Archive

Monthly Archives: May 2012

Yes!

May 31, 2012
Barriers to Exercise, Behavior Change, Exercise, Scientific Studies
Leave a Comment

Exercise may be bad for you. Hard to get past that headline in yesterday’s New York Times. Compound that idea by being in attendance at the annual American College of Sports Medicine Meeting (ACSM) where over 5,000 researchers, professors, and students all tout the benefits of exercise and I am experiencing some cognitive dissonance. More on this in a bit, we have more pressing (and fun) matters to discuss.

Yesterday the ACSM conference opened with hundreds of sessions and presentations to chose from. Over 1,000 where in attendance for a keynote lecture on physical activity and bone health. Fascinating. When I walked into the hall there were rows and rows and rows of chairs as you’d expect. The speaker was at one distant end while three large screens dotted the front of the hall. As I sat down I noticed a large gap in the rows of chairs as if the people arranging the hall had simply run out. I paid it no mind. Each session I walked into, whether a large hall or smaller room, had this gap. “They don’t know how to set up a room here in San Francisco,” I thought to myself.

Could I have been more obtuse and defined the stereotype I so loudly rail against?

Into an an afternoon session I went, this time a smaller room. Again the gap was there, so I decided to stand. Get that? I decided to stand. Actually, my decision was made for me as the chairs were full. “I think it’s great they gave people places to stand at each session,” I heard the person standing next to me say.” I simply paused, looked down at my feet and giggled. Engaging my standing friend in a conversation I soon discovered that the ACSM planned it this way, to have standing room available at every session. Brilliant. Wow, did I feel silly.

I have a standing desk at work, I exercise regularly, and I tout the benefits of standing at every turn with my students and anyone who will listen. Sitting is bad. Yet when I walk into a conference, a conference on health, fitness, and exercise no less, my habit is to walk into a room and find a chair. And to mutter complaints under my breath when I am forced to stand against the back wall because everyone has taken an aisle seat and I don’t want to fall over them to get to the oodles of empty middle seats. Here is ACSM practicing what they preach! Stand up during a session! Get off your butts! Yes! This is why I giggled, I was so focused on my habit that I didn’t see the change in seating arrangements as planned. For someone who spends a lot of time thinking about built environments and how they influence behavior, I had to giggle.

I giggled even more when I watched others come into the sessions to discover no more chairs. Now that I was I in the know I could act superior to those not yet enlightened. The last session of the day for me was a discussion of core assessment for runners. As people filtered in and the seats filled, the gap was a desert. No one would venture to the land that chairs forgot. Then, one brave soul did it. He walked into no man’s land. And sat down. On the ground. Within two minutes the entire empty space was full. Of people sitting. On the ground. Some complaining about it. I wonder how many people will sit on the ground for the sessions involving inactivity and the dangers of sitting? We exercise folk aren’t the brightest bulbs.

My guess is that some people will now fall back to the article that’s mentioned at the top of this post and say “I sit because exercise is bad.” Some new research, it seems, has found that about seven percent of the population that exercise experiences an adverse response to a marker of heart disease (i.e., insulin levels, HDL cholesterol, etc). Claude Bouchard and William Haskell are luminaries in our field, as are others quoted in this article. I’m not questioning their science. However, I bet both Dr. Bouchard and Dr. Haskell are bothered by the title of the article. Catchy though, isn’t it? They are here at the conference maybe I will track them down.

One suggestion from the article intrigues me. “If we are going to think of exercise as a therapeutic intervention, like all interventions there will be adverse effects,” he (Dr. Michael Lauer) said. Point well taken. I had never thought of this this way and my guess is many at this conference haven’t thought that way. There are some risks to exercise and they are still being ferreted out.

Conferences such as the ACSM meeting always make me think. They rev me up, charge me with new information and insights. I’ll share more in the coming days.

Stand up and go exercise.

No free food.

May 30, 2012
Children, Food Descriptives
Leave a Comment

Air travel is rough these days. Not that I remember the golden age of flight, but getting hit up side the head by flight attendants 19 times as they wander the aisles looking angry without so much as an apology (rather, looks of disdain as if to say, “why are you here?”) isn’t fun. Add two small children, a four flight, and coach seating and you get one lovely afternoon.

