Archive

Scientific Studies

Two hours.

May 1, 2013
Behavior Change, Exercise, Food Descriptives, Food Environment, Scientific Studies
1 Comment

The best and most fascinating studies for me are the simple ones.  I don’t want to know the genome of the brain, someone does, but not me.  I want to know why I eat and why I exercise.  More practical and applicable to my daily life than know the DNA of my left parietal lobe.  If indeed I have one of those.

Last week in Boston the annual Experimental Biology Conference took place.  This annual event gathers leaders from a diverse set of fields, including nutrition, to discuss the cutting edges of their disciplines.  I was thrilled that the study entitled, “Menu labels displaying amount of exercise needed to burn calories show benefits” was one that the New York Times chose to highlight earlier this week.  Out of all the amazing research presented, why we eat the way we do and ways to stop it grabbed the headlines.  Progress.

A small provision of the Affordable Health Care Act states that restaurant chains of more than 20 outlets must display the calorie content of their foods.  This is welcome news, however, how many of us know what that number means or even care? Calories in a McDonalds Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese?  750 big ones.  ”Wow, that seems to be quite a few,” we think immediately before taking off a bite.  The issue with calorie counts and nutritional content is that the information is not salient to us, it is not meaningful.  Most know that high calories may want to be avoided, but even that is relative.  Enter the present study.

Researchers at Texas Christian University tracked what people ordered and what they actually consumed as a result of ordering from three different menu options.  The food items listed on the menus were identical with one exception:  one menu simply listed the food, another listed calories next to the food, and the third listed how long one would have to briskly walk if they ordered and consumed each food.  Now we’re talking.  Threaten people with exercise and watch them change their behavior.

When ordering from menus that listed how much brisk walking would be needed to burn off the consumed calories individuals ordered and ate significantly less calories when compared to the other two conditions.  There was no difference in calories ordered or consumed when comparing menus with and without calorie counts.

This isn’t to say that menus with calories listed are meaningless.  To some this information is useful, to others it is simply a moment for pause.  However, exercise is salient, people can relate to walking.  When you see a sirloin steak you want and next to it reads “You will have to walk briskly for 60 minutes” in order to burn those consumed calories behavior seems to change.

Take home message:  if we want to get people to change their behavior around food and exercise, the information we share with them must be relevant.  This information cannot be abstract, like calorie counts.  That Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese?  Go walk for two hours and get back to me.

How long will did I have to walk after I consumed last weekend’s birthday desserts?  Way too long.  And that means something to me.

Great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great…

April 19, 2013
Barriers to Exercise, Behavior Change, Scientific Studies
Leave a Comment

Perhaps it’s my great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents fault that at times I am not motivated to exercise.  Perhaps it is my ancestor’s gift that I battle that amotivation and continue to exercise.  Why some people choose to be active and others choose not be is the never-ending question in my discipline.  One can be given a fantastic exercise program to follow, can even hire someone to guide you through it.  Yet, if we are unmotivated and choose not to do it, the program is no good.

Gretchen Reynolds, early this week in the New York Times, highlighted a fun study on motivation and exercise.  Albeit it rats a telling story is told.  Rats were put in a cage with a wheel and their activity was tracked for one week.  The most active females and males were bred together, as were the most inactive varieties.  This was repeated through ten generations.  The end product were a set of rats that loved to exercise and a set that loved to sit.  The exercising rats ran ten times as much as the couch potatoes.

Then the dissection began.

Surprisingly, the two groups of rats did not differ much in body composition (muscle and fat) and the lazy rats were only a touch heavier.  The differences lay in the genes:

“The scientists compared the activity of thousands of genes in a specific portion of the brain that controls reward behavior, or the motivation to do things because they’re enjoyable.  They found dozens of genes that differed between the two groups.  The rats’ decision to run or not to run, in other words, was being driven, at least in part, by the genetics of motivation.”

Wow.  Thanks great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandpa, you gave me the will to succeed.  Or at least the will to fight.

Those that came before us impact us.  In a powerful way.  We know this.  This can be a blessing and a curse.  We shouldn’t look backwards and say it’s their fault we don’t exercise, although tempting.  Rather, in our unmotivated moments, we should challenge them and say, “Here we go!”

The genetics of motivation.  Fascinating stuff.

Happy Friday.

