Healthful Bites

    27 May 2010

    Work It

    Whether you’re on the job or in the classroom, most of us spend about half of our waking hours doing business. We all know that work or school time may interfere with exercising or shopping for nutritious foods, but there are some other ways that punching the time clock may affect your well-being. Read on to discover some innovative ideas to increase productivity and health—even when you’re a working stiff!

    Take a Boogie Break

    “If your boss has time to do it, so do you.” This quote gets to the heart of a fantastic new trend that’s launching in Washington D.C. workplaces: the Instant Recess. At a set time each day, all of the employees at Summit Health Institute for Research and Education (SHIRE) carve out time for a 10 minute hiatus for health. Instead of taking a smoke break, the employees partake in a dance-filled Instant Recess.

    Soon a book will be penned on the topic and the creators of the workplace heart-pumping respite hope that it will spread to religious centers, government offices and even waiting rooms. The 10 minute fun break is one step in a more comprehensive, large-scale National Physical Activity Plan aimed at “engineering” activity back into our daily lives. The Plan’s main goal is to make exercise seem more accessible: you don’t have to rack up 10,000 steps per day or bike 20 miles, just try to move more during your everyday activities (or at least focus on that as a starting point for a more active lifestyle).

    I know that sitting at a desk for extended periods of time sure makes me antsy, so i would totally join in the Instant Recess. But I can see how some may be uncomfortable letting loose in front of co-workers or may feel self-conscious about the mini-sweatfest. 

    If your school or workplace held Instant Recess sessions, would you take part? Do you agree with promoting more activity within normal daily routines or do you think that we should stick to advocating the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines (150 minutes of moderate cardiovascular exercise plus two days of strength training each week)?

     (Image from Save Disney Shows)

    Do you remember this fun show? It was a hit for me circa fifth grade!


    How Hard Can You Work?

    Newsflash: you’re not a computer, so you can’t work like one! We can’t run on full power all day everyday, and a new study proves this with concrete numbers. When the demand for your time is greater than your supply of it, your health may suffer.

    The working habits and health outcomes of 10,000 Brits were tracked since 1985 for this research published in the European Heart Journal. Scientists found that heart disease risk jumps by 60 percent among those who work 10 hours each day compared to those who work seven. So while you’re workin’ hard for the money, your body may be struggling to keep up.

    While those who worked some overtime showed negative effects, those who worked 11 or 12 hours each day (typically competitive, ladder-climbing employees) were the most at risk for heart troubles. These findings implicate that those who plan to work longer hours need more breaks (see above). 

    Another way to ease your mind during a long workday: take a social networking break! Standing up and taking a walk outside may be the best way to ease your mental and physical desk woes. But this WIRED article explains how reading about Lady Gaga’s newest pointy bra—or other tidbits of novel information—may increase your productivity later in the workday. Fascinating!

     (Image from Babble)

    Too many things going on at once, especially for the long term, may harm your health!


    Water cooler conversation starter: this kid’s going up in smoke…Ardi Rizal, a two year old from Indonesia, puffs on about 40 cigarettes each day! As a sad result, little Ardi can barely move by himself. The government has offered to buy his parents a new car if they can get Ardi to break the habit, but Mom claims he is so addicted he screams and hits his head against the wall. His Dad’s response: the kid looks pretty healthy to me! Hmm…

    I think we pretty much all agree that something should be done so that Ardi and other youngsters put down the cigarettes if they have started. But in a situation such as this, who should be responsible? The parents? Cigarette companies? The government at the local/national level?

    29 Apr 2010

    The “Mad Men” Would be Fuming

    No Ad Smokes

    We’ve talked about labeling debates with food products before here on Healthful Bites, and some health experts have said that fewer package health claims lead to less confused consumers. Australia may soon require that cigarette makers follow a similar idea, and Don Draper, for one, would not be happy about it!

    An anti-smoking initiative by Australia’s Prime Minister would require all cigarette manufacturers to make their product boxes without any logos or designs.  (I say would, not will at this time, because the companies are actively researching their legal options to combat this). The new cartons would be blank, save graphic warnings against smoking.

    Tobacco companies claim that this will cut into their profits in various ways. One: it would make their product look the same as their competitors, making the brand less distinguishable. Two: marketing would essentially become non-existent. The same anti-smoking crusade has also raised the taxes on a pack of cigarettes about 25 percent, effective at Midnight Australia time today.

    In the past 12 years, the smoking rate Down Under has decreased by almost eight percent—which many attribute to increased taxes, educational campaigns and more strict marketing rules.

    Do you feel it is right for the government to regulate the promotion of this dangerous habit? Or is this a “buyer beware” situation, meaning those who smoke already know they are harming their health?

     (Image from The Guardian)


    Get Some Class for a Smaller…Backside (what did you think I was going to say? :) )

    Rather than teaching college students about nutrition, it may be better for their dietary habits to school them about food growth, manufacturing and production. Think of it as better nutrition by way of a social movement rather than diet how-to. 

    After students took a “Food and Society” course, that never told them to eat “better,” they ate more fruits and vegetables and fewer high-fat animal products and sweets. The class focused mainly on social and environmental issues related to food (a la “Food Inc.” or “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”), rather than nutritional content. Control peers who took a health psychology, obesity or community health class during the same time period reported no nutritional improvements. The population who took one of those three classes actually slanted toward eating fewer vegetables after the course.

    The Stanford researchers who designed and performed the study (which involved pre-course and post-course nutritional questionnaires, so results may need to be taken with a grain of salt) said that they had likely reached deeper into the students’ needs, sparking new internal motivation to make healthier choices.

    What would be the most effective way to persuade you to improve your diet?

     

    Educate students about the food production system and make them more likely to ditch fast food. (Image from From the Vault Radio)
     

    Water cooler conversation starter: Hospital sheets and gowns may make you feel even more nude in the future! Not less covered, but more skin-tone-colored. Medical offices should outfit patient beds—and patients—in apparel that is similar to the patient’s regular skin color, researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute suggest. That way, doctors can tell more easily with a glance whether their patient has obvious medical issues. Yellow, blue or pale skin can commonly signal a serious ailment. 

    Do you ever diagnose yourself or seek treatment based on your skin color? I guess that I focus more on how I feel internally than how I look. But maybe I should start thinking more superficially in this case?


    25 Feb 2010

    Blank Boxes?

    Another Label Spat…

    As we discussed in the infancy of my blog, Smart Choices is/was a quite controversial new food labeling program. Shortly after it hit the market, Smart Choices was shelved—most likely due to legal issues.

    This incident seemed to tear open the top (and apparently the sides) of the chip bag. Since then, health advocates have been openly sharing their feelings about label claims. Marion Nestle and Dr. David Ludwig recently published a commentary about this topic in the Journal of the American Medical Association proposing that all front-of-package nutrition claims be banned.

    Nestle and Ludwig believe that no processed foods can possibly be as nutritious as natural foods, such as fruits, vegetables and whole grains. No fight from me there, but it’s unlikely that all Americans will eat a solely unprocessed diet. The pair also wrote that it is misleading for packaged foods to be marketed based on one quality alone (for example, sugary cereals fortified with nutrients). I can see that.

    But is it really the government’s place to regulate how food manufacturers do business? What a perplexing situation! With the way some label zealots are leaning, soon foods may be sold in nearly blank boxes and bags. America is dealing with an obesity issue of epic proportions, increasing health care costs and possibly placing a burden on the medical infrastructure. So the government is affected by the nation’s collective expanding waistlines, but is targeting food labeling the best place to focus energy in the bulge battle?

    How do you feel about package-front labels? Do they impact what lands in your grocery cart?

    (Cartoon from Team VA Fitness—a bit exaggerated but fitting to the commentary ;) )


    Up in Smoke

    In a health-related version of the classic “chicken or egg” situation, a new Israeli study found that non-smokers had an higher average intelligence quotient than their smoking peers. And the more you smoke, the more your IQ numbers drop (even after accounting for socioeconomic status variability) . But does the smoking cause a decrease in intelligence or are people who begin with lower IQs more likely to take up smoking? Hard to say…

    The researchers looked at more than 20,000 young men enlisted in the military. Twenty eight percent smoked at least one cigarette per day and about 68 percent had never taken a drag. Non-smokers average IQ was approximately 101. Soldiers who smoked one to five cigarettes each day was about 98. How about those who smoked a pack or more? They averaged IQs around 90.

    After comparing intelligence levels of 70 pairs brothers in the service and the study, one who smoked and one who abstained, the researchers still noted a higher IQ among the non-smokers. “The findings suggest that lower IQ individuals are more likely to choose to smoke, rather than that smoking makes people less intelligent, Weiser and his team conclude (Reuters, 2010.”

    Which do you believe came first, the smoke or the shortsightedness?

    (Image from Contempster)

    Hey, is that Sarah Palin’s hand? Get it? The palm writing? :D Just kidding of course.


    By the way, this week is National Eating Disorder Awareness Week. If you heard my first interview on the Dr. Fitness and the Fat Guy show, you know that this cause is close to my heart. If not, here’s a story I was interviewed for that aired on a local TV station for NEDAwareness week a few years ago. If you would like more information or need guidance, click on over.
    (Image from NationalEatingDisorders.org)



    Water cooler conversation starter: As the 2010 Olympics wrap up, my mind wanders to the next games. Others are thinking ahead as well—petitioning a new “sport” to join the summer Olympic events. What’s the new proposed competition? Pole Dancing! Thoughts?

    19 Nov 2009

    Smoking: It’s a Drag

    In honor of the American Cancer Society’s Great America Smokeout (today!), let’s take a look at the latest research and initiatives related to the habit. Even if you’re not a smoker, it’s likely that you have some opinion about nicotine use and public regulation. Plus, it’s always good to have some statistics and facts in your back pocket to share with someone who may downplay the effects of a smoking habit!

    I hope this doesn’t come across lecture-y—I just want to share some interesting information I’ve come across recently. Here we go!

    (image from Son of the South)

    First, some staggering figures (from the Global Smokefree Partnership):

    • $378 billion: Tobacco industry sales worldwide
    • 20.6: Percent of Americans who were smokers in 2008 according to the CDC (up from 19.8 percent in 2007). This was the first smoking rate increase in 15 years.
    • 5.4 million: Number of deaths attributed to smoking in 2007
    • 7 million: Number of deaths predicted to be caused by smoking each year by 2025
    • $69,000: Revenues per tobacco death
    • 20-30: Percent that second-hand smoke exposure increases lung cancer risk

    But it’s not all doom and gloom…

    • 36: Number of countries that have adopted smokefree laws since 2004 (eight countries already had such laws in place)
    • Almost 1 billion: People protected by smokefree laws


    As mentioned above, U.S. smoking rates have increased slightly this year for the first time in more than a decade. Experts cited in the report, published in the currentMorbidity and Mortality Report (CDC), believe that a decrease in funding for state tobacco control/tobacco cessation is a factor in this small rise.

    Interestingly, Massachusetts just completed a tobacco addiction treatment intervention targeting low-income residents (generally those who most commonly smoke) on the state’s medical insurance for the poor program with amazing results. The stop-smoking initiative paid for counseling and medications—this resulted in fewer emergency room visits related to asthma and heart attacks. Insured low-income resident smoking rates went from 40.4 percent pre-intervention (1998) to 29.6 percent post-intervention (2008). Smoking rates for non-insured low-income adults and all adults declined as well, but at a much slower rate (two to five percent for the same time period). Impressive! 

    Looks like this guy could use a memo about how good quitting could be for him! :)

    (Photo from Gearfuse.com)


    Many of you may not smoke regularly, but did you know that even a few puffs can cause irreversible health damage? Arteries stiffen in otherwise healthy young adults after smoking just one cigarette, Canadian researchers have found. Stiff arteries make the body less able to handle physical stressors (such as jogging or hiking up a flight of stairs), which in turn increases stroke and heart disease risk. Doctors involved in this study noted that the earlier one stops smoking, the less arterial damage occurs, although “full arterial recovery” will likely be impossible.

    Nonetheless, being a quitter is a great thing: The American Cancer Society has some heartening information for current or past smokers (or those who love current/past smokers): the health benefits of quitting start just 20 minutes after you drop the cigarette! Here are some other gains that come after halting the habit:

    • Coronary heart disease risk is half that of a current smoker after going smoke-free for 1 year
    • Stroke risk of former smokers returns to the same level as nonsmokers 5-15 years after quitting
    • Lung cancer deaths are about half as common in 10-year quitters



    So certain states have increased taxes on cigarettes, placed restrictions on where lighting up can take place and started other initiatives, all in attempts to lower the amount of smokers or protect non-smokers from second-hand smoke.

    What is going on where you live regarding tobacco legislation? Do you think that these changes have had a positive effect on the health of your community? In your opinion, should government play a role in this issue at all? I’d love to hear your thoughts!

    (Cartoon from The Week)