Yesterday my family and I hopped on a plane headed for a conference I attend each year. What is it about airplanes that makes kids hungry? And what is it about kids being hungry that makes their parents hungry? Our flight left at 3:10 pm and the moment we sat down the refrains of, “I’m so hungry,” emanated from our 4 year old. Luckily, as I stated the other day, I married up. Organized and prepared, my partner directed me to the apples, bars, bunny snacks, and water. Let me say this: thank goodness.

About 20 minutes into the flight the attendants started their in flight service. I thought to myself, “Four hour flight. Why do this now?” Maybe that was my inner parent speaking hoping for something later to break up the ride.

“Food for purchase. No free food on this flight,” the attendant announced repeatedly as she traipsed down the aisle. I can’t say I was shocked, but I was surprised that a) there wouldn’t even be a bag of pretzel crumbs, and b) that they would choose to market this way. You’ve already got people crammed in like sardines and now not only have you taken away their pretzels (and a parent’s promise of “snacks form the cart”) you rub it in their face by saying, “no free food.” Even better, 12 bucks for 7 Pringles. I passed and snuck a few bunny snacks from the 4 year old.

I travel a fair amount and am fully aware that snacks have been fading away and that food for purchase is here to stay. So be it. However, I would love to see some research done on how travelers respond to “Food for purchase. No free food on this flight,” compared to something like “We have a wonderful assortment of snacks and beverage for your purchase.” My hunch is that more people would be willing to shell out a few bucks if at least the veil of customer service was in front of them. Or maybe flight attendants are just angry.

The way that food is presented to us represents a powerful force. In no way am I advising airlines to alter their practices in order to pinch even more dollars out of us (next time you go online to reserve your seats you’ll see “$20 for kind service, check here), however, as I just stated, people may be more inclined to buy snacks from a friendly face. Who knows, maybe people could even enjoy air travel again.

Remember

May 28, 2012
Behavior Change, Food Descriptives
Leave a Comment

On this Memorial Day 2012 let us remember food.  Real food.

Nearly seven years ago I was married, and the person I married changed my food course for history.  Prior to this, throughout graduate school and my first teaching job I subsisted on Snackwell cookies and Macaroni and Cheese.  I kid you not.

CSA?  Say what?  Vegetables?  You mean people actually cook? I distinctly remember calling my partner, who at the time was in Seattle, when I was home visiting my mom.  I wanted to be guided through the shopping and making of a chili that had been made for me at our most recent visit with one another.  That’s right, a graduate student in exercise physiology calling for help on a set of basic skills.  Broth, vegetables, beans, cook.  I’ve come a long way.  That’s not to say I don’t have my battles with Diet Coke or the occasional Nutter butter, but had I not met my partner I would have forgotten food a long time ago.  Thank you, thank you.

An article in today’s Star Tribune got me thinking of all this.  “Is this food better for you than that one?” the article asks.  I was surprised that their comparisons were Chocolate Special K to Cocoa Puffs.  Does anyone actually think that one is truly better than the other?  My guess is Special K has the upper hand due to marketing and its branding of the original.  The next comparison is sweet potato fries to regular french fries.  (Insert prior question here).  The decision:  bake a sweet potato.

Other comparisons were made, peanut butter vs low fat peanut butter, potato chips vs. baked potato chips, raisins vs. chocolate covered raisins.  How about a comparison of food to fake food.  Here is the comment I most love:

“It (low fat peanut butter) needs more chemical doctoring to meet taste and texture expectations.”

I love that.  Food be gone.  When cost and low calorie requirements reign supreme, call the doctor!  And the doctor is most definitely in.  Today let’s quit kidding ourselves that Chocolate Special K is any better for us that Cocoa Puffs simply because the Special K in on the top shelf at the grocery store with Total.  Cocoa Puffs may be at kid level, which lead some parents to yell “NO!” at the top of their lungs and evacuate their kids from the cereal aisle, but is some ways they may be better than Chocolate Special K.  However, I know one thing they are not better than.  Homemade granola.  Mmmmm.  I have no idea of how to make this, but I know someone that does.

So today, let’s remember food.  Food without labels, food without ingredient lists.  Join a CSA (community supported agriculture by the way.  Many abound in MN), and drink an organic beer.  WHy not?