 

Kids and Calories

April 17, 2013
Children, Food Environment, Scientific Studies
1 Comment

Earlier this week the Centers for Disease Control released a news brief detailing a surprising decline in calories consumed by our children.  For boys calorie intake dropped 7% to an average of 2,100 calories per day and for girls, a 4% drop to 1,755 calories per day.  I am not an expert in pediatric nutrition but those calories counts still seemed rather high.

I checked into the CDC data base for Stature-for-age and Weight-for-age percentiles.  You can do the same here:

CDC Stature and Weight for Age Tables

I found the 50th percentile of height and weight for an 8 year old boy.  This yields a 55 lb boy who is about 4’2 in height.  From this data I then tried to determine how  many calories are recommended.  There are numerous sites out there that give calorie data for kids, however, I wanted a reputable one and settled on the Baylor College of Medicine Healthy Eating Calculator.  Baylor is well known for its Children’s Nutrition Research Center.

Entering my 4’2, 55 lb, 8 year old version of myself I was then asked to pick an activity level.  (For a moment I reveled in the idea of being 55 lbs when I was 8.  As far as I can tell, the last time I was 55 lbs was birth.)  I chose a moderate activity level, defined as about 1 hour of activity per day.  At this level of activity, and given the above stats, my 8 year old self was told to consume 1,899 calories per day. Not too far off from the CDC reported average of 2,100 calories per day.  However, the catch is that activity level.  Our kids today are not active.  By choosing less than 1 hour of activity per day, my allotted calories dropped to 1,663 per day, and when I chose not active at all, a mere 1,427 calories was given to me.  Children tend to be more active around the age of 8, however, by the time they are 15 the average child gets 49 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity per day, and only 35 minutes on the weekends.

Let’s assume that moderate activity level and take our roughly 1,900 calories.  On average, my 8 year olds self is consuming 2,100 calories.  This represents and imbalance and over time can lead to weight gain.  Habits start young.  We need to help our children make good food choices and encourage them to be active.  Eat less, move more.

Go to sleep. Pretty please? With sugar on top.

March 19, 2013
Behavior Change, Food Environment, Scientific Studies
Leave a Comment

Most nights I walk into our daughter’s room and ask her to lie down and go night-night. She’s 1 and this happens a couple of times per night. She’s a smart one, however, and has now taken to looking at me and then immediately to the door, for she knows if she fusses for just a moment longer mommy will come in. And who doesn’t like a good rock from mommy at 2:00 am?

Sleep is important, as any new parent knows. The effects of sleep deprivation are numerous and varied. My college students are experts. An association between bodyweight and lack of sleep was observed years ago and suggested that adults that get less than 5-6 hours per night and children who get less than 10 hours per night are at heightened risk of weight gain. Seems that even after a few nights of lost sleep your fat cells behave like their twenty years older. As any 40 year old can attest, they’d much rather have the fat cells of a 20 year old. I doubt the reverse is true.

Researchers at the University of Colorado have now demonstrated that just one week of sleep deprivation (defined as five hours per night) leads to immediate weight gain in individuals when compared to those who slept nine hours per night. When they say immediate, they meant it, as in two pounds gained within one week. When the sleep times were reversed (i.e. the five hour people got nine hours and vice-versa) those getting nine hours began to lose some of the weight that was gained. Some.

As is noted in the New York Times piece on the study only 16 subjects were studied and only for two weeks. We need to remember that weight gain is a chronic imbalance and not the function of what we do today. I can see the headlines now: “New weight-loss program tells people to simply sleep!” I bet their won’t be any motivation issues to follow that program. Although the present study was brief (and well developed and controlled, I might add) it serves to be instructive. Some highlights:

Individuals who slept only five hours per night actually raised their metabolism, to the tune of an extra 111 calories per day. However, this was more than compensated for by an increase in consumption.

Sleep deprived individuals also ate significantly more carbohydrates and ate more after dinner than any other time of the day.

The above results were more pronounced in women, who maintained bodyweight during adequate sleep and lost “dietary restraint” during sleep deprivation and gained more weight.  Damn gender bias.

Both of the above research notes point to a behavioral shift, a why we eat moment. Why do college students eat when they stay up late? To help keep them awake and alert. “…to provide energy needed to sustain additional wakefulness” in the researcher’s words. Why do I eat late at night? Because I’m bored, I’m already in the kitchen, and the food is there. This is why I go to bed at 7:00 pm, no late night craving for me. Do you find yourself lingering in the kitchen if you are up late? Why? Go to sleep.

