Serving Up Simplicity

At the beginning of June, the US Department of Agriculture released its recent brainchild and announced that the food pyramid that everyone knows (and apparently hated) had been deconstructed and reformed with fewer edges: it's now a plate:

It makes a startling amount of sense. Most people didn't consult the pyramid and use it to create triangle-shaped meals, but with the plate it is much easier to visualize proportions, and if you are a stickler about it and have done some research, the MyPlate also comes with rules, such as avoiding overly large proportions and fatty meats as your proteins.

Humans are visually-minded creatures. As children we look at pictures of things we recognize in order to learn words and then apply that to letters and spelling. In terms of visualization, the food plate fits fabulously into the human brain and will be a superb building block for children. 

However, is it too little too late? Is it enough? Can a new food pyramid - er, plate - change wide-spread poor diet choices? Of course not.

But what the new plate does show is that there is change a-comin'. And thankfully, the changes are not what we've seen in recent history. The blame-the-victim mentality for overweight and obese individuals is being shoved out of the window by many foodie and nutrition groups; there are projects to nurture both food and knowledge; and nutrition labels - that have long resembled the Da Vinci Code for many people - are being redesigned as well (and moved to the front of the package, to satisfy the majority of consumers' three-second attention span):

There is even a contest (it's happening now!) to redesign the nutrition labels. It's a chance to show off your smarts and your arts, as it's being judged both by functionality and design. One of the judges is foodie/intellectual (or foodie intellectual, really - no slash required) Michael Pollan, who is known for his smart but scathing criticisms of the way food functions in the United States, from the soil to your plate (and especially scathing for those foods that didn't even begin in the soil, but in a laboratory). Check out all the information here, even if you don't want to enter, because at the very least, it's interesting. If you click on the "Why it Matters" link on the website, you will see the truth: "this is confusing." Amen. (This statement is backed up by the fact that the FDA has a website devoted solely to explaining the nutrition label.)

In all, it is a relief to see several factions pushing towards simplicity. Hopefully the movement snowballs in this direction. We did not all take advanced algebra and courses on CIA-style decoding to apply towards deciphering nutrition labels. We want to eat, and feel good when we're done. Simple.

If you're curious about some of the pioneers to simplify food:

Check out some of Michael Pollan's books here.

Find out what food did in Kris Carr's life (and why we should maybe be moving faster with healthy foods campaigns).

And a friend from way back when who has since become a one-woman natural foods knowledge bank helps incorporate simple (yay, more simplicity!) ways to improve the way you eat.

Fat women everywhere ... FREAK OUT!

Something my friend posted today on Facebook: Obese girls face tough career climb

Coming from an eating disordered background, I have to admit that this kind of thing hits a raw nerve for me. Weight loss efforts for PRESCHOOLERS?

Are you serious?

Can you imagine how messed up those kids are going to be if they start developing food issues at that age? I mean, I remember having serious body image concerns at about age 5, but I'm in the minority (one would hope). Why would we want to spark this kind of neurosis in a large (no pun intended) population of youngsters?

I understand that obesity is a problem in our nation today. I really do get it. Obesity, diabetes, yadda, yadda, the dethfatz are going to get you!

But I will say (as I always do) that obesity is not simply a function of what you eat or how much you exercise. Women with PCOS (ahem, moi) experience obesity as a symptom of their illness ... and this condition affects as many as 10% of women. Funny that you never hear about it, right? That's because too many of us are supporting bogus and dangerous diet ventures in an effort to eliminate our socially manufactured shortcomings.

Anyway, I would believe that young women face huge obstacles if they are larger. After all, our culture tells us that our size is a reflection of our self-control, our virtue, our ability, our dedication. How many studies have been done that prove that fat people (not just women) get paid less, are hired less frequently, and generally get the short end of the stick?

Arguing against these researchers' suppositions ... I wonder whether anyone noticed that lower-income women from disparaged populations are more likely to be obese, which is probably why they have a harder time graduating from college and becoming gainfully employed. ETA: The article says that the researchers said "It didn't seem as though economic situation was a factor," but I'm not sure how that's quantified. Another case of correlation being confused with causation. I mean, I know it's a tough concept, but it seems like a lot of researchers just can't stop sensationalizing phenomena that kind of coincidentally happen together. It's hard for me to believe that we can blame all of our problems on being fat.

Here's the crux of the whole thing for me: This kind of article perpetuates the "if only I was skinny" myth that so many eating disordered folks hear playing in their head ALL DAY EVERY DAY.

"If only I was skinny, I would get a better job."

"If only I was skinny, I would have more friends, and maybe even a partner."

"If only I was skinny, I could feel good about wearing a size ____ "

"If only I was skinny, everything would be better."

This is a dialogue that none of us deserves to hear. It's a bunch of baloney. Being skinny doesn't make your life easier if all you think about is remaining thin. In the case of folks like me, the push to be super thin can endanger your life.

It won't be until we, especially as public health practitioners, start to respect all types of bodies (including those that are naturally thin, fat, whatever) that we will truly begin to find a solution to the obesity problem. Treat these people with dignity, for heaven's sake.

One final thing: "He himself has studied the connection between body image satisfaction, and obesity and anorexia. People who have poor self esteem have difficulty controlling their eating habits, he said."

Yes, because obesity is analogous to an eating disorder? (WRONG ... not everyone who binge eats is fat, and not everyone who is fat binge eats). And the last time I checked, eating disorders weren't because of a lack of control over your eating habits, they're about a need to control something ... so you exert more control over your eating (i.e., not eating anything!). I'm really not impressed with this particular piece.


For more information on fat advocacy, visit:
http://fatnutritionist.com/
http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/

More smoking, more eating = less economic burden?

Smokers, obese save us money!

So, in addition to the above picture of the ubiquitous headless fatty, I bring you one of the most controversial articles I've read all year. I tell all kinds of people about this study, but no one seems to believe me, and they also think I've lost my mind and/or soul when I bring up this important point:

Healthy people cost the healthcare system more money than chubbies/smokers do.

"How can this be?" you might ask. I was with you at first. I used to vilify people for making bad health decisions because I thought I'd end up paying thousands of dollars to fix their medical problems. I resented diabetes, lung cancer, hypertension, COPD and the whole panoply of medical conditions that accompany obesity and smoking. 

Consider this ... if you're eating healthy, exercising, and living to a ripe old age of, say, 90, you're ruining it for the rest of us. Would you rather pay for 2 years of cancer treatment (and die at, what, 65?), or 15 years of Medicare-sponsored assisted living expenses?

Our profession ostensibly strives to overcome health problems to improve the quality of life rather than simply its duration, which is the only argument I really have against allowing people to kill themselves earlier so we can reap economic gain. That, in itself, should be the fundamental tenet of public health, not saving the almighty dollar. Still, information like this is hard to ignore; again, as public health professionals, how are we supposed to "sell" improvements in health when they might actually harm society? Great question.

Articles like the link above provide us with stimulating information that ought to fuel our continuous debate about how to best spend our public health dollars. When it comes down to it, we really do have to think in economic terms; although it may seem cold, would you rather save 400 people with a guardrail (for example) or one child who needs a liver transplant (thus condemning 400 people to death)?

Economically, I'd go for the former, despite the plight of the kid tugging at my heart strings. But then everyone looks at you as though you shot their dog, accuses you of being heartless, and spends the money on the sick child anyway.

I feel very clinical and almost ... Third Reich-ish ... when speaking like this, but this is just another example of humans failing to examine facts and make decisions based on reality. I'm guilty of choosing with my gut more often than not, but when we're dealing with population-based health measures, that's a dangerous way of doing things.

Our responsibility is to serve the best interests of the general populace; can we do this best by saving money, or by lengthening lives?

Chores as Exercise

The Huffington Post brought us this nifty article on chores and calorie counts. A staple of Men's Health and women's fashion mags for years (carrying your groceries burns 90 calories an hour! curling your hair burns 5 calories a second!), they bring up an important aspect of being a part of the bi-pedal homo sapien sapien mammal clan: we are built to move, and the more we move throughout our day, the better for our health. If you want to fight off disease, keep everything tickin', and feel and act better, move. As grad students we enjoy moving from class to class to library to bar, and our brains are the better for it.

My favorite ways to move during the day:

1) Get up from desk and do wall pushups in the bathroom. Yes, it's dorky. Looking like Michelle Obama in a tank top is not.

2) Walk around the block. Power walk if shoes and outfit allow.

3) When you're on the computer, sit up straight and engage your core muscles. Ripped abs are not brought on by crunches so much as active muscle engagement.

4) Can we say dance party in the lunchroom?

5) If you can get away with it, slip your shoes off under your desk and stretch out your feet. Shoes can cramp your muscles and nothing is more relaxing than a good stretch.

6) Park your car at the end of the lot and walk.

7) Lift heavy things. Be the guy who refills the water cooler, everyone likes that fella and it's a great mini workout.

8) Throw your kids around (nicely). Piggy backs and swings make Fun Mom/Fun Dad/Fun UncleAuntieCousinGodmomma and give kids great memories of good times and you the benefit of a workout.

9) Get up from your desk at least once an hour and move. It adds up!

What are your some of favorite ways to slip a little more activity into your day?

National Safety Month!

I am 100% embarrassed to admit that I did not know it was National Safety Month in June. This is somewhat mortifying considering that I was the president of the A&M chapter of ASSE ... so here's a post that I am making with much chagrin, but also much enthusiasm!

What do we mean when we talk about "Safety" ... it's such a broad term! We can talk about workplace safety, which generally conjures up OSHA, but occupational safety is so much more than that. OSHA is the regulatory agency that oversees workplace safety rules, but the professionals who enforce these laws within industry play an important role as well.

With the time and space allotted here, it would be hard to totally describe occupational safety, so it appears that we might have to wait until next year rolls around to do this month justice. In the meantime, why don't you check out these cool sites?

Pro Act Safety (behavior-based strategies)
American Society of Safety Engineers (100th anniversary!)
National Safety Council
Utah Safety Council (a great example of a state-run program)
National Association of Safety Professionals

Distracted driving bill introduced!

NY Rep. McCarthy introduced this new bill on June 23, 2011:

Safe Drivers Act of 2011

It's one of the first federal bills that would affect state highway funding if cell phone bans are not enacted.

It's widely accepted that cell phone bans don't work, though, and they might actually make crash risks worse:

HDLI texting bulletin

This is sure to be a continuing saga. What do you think about cell phone bans? (I'm personally on the fence ...)

Bringing it back to the basics

We'll bring back a discussion of Men's Health Week later today, but this morning I wanted to talk a little bit about the use of conceptual models in behavioral health interventions.

I, like many other public health students (I assume), memorize the constructs of a whole bunch of behavioral models during the introductory Social and Behavioral Health class. We have the Trans-Theoretical Model, the Theory of Planned Behavior, Social Cognitive Theory, Health Belief, Risk Perception ... the list goes on (and on and on).

I, also like many other public health students, learn the models, categorize them within my brain, and then promptly forget to actually apply their messages to any of my work. I found this out this morning during my practicum work; my preceptor came to me and said, "Well, you have all this information about distracted driving, and you have this fancy model ... are they related?" And the light bulb went on. Although I had created an outline for my paper that seemed to make sense, it was only loosely related to the theoretical basis I had chosen. *headdesk

This is why I'm happy that they give us preceptors to give us feedback and input about our duties. Otherwise, I'd be making silly mistakes like this for the rest of my career.

It's so important that, as we go down the empirical research path, we consider our theoretical basis. That is, we can't just do a literature review without relating each piece back to its fundamental theory. Drawing conclusions about empirical research is useless unless we can determine how to apply our learning.

Just a little advice for all my fellow PH students out there. Stay tuned for more fun information this afternoon!