Happy Memorial Day.

950+

May 25, 2012
Behavior Change, Children, Food Descriptives, Food Rules
1 Comment

Last night our family dined at that wonderful bastion of overconsumption, Chipotle.  Why, you might ask?  For yesterday was our daughter’s last day of preschool for the year and we asked her where she’d like to go for a special meal in her honor.  Note to self: when asking a 4 year old where they would like to eat perhaps give options rather than leaving it open ended.  Off to Chipotle we went.

I enjoy Chipotle just as much as the next person (maybe not as much as some of my college students), and I always like what I get.  Perhaps that’s because I always get the same thing, a veggie burrito. Yum yum.

As we ordered I was struck by how quickly the calories could add up.  In the span of about 27 seconds I placed my order, watched the tortilla be passed down the line, and answered questions about my creation.  Let me recap:

Kind Chipotle Person #1:  ”Hello, what can I get for you today?
Me: “A veggie burrito, please.”
Kind Chipotle Person #1: “What kind of rice would you like?”
Me:  ”White, please.”
Kind Chipotle Person #1: “And what kind of beans?”
Me:  ”Pinto beans, please.”
Kind Chipotle Person #2: “What type of meat would you like on your burrito?”
Me:  ”No meat, thank you.”
Kind Chipotle Person #2:  ”Tomato salsa?”
Me:   “Yes.”
Kind Chipotle Person #2:  ”Anything else?
Me: “Some of the corn salsa, please.”
Kind Chipotle Person #3:  ”Sour cream?”
Me:  ”Yes, please.  Just a little.  Some guacamole too, please.”
Kind Chipotle Person #2:  ”Is that all?”
Me:  ”Yes, thank you.”

This transaction took less than 30 seconds, and was done in conjunction with my partner ordering her burrito bowl and our daughter’s kids’ meal.  Here’s the fun part, let’s analyze my choices:.

Tortilla.  290 calories. Did you ever think that the tortilla at Chipotle represents nearly 15% of your recommended caloric intake for a day?  Should have followed my partner’s lead and gone with the bowl, sans tortilla.

White rice.  170 calories.  Could have saved 10 calories and knocked off 25% of my sodium intake had I gone with brown.

Pinto beans.  120 calories.  Not sure why I went with these last night, I usually go with the black beans.  Hold on, yes I do.  On the menu board, in parentheses, it said “cooked with bacon.”  For some reason that appealed to me.  Darn marketers got me again.  No difference in calories between pinto and black beans, but again, my choice cost me an increase of 40% in sodium.

Fresh tomato salsa.  20 calories.  No issue there, but my little bit of salsa cost me nearly 50% of my recommended sodium intake for the day.  See a pattern developing?

Corn salsa.  80 calories.  410 mg of sodium.  Good grief, no wonder I feel bloated.  Somebody stick a needle in me.

Sour cream.  120 calories.  10 grams of fat.  And I said, “Just a little.”  At Chipotle that is code for “Just a cup, please.”  Splat!

Guacamole.  150 calories.  Again, my guess is that the amount they put on at the store doubles what is defined on their nutrition facts.  ”Mind if I borrow some of that guac for my chips,” my partner kidded as we sat down to eat.  There was enough to share.

27 seconds.  950′ish calories.  38.5 grams of fat.  2300 mg of sodium.  Also got 40% of my recommend vitamin C.  Woohoo!  Who needs citrus fruits anyway?

Add a few chips and my totals went up even more.   How quickly calories can add up.  How quickly my workout time needs to increase.  Why did I make the choices at Chipotle I did?  Habit, mainly.  A bowl?  No way!  I have to be able to hold that 4 lb football in my hand as I eat it, just feels so good.  Brown rice?  That’s healthy.  Sour cream?  Come on, that was only 120 calories.  Habit, habit, habit.  Rationalize, rationalize, rationalize.

My daughter’s kids’ meal totaled 520 calories, 21 grams of fat, 780 mg of sodium, and 30% of her vitamin C.  By no means wonderful, but in honor of finishing her first year of preschool?  Priceless.

This all brings me to Friday and a new food rule, here we go:

Get the bowl.  Skip the tortilla, or anything else that jacks up calories.  Make a little change and see if big results follow.  If I had skipped the tortilla last night I would have saved myself nearly 300 calories. That’s three miles on the treadmill if you’re keeping track.  I like Chipotle and am sure I will go back.  That’s just fine.  I think I could make better choices when I go and I will most definitely try.  Next time.

Happy Friday.

Bad Sofa

May 24, 2012
Children, Food Environment, Scientific Studies
Leave a Comment

The act of sitting on a sofa and therefore not being active is bad.  We know what happens if you sit too much.  (If you haven’t been following my blog here is a hint: you will experience the afterlife sooner than planned).  Check out the graph on the fourth page of this article for evidence of this. Need more data, here you go.  Sitting, bad.

There is more to this story.  Seems that sitting is bad, but the sofa itself is equally as bad.  The sofa itself, just by being there, may be hurting you.  Many have known of the dangers of flame retardants for years.  Much like we know that outgassing carpet, paint, and other common household finds are not necessarily good to breathe, the material our sofas are made of may be killing us.  Bad sofa.  In some fancy investigative reporting by the Chicago Tribune and highlighted by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times, facts were uncovered that suggest flame retardants were introduced surreptitiously by the cigarette lobby as tobacco companies were facing pressure from fire safety folks due to the number of house fires caused by smoldering cigarettes.  The cigarette lobbyists went into full swing and we now have these chemicals in our sofas and most other common furniture.  Better to “fix” the furniture rather than the real problem, cigarettes.

This thought process reminds me of what is going on with the food lobby.  ”Fix the kids, fix the adults” they say, “Just because the food is there doesn’t mean everyone has to eat it in copious amounts.  Everything can be enjoyed in moderation.” This provides companies with a nifty rationalization to produce food items that contain chemicals that, similar to flame retardants, disrupt the endocrine system.  And when that happens diabetes may go up, IQ may go down, fetal impairments rise, and links to cancer grow.  On one level I agree, moderation is key.  You will never hear me say, “Cut ice cream from your diet.”  However, when companies are manipulating the chemistry of food so that an addiction is created, the moderation rationalization is thrown out the door.  ”Want to cut calories?  Try our new no calorie cookies.  PS, they have some strange chemicals in them but just don’t eat a bunch of them and you’ll be fine.  PPS, never mind that we’ve adjusted the fat, sugar, and salt levels to get you to crave them.  Enjoy).”  My educated guess is that in the coming years the evidence will mount that our food is killing us.  All the chemicals, so readily dropped into food by profit seeking companies, will be proven to be not kind.  Much like flame retardants.

“If flame retardants really provided fire safety, there would be reason for them in certain circumstances, like on an airplane. But there’s growing evidence that they don’t provide safety and may increase harm,” says Linda Birnbaum in the Times’ piece.  And if long, bizarre chemically sounding names improved our health, there would be reason to have them in our food.  Most likely, they’re causing harm too.

I am trying hard to think of creative strategies to help us all out.  What the above leads me to is this:  lose the sofa and eat good food.  Heck, just eat food.  An apple is food.  An apple fritter at McDonalds is not food.  What’s in an apple?  Apple.  Eat foods that don’t come with food labels and don’t have ingredient lists a mile long.  That’s food.  As for sofas, just stand all day.  All kidding aside, stand some more and put thought into what comes into your homes.  Your health will thank you.

 

You can rest

May 23, 2012
Children, Exercise
2 Comments

With the end of the school year come field trips a plenty.  (As a college professor I have to remember this end of the year trick of the primary grades).  Experiential learning!  Our daughter, age 4, had “Field Day” at her preschool yesterday.  The kids went to the track at a local college and ran, played t-ball and some version of soccer that involved an unsuspecting mother, and generally had a great time.  Outside.  Playing.  I wonder if anyone would argue that a day like that enhanced their learning?

My only wish is that “Field Day” happened every day.  Today’s blog will not be a screed against the lack of activity our children engage in (they are simply reflecting their role models, yes?) , but rather a quick comment on expectation.

This past weekend my daughter and I ran together in her first “race,” the TC Kids Cross Country Fun Run.  A beautiful day at Como Park in St. Paul, hundreds of kids and their families, and races of 1/2 mile, 1 mile, and 2 miles.

We chose to do the one mile, but had misgivings when we arrived.  ”Should a 4 year old run a mile?” and  ”Can a 4 year old run a mile?” we asked ourselves.  I had taken my daughter into the lab earlier in the week, tested her VO2 max, measured her heart rate at varying intensities on the treadmill, even taken lactate values.  We knew what she was capable of, but still, were we being good parents?  (Joke Alert:  The proceeding sentences are a joke lest you believe I would actually take a 4 year old into a human performance lab and make her run to exhaustion while pricking her finger for blood).  

I was surprised at the pride I felt running the mile race with her.  She had a grand time, her little cheeks growing more red with each step.  ”Daddy, my legs are tired,” she said a bit past the halfway mark.  She kept running.  ”Daddy, I’m really thirsty,” she said.  Luckily mom was there to provide water.  She kept running.  She ran the whole race finishing in 14:29.  I couldn’t care less about the time yet it surprised me that here was a 4 year old who just ran an entire mile in under 15 minutes.  She beamed with pride and looked at her medal.  Were my expectations too low?  Not in the sense that I wanted my daughter to run a 12 minute mile, but rather that my general expectations of 4 year old’s abilities to be active are set to low based on the national trends we see in obesity, activity patterns, and decreased physical education courses.  Children can be active, want to be active, when given the opportunity.

At dinner last night our daughter was retelling the tales of “Field Day.”  She stated that her and her classmates ran a “whole lap” around the track (400 m).  ”The teachers said we could take a break if we need to, so I did.”  I thought about that for a moment.  What if the teachers had said, “Let’s all run one lap and then we’ll take a break,” what would have happened?  Would the kids have made it all the way around?  Perhaps many of these same kids ran the race this past weekend, running the equivalent of four of these laps.  In essence, by framing the one lap as a tiring event with the necessity of a break were the kids not going to try to run an entire lap?  Framing can have powerful effects, especially on kids.  Our daughter loves her school, loves going to school.  The teachers are wonderful.  They have high expectations for the kids in the classroom.  I hope that all teachers can have high expectations for “Field Day.”  And make every day a “Field Day.”

Quiet

May 22, 2012
Behavior Change
Leave a Comment

Yesterday I sounded off about the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition.  Throughout the day yesterday I kept coming back to one thing, “So, you don’t agree with video games,” my inner monologue went, “so what should we do?”  And as Shakespeare once wrote, there’s the rub.  I have no idea of how to get our children more active.  Sure, i have ideas that will work for the next five minutes, but consistently?  I have no idea of how to get people to eat less, I can’t even get myself to eat less at times.  Acutely, sure.  Long term, new ballgame.  That’s the crux of all this, our best minds haven’t been able to come up with sustainable strategies for individuals or populations to face the battles of inactivity and obesity.  I have ideas on how the environment gets us to eat, I have ideas on how to get us to move.  However, to sit here and say I have all the answers, or the BEST answer, is simply silly.  Too many factors to consider.  Let’s take this issue to a personal level.

Yesterday afternoon I read a blog that a colleague has been writing since taking on the challenge of marathon training.  A marathon this summer will be her first.  A few weeks it go it seems she had “that run.”  The run that everyone training for something has, the “This is the worst I have felt, why am I doing this” kind of run.  She made it through.  And when she asked a friend about this, her friend smiled.  Her friend also gave her a strategy to help (I’ve got to get to know this friend, someone with answers!).  ”Try a mantra,” her friend said.  And it has worked and helped my colleague get through some of “those” runs.  Here is her running mantra, straight from her blog:

                Quiet mind…
                Quiet step…
                Quiet breath…
                Quiet met.
Copied without permission, please don’t sue.  I promise not to profit from it.  All kidding aside, I love this.  In her blog, my colleague speaks about feeling like she is spending too much energy, stepping to loudly, breathing too fast.  Funny, that’s how I feel around food.  There’s the connection, and a possible strategy.
As I look at the times when I am around food and quickly inhale said food (thinking mid afternoon, walking in the door after work, any social situation), I step loudly and breathe too fast.  And I am most definitely spending way too much energy thinking about food.  There have been moments of success in my battles with food, and with those successes, I feel my mind has been quiet.  Somehow I have been able to step quietly, breath quietly, in essence gather myself before the feast begins.  I love those moments.  Could an eating mantra be a good strategy to ease consumption?  Or to help ease the pain of getting past the moment of want?  I like it and as I look above, I think my colleague’s running mantra may make for a good food mantra.  Maybe it won’t be as successful as co-opting video games as a strategy in getting kids to be active, but it just might work for me.  I’ll try it.
                Quiet mind…
                Quiet step…
                Quiet breath…
                Quiet met.
Oreos ignored.