When individuals in the aforementioned study were sleep deprived they consumed 6% more calories compared to when they were allowed to snooze for nine. That’s huge. The caveat here is that during the study individuals were allowed unlimited access to food. Not atypical when thinking of the average American home these days, but definitely setting the participants up for a challenge. Sleep deprive me and give me all the food I want? I’d gain at least two pounds.

The body has an amazing ability to adapt. To both the good and bad. I’d be fascinated at what the body would do if it was sleep deprived for months on end. (Aha, I shall study new parents and their food habits!). My guess is that physiologically it would settle into a new normal, however, our behavior might not. New habits might be developed, a late night snack becomes routine. Over time, chronically speaking, weight gain may follow. Just a thought.

Good night.

M-i-s-s-i-s-s-i-p-p-i

March 15, 2013
Behavior Change, Exercise, Scientific Studies
Leave a Comment

What’s that spell?  Mississippi! Mississippi?  Yeah Mississippi!  As in we are the fattest state in the country and we’re going for more!  As if a judge in New York City striking down the soda ban wasn’t enough, the governor of the most rotund state in these United States is set to sign the “Anti-Bloomberg” law into effect shortly.  Anti-Bloomberg as in the mayor of New York City.  Mississippi’s legislature has now gone on record saying “keep your hands off my soda, and any of my food for that matter.”

“The Mississippi Legislature wants to be the sole government body that controls its buffets, barbecue and sweet tea..That means that cities or counties cannot enact rules limiting soda size, salt content, shortening in cookies, toys in fast-food meals for children, how a menu is written or just about any other aspect of the daily dining experience in Mississippi.” (From the New York Times).

We’re going to get fatter!  And Bloomberg, there is nothing you can do about it!  I ask this question many times a day, whether food related or not: Why do people so often act against their own best self interest.   I am not one to judge your best interest, however, when you lead the country in obesity, some careful thought about how to address the issue might do you some good.

The latest data show that Mississippi has an adult obesity rate of 35% and it is projected that by 2030 nearly 67% of all Mississippians will be obese.  67%.  By telling government to keep their hands off the french fries and supersize sodas I am sure that number won’t be reached.  People will quickly realize they have personal responsibility and will limit consumption on their own.  Right.  I wonder how Mississippi feels about government “intrusion” on other individual rights?  Any guesses?

One of the main reasons that Judge Tingling of New York City and the legislature of Mississippi are behaving the way they are is that they say they don’t want to limit individual rights.  I don’t buy it.  Can’t smoke here, can’t get married there.  Food is personal, but the effects of obesity are not.  The reasons are nuanced and different for these locales  My best guess is that in New York Judge Tingling didn’t want to dampen the spirits of soda makers everywhere whereas in Mississippi it is more likely a ignorant confederate view telling others to leave us alone.  Disclaimer:  I have never lived in Mississippi so don’t claim to know exactly how they think, my assumption is pure speculation.

So go ahead Mississippians, eat and drink to your heart’s content.  However, your heart may not be content for very long.

On a more positive note for a Friday, some interesting research now suggests that even if you hate to exercise you still reap the benefits of it.  So no more excuses of “Exercise causes me to stress out therefore it can’t be good for me and it doesn’t make me feel better.”  Yes, it does make you feel better and yes, it will lower your stress and anxiety when put in new stressful situations.  At least if you are a rat.

Happy Friday.

More reasons

March 11, 2013
Children, Scientific Studies
Leave a Comment

The theme of salientdictates is why we eat and why we exercise.  Interesting questions.  Today I am going to extend the thought and add reason #4,657 to why we should exercise.

Lost in the shuffle of standardized testing and graduation standards at the elementary and high school levels is physical fitness.  Please don’t confuse physical fitness with the gym class we took when we were younger.  Hopefully we have moved past square dancing and shuffling around on scooters.  I have many fond memories of physical education from my childhood, the highlight being Mr. Kuiper teaching me how to jump rope in the basement of Central Elementary while surrounded by orchestral instruments.  Life lesson, surely.  No, physical fitness today should focus on lifelong activity, and I sincerely hope we are encouraging our kids in this regard.

To this end a new study in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism demonstrates that children who are physically active have a better hormonal response to other psychosocial stressors when exposed to them.  That’s a fancy way of saying the body doesn’t get as worked up when it’s test time in math class if you’ve exercised.  Although the current study didn’t look at test scores per se, the researchers did demonstrate that cortisol levels (a hormonal marker of stress) didn’t rise as much in children if they were regular exercisers.  Seems that exercise can help children handle the daily stresses of life more easily.  Ipso facto, they might just do better on those standardized tests if they had some activity built into their day.  Just another example of how incredibly beneficial exercise is for all of us.

And being that school buses are now outfitted with wi-fi, taking the last denizen of non-connectedness out of childrens’ lives so that they can complete their homework on the way home, the ability to handle stress may become that much more important.  Holy run on sentence.  I should have paid more attention in english class.  Then again, if I had exercised more as a child I would have been more attentive, remembered more of what I had learned, and handled it better.  C’est la vie.

Finally, the ban on large sugary drinks in New York City goes into effect tomorrow.  In case the world ends I leave you with this quote from the New York Times, simply because it sums so much up:

“I’m going to drink as many 20-ounce sodas as I can,” just to irritate Mr. Bloomberg, she said.  Michael Jackson, 47, who was having lunch at the Gray’s Papaya in Greenwich Village, said there were few things dearer to his heart than a cold Sprite. “The big size, of course,” he specified on Sunday. “I’m a big guy.”

“I’ll buy a dozen of these,” said Mr. Jackson, 47, pointing to a regular cup. And as he saw it, there was no point in mourning the big sodas: “All I have to do is go to Jersey, or to 7-Eleven.”

Off to Jersey we go.

Yes.

March 8, 2013
Scientific Studies
Leave a Comment

In this morning’s New York Times my favorite health writer, Gretchen Reynolds, took aim at “good fats,” cholesterol, and heart disease.  Based on an old study, and a re-examination of the data, she essentially asks us to question what we eat.   A great point.  I would add we should question why we eat.

The study highlighted documents an Australian research project from the late 1960s and early 1970s.  Results indicated that diets high in polyunsaturated fat (ie good fats nowadays) lowered cholesterol by 13 percent in men with heart disease.  However, these individuals were also more likely to die of heart attacks than those with heart disease who continued to eat a diet consisting of more saturated fat (ie the bad fats).

“The link between cholesterol and heart disease is not actually as strong as we think,” stated Dr. Philip C. Calder, professor of nutritional immunology at the University of Southampton.

Here is my point.  This old data is being reanalyzed because in the early 1970s the bandwagon of saturated fat = bad was gaining steam.  This badness was predicated on saturated fats raising cholesterol.  So, off we went as a culture.  Why did we stay away from saturated fats?  Because someone told us to.  Did we question it? Probably not as much as we should have.  I was only 3 at the time, I was questioning my bottle.   Just because a food lowers your cholesterol doesn’t mean it’s good for you.  Food is more complex than that.

We should question what we eat and make choices based on our answers.  My partner has the right to question my afternoon Snackwell cookie attack.  Why Snackwell cookies?  Because in the mid 1990s they were offered as a low fat option and I got hooked.  Could also have something to do with the fact the gas station I passed on my way to grad school each day sold them in bulk and for a good price.  That’s another reason why.

The older I get the more I realize we eat in eras of food.  These eras sweep the public into thinking one way is the right way and if followed we will reach food and weight nirvana.  If only.  Questions are now arising about our low fat, good fat era.  I’m glad the questions are being asked.  Kind of fun to watch.

Use the force, Luke.

February 20, 2013
Barriers to Exercise, Scientific Studies
Leave a Comment

Many years have passed since I last watched a Star Wars movie. A huge fan of the original three, which I believe we’re episodes IV, V, and VI (had to look that up), they left me behind at Jar Jar. However, I seem to remember an iconic line that someone in the movie said: “Use the force, Luke.” Obi Wan? Yoda? They were prescient. I can hear many of you say, “Duh. They were Jedi Masters.” I’m ok with that.

Upon salientdictates return from abroad I’ve written a couple of posts focused on a recent article detailing how no data exist on common presumptions regarding obesity and weight management. This article appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine. On Monday I made the case for small environmental changes and weight loss and the reasons that supporting data may exist to the standard we want them to exist. Yet.

As a physiologist I have been trained to believe in, and ask for, data. As an exercise physiologist I have espoused the theories of specificity (Want to run a marathon? Your training needs to include running and a lot of it), and overload (You just push past your perceived limits to achieve improved performance. Think intervals.). I’ve told people that cardiovascular exercise is better for weight management than lifting weights. Data support these positions. However, I have always been interested in people and people aren’t data. They transcend data. Asking “why?” is a challenging question and that is one reason I love asking it. Why do people yet? For a million reasons that apply themselves differently to every individual differently on any given day. Try developing a research project that can handle that kind of data.

This morning I read David Brooks’ New York Times column on where data misses out:

Data struggles with the social.
Data struggles with context.
Big data has trouble with big problems.

The answers to why we eat and why we exercise the way we do lie in each of the realms above. No research, no matter how carefully done, is universal in its application. As I look up from my customary position on the exercise bike at my local fitness center I see the two women who religiously join me at 3:30 am to exercise. They are on the same two StairClimbers each day. Every day. I want to scream “Mix it up!” I know there is another woman behind me on the treadmill. She will walk off and grab water at 4:11 am. She does it each day. I hope she is in training to walk. As for myself I rotate between my stationary bike and elliptical. I should do more, at least that’s what the data says. However, as with the women on the StairClimbers and treadmill, I have found something that works for me. For me. Not for the average (+/-), but for me. I’ve lost weight doing what I do. I’ve kept weight off doing what I do. My mind is calm doing what I do. I look forward to what I do. For me it’s so much more than cross training or getting my heart rate in zone 3. My journey around why I eat and why I exercise is is emotional, psychology, physical. Data doesn’t get that.

The recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine states small changes don’t make a difference. That no data exists on setting small goals. That weight doesn’t necessarily need to come off slowly. That is what the data says. I’m not data and neither are you. Have a routine that works for you? Go with it. I may ask you why you do what you do, and you can do the same with me. An acceptable answer would be: “It’ complicated. It just works for me.”

Let the force guide you to what works for you. To guide you to what you enjoy, what motivates you, what keeps you from eating handfuls of chocolate chips that you found underneath the coffee behind the frozen strawberries in the freezer. Thank you, Yoda. Obi. Darth. Whomever you might be.

I will continue to understand why and I hope you do to. Carry on.

Be small.

February 18, 2013
Behavior Change, Scientific Studies
Leave a Comment

I’ve been struggling a bit with the New England Journal of Medicine article I wrote about this past Friday. Namely this statement:

“Small, sustained changes in energy intake or expenditure will produce large, long term weight changes.”

During the weekend I thought about articles I have read, research I have reviewed, and talks I have given. One of the recurring themes is that we must make small and meaningful changes in our environments if we have any hope of weight loss. My fear was that, based on the recent article mentioned above, I have been way off base and have been barking up the wrong tree. Then I kept thinking. There are several reasons I lean towards disputing their take on the data. Quickly, here are a few:

1). Small changes may not appear to impact weight loss in research studies because most research studies aren’t able to discern these small changes. They rely on self reporting and we know what means.

2). Speaking of means, maybe that’s the issue. We focus on the mean (average) of the data when we should be looking at the distribution of the data.

3). Most research studies don’t last very long therefore they don’t capture the true outcomes of the small changes.

This mean seem like a rationalization, refuting evidence that I believe in. However, in a recently published article in the journal Appetite, Matthew Schubert and his team reviewed the research on acute exercise and subsequent energy intake. Across many studies, covering the range of exercise intensities and durations, they found that energy intake isn’t increased after we exercise. That is, we don’t compensate for our exercise with increased eating. More importantly they discovered that versus controls those individuals that exercised produced an average caloric deficit on the order of 490 calories. That is a wonderfully large number. But remember, this review looked at acute exercise, not long term.

Data from the National Weight Control Registry demonstrates that those individuals that have lost more than 30 lbs and kept it off for more than a year exercise daily and religiously monitor their food intake. Small changes that add up. The NWCR provides a rare look into what real people have really done and been successful with in terms of weight loss.

Think of it this way: if we could create a daily deficit of 490 calories and continue that deficit indefinitely, I believe the data on how important small changes are would begin to accumulate. If we could convince people to change their habits and more importantly maintain that change, I believe the benefits of small changes could be measured. Data would exist. Simply because we haven’t been able to design a study that captures all of this doesn’t mean the data doesn’t exist. It simply means the data doesn’t exist yet. The issue isn’t that small changes don’t work it is that we don’t maintain small change long enough to see the difference.

I could be proven hopelessly off base in the future. And if I am, so be it. That is the power of data. For now though I will continue to believe that small changes do make a difference and that we must maintain those small differences for the rest of our lives in order to be successful in weight loss. Are you ready for change? Small change? That takes us back to readiness for change which the New England Journal of Medicine article also disputed. I tend to believe their argument on this point. Who to believe, what to believe? I am so confused. I’m going to go for a small walk.

Buzz wrecker

February 15, 2013
Behavior Change, Scientific Studies
Leave a Comment

After travels to Thailand, the beginning of a new academic term, and of course, Valentine’s Day, we here at salientdictates are back. We’ll ease back into our near daily nonsense, thanks for reading.

The last time we chatted it was January and we were eating our way through a foreign country. 95 degrees it was in those halcyon days. We were still feeling the burning desire of fitness and healthy eating that comes at the dawn of every new year. Those were the days. V-Day, -15 degree below temps, and new research then comes sauntering in and crushes our elevated spirit. The days gone by. Damn chocolate.

A few weeks back an article appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine. Dealing with myths and presumptions around obesity the article attempted to demonstrate that there is no data on common advice we are given and hear on a near daily basis. The article was highlighted in the Times but hasn’t received as much attention as I thought it might. Here are the myths:

1. Small, sustained changes in energy intake or expenditure will produce large, long term weight changes.

2. Setting realistic goals in obesity treatment is important because otherwise patients will become frustrated and lose less weight.

3. Large, rapid weight loss is associated with poorer long-term weight outcomes than is slow, gradual weight loss.

4. Assessing the stage of change or diet readiness is important in helping patients who seek weight loss treatment.

5. Physical education classes in their current format play an important role in preventing or reducing childhood obesity.

6. Breast feeding is protective against obesity.

7. A bout of sexual activity burns 100 to 300 locals for each person involved.

How many times have we heard that we must set realistic goals for our weight loss? Nope, no data. Daily physical education for kids to combat the obesity epidemic for those under 18? Nope, no data. You must be ready for change. Nope. (I’ve never truly understood readiness for change. Especially pre-contemplation. How can I think about something and ready myself for it if don’t know I’m thinking about it in the first place?. A psychologist I am not). We must lose weight slowly for the slower it comes off the longer it stays off. Nada.  And all that sex we’re having in order to burn calories? Not even close.  21 calories per “session.” Not surprising when you realize that each “session” lasts an average of 6 minutes. Sting might scoff at the timeline, but as Flight of Conchords boys tell us two minutes in heaven is better than one minute in heaven. And simply because I found the following paragraph appearing in the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine hilarious I must share it in its entirety:

“The energy expenditure of sexual intercourse can be estimated by taking the product of activity intensity in metabolic equivalents (METs), the bodyweight in kilograms, and time spent. For example, a man weighing 154 lbs (70 kg) would at 3 METs, expend approximately 3.5 kcal per minute (210 kcal per hour) during a stimulation and organs session. This level of expenditure is similar to that achieved by walking at a moderate pace (approximately 2.5 miles [4 km] per hour). Given that the average bout of sexual activity lasts about six minutes, a man in his early-to-mid-30s might expend approximately 21 kcal during sexual intercourse. Of course, he would have spent roughly one third that amount of energy just watching television, so the incremental benefit of one bout of sexual activity is plausibly in the order of 14 kcal.”

Equivalent of a walk? Just watch some television? The esteemed journal, or at least the article’s authors, do have a sense of humor. I digress.

Most surprisingly to me were the comments on making small environmental changes in order to maintain or lose weight. No data. Supposedly. The methods of the present review have received some criticism and I will argue that small changes do add up (see data coming out of New Ulm, MN and a host of other microscale studies). Not sure I can argue the 6 minute theory nearly as impressively. My refutations aside this article is important. Very important. For it reminds us that not everything we hear is true even though we so badly want it to be. Obesity is hard, emotionally draining, moment by moment. We yearn for help and want to believe that physical education will help our kids, that if I put bananas on the counter I’ll eat more. In some circles the data may not be there yet but we still have to believe that we can conquer the beast. Or at least contain it.

The article also reminds us that we must always question want we do. Challenge ourselves to think differently. To think. To try new ways of being. To challenge the habit. Set a hugely unrealistic goal, maybe you’ll strive to achieve it. Remind yourself you’re not ready for change, perhaps you’ll forget what you said and change in spite of yourself. Try 7 minutes. Hey, it’s an extra 3 calories and maybe, just maybe, small changes really do add up. Go for it.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 133 other followers

%d bloggers like this: