Dan Eisenberg Discusses Telomere Length and Age

The responses to the interview questions may not represent the views of The Echo Boom Bomb's author. These interviews are provided to inform readers of information from experts and provide these experts with a medium where they can answer questions without any content changes. All linked material to products in interviews such as books or videos are affiliated with the supported platforms, such as Amazon or others. To see the full list of interviews related to Echo Boomers, iGenZ or Automons, see the ending acknowledgements on this post.

Does a birth from a late father potentially affect the longevity of the offspring? Does it have any impact on telomere length? Dan Eisenberg has studied this and discussed this in a recent finding. I recently interviewed him on his study so that he could explain it. You can find the study here. Dan Eisenberg is a Ph.D. candidate at Northwestern University and has been published with many other authors in peer-reviewed journals (which you can read at the link above this). Along with being a Ph.D. candidate, he's received numerous awards and honors, as well as helped with several humanitarian efforts.

1. What were the findings on your recent study related to older fathers and their children in terms of telomere length?

Telomeres are pieces of DNA found at the ends of our chromosomes that cap and protect the chromosome (like the plastic tips at the end of shoelaces). Each time one of our cells replicates telomeres tend to get a little shorter. So as we get older telomeres get shorter (in tissues in our body which replicate). When telomeres get too short, the cell can no longer replicate and sometimes dies off. Thus, shorter telomeres seem to contribute to deteriorating health with age.

However, previous studies have shown that children of older fathers have longer telomeres (probably because as a man ages, telomeres in his sperm get longer). Our study shows for the first time that this happens across at least two generations: older fathers not only have offspring with longer telomeres, but their sons also have offspring with longer telomeres. That is, having an older grandfather on your dad’s side at the birth of your father predicts that you will have longer telomeres.

This implies that having a father and/or grandfather who reproduced at later ages might cause you to live longer because you were born with longer telomeres. This might be an evolutionary mechanism which allows the offspring to receive a signal of what the environment was like in recent generations. If your father and grandfather were able to live to reproduce at a later age it might be more beneficial for you to invest in having a healthier longer life.

You can read the original study here.

2. How do telomeres relate to health and longevity?

Telomere length is shortened by cell division and replication and shortened telomeres limit the ability of cells to replicate. As such, in general telomeres probably influence cells and parts of our bodies in which cells divide and replicate more. Such cells include our immune system, skin and gut lining. Consistent with this, shorter telomere lengths are associated with increased mortality from infectious diseases and cardiovascular diseases.

However, I also want to note that, as in most science, we need to be careful not to assume correlation is causation. Shorter telomeres in blood are also associated with (and probably caused by) increased stress, infection, poor diet and lack of exercise. Because of this, it can be difficult to definitively discern whether and how much associations between shorter telomeres and poorer later health imply that telomeres are causing this or whether telomeres are more of a marker of past damages. Still there are some good reasons to think that shorter telomeres do actually cause poorer health.

3. I know many people are already asking this question at this point, so I'll go ahead and ask it: outside of aging (for men here), any other ways for people to lengthen their telomeres?

The best bet remains the usual suspects: don't eat too much, eat healthy food and exercise. Meat consumption, particularly processed meat has been associated with shorter telomeres (see here, here, and here). I'd recommend avoiding any supplement/medication which claims to extend your telomeres.

If you are asking about how men might extend the telomere lengths of their sperm, this is an intriguing question. The only thing I know of that influences sperm telomere length is age. However, my evolutionary theory about father's and grandfather's age influencing telomere length of children as a sort of adaptive signaling mechanism, raises the question of whether other things in men's environments also influence the telomere length of his sperm.

4. Up to this point in your research, what's been your most suprising finding?

To some extent, I was not very surprised by the results. I predicted that the paternal age effect on telomere length would persist across multiple generations in a publication last year in the American Journal of Human Biology (see here). I predicted this because factors like being a first born child or a last born child of a man in the same environment would result in different telomere lengths. But if the effect of paternal age averages across generations than a baby receives not just the signal of what the environment was like for dad, but dad's dad and dad's dad's dad. This could mean that the telomere length a baby inherits conveys a more accurate message about what the recent past environment was like--and what it is likely to be like for that baby growing up.

On the other hand, we only show this association from paternal grandfather's (father's father's age) not maternal grandfathers (mother's father's age at mother's birth). This is peculiar, was unexpected and calls for more research about why there is such a difference in how telomeres are passed on from mothers than from fathers.

Interview: Matt Kramer On Predatory Leadership

The responses to the interview questions may not represent the views of The Echo Boom Bomb's author. These interviews are provided to inform readers of information from experts and provide these experts with a medium where they can answer questions without any content changes. All linked material to products in interviews such as books or videos are affiliated with the supported platforms, such as Amazon or others. To see the full list of interviews related to Echo Boomers, iGenZ or Automons, see the ending acknowledgements on this post.

Note: the paragraph format of this interview was updated to assist with related and complete thoughts.

A brief biography about Matt Kramer:

Matt Kramer is parent-child mediation, mediator, photographer, entertainment entrepreneur, talent consultant and coordinator. He's based in Dallas and Austin Texas, doing business throughout Central and North Texas, and outside the area. He's also studying predatory leadership and how it affects our society. You can get more information about him on his website, [Update: dead link removed - his site is no longer active] mattkramer.com .

1. What is predatory leadership?

Predatory Leadership is the display, by one's actions, policies or agendas, of their mental, emotional and subconscious investment into attaining their goals, openly or covertly, by any means, with complete disregard or concern for the consequences of their efforts upon others.

2. How has predatory leadership affected the business and political worlds?

Predatory leadership is evident throughout almost all aspects of society.

In the domestic arena, the behavior is identified in verbal and physical abuse in families. In regional municipalities it shows up in government corruption as in the City of Bell, a small town east of Los Angeles in which the city manager was paying himself over $800,000 a year and helping his cronies milk the local economy with comparably illegitimate salaries at the expense of the inhabitants of the city (Gottlieb & Knoll, 2011). It shows up in a corporate culture that replicates the evils associated with destructive forms of competition focused on increasing shareholder profits while ignoring pollution controls, quality control, employee safety, etc. It showed up in Bernie Madoff. One example is the corporate - political scandals in which city officials take or demand bribes, currying favors for vendors and suppliers whose products are not in the best interests of their constituents. It shows up in religious organizations protecting pedophiles at the expense of their victims. It showed up in Radio-Te´le´vision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM) when its disc jockeys spent months exploiting racial prejudice and exhorting its listeners to prepare to reclaim their country via the extermination of their Tutsi neighbors (Li, 2004). It shows up when any dictator censors free press, imposes martial law and assassinates his opponents in order to maintain illegitimate control of the nation.

Predatory leadership wreaks havoc upon humanity in myriad ways too numerous to include in this document. The proliferation of the psychological culture of predatory leadership is thousands of years old. The impact and consequences of this syndrome shows up throughout all levels of culture in ways that are invisible as well as visible. Conventional wisdom says that man is violent by nature, that war is inevitable. That a few bad apples make the organization look worse than it is. But maybe that's just a symptom of the pervasive nature of the predatory leader. There are pockets of humanity, small communities where leaders are not corrupt. There are idealists working hard to change systems that perpetuate destructive, harmful practices at all levels of government and throughout society. Countering their passionate efforts are powerful forces employing maximum effort to sustain the status quo in spite of the harm suffered by many people in the process.

3. What are the solutions to predatory leadership?

While I do not have all the answers, I believe the initial stage of any solution begins with verifiable information. Most people do not recognize the early warning signs of socipathic behavior. Our awareness of the nature of this pathology is akin to the status of medicine in the 16th century – physicians then did not know about bacteria and viruses; most of their theories about illness were wrong. Due to their ignorance, they didn't know they were spreading diseases among their patients.

Teach everyone, especially children, to recognize the early symptoms of narcissism and sociopathy at a young age; they will have the opportunity to make better choices in whom they choose to follow, promote, elect or marry.

A second stage would be to develop opportunities for people to gather and brainstorm more solutions. By educating and involving the general population in generating solutions, ideas will surface that are workable within the resources of those involved.

4. Suppose someone tells you: "People who succeed in business/politics are in leadership positions because they worked harder than everyone else, not because they are sociopaths." How would you address this assertion?

Certainly there are successful business people and politicians who earned their success legitimately. While it may be difficult for the uninformed to identify "healthy" from "toxic" personalities, one concern is that in order to succeed, some of them had to replicate sociopathic behavior (the ends justify the means) in order to gain their success.

For example, a top executive at Nestle's may have empathy and be concerned about the way Nestle's marketing techniques raise mortality rates for third world infants but in order to hold on to his position, he withholds his point of view and goes along with the company's policies (Breastfeeding.com, 2012).

5. Last question, and this one is quite the challenge. I would argue that some people in our world like to be prey; meaning they would like a predator for a leader. While normal individuals, like you and I, find this appalling, after working in social psychology, I studied people who desired to be abused (as disturbing as this phenomena is). How do we address people who want to be abused?

There are a number of reasons this may happen, and you are more correct than you may realize.

On the domestic level, some who have low self esteem deny themselves the opportunity for healthy relationships; subconsciously they will "punish" themselves by getting into abusive relationships.

On the larger social level, some people do gravitate to leaders they feel will carry out policies and agendas they themselves do not want to handle. Another reason is that those leaders provide a parental role – the followers want to believe their leaders know more than they do. The "toxic" follower will believe the lies of a toxic leader who promises lies they want to hear (like blaming a minority for their problems or pushing a false short term solution for a difficult problem), rather than accept a truth (such as a long term solution) they don't want to hear from someone else. (Lipman-Blumen, 2006). Hopefully those who are educated to this phenomenon will not fall prey to it.

Matt's Sources:

1. Breastfeeding.com (2012). The Nestle Boycott. Retrieved from: http://www.breastfeeding.com/advocacy/advocacy_boycott.html

2. Gottlieb, J. & Knoll, C. (2011). Robert Rizzo, aide accused of conspiracy in Bell corruption scandal. Retrieved from: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/31/local/la-me-0331-bell-indictment-20110331

3. Li, D. (2004) Journal of Genocide Research (2004), 6(1), March, 9–27 Carfax Publishing Blumen-Lipman, J. (2006). The Allure of Toxic Leaders: Why We Follow Destructive Bosses and Corrupt Politicians – and How We can Survive Them. New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Interview: Jessica Setnick on Eating Disorders

The responses to the interview questions may not represent the views of The Echo Boom Bomb's author. These interviews are provided to inform readers of information from experts and provide these experts with a medium where they can answer questions without any content changes. All linked material to products in interviews such as books or videos are affiliated with the supported platforms, such as Amazon or others. To see the full list of interviews related to Echo Boomers, iGenZ or Automons, see the ending acknowledgements on this post.

One struggle that Generation Y females and males face is eating disorders, and it seems to be a growing problem. Like with many problems, misinformation can spread and cause some people to avoid seeking the appropriate help. I recently interviewed Jessica Setnick, who is an expert on eating disorders:

Jessica Setnick introduced her compassionate and practical approach to helping individuals with eating disorders in 2003 with website around eating disorders [updated link and description]. She is the author of The American Dietetic Association Pocket Guide to Eating Disorders and Director of Training and Education for Ranch 2300 Collegiate Eating Disorders Treatment Program [Update: dead link removed]. She is available for presentations and training workshops, and can be reached through her website, www.UnderstandingNutrition.com [link updated].

1. What is an eating disorder?

An eating disorder is the name we give to a chemical problem in the brain that causes a person to use food and eating-related behaviors in inappropriate ways. It is similar to the brain problem that causes a person to use drugs or gambling (for examples) in inappropriate ways. Since scientists/doctors have not been able to identify yet the exact brain problem, we identify eating disorders based on the visible symptoms and behaviors.

2. What factors contribute to or cause eating disorders?

The main contributing factor (as we understand it to date) is a problem with brain chemistry. This problem can be innate (something a person is born with, even if it is not revealed until a later age), or it can be something that is caused by stress, which damages the functioning of the brain, or most likely, it is a combination of the two.

Once the brain chemistry problem is in place, it makes eating disorder behaviors seem desirable, because they modulate brain chemistry. For example, binge-eating changes brain chemistry, because an overload of tryptophan (found in carbohydrates) increases the level of serotonin in the brain. Serotonin gives a feeling of calm to an anxious person. Another example is that self-induced vomiting causes a change in brain chemistry, similar to exercise. When someone with an eating disorder-prone brain is in a panic, vomiting provides them with relief. This behavior then becomes the person’s go-to ‘solution’ for managing stress.

Because the stressor in the equation often comes from the environment, society’s attitudes toward weight and eating are often mentioned as contributing factors in creating eating disorders. The pressure that individuals feel to perform, to meet societal standards of attractiveness, of success, and so on can push them to trial eating disorder behaviors, such as skipping meals, overexercising, dieting, etc. If the person has the genetic or stress-caused brain chemistry problem that makes these behaviors biochemically ‘rewarding’, then he or she will adopt the behaviors on an ongoing basis as a ‘solution’ or self-medication.

3. I've heard that people, who struggle with eating disorders, have emotional connections to food. Is this true, false, or only slightly accurate?

It depends how you interpret ‘emotional connections to food.’ To be more accurate, I would rephrase it slightly into “people with eating disorders use food and eating-related behaviors (eg overeating, undereating, vomiting, overexercising, food rules, etc.) to help manage emotional stress.” So yes, there is an emotional connection with food, and certainly an unhealthy relationship with food, but not necessarily an “I love food!” type of emotional connection.

4. How are eating disorders treated?

The gold standard of eating disorder treatment to date is a three-pronged base of:

Nutritional Counseling (with the goal of nutritional replenishment and restoration, education about the appropriate role of food, and a healthy relationship with food),

Medical Treatment (management of any conditions that have been caused or exacerbated by the eating disorder, such as osteoporosis or osteopenia, thyroid or other hormonal problems, heart conditions, and so on)

Mental Health Treatment (includes both psychiatry, to manage brain chemistry and underlying or exacerbated issues such as depression, anxiety, ADD, OCD, bipolar disorder, chemical dependency, etc. AND psychotherapy, to heal emotional wounds that prolong the eating disorder and to teach skills for more appropriate coping with stress).

Added to those, any combination of group therapy; peer-led or 12-step support groups; family therapy; inpatient, residential, or day hospital care; plus adjunct therapies such as art therapy, movement therapy, equine therapy, and so on; may be recommended on an individual basis.

Interview: Kay Hymowitz of the Manhattan Institute

The responses to the interview questions may not represent the views of The Echo Boom Bomb's author. These interviews are provided to inform readers of information from experts and provide these experts with a medium where they can answer questions without any content changes. All linked material to products in interviews such as books or videos are affiliated with the supported platforms, such as Amazon or others. To see the full list of interviews related to Echo Boomers, iGenZ or Automons, see the ending acknowledgements on this post.

One prediction I make is that the Millennial generation will have a low marriage rate (updated research post). However, there are other socioeconomic trends that play into my prediction - for instance, the growing emphasis on education can delay marital formation, as the claim by some media that young men and women seem to be drifting in different directions (this favors cohabitation over marriage). Kay Hymowitz has written articles and even a book based on research into a few of these observations. From her Manhattan Institute bio [updated link]:

Kay S. Hymowitz is the William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal. She writes extensively on childhood, family issues, poverty, and cultural change in America.

Hymowitz is the author of 4 books including Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age and Liberation's Children: Parents and Kids in a Postmodern Age. Her newest book, Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Is Turning Men Into Boys [updated links], was published by Basic Books in March, 2011.

Ms. Hymowitz has also written for many major publications including The New York Times, the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, New York Newsday, The Public Interest, The Wilson Quarterly, and Commentary.

In addition to her writing, Hymowitz has presented her work at many conferences, most recently at "A New Era: Defining Civil Rights in the 21st Century," sponsored by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights She sits on the board of the journal National Affairs and of Future of Children, a publication of the Brookings Institute and the Woodrow Wilson School. She has also discussed her work on numerous radio and television programs.

A native of Philadelphia, Hymowitz has degrees in English literature from Brandeis, Tufts, and Columbia University. She and her husband have three grown children and live in Brooklyn.

1. America tends to encourage its children to go to school for a good job in the business world. Suppose a young person decided against that (due to a growing zeitgeist questioning education), what three things would you advise that person?

I agree that college has been oversold. But now I fear the same is happening with the drop-out, start-up romance inspired by Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. Still, if you’re thinking of skipping college, keep in mind the following:

One, you are only 17 (or 18) and you probably don’t know much about yourself or about the way the world works. At its best, college can provide a time out to do some more growing up before you are set loose. But if you are someone who is very independent and self-motivated, if you have an idea of something you really want to do, if you can wake up in the morning knowing that it’s completely up to you to figure out how to make that happen without panicking, or without putting the pillow over your head and going back to sleep, go for it.

Two, avoid the “grand tour” and barista traps. The best way to learn about how to align your interests and the work place is to get a job. Don’t assume you’ll figure it out by travelling through South America. And don’t put it off by taking a job at Starbucks unless absolutely necessary. You need time in the workplace just to figure out the incredible variety and complexity of jobs today. Do you know what a risk analyst does? A script supervisor? A content strategist? Probably not. There’s a world out there of new and often exciting possibilities that you’ll need to learn about on your own.

Three: be ready to change your mind, maybe several times. People often have preconceptions about what kind of work would make them happy, only to find out they had no idea what the daily grind feels like. My son graduated from college, decided to follow his “dream” job as a sports announcer. After cold calling hundreds of people, developing tapes, offering to help a fledgling team for free, sleeping on floors in strange people’s apartments in strange cities, he got a position as an announcer for a minor league baseball team in Florida. Within six months, he realized he didn’t love sports as much as he had at 16. He took a job as a producer at MSNBC, got inspired by some of the pundits and commentators, decided to get a master’s degree in public policy, and at 30 went to work in international development in Africa. He never, ever could have seen that coming at 22.

2. According to Pew (as of 2010), the Millennial generation at its current age (18-28) has the lowest marriage rate compared to other American generations at that age. What factors have contributed to this? Also, how would you respond to people who predict that the Millennial generation will have a low marriage rate?

Let’s disentangle a few important strands of this discussion. It’s almost impossible to talk about what’s happening to marriage in the United States, among Millennials or anyone else, without talking about class. The widely discussed changes in marriage – by which people usually mean high divorce rates, nonmarital births, and nonmarriage – is concentrated among the lower and working class. That group is more likely to have children in their early or mid twenties while single or cohabiting. If trends continue as they have, they will eventually marry, though often not to the father or mother of their children.

The college educated middle class – and I presume that includes most of The Echo Boom Bomb's readers – do things differently. They are waiting to marry and to have children, often well into their 30’s. They have good reason to do that. Preparing for a high end career takes years of education, internships, fellowships, moving between jobs, possibly between different cities or even different countries. (See above.) It’s awfully hard to coordinate two careers during this time.

Does this mean that Millennials will not marry in their 30’s or even their 40’s? Not based on my own observations - or the data. The percentage of educated women who get married has increased over the past decades; it’s the less educated who are marrying less. Also, the large majority of young people continue to say they want children someday. College educated men and women know from first-hand observation what research shows over and over: a child has a better chance at doing well in life – including graduating from college - if he or she grows up with her stable, married mother and father

It’s worth mentioning, by the way, that disentangling the data in this way casts some doubt on the idea that marriage is “obsolete,” as in, no longer useful. Marriage continues to do what it’s always done: provide the most promising environment for raising the next generation. That may seem irrelevant to your life in your twenties; it won’t by the time you reach, say, 35.

3. What can be done with the educational system - if anything is necessary - to correct some of these social problems that you mention in your book Manning Up, such as young men avoiding/delaying maturity?

Up until fairly recently, people in their twenties knew exactly what was expected of them in the social realm: they were supposed to find someone to marry and start their families. Now, for the college educated at any rate, the twenties are primarily a decade for establishing a career. The social scripts – when or whether to marry, who asks for a date, who pays, whether or when to call after a hook up - have been tossed up in the air and have yet to come down. I think the ambiguities are particularly puzzling for men. Twentysomething women have more degrees, more money, and arguably more ambition than they do. Yet a lot of women still seem to want and expect some traditional moves of mating and dating from them. At the same time, they expect to be treated as equals. You have to be an emotional genius to figure it all out.

Adding to the tension is the biological clock. Women are aware, either consciously or not, that if they are planning to have a family, they’d better be settled with a husband by their mid 30’s when their fertility takes a big drop. That means they’re more likely to get serious about finding a mate in their later 20’s. With no biological pressure, men don’t have the same time frame. Some of them continue to think of themselves as boys – or “dudes” – and to think of adulthood as something way off in the distance.

Editor's Note: Kay has a point here and science agrees. Dan Eisenberg's research might indicate that older fathers carry an advantage that younger fathers don't possess. This could provide an evolutionary explanation why a few young women might prefer an older man, and also why a few men may not see the logic in maturing quickly - an older father could pass on genetice advantages to his offspring.

I don’t think the educational system has much of a role in resolving these tensions. But for the sake of their own well being, it would be a good idea for Millennials to admit that they will probably marry and have children someday, just like previous generations have, and to think of their twenties as leading up to that major life task rather than just time for hooking up and hanging out. Freud used to say that happiness requires finding satisfaction in two things: love and work. He was wrong about a lot, but that little observation holds up pretty well.

Update: updated a few errors, most notably, the last name!

Interview: Stephanie Coontz on Contemporary Families

The responses to the interview questions may not represent the views of The Echo Boom Bomb's author. These interviews are provided to inform readers of information from experts and provide these experts with a medium where they can answer questions without any content changes. All linked material to products in interviews such as books or videos are affiliated with the supported platforms, such as Amazon or others. To see the full list of interviews related to Echo Boomers, iGenZ or Automons, see the ending acknowledgements on this post.

I've written extensively on marriage and the Millennial generation (updated research post). However, I've left out the issue of family from this socioeconomic analysis. I recently interviewed Stephanie Coontz, who is the Director of Research and Public Education for the Council on Contemporary Families. A brief bio:

Stephanie Coontz teaches history and family studies at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA, and is Director of Research and Public Education for the Council on Contemporary Families [Update: dead link removed]. She wrote the book The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap. Her work has been translated into French, Spanish, Greek, German, Chinese, Norwegian, Swedish, and Japanese.

Her work is not only helpful to us in order to understand family history, but also how families are evolving.

1. How have American families changed in the past century?

People tend to think that change has been linear, but that is not at all the case. 100 years ago, there was a sexual revolution going on every bit as shocking to contemporaries as anything in the past 20 years has been to modern Americans. There were also more immigrant families in America than today, and the divorce rate was rising precipitously, whereas today it has been falling for the past 30 years. And many more children spent some of their childhood in a single parent family, though that was more often a result of death than divorce. Eighty-two years ago, the US fell into the Great Depression. Divorce rates fell, but domestic violence, desertion, and abuse increased. Then came WWII, which led to a marriage and baby boom followed by a surge of divorce after the war. By 1946, 1 in 3 marriages was ending in divorce. The fact that so many marriages broke up so quickly is one of the reasons that divorce rates stayed fairly steady during the 1950s -- a lot of the shaky marriages had already ended in divorce. Most of us think of the 1950s as the era of the traditional family, but in fact the family arrangements of that day were very unusual. There were more male breadwinner families than than ever before or since. And the age of marriage reached an all-time low in 1960, with nearly half of all women married by age 20.

Still, taking all these variations into account, there have been some clear trends. The age of marriage has been rising steadily since the late 1960s and has now surpassed its previous historical high (which occurred in 1890). Premarital sex, cohabitation, and even having children out of wedlock are far more acceptable than in the past. And there have been interesting trade-offs: Men are doing much more childcare and housework in the past -- when they are present. But there are also more absent fathers then in the past. Successful marriages are fairer, more intimate, and more beneficial to all their members than in the past, but the same things that have made them so have also increased the alternatives to marriage and made an unsatisfying marriage seem less bearable to most people. And of course the increase in acceptance of same-sex couples has been stunningly rapid just in the past 20 years.

2. How would you address the claim made by some media that there's been a decline in family values?

If you look at the Pew Research Center polls on family life you will find that although Americans no longer believe that marriage is essential to a successful life, this does not mean they are giving up on marriage and other committed relationships. Most people say their family relationships are closer than those of their parents or grandparents. And millennials are more likely than older Americans to believe that adult children have the obligation to take in an aging parent if the parent needs assistance. Yes, there is more premarital sex than in the past, but sexual victimization rates have declined substantially in the past 20 years. So have domestic violence rates. Intergenerational relations are also closer. Even before the recession, we were seeing an increase in multigenerational households, partly because of economics, but partly because there has been a decline in generational mistrust, as a result of more democratic childrearing and more socializing between unmarried 20-somethings and their parents.

But of course, every time we solve one problem, we do create new challenges. The more freedom people gain to cultivate their own talents and pursue their own passions, the more possibility they have of going down dead-end streets or getting lost on an unmarked trail. The key is for us to try to figure out how to build on our new possibilities while minimizing our new vulnerabilities. One reason I volunteer my time at the Council on Contemporary Families is because this is an organization that does not waste time bemoaning what we have supposedly lost. Instead, CCF researchers and practitioners accept that family diversity is here to stay and try to get out the research and best-practice findings that will allow every family to build on its potential strengths and compensate for its weaknesses.

3. What major concerns do you see - if any - for the future of families in the United States, and how can we address these (if needed)?

One big concern is the widening gap between low-income, poorly educated Americans and highly-educated, more economically secure Americans in their access to stable, satisfying relationships. Research suggests that the answer lies not in promoting marriage per se but in working on two fronts at once: improving the economic prospects of men and women without a college degree and providing relationship support and training for couples, especially couples with children, whether married, cohabiting or apart. See this, for example.

For Americans who do have good jobs, there is quite a different concern. Increasingly, well-paid and challenging jobs require such intense work hours that it is very difficult for men and women to combine their family responsibilities with their professional ones. At all income levels, Americans need stricter limits on the work week, more generous and subsidized leaves such as those found in Europe and the Nordic countries, and affordable, reliable child care. Given the shortage of jobs, this would be a good time to consider the 35-hour work week, and of course we need to reform health care so that families have more flexibility to work part-time or some protections when they are laid off.

Interview: Susan Walsh of Hooking Up Smart

The responses to the interview questions may not represent the views of The Echo Boom Bomb's author. These interviews are provided to inform readers of information from experts and provide these experts with a medium where they can answer questions without any content changes. All linked material to products in interviews such as books or videos are affiliated with the supported platforms, such as Amazon or others. To see the full list of interviews related to Echo Boomers, iGenZ or Automons, see the ending acknowledgements on this post.

In the past, I was asked about hooking up and I wrote a short post, Generation Y and the Hook Up Culture. However, I got in touch with Susan Walsh, who writes Hooking Up Smart [Update: dead link removed]. A quick introduction from her site [Update: dead link removed] :

Since earning my MBA in 1983 from The Wharton School, I have worked with companies and non-profit organizations to identify key challenges and opportunities, and formulate winning strategies. Launched in November, 2008, Hooking Up Smart brings together my passion and concern for young women with a professional, practical and systematic problem-solving approach.

[She also describes herself as a "cool mom" which is awesome.]

In other words, she understands the hook up culture.

1. People have expressed interest in learning about the current hook up culture that's popular among Echo Boomers, and a few other generations. Given that you counsel young women (and it seems, young men too) on the hook up culture and hooking up smart, could you give a brief explanation of what the hook up culture is?.

• Hooking up is a term to describe a sexual encounter between two people. It is a deliberately vague expression (providing plausible deniability), and can mean making out, having intercourse, or anything in between.

• Hooking up has replaced traditional dating on college campuses, and has also become prevalent in the general population and culture. The hallmark of hooking up is the clear understanding between both parties that the encounter will be free from any expectations for further contact. It is designed to avoid the possibility of commitment. However, hooking up is still the primary pathway to a potential romantic relationship, although only 12% of hookups eventually lead to relationships.

• The hookup script reverses the sexual norm; the pair becomes sexual first, before emotional intimacy or a relationship is established.

• Hooking up is awkward for both sexes. Most students get drunk to relax inhibition about getting naked with a stranger. Research shows that hooking up is not something unplanned that happens when people drink. Rather, young people drink heavily with the full intention of hooking up later in the evening.

2. It seems like there's a lot of pressure on young women to "be like men" in any and all ways. What - if any - are the potential consequences and/or benefits to this pressure? And why does Western culture assume that it's a "man's world" (being a man, I hardly feel like it's our world 96.7% of the time)?

First, hookup culture is the consequence of the Sexual Revolution, which occurred as a result of the Women’s Movement and the introduction of the Pill. Once women were able to have sex without fear of pregnancy, and with the blessing of Second Wave Feminists, they set out to have sex without restraint, much in the way that men did. When colleges stopped acting in loco parentis, the stage was set with coed dorms, and the hookup became the prevalent mode of male-female sexual interaction.

What happened over a period of 50 years is the loss of assortive mating. That is, it used to be the case that sex was tied to commitment, and people often married their first sexual partners. People generally married a mate with similar characteristics – education, intelligence, socioeconomic background and physical attractiveness.

As casual sex became more prevalent, and the Women’s Movement provided opportunities for women to pursue more education and professional careers, the average age at marriage increased significantly. In the meantime, both men and women seek sex, whether casual or in long-term relationships. However, they no longer limit themselves to people of similar traits.

[Some of what Susan Walsh mentions here may come in the form of serial monogamy, which is growing in popularity as well.]

As the gatekeepers of sex, women soon learned that while they might not hope to marry a man significantly more attractive or higher status than themselves, it is quite possible to command his attention in the short-term – often just for one night. This has led to a sexual “wealth gap” in the population, in accordance with the Pareto Principle. That is, 20% of the men are deemed highly desirable by women. They have the most options for sex, and as a result are the least likely to form committed relationships, especially at a young age. The other 80% struggle to find mates of similar traits, even if they’re willing to offer commitment. I’ve also estimated that about 20% of women are highly promiscuous. They seek short-term male attention. The other 80% recognize that they are unlikely to garner much male attention without offering casual hookups.

In this way, the idea that it’s a “man’s world” or that men have it made is misleading. A small percentage of men have it made. I don’t see any real winners among the women, frankly. Some women do enjoy no-strings sex, and are not seeking a relationship, but many struggle with feelings of regret, depression and low self-esteem.

3. I've heard two basic theories about the future of anything: the pendulum analogy, where things go back and forth from one extreme to the other, and the slippery slope analogy, where once things go downhill, they never return (note to readers: both of these are fallacies in logic). But based on your interaction with people involved in the hook up culture and dating, experience in the pros and cons of each, and knowledge of Western culture, what do you see for the future in terms of (dating/hooking up/seeing each other) interactions between men and women?

That’s a very interesting question, and we debate it at Hooking Up Smart [Update: dead link removed] all the time. Personally, I subscribe more to the pendulum theory. History is characterized by large swings in morality, with periods of extreme hedonism followed by more disciplined or restrictive norms. I see hookup culture sticking around for a long while, but there is some backlash already occurring. In the three years I’ve been blogging, college student newspapers have been printing a greater number of editorials by students opposing the culture. One thing that’s interesting to note is that while most students believe it’s common, and that many other students are hooking up regularly, 90% of college students have only 0-5 sexual partners during their four years. So the culture doesn’t really reflect the reality, but it dominates nonetheless.

Another possibility is a crisis in sexual health. STDs continue to spread rapidly, and are becoming increasingly resistant to treatment. HPV is causing cancers in both sexes, and there is a strain of gonorrhea in the UK, which is now considered untreatable. Of course, there’s the very real possibility of a new, opportunistic virus, much as we saw with AIDS in the early 80s. A worsening of the outlook in this area could create behavioral changes.

We’re in uncharted territory, and the Sexual Marketplace feels hostile to most people. My own view is that regardless of what is happening in the culture at large, each individual has the agency to formulate and implement a strategy that is most likely to help them meet their personal mating objectives. At HookingUpSmart.com [Update: dead link removed], I’m working on the margins. There are always opportunities in chaos, and hookup culture is no exception.

Interview: Sander Daniels of Thumbtack

The responses to the interview questions may not represent the views of The Echo Boom Bomb's author. These interviews are provided to inform readers of information from experts and provide these experts with a medium where they can answer questions without any content changes. All linked material to products in interviews such as books or videos are affiliated with the supported platforms, such as Amazon or others. To see the full list of interviews related to Echo Boomers, iGenZ or Automons, see the ending acknowledgements on this post.

After my recent article on Forbes, When Will the Education Bubble Explode, I had an email exchange with Sander Daniels of Thumbtack, who had some fascinating information to share about student loans, especially regarding liberal arts versus technical degrees.

Anyone Considering Education: Pay Attention To This Interview

This could end up saving you a huge amount of time and money and provide you with many more opportunities than those who went to a "traditional" school. Or if you know anyone who's considering college, forward/email/Facebook/Tweet this to them immediately.

1. You recently released data "showing that service professionals with a bachelor's degree earn no more than those with a technical college degree." For readers, explain the details and finding of these data and what this means for people considering a bachelor's versus a technical degree..

Thumbtack is an online marketplace for local services. So anyone who offers any kind of local service - from a contractor in Los Angeles, to a portrait photographer in Minneapolis, to an ice cream truck in Houston, etc. - can list themselves on our site. More than 225,000 independent professionals have listed themselves on Thumbtack since 2009.

We surveyed these professionals and asked "What is the highest level of education you have reached?" A little more than 11,000 people responded, with answers ranging from "high school degree" to "doctoral degree".

Since these professionals advertise their services on Thumbtack, they frequently list the price at which they offer their service. For example, this photographer offers her service at $95-195 per hour.

We found something very surprising when we mapped average hourly rate against educational achievement. We expected to see hourly rates rise with a higher level of education, and that's exactly what we found - except that the hourly rate for those with technical degrees and those with undergraduate degrees was exactly the same.

These findings aren't conclusive - perhaps Thumbtack members with technical degrees and undergraduate degrees aren't representative of all people with technical degrees and undergraduate degrees. And there are certainly advantages to getting a broad education at a four-year college over getting a vocational education at a two-year school.

But if I could go back in time and choose between a four-year liberal arts degree and a two-year technical degree, these data would make me think twice. These data at least make it clear that more education doesn't always mean a higher income.

2. You mentioned that you work with a team of Echo Boomers at Thumbtack. What things do you do there at Thumbtack and how can readers, who may be business owners or local merchants, use your services?

Thumbtack is a relatively young company. We're a company of 12 people based in San Francisco. We're all between 25 and 33.

It's a fun place to work - not only do we have an open working environment with a private chef who cooks meals every day, but we also feel like we're creating something truly innovative - and helping out small businesses in doing so.

Thumbtack offers small businesses and independent professionals a home online. It's free to list yourself and advertise your services on our site. In general, people really like the look of their profile - some people spend hours setting it up, filling it out, and making it look nice.

We also bring work to you. If someone comes to our site looking for a caterer for their holiday barbeque, we'll email that job to those in the area who can do that service. This is how we make our money - it costs a bit of money to respond to that client and pitch your services.

In general, the response to Thumbtack has been overwhelmingly positive, and we look forward to coming to work every day. More than 4,000 small businesses list themselves on Thumbtack every week, and a new user signs up on our site every minute of every day.

We love what we do, and encourage you to check us out!

Interview: Austrian Economics With Dr. Paul Cwik

The responses to the interview questions may not represent the views of The Echo Boom Bomb's author. These interviews are provided to inform readers of information from experts and provide these experts with a medium where they can answer questions without any content changes. All linked material to products in interviews such as books or videos are affiliated with the supported platforms, such as Amazon or others. To see the full list of interviews related to Echo Boomers, iGenZ or Automons, see the ending acknowledgements on this post.

Instead of any Millennial Q and A this Friday, I recently had an exchange with Dr. Paul Cwik, an Austrian economist at Mount Olive College. He blogs at Tillman School of Business and provides some fascinating insights to our economy, for instance Economic Distress Index and Yield Curve Inversions. For further information on these, you can listen to free podcasts [Update: dead link removed] from The Foundation For Economic Education (FEE).

1. The prevailing C+I+G+(net exports) focuses on consumption as the main driver for economic growth and prosperity. What is the main driver in the Austrian view and how does that look in comparison.

The classic Keynesian formulation for measuring the Macroeconomy is National Income (Y) = Consumption (C) + Investment (I) + Government Spending (G) + Net Exports (X-M). In this formulation, Y = GDP and so it is true that C is the largest share of GDP. The rational conclusion is that GDP will move whenever C moves. In other words, C is the prime mover (main driver) of GDP.

The unfortunate part of the story above is that it is NOT a complete answer. GDP is a measure of final goods and services. It is constructed in the above manner so that double counting does not occur. While GDP does a fair job for what it was designed to do, it does not reflect the overall health of an economy. Just take a moment and think about what we mean with "the final goods sectors" of the economy. The final goods and services sectors are the "Do you want fries with that?" sort of jobs. Most jobs (and really most business activity) does not take place at the consumer level.

It is true that the only reason why we go to work is in order to consume later. We first enter the market place and sell (usually our labor services) to others before we can withdraw goods and services from society. Each dollar is a representation of service. We gain them by serving others. The way in which a market economy reflects the degree of service that we provide to others is through the accumulation of money.

A portion of these dollars are then used to consume, while the rest are saved. We defer consumption. When we choose not to run out to the store and blow the entire paycheck, we are deferring consumption. This suspension of consumption frees up resources to be used in other ways, namely used in the formation of capital.

Capital is absolutely essential for an economy to grow. Not only does it increase the productive power of the individual, it also allows individuals to create something new--products that would never come about otherwise.

And so we see the "Magic Formula" for economic growth: Savings leads to investment; investment is used to build capital equipment; and capital increases our productivity. As we become more productive, we become more valuable as workers. In other words, our real wages rise as a result. The increase in productivity also expands output, which increases our ability to consume. In short, this is how we raise our living standards.

So while the Keynesian economist focuses on the short-run aggregate of Consumption, the Austrian economist looks for the larger picture. When consumption falls, the Keynesian says that this is a calamity and must be reversed at all costs. It requires government to tax and spend in order to boost aggregate demand and supplant the drop in consumption.

Meanwhile, the Austrian economist sees that there is a trade-off between present and future consumption. A decrease in today's consumption is not the end of the world. We are deferring consumption and building up capital for future output expansions. In fact, the Austrian will see the government's attempts to prop up aggregate demand as not only delaying the inevitable, but it is a waste of resources, making a bad situation worse.

Do you want more details about the Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle? Click here to watch Dr. Paul Cwik at FEE. He provides a great Power Point presentation and further details (you can pull up his Power Point slides directly [Update: dead link removed] as well to see a comprehensive view of the Austrian view of Business cycles).

2. How would an Austrian economist view a consumption tax as opposed to an income tax?

There is no real answer here except for personal preference. Murray Rothbard wrote an excellent article called, "The Myth of Neutral Taxation." [Update link]. It is a little long, but the short summary is that all taxes distort the economy somehow.

A tax on beer reduces beer consumption. Why? Because a tax is a disincentive for whatever is being taxed. So a tax on consumption discourages consumption and an income tax discourages earning an income. While it is true that people need to consume and earn an income, that idea misses the economic point. People will do less of the taxed activity. Government is putting its thumb down on the scales and tilting it in a particular direction.

The best that I, as a citizen, can hope for is a minimization of governmental distortions to the market place. In order to achieve that, taxes must be broad, not favoring one group over another, and light. Both consumption taxes and income taxes can be broad and light. The question isn't which tax is better, the question should be which is lighter?

I am in favor of the system that taxes in the least burdensome manner.

The devil is in the details when it comes to measuring burden, because we can't assume that people will voluntarily pay taxes, nor can we assume that the bureaucracy will be incorruptible and efficient. As a result, it comes.

3. This blog is concerned with the Millennial generation, many of whom have told me that they feel helpless about our current economy. However, are there ways in which Echo Boomers can help Austrian economics become an influential view point in public policy decisions? And if so, what would those be?

Leonard Read was the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) [Update link]. He would talk about how when he golfed, no one took any notice of him. Then he observed that if Arnold Palmer showed up, he (Palmer) would be mobbed. Everyone would want to meet him, shake his hand and then ask him about his thoughts on their swing, form, grip, etc. Why would no one mob Read, but they would mob Palmer? The answer is obvious--Palmer was an acknowledged expert in the field of golf.

People seek answers to questions from those they think are knowledgeable in different fields. When it comes to the field of economics, each of us has to become more expert. We need to deepen our own understanding of the topic. If we don't, then we won't be able to answer questions.

The next thing that Read would do is turn off the lights in the lecture hall and turn on a single light bulb. The light bulb had an adjustable dial. He would set it at the lowest setting. In that dark room, even the lowest setting drew everyone's eye to it. We are the light bulbs. As we acquire more knowledge, we become brighter. People will find out where the bright bulbs are. They will seek them out. We cannot go out and attempt to bludgeon others with our ideas. People are attracted to the humble. They are turned off by the loud.

This creates a dilemma for us. If we are to be quiet and humble, how can we have our voice heard in the shouting match that we call civil discourse? Well, there is a world of difference between being quiet and not saying anything. We don't have to shout down our opponents. We have truth, reason and empirical evidence on our side.

Now that I am a parent, find it difficult to remember that I don't have to yell at the kids. I have all of the power. If don't do X, they don't get Y. It's really that simple. I don't have to yell.

Obviously, we are not the parents of the US and so we don't have that same power. Nevertheless, we don't have to yell. People are naturally attracted to positive, optimistic, good-natured individuals who can emote their concern with others. We, each, have the capacity to be nice. Be nice and really mean it.

What concrete steps can we take? Well, there is no single answer to this. THERE IS NO CENTRAL PLAN FOR FREEDOM. Each person is the author of his own life. Each must determine what is the best use of his individual talents, and then act.

However, I will give you one concrete example.

My suggestion is to go to one's Town Council meetings. These are usually small, local affairs. Very few people attend. As a result, you will stand out. Almost always there is an open forum for people to address the council. I suggest that you attend each meeting. For each meeting prepare a 5 minute talk on a specific topic that relates to the Free Market and a local issue. Educate. Be kind. Demonstrate that you are a light. Show that you are interested. The local newspapers will initially cover you. You can then build on that exposure.

The goal is to change the hearts and minds of those who are interested in the levers of power (i.e., the people at the council meetings). You must never lose your temper. Must always be above reproach. Must always be dressed nicely (but not over the top). Try to present alternative solutions to local problems. If such things are attainable in a small community, then the larger communities will start to notice. It takes persistence, but it does not take a genius. It takes you.

Awesome stuff. I appreciate Dr. Paul Cwik taking out the time and answering these questions, and I hope that it offers a good introduction to Austrian economics. I cannot recommend the FEE podcast [Update: dead link removed] enough. Also, be sure to check out Dr. Paul Cwik’s blog, Tillman School of Business.

Default Documentary: the Student Loan Interview

The responses to the interview questions may not represent the views of The Echo Boom Bomb's author. These interviews are provided to inform readers of information from experts and provide these experts with a medium where they can answer questions without any content changes. All linked material to products in interviews such as books or videos are affiliated with the supported platforms, such as Amazon or others. To see the full list of interviews related to Echo Boomers, iGenZ or Automons, see the ending acknowledgements on this post.

I recently had an excellent exchange with Aurora Meneghello of Krotala Films behind Default: the Student Loan Documentary [Update: dead link removed]. A documentary covering student loans has been missing for a while, and I think this film will help shed some light on a very dark situation for many young people. If you've been wondering about this area, check out their site and join the movement - they are doing a great job by helping young people understand this important situation.

1. What caused you to produce a documentary on student loans? Do you think this issue is receiving enough attention?

We started working on this documentary 4 years ago when there was not much written in the press on the issue of student loans. I have student loans and at the time I was trying to learn more about my private student loans. It was starting to dawn on me that my school had provided very good information on federal loans, but not on private loans.

One day I saw an article about student debt on the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle and in it I read about StudentLoanJustice.org [Update: dead link removed]. When I read some of the stories posted on Alan Collinge’s site, I felt it was outrageous that I had never heard of this before (I am a bit of a news junkie). As I found more and more information, I talked to Serge (Serge Bakalian, co-writer and producer of Default: the Student Loan Documentary) who suggested making a film about the issue. A lot of our friends were graduating with student loan debt and they were completely unaware of their lack of rights. They also felt embarrassed and scared and wouldn’t talk about it, feeling ashamed about their debt. I remember calling a credit counseling service and asking whether they offered counseling to student loan borrowers. The person on the phone wondered why I was asking, since, she said, student loans are actually “good for you!”

So our intention from the start was to educate people on student loans: how they work, what happens when you cannot pay them back, etc. And to open a dialogue about debt, so that future students could find an alternative source of information, apart from their school’s financial aid office. We also wanted to break the taboo that one doesn’t talk about debt. This is a problem affecting millions of people directly and our entire economy indirectly. It’s not just a personal issue of financial literacy or responsibility, it is a systemic problem.

2. How can people get involved with your movement to inform others and seek solutions to this problem?

We have a very active Facebook page and Twitter feed where we post relevant content every day. And our website [Update: dead link removed] has a list of sites that can be helpful in learning about student loans and to get involved.

It’s important for people to act individually and in groups. You can get a better grip on your finances and share your story to help other students avoid debt. You can also pay attention as to what legislation is being considered in Congress, sign petitions, become more vocal in your community. Find a group of like-minded people, organize screenings, protests and talks. Different website and groups offer different approaches: choose what works best for you.

3. If a young person was considering college, how would you advise them?

First of all, I would ask them whether they need a degree to practice in their chosen career. I am a photographer and although I learned a lot in school, nobody ever asks me whether I have a degree. It’s all about the work I do. You will find this is the case in many professions. If that’s the case for your chosen career, avoid getting into debt: either find alternative ways to learn (see Anya Kamenetzs’s book DIYU) or choose a college that is less prestigious, is affordable and still gives you the education you need.

If you are looking into professions that require a degree, if you want to be a doctor, a lawyer, a teacher, then I would advise trying to get that degree incurring the least amount of debt possible. Again, watch out for quick but expensive degrees (especially at for profit colleges), or for very prestigious but very expensive schools. Check out how much you can expect to make in your first year, paying close attention to the average in your area and to the lowest possible salary in your field as well. Basically, stay away from overly optimistic estimates such as $160,000 out of law school. Also, find out what is required of you after you graduate. For example, if you want to be a Marriage and Family therapist in California, you have to put in 3,000 hours of supervised work, which are often unpaid. Are you ready for that commitment? Research and plan for the worst, while doing your best to succeed. Graduating with unmanageable debt might prevent you from taking the chances you need at the beginning of your career.

Being realistic doesn’t mean giving up your dreams. If you stare reality in the face, you will be better able to find ways to achieve your goals.

Let me also say that I think education is important in and of itself and it is very troubling to me that we think of universities only as monetary investment in a future career. So, no matter what you decide to do, read, learn, explore! Grow as a person by educating yourself. Nowadays we have more access to information than ever before. Don’t let the high price of college deter you. Why isn’t education free or low cost? I think this is another topic, but one where we all need to be actively engaged.

4. Final question: based on your interviews with college students and graduates, do you think the unquestioned zeitgeist of "attend college no matter the cost" is changing?

It’s always hard to generalize, but in the past four years, I have seen the topic of student loan debt explode in the press, thanks to the tireless work of activist and borrowers willing to speak up. The students who contacted us to screen our film and whom I have talked to are concerned and want to do something about the rising cost of tuition and the lack of consumer protections for their student loans. So I think at the college level things are definitely changing.

Unfortunately though, there is still enormous pressure on children and teenagers to go to college at any cost. Having a college degree is definitely an advantage, but might not be so if one graduates with insurmountable debt. So I would like to see more of this type of debate at the high school level. Finally, I personally feel no matter what job you have, you should be able to make a living wage. We need to think of ourselves as part of a community. Not everyone can be a lawyer or a CEO. Some will always need to serve a latte or to sell us a pair of jeans. Anya Kamenetz shows in our documentary how the advantage of having a college degree is such only because the income of those not having a college degree has actually deteriorated. We cannot make an expensive degree the only way to make a decent living. I think we need to look at the bigger economic picture and question why we pay some people so little for the work they do that they can barely survive.

But that is another story ...

Interview: Tom Naughton of Fat Head

Can You Lose Weight Eating Fast Food?

The responses to the interview questions may not represent the views of The Echo Boom Bomb's author. These interviews are provided to inform readers of information from well-known people in their field and provide these individuals with a medium where they can answer questions without any content changes. It's important to note that knowledge can change over time as information changes or as new information contradicts old information. Consider the date and timeframe when this interview happened and seek out the latest information to confirm it is still appropriate. All linked material to products in interviews such as books or videos are affiliated with the supported platforms, such as Amazon or others. To see the full list of interviews related to Echo Boomers, iGenZ or Automons, see the ending acknowledgements on this post.

Super Size Me received a ton of attention with Spurlock "proving" that McDonald's fast food was unhealthy.

Or did he?

Tom Naughton produced the documentary, Fat Head, which challenges Spurlock's assertions in Super Size Me. Fat Head also addresses some of the other common nutrition idioms such as "high fat diets are bad" and "saturated fat will give you a heart attack." Fat Head will be well worth your time, whether you're looking to be in better health, lose weight, or view the opposite side of the attack on fast food restaurants (and people's freedom to choose what food they want to eat). A little more information about Tom:

Tom Naughton spent various portions of his adult life working as a health-magazine editor, freelance writer, standup comedian and software programmer before writing and producing the comedy-documentary Fat Head.

You can also check out his website, Tom Naughton.

[Update: dead image]

1. The food pyramid [Update: dead link removed] suggests that we limit our fat intake while keeping up a good carbohydrate intake. Based on some of your research while doing Fat Head, what have you discovered about fats, and are they always bad for us (for the record, my testosterone levels seem to enjoy saturated fat)?

Most fats not only aren't bad for us, they're good for us. The fats that are bad for us are unnatural fats that have to be chemically extracted and processed, like corn oil, soybean oil, canola oil, sunflower oil, and any kind of hydrogenated oil. Natural fats like olive oil and animal fats raise your HDL, help keep your blood sugar more stable, reduce triglycerides, and keep your appetite in check as long as they're not mixed with sugars and flours. They can also raise your LDL, but they shift the LDL pattern away from the small, dense variety towards the large, fluffy variety. Large, fluffy LDL is good for you. It protects against cancer and infections, in addition to being the building block for a variety of hormones that are important for your health.

There's a reason we've become fatter and more diabetic as a nation since the Food Pyramid was promoted: we started consuming less natural fat and more grains and other carbohydrates, exactly as we were told to do. The result was a cascade of biochemical reactions that led to overeating, high blood sugar, low HDL, high triglycerides, small LDL particles and pretty much most of the conditions we now call Metabolic Syndrome. The Food Pyramid was created by people with good intentions, but they never had any real science backing up their advice. They just assumed they were correct ... but they were tragically wrong.

Editor's Note:

In one of my favorite books, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, Jack Weatherford points out that the Mongolians ate a diet of mostly fat and protein - "The Mongols consumed a steady diet of meat, milk, yogurt, and other dairy products, and they fought men who lived on gruel made from various grains. The grain diet of the peasant warriors stunted their bones, rotted their teeth, and left them weak and prone to disease. In contrast, the poorest Mongol soldier ate mostly protein, thereby giving him strong teeth and bones. Unlike the [Chinese] soldiers, who were dependent on a heavy carbohydrate diet, the Mongols could more easily go a day or two without food” (Weatherford, 87).

2. You challenge Spurlock on his assertion of how many calories he consumed during his documentary Super Size Me. His documentary also seemed to imply that McDonalds is "tricking" people by using tactics like close locations and marketing to kids. With such poor logic, how did this documentary ever catch on?

It caught on because it played to the beliefs of people who were predisposed to dislike McDonald's. It's an unfortunate aspect of human nature that we tend not to apply much critical thinking when people are telling us what we want to hear. I've actually heard from many, many people that after they saw Super Size Me, they were craving a Big Mac and went out to get one. I had the same reaction. Those of us who don't think McDonald's is some kind of evil empire recognized that Super Size Me was essentially a publicity stunt without any real science or logic behind it.

3. Fat Head gave me a good smile when you discussed how sedentary our culture has become, especially with young kids. What do you think has contributed to the way we raise children - especially the attitude that almost discourages kids from going outside and playing (for instance, some adults worried that kids might get hurt by trying some things in The Dangerous Book For Boys)?

I think there are a few factors involved. When I was a kid in the 1960s, the only mothers in our neighborhood who worked outside the home were the very few who were divorced. So kids came home from school, had a quick snack, then went outside to play. Now a lot of kids go from school to some organized, indoor activity where they're kept busy until Mom or Dad picks them up after work. When we moved from California to Tennessee, we noticed most of the mothers in our neighborhood were stay-at-home moms, just like in the neighborhood where I grew up. Sure enough, most of the kids played outside after school.

Our neighorhood in Tennessee was also a very safe area, which relates to the point you raised. A lot of parents these days are afraid to let their kids play outside without supervision. To some extent, it's a legimate fear. I wouldn't have let my daughters run around loose in our neighborhood in Los Angeles. It was too busy, with too much traffic and too many people we didn't know. In some suburban areas, however, I think parents are giving in to exaggerated fears of things like child abductions. I've seen the statistics, and while every one of those incidents is a tragedy, they're really not more common than when I was a kid. But they've gotten a lot more media attention, so parents are more afraid.

4. From your interviews with doctors and experts from various fields, what are some good guidelines for nutrition and health?

[Update: dead image]

I believe the diet that's best for human health is what's now called a Paleo diet, which means avoiding the foods that came along very recently in human history and mimicking -- as best we can, anyway -- the diet of hunter-gatherers. That means giving up sugar, grains, and any kind of processed vegetable oils. The stricter paleo types also give up dairy foods, although I think a little full-fat cream, butter and cheese are fine for most people if they don't have issues with lactose or casein. If you go back through the anthropological records, what we correctly call the "diseases of civilization" -- heart disease, cancer, diabetes -- didn't show up in human populations to any significant degree until people began consuming grains and sugars. To make matters worse, the grains we consume today have to a large degree been genetically altered and are biochemically different from the grains people consumed just 60 years ago. We're not adapted to eating these grains, and they cause a whole slew of problems after we ingest them.

5. Have you stuck with the high fat diet and what's been your experience while on it?

My diet has evolved. It's still a high-fat diet, but it's more along lines of the paleo diet I described above. I don't eat grains anymore, except for a very occasional indulgence in pizza -- usually when I'm in Chicago and can get the awesome stuffed pizza from Giordano's. I've also given up processed foods for the most part. My wife cooks nearly everything from scratch, and we only eat fast food a couple of times per month. As I demonstrated in Fat Head, it's possible to make smarter choices when eating fast food and still lose weight, but whole foods you cook at home are still the best.

We're even going a step further now. We moved to a five-acre mini-farm in Tennessee and are preparing to raise our own chickens and sheep for meat and eggs. My wife has spent much of this spring preparing a huge garden. So while we won't be living completely off the land, we'll be growing or raising much more of what we eat.

Moving to the farm was also great for my girls. They not only play outside, they have a five-acre yard with trees, a creek, pastures and hills. They love to run around and explore. I saw them out there one day recently washing their clothes in the creek and hanging them on the bushes to dry. They were pretending they were pioneer girls. They also like to climb trees and build forts out of branches and sticks. In other words, they're living more like kids did in previous eras. If either one of them ends up fat or diabetic, I'll be the most suprised father on earth.

Dr. Catherine Shanahan: Food, Genes and Our Behavior

In the past, I interviewed some health and nutrition experts on various topics related to both. These interviews made fascinating discussions, plus since I knew there would be a medical shortage in the future, it was my way of learning as much as I could about ways I could enhance health in the event that I couldn't see a doctor.

The responses to the interview questions may not represent the views of The Echo Boom Bomb's author. These interviews are provided to inform readers of information from well-known people in their field and provide these individuals with a medium where they can answer questions without any content changes. It's important to note that knowledge can change over time as information changes or as new information contradicts old information. Consider the date and timeframe when this interview happened and seek out the latest information to confirm it is still appropriate. All linked material to products in interviews such as books or videos are affiliated with the supported platforms, such as Amazon or others. To see the full list of interviews related to Echo Boomers, iGenZ or Automons, see the ending acknowledgements on this post.

"The food pyramid promotes health." "We are stuck with the genes we have." "We cannot affect the genes of our children." Are these assertions and assumptions true? I interviewed Dr. Catherine Shanahan (MD), who has not only written books on these topics (and more), but also assists clients with questions similar to this.

Brief Bio:

Dr. Cate Shanahan is a board certified Family Physician. She trained in genetics and biochemistry at Cornell University before attending Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. She practiced in Hawaii for ten years where she studied ethnobotany and her healthiest patient’s culinary habits. She has published 2 books: Deep Nutrition: Why Your Genes Need Traditional Food and Food Rules: A Doctor's Guide To Healthy Eating. When not writing or working, she can be usually found on the nearest mountain biking trail. Learn more at her website: DrCate.com

1. The food pyramid tends to be promoted by the medical community, almost implying that a diet higher in fat and protein would be discouraged by medical professionals. How do you see the food pyramid as a guideline to nutritional recommendations?

The Food Pyramid was designed by lobbyists with industrial relationships rather than by scientists intending to help anyone engineer a healthy body. The notion that starches should form the base of your daily food intake and that a person on a 2000 calorie diet should get at least 250 grams of carbohydrates every day makes no physiologic sense because carbohydrates are absorbed into the blood as sugar. So as far as your body is concerned, a plate of whole grain pasta is like a pile of sugar laced with traces of fiber.

We've grown up equating sugar to energy, but research into a metabolic state called "nutritional ketosis" is uncovering incredible advantages to burning fat.

Even if you get those 250 grams of carbohydrate from supposedly healthy whole grains, few people are so active that they can afford 1000 calories of mostly empty energy. Don't forget the FDA recommends those 250 grams from whole grains in addition to several servings of fruit. Fruit, too, is mostly sugar. An average banana has about 30 grams of carbohydrate and only 1 gram of protein.

Topping off the food pyramid is more sugar! In the form of added sweeteners, which should make up 10 percent of your caloric intake according to the government. This would not be there at all without industrial lobbyists and the fact that such a ridiculous suggestion made it to print gives you some idea the degree to which the foxes have taken over our FDA henhouse.

As far as the recommendation of 2000 calories per day, this is way more than I can eat and I exercise regularly. Most women over 40 need significantly less than 2000 calories.

2. What would be some good general guidelines to follow as far as fat and protein consumption?

I'm glad you asked this question because everyone asks this question in attempt to start defining a healthy diet and it's the wrong place to start.

I can't tell you how much protein you need because the protein you get from sushi, for instance, is entirely more valuable to your body than any protein you might get from something like whey powder or tofu. I can't tell you how much fat you need because that depends entirely on what kind of fats we're talking about.

We need to start instead by defining what we mean by food. Our definition should not include the words, "protein, carbs, and fat."

Dietitians and nutritionists have trained us all to talk about food in reductionist terms and now health books pretty much only use these terms. Better that our discussion about healthy eating begin using the language of farmers, ranchers and chefs--the people who have been nourishing us all along (up until the past 150 or so years). We got into the mess we're in with rampant obesity and chronic disease partly because we stopped using terms like "good soil" "fresh" and "wild" and started describing foods as "carbohydrate," "fat," or "protein." These words fool people into buying empty calories and unnatural, harmful chemicals that are likely to promote metabolic derangements leading to hormone problems, inflammatory diseases, and more.

Luke and I wrote Deep Nutrition to empower readers with the ability to constantly create and refine their own perfect diet. But to do that you need to completely revise the way you think about how to meet your body's needs for food. We advise doing away with calorie counting and struggling to find the perfect ratio of carbs to protein to fat. These terms aren’t useful because they say nothing about what really matters to your body. The following definition of food comes from from the introduction to Deep Nutrition:

Food is like a language, an unbroken information stream that connects every cell in your body to an aspect of the natural world. The better the source and the more undamaged the message when it arrives to your cells, the better your health will be. If you eat a properly cooked steak from an open-range, grass-fed cow, then you are receiving information not only about the health of that cow’s body, but about the health of the grasses from which it ate, and the soil from which those grasses grew. If you want to know whether or not a steak, or a fish, or a carrot is good for you, ask yourself what portions of the natural world it represents, and whether or not the bulk of that information remains intact. This requires traveling backwards down the food chain, step by step, until you reach the ground or the sea.

Make sure you know how to recognize processed foods disguised as health foods so you can avoid them completely--at least that's the ultimate goal. I'll talk about this at Sean Croxton's Real Food Summit.

So how should you portion out your foods?

The most important thing to do is limit your sweet tasting foods to a couple of bites or sips per day. Go for intensely flavored foods as often as you can. Don't follow any arbitrary rules like "eat every three hours" or "don't eat just before bed."

3. Genes play a major role in health and our lives, as we are born with these genes and "stuck with them" in a way. Can genes be influenced by our behavior - such as eating healthier and exercising more often?

It's natural to worry about problems that run in your family and my patients often worry because "My mother was just diagnosed with breast cancer," "My dad had a heart attack at 45," "My grandmother has Alzheimers'." I explain that, contrary to popular medical mythology, which places family history in the "unmodifiable risk factor" column, there IS something you can do to improve the health of your genes.

Our genes are changing constantly. Everything we eat, drink, breathe, and do will affect their behavior and can physically alter the chromosomes in ways that can ultimately rewrite parts of the letter code for future generations. In that sense we are all guardians of our family DNA. This means that, just as an irresponsible debutant can squander his family inheritance, or the opposite--a few smart business moves can greatly enrich a family's wealth--we are the authors of our own family history and have as much control over our health as our parents did.

If your parents got sick early in life, whatever illnesses afflicted them are the illnesses most likely to affect you--if you eat the way they did. This is why certain diseases tend to run in families. But just because your parents developed metabolic imbalance that led to their own illnesses doesn't necessarily doom you to the same fate. No matter your age or your family history, no matter what your current metabolic impairments, your genes are ready to do their part in reviving your metabolism as soon as you get serious about a healthy lifestyle. The improvements in your metabolism won't necessarily happen overnight or in one smooth continuous progression, but every day you can make the wiser choices will be a good day--one that edges your metabolism and your genes towards optimal function.

Editor's Note:

Recall the interview with Dan Eisenberg about telomere length and age of fathers and remember his advice about telomere length: "don't eat too much, eat healthy food and exercise."

4. In your experience in practice, what are three common contributors to poor health in the United States and how can we address these?

I like to keep things as simple as possible. In my view, there is one single cause.

When I was in Hawaii, my healthiest patients were those who grew up fishing, gardening, and hunting. When I was in NH, Yankee territory, some of the healthiest people there were in their 60s and 70s and over and over I heard them tell the same story "we lived on a farm and we were dirt poor but we always had good food." Now that I'm in Napa, the folks who can afford to dine out at our world-famous restaurants don't meet me in clinic; they don't need a doctor.

What all healthy people share is access to nature. Our bodies demand that "unbroken information stream that connects every cell in your body to an aspect of the natural world" and when we eat processed foods the stream is broken. The one thing that is contributing to poor health in America now, more than lack of access to healthcare, is lack of access to nature. How many kids now grow up in neighborhoods where there is no place to "go out and play?" As much as the communities we live in have been de-naturalized during the past few generations, the edible landscape has been de-naturalized as well.

Editor's Note:

Tom Naughton, the director of Fat Head, made a similar point: "When I was a kid in the 1960s, the only mothers in our neighborhood who worked outside the home were the very few who were divorced. So kids came home from school, had a quick snack, then went outside to play. Now a lot of kids go from school to some organized, indoor activity where they're kept busy until Mom or Dad picks them up after work." Note that obesity is only a recent problem as our culture has favored more sedentary activities.

100 years ago, almost all of our food was organic, local, seasonal and most farms were diversified in that they grew a variety of complementary animal and vegetable products from properly fortified soil. This complementary crop production was key, as one crop enhanced the soil for the next. Over the past century, millions of acres of small family farms have been sold to agribusiness interests. The picket fences and red barns are gone. In their place we find machine-groomed monoculture, chemically soaked, pre-industrial food products (mostly corn, soy, and wheat) that will sit on unrefrigerated shelves in the grocery store before going home to American cupboards where they will sit again for months or years without changing. That's not natural.

The fact is that there is no replacement for nature. So addressing this on a population level is a bit of a political dead end. In fact, in the midst of this chronic disease epidemic, our elected officials are taking actions to shut down the few remaining family farms that can actually grow the kinds of foods we all want to eat.

5. What's the greatest moment you've experienced since you've been a doctor?

There's nothing better than meeting someone, making a couple diet suggestions, and when they come back they're transformed and happy. I get to think "I did that." Of course they did it themselves. I just pointed them in the right direction.