Jumping the Shark

May 21, 2012
Children, Exercise
Leave a Comment

Giving credit where credit is due, I will pay my respects to the Fonz today.  Back in 1977, on the season premiere of “Happy Days,” the Fonz literally jumped the shark.  The phrase describes  ”the moment in the evolution of a television show when it begins a decline in quality that is beyond recovery.”  We use the term these days to describe things beyond television series that seem to have given up.  That is where I will start today.

First, this article in the New York Times describing new research demonstrating that 1 out of adolescents in the United States is either diabetic or pre-diabetic.  The article states that the conditions also progress more rapidly and is more difficult to treat in children.  In describing the results and considering causes, the authors suggest, in conjunction with obesity, “other factors may also play a role, including the increasing use of computer and mobile devices that has made youngsters more inactive and the growth of minority ethnic and racial groups who have higher rates of diagnosed diabetes than whites.”  Our kids are inactive, they are overweight, they are experiencing health issues and then…..

…the President’s Council on Fitness, Sports, and Nutrition announces that it is giving its ok to “active video games.”  This council is not simply some fly by night operation, it’s members are appointed by the President of the United States.  We’re talking high level stuff.  Included in this announcement is the video game “Tiger Woods PGA.”  So I guess standing in your living room, acting like you are swinging a golf club now meets the definition of active.

I’m all for challenging the status quo, all for coming up with new and fresh ideas to get our children active.  I’m just not sold on video gaming yet.  From the article:

“There appears to be a bit of the ‘if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em’ philosophy at work here. Noting that kids spend an average of 7 1/2 hours a day in front of video and TV screens, the goal is to turn ‘passive screen time into active screen time.’”

How about we turn passive screen time into no screen time?  7 1/2 hours a day in front of video and TV screens?  Wow.  That’s a tremendous amount of passivity.  I wonder if the President’s Council thinks that all these gamers are exercising at the same rate or if they are burning the same amount calories as simply not sitting all day.  Who needs to go outside and play?  Drew Brees says I can play video games all day!  Talk about things that make you go “Hmmm?”.

Can’t beat ‘em then join ‘em?  When we are talking about our kids that is a dangerous strategy to take. Our daughter often beats us, and I join more often than my partner and more often than I should.  However, as a philosophy to simply state, “You win, play video games,” is a game changer.  25% of our children are diabetic or pre-diabetic.  This is serious stuff.  34% of our kids are overweight or obese.  This is real serious stuff.  We need to get this right.

Next week I will attend the annual meeting of the American College of Sports Medicine.  I am sure I will hear about video gaming, we have in years past.  If someone shows me data that demonstrates the health benefits of gaming, I will back down my rhetoric, but until that time, let the shark jumping continue.

Upside down

May 18, 2012
Exercise, Food Rules
2 Comments

Coffee is good.  Good cholesterol is bad.  3500 calories is not equal to a pound of fat, and a calorie isn’t even a calorie anymore.  Oh, and it will take three years of missing 100 calories per day to lose 10 pounds (take that Metabolife!).  The world was upside down this week.  Throw on top of all this a discussion on Kleiber’s Law with a mathematician friend and my head is spinning.  Yet, I smile.

A quote from the coffee article:

“As expected, the researchers found that the regular coffee drinkers in the group were also more likely to be smokers. They ate more red meat and fewer fruits and vegetables, exercised less and drank more alcohol – all behaviors associated with poor health.”

And from the cholesterol article:

“Now it seems that instead of directly reducing heart disease risk, high HDL levels may be a sign that something else is going on that makes heart disease less likely…Dr. Kathiresan said there were many things HDL might indicate. “The number of factors that track with low HDL is a mile long,” he said. “Obesity, being sedentary, smoking, insulin resistance, having small LDL particles, having increased cholesterol in remnant particles, and having increased amounts of coagulation factors in the blood,” he said. 

Why do I smile?  Because I love to exercise.  Look again at the quotes.  Coffee is good for you, but a regular coffee drinkers tend not to exercise regularly and eat poorly.  HDL (or the seemingly “good”) cholesterol may not be causing lowered heart disease risk, but it is an indicator for other causative factors.  That is, exercise is doing something to lower your risk of heart disease, not being obese is doing something to lower your risk of heart disease, not sitting around all day is doing something to lower your heart disease risk.  And as you exercise and stand up, your HDL seems to improve.  Not cause and effect, but yet an indicator of good things happening in our bodies.

The theme here is exercise.  If I can drink coffee and exercise, I will live longer.  I guess LifeTime Fitness has it right when they say “Being healthy is a revolutionary act.”  Maybe that is why they always have pots of free coffee at the registration desk.  If I can exercise and not sit all day, I lower my risk of heart disease.  Even active cancer survivors live longer.  I love these lines from the cancer article:

“Exercise is an accessible, low-cost intervention…virtually all of the studies, whatever their methodology, showed that regular physical activity decreased the risk of cancer-related mortality and of all-cause mortality…Exercise, in other words, made it less likely that a survivor would subsequently die from a recurrence of his or her cancer…Exercise also lessened the chances that a survivor of cancer would later succumb prematurely to other common diseases like heart disease or diabetes.”

Why shouldn’t I exercise today?  (That darn “why” question again.)  Glad the “why” question is still around, gives me stuff to talk about.

Today is Friday and that means a new food rule.  You all know what is coming, here we go:

Drink a cup of coffee.  Today.  I mean it, stop by your local coffee shop and sip some java.  Just don’t sit down in one of those comfy, overstuffed chairs we always see there.  Stand up and drink your coffee.  Hopefully that coffee comes after a morning workout and a bowl of fruit.  Your may just thank you.

3500

May 17, 2012
Behavior Change, Exercise
Leave a Comment

The maths are still causing me to think.  As I wrote yesterday the article “A mathematical challenge to obesity” (New York Times) put several issues related to obesity in stark relief.  Two of the biggest thoughts that jumped to my mind were 1) weight loss is tough and 2) we get things wrong.  Let me explain.

Weight loss is incredibly challenging, we discuss this often on these pages.  We all like to see the fruits of our labor right now, instant gratification.  As Dr. Chow points out yesterday it may take up to three years for our bodies to reach a new “steady state” as we lose weight.  Three years.  He also reiterated the point that it is not what we do today that will effect our body weight, but rather, what we do over a period more like a year.  The average American consumes roughly 1,000,000 calories per year.  Those numbers are hard to think about.  If I eat 275 calories less per day (on average), over the course of a year that would equal 100,000 calories less than the year before (if I was average).  What can I do to cut 275 calories today?  Have one less brownie.  Then repeat this act for the next 365 days.  That is where we get in trouble.  Most of us can maintain diet changes and exercise patterns for a short time, but for a full year?  Here is where the work begins.

We often get things wrong.  I so enjoyed what Dr. Carson had to say about how 10 calories impacts an obese individual more than it does a lean person.  Too often we think of a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.  However, we know not all calories are the same.  i did a quick review of some textbooks yesterday and every one stated that 3500 calories is equal to a pound of fat.  Even the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) texts, considered the gold standard of exercise prescription books) uses the 3500 calorie idea in its metabolic equations.  So we teach this, we have it in our heads, we watch the calorie count on the treadmill.  We do all these things and then wonder why the pounds don’t fall off.  Sometimes we simply get it wrong.  The body is an incredible piece of work and it will defend itself to the bitter end.  Therefore it shouldn’t be a surprise that 3500 calories doesn’t equals a pound.  What equals a pound is vigilance, hard work, motivation, support, accountability, moment by moment effort.  This sounds daunting, but maybe we can get there.

Hopefully, research like Dr. Chow’s, we can begin to combat the challenge of obesity.  Even if I do need to go take a math class.  Mr. Adel, you available?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 133 other followers

%d bloggers like this: