natural sweeteners, such as honey, maple syrup, and molasses. These are popular among the health-conscious crowd, some even calling honey a miracle food. Back to Mayo for this information: "Natural sugar substitutes may seem healthier than sugar. But their vitamin and mineral content isn't significantly different. For example, honey and sugar are nutritionally similar, and your body processes both into glucose and fructose.”

Will all that information change minds? Probably not! Will “No High Fructose Corn Syrup” continue to sell, while people continue to warn their neighbors about the dangers of artificial sweeteners? Most likely! Will foodies be attracted to honey in recipes thinking it contains some health secret? That, too! Critical thinking and simple, solid research where are you?

Abandoning Critical Thinking

We are faced every day with friends and neighbors who seem to be able to stare logic straight in the face and still make the wrong decision. This can easily be misinterpreted as stupid behavior, except we know that many of these people did well in school. Some even have advanced degrees. How else can we explain this apparent abandonment of critical thinking?

My theory is that, contrary to conventional wisdom, opinion polls and the apparent direction of popular trends, America is still a very religious country and is getting more religious with each passing day. The difference is that I am not talking about standard, organized religions. The new religions involve pseudoscience and are promoted by personal interactions, especially on social media, and by celebrity endorsements, rather than by priests, ministers, rabbis and imams. 

Consider how a traditionally religious person reacts when his faith is challenged. Show someone an obvious contradiction in the Bible or the Koran – and there are many to choose from – and such a person will argue for a while, but eventually fall back on the argument that it's a mystery only God can explain or that it is a matter of faith not subject to logical analysis. End of conversation! No one has changed his mind. He may even feel vindicated because his faith was challenged but endured.

Now have a similar conversation with someone convinced that communication with the dead is not only possible, but that it happens frequently on daytime TV and in private homes where mediums hold séances. No matter how much logical information such a person receives, a change of mind is a rare occurrence. A more likely response is the same quasi-religious reaction, resistance to logic and reliance on a strong belief in the spiritual realm.

But this new-age religious experience is not limited to the customers of séances and tarot card readings. With the help not only of charlatans, but also of marketing departments, industry institutes, lobbyists, interest groups, fund-raising organizations and individual crusaders, it spreads through the entire country creeping into every corner of our lives. It is so much easier to sell to people on the basis of faith than on the basis of logic. So all these forces work in concert to gain converts to particular products, services and ideas. The emotional argument draws them in; then the feeling of embarrassment or of betrayal of one's beliefs, keeps them coming back.

Consider the religious fervor displayed by backers of ideas like: harm from vaccination, danger of GMOs, danger of fluoridated tap water, superiority of bottled water, benefits of a gluten-free diet (except for medical necessity), power of alternative medicines, danger of anything artificial or chemical, dietary supplements, radiation from power lines, food irradiation, sea salt, therapeutic touch or Reiki, refusal to consider nuclear power as a clean electricity source, super foods, unquestioned halo-effect of words like green, natural, sustainable and ancient wisdom, essential oils, and the list goes on and on.

Yes, we are truly a religious nation. The religions of junk science, fads, hype and misinformation are thriving, converting new believers every day!

Those Sore Muscles

Last time I discussed a book I hadn’t read, but based on a couple of reviews, I found some positive things to say about the advice it gave about taking responsibility. (I also threw in some snarky comment about the title.)

This time I want to discuss a book that I actually did read. Published quite recently, it’s called Good To Go, by Christie Ashwaunden. The subtitle is: What the athlete in all of us can learn from the strange science of recovery. It covers a variety of tools and techniques for physical recovery after participating in a sporting event or hard practice session. Examples are taken from professional athletes, Olympic-level competitors and serious sports enthusiasts. The book is an investigation of what works, what has real scientific backing vs. what is based on marketing, hype, and urban myth. It contains many surprises, but reinforces the need for critical thinking, the need to challenge our deeply held beliefs in everything we do.

The introduction states the problem clearly. “The explosion of recovery products and services can seem ridiculous.” Although “everyone intuitively knows what recovery is and how to achieve it,” the industry has found a way to make it much more complicated, expensive and time-consuming than it needs to be or ever has been.

Promoters of these new methods usually use stories rather than scientific facts, and stories told by celebrities or sports stars are most effective. The advertised science behind them is often based on poorly constructed studies with very small sample sizes. Only the ones with positive results see the light of day with the rest (often the majority) filed away. The book investigates many of these products and services to see what really works. I will cover just a few.

One such product with little scientific justification is the sports drink phenomenon, a huge industry with many devoted fans. One expert characterized some of their studies as verging on “comical.” The author takes on the whole idea of hydration, pre-hydration and electrolyte supplements and comes to the conclusion that the best defense against dehydration is to drink when you are thirsty. Any other approach can result in waste or even harm. 

She gives the example of running with her dog. When they get home, she gives her access to a water bowl. The dog decides whether or not to drink. The author has “never needed to inspect the color of the dog’s urine or give her an emergency IV for low fluid levels.” We make it overly complicated, yet hydrate is common advice from all sides every summer.

Similar advice goes for sports nutrition. She gives the example of Usain Bolt, the fastest man in the world, filling up on chicken nuggets during the Olympics. They may not have been the most nutritious meals, but “when your muscles are hungry for fuel, they don’t care where the energy comes from.... What should I eat after exercising? The easiest answer is: whatever your body is hungry for.” 

She also discusses the promotion of such ideas as infrared saunas, explaining that heat is heat, and any magical powers attributed to infrared, such as reducing inflammation, boosting growth hormones, clearing toxins or boosting the immune system are unsupported and have received negative attention from the FDA. Yet marketers and pro athletes push overpriced infrared saunas, cold lasers, massage beds and pajamas, based on the “sciency” sound of it all.

Subsequent chapters talk about sleep and supplements. Sleep is vital for recovery. Keep it uncomplicated; our body helps us figure out how much is enough. I have addressed the problems with supplements many times in the past. (See here and here). They are unregulated, can be dangerous and are poorly researched. They have a reverse approval process compared to prescription drugs. No one has to prove they are safe and effective. The FDA only gets involved when they prove to be harmful, as in the case of ephedra, where a hundred people died taking it to increase energy. “Yet it took the FDA ten years to ban it.”

There is much more to learn from this book. But I found it an excellent example of applied critical thinking with a host of interesting surprises.

Responsibility Explained

I recently ran across an interview on LinkedIn with a business author promoting her latest book. The book is What Awesome Looks Like: How to Excel in Business and In Life, by Amy Rees-Anderson. The author’s background is that she started a software business and later sold it for $400 million. The book is listed elsewhere as “a guide for entrepreneurs, executives and employees with the desire to understand how they can excel in business, balance work and family life and find a purpose beyond the bottom line on the way to becoming successful leaders and business owners.”

A guide to entrepreneurship seems a far cry from the idea of behavior having consequences. It didn’t catch my attention for that purpose. In fact the title was the first thing I noticed. It was a turn-off for two reasons. First it looks like just another book full of magic answers – excel in business and life? Otherwise, it could be good advice disguised and presented as magic answers, in which case people will find the path is easy to understand but the execution is hard, just as dieting and achieving financial security require discipline and responsibility. So there might be the link to behavior after all.

The second negative is just a personal pet peeve. "Awesome" is possibly the most overused word in the English language today. It is supposed to be an adjective, but adjectives are used to describe. In current usage, the description has become so watered down that it carries only some vague positive connotation. It has lost any specificity. It tells me that a person feels good about something, but hasn’t the energy or imagination to describe the feeling in more detail. With any luck it will go the way of groovy, a similar adjective/interjection, popular in the 1960s. But I digress.

Pertaining to the subject of behavior in the five key dimensions, the interview commented on the number of apologies in recent news from politicians and celebrities for various missteps. Some have been strong and some weak; some are almost non-apologies. They sounded good, but said nothing.

An important point is that everyone makes mistakes and the interview presented a good outline for making a good apology. Any apology should contain some commitment not to make the mistake again. The author presents the outline as a memory device calling it the, “Six A’s of a Proper Apology: 

1) Admit – I made a mistake
2) Apologize – I am sorry for making the mistake.
3) Acknowledge – I recognize where I went wrong that caused the mistake.
4) Attest – I plan to do the following to fix the mistake, on this specific timeline.
5) Assure – I will put the following protections in place to ensure that I do not make the same mistake again.
6) Abstain – Never repeat the same mistake.”

Underlying this process is the idea of strong behavior in the dimension of responsibility, taking ownership of your error and problems and making a sincere attempt to improve. How different this is from the current trend of playing the victim, blaming circumstances or someone else, or seeming to apologize only for getting caught.

This is a good guide for responsible behavior and also reinforces the point I have made often. Many books, articles and blogs explore portions of the solution contained in the five key behavioral dimensions, but only this one pulls them all together.