Live Fit Blog

I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m officially not a kid anymore.  Sounds shocking, I know.  I’m only 36 years old.  Unfortunately, I find myself thinking things like “…my kids watch too much television…” and “…they need to get outside and exercise more…”  I find myself pondering these things at the same time I’m adding channels to our satellite television package and upgrading to a DVR.  That makes sense, doesn’t it?

I must be a relic.  I grew up in a small town, and we lived a few miles outside of town, at that.  Most of the families that lived around us were older, married couples without kids.  My brother, sister, and myself learned to entertain one another.  Of course, we had a television, but the only channels we got were off-air broadcast networks (ABC, NBC, CBS).  It was a huge deal for us when FOX started broadcasting in our area, and we got a fourth channel.  That was around the time I turned 12-years old.  My parents got their first satellite about the time I was starting college, so as a kid, I just didn’t watch much television.  At least compared to the amount of television my kids watch, it wasn’t much.  We read a lot of books, and spent a great deal of time outside playing together.  Now we have a DVR so the kids can record all the shows they missed while they were at school.  Woo, hoo!  Right.

Why am I thinking about his?  As I said, we just added channels to our satellite package, and then I read headlines like this one from FOX News.  This article discusses the effect of television advertising on child obesity.  What they found is that fast food advertising has a dramatic effect on kids eating habits.  It shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out.  Every time we ask our kids where they want to eat, my youngest pipes up with “Max Donald’s.”  Yes, he says “max.”  It’s pretty well accepted that there’s a link between fast food and obesity, and the no company is interested in spending money on advertising that doesn’t increase sales.  So, by exposing them to so much television, we’re creating fat kids.  If you’ve watched WALL-E, it paints a pretty ugly picture of the future of mankind in that regard.

So, what’s the solution?  Honestly, I just don’t know.  The truth of the matter is that we can’t restrict our kids from watching television.  They have to learn how to live in the world, and television is ubiquitous in our country.  We do restrict the amount of time they can spend in front of the television, and encourage them to go outside or read a book when “the tube” is turned off.  I think that’s about the best we can hope for.  What about the readers?  How do you deal with television time in your household?  I think as parents, we’re all looking for ideas on how to balance what our kids enjoy doing against what is good for them.  Chime in and let’s discuss the subject.

I have to confess something.  We didn’t take our kids to see WALL-E at the theater.  Shameful, I know.  We’re probably have the only kids under the age of 10 that didn’t see it in the theater.  Why am I telling you this?  The movie just came out on DVD, so we swung by a Redbox and grabbed a copy.  Sat down with the kids and watched it tonight.  The kids enjoyed it immensely.  My opinion?  It’s a very good family movie with a few not-so-subtle messages.  Spoiler warnings…

The first message is that we’re destroying our planet with largesse.  Our tendency to super-size everything and the move to convenience disposable items leads to an increase in trash production.  In WALL-E’s world, earth has been rendered uninhabitable, as demonstrated by the mountains of trash that cover the surface of the planet.

The second message relates to our growing inactivity.  All the humans live in moving chairs, having their every whim cared for by robots.  This leaves them incapable of even so much as walking.  Instead, they live their entire lives in levitating chairs, sucking down super-sized sodas, totally oblivious of their surroundings.  The combination of inactivity and microgravity (they live in outer space) contributes to diminishing bone density and increasing weight gain.  Hmmm.  Sound like anything happening in our society today?

The writers delivered the message loud and clear to anyone who cares to pay attention.  I would guess its something most people over the age of 30 have at least considered at some point.  At what point does the convenience and efficiency gained from cellphones, iPods, computers, fast food, and supermarkets become destructive.  We can easily become slaves to these tools of convenience.  Ever watched someone who’s addicted to their Blackberry?  It can be downright annoying to try carrying on a conversation while the other person is texting, checking email, and trading stocks (all at the same time!).

I’m not suggesting that we should abandon our gadgets of convenience.  Heck, I like toys as much as the next person, but we should try to keep their place in our lives in perspective.  When we become slaves to our tools, there’s a problem.  Think about it.

Prostate cancer causes nearly 30,000 deaths each year, making it the second leading cause of death among men, behind lung cancer.  In studying ways to maintain my health, one of the things I’ve read regularly is that adult men should take a selenium supplement.  The RDA for selenium is 55 micrograms, but suggestions for protection against prostate cancer range up to even 200 micrograms, with the upper limit considered safe being 400 micrograms.  Most Americans consume more than the RDA without supplements, due in part to our high consumption of meat and fish.

Evidence appears to be mounting against taking supplements, or at the very least, suggesting they aren’t effective.  Over the course of the last several months, several results of studies of prostate cancer have been released showing no effect for several supplements.  The first came in October, when a trial following selenium and vitamin E were halted.  Four years into a seven year study, researchers saw an increase in the number of tumors for participants taking vitamin E, and a rise in the occurrence of adult-onset diabetes among participants taking selenium.  Not exactly encouraging.  In the same press release, a note regarding the effect of statin drugs on lowering PSA (prostate specific antigen) levels was observed, but researchers aren’t certain if this corresponds to a reduction in disease risk.

In another study, nearly 15,000 adult men were tracked for 10-years, with participants taking vitamins E and C.  Researchers found no improvements in the rate of prostate cancer occurrence.  In fact, neither supplement impacted cancer rates at all.  Most of us have heard that vitamin E and vitamin C help protect against cancer, but this study seems to refute that idea.  Of course, participants in the study were 50-year old doctors, so we may be able to assume that they followed different lifestyles than mainstream men.

Prostate cancer vaccine?

In a more encouraging study, researchers at the National Cancer Institute found encouragement in an attempt to stimulate an immune response through vaccination against prostate cancer.  I think this holds promise, and has been used successfully against some other cancers, most notably with HPV.  Hopefully this route will provide a more reliable way to reduce the occurrence of prostate cancer.

According to The Huntsville Times, the state of Alabama is ranked among the worst in the country for obesity, diabetes, and lack of exercise.  It has even been postulated that the state’s obesity problems are contributing to its also high rates of infant mortality.  Their state health officer, Don Williamson, stated in a public forum that the high obesity rates among pregnant women contributes to higher rates of diabetes, which then increases the risk of infant mortality.  The article goes on to say that Alabama has either the second or third highest rate of obesity in the country at 30.1%.

Apparently the state has decided to mobilize its resources to tackle this problem, and the solution has not been been well-received.  The most recent example of this effort comes in the form of a so-called “fat tax.”  The state is instituting a program for all state workers, which includes a voluntary health screening, which is going to be focused on obesity, high blood pressure, blood glucose, and cholesterol.  If a participant shows signs of health problems, they would then be required to complete a doctor’s consultation and take steps to improve these markers.  Now comes the rub — those that fail to complete the health screening, or fail to act on a negative result, will be required to pay an additional $25/month for their health insurance premiums.

This has apparently caused quite the uproar.  I first heard about it on a Dave Ramsey podcast, but it has been discussed elsewhere as well.  Critics say it unfairly punishes people for genetic factors outside of their control.  They also suggest that the use of a negative tool will not change participants behavior.  They might be right about that, but I can understand the sentiment by plan providers.  It is a fact that certain measurable factors increase the risk for disease.  In the case of obesity, there is strong evidence of the link with heart disease and diabetes.

One interesting thing to me about this debate is that three years ago, Alabama added a $24/month insurance charge to state employees who smoke.  I certainly didn’t hear a big national debate about the unfairness of that surcharge.  I guess these days, most of us accept that fact that smokers pay higher rates for life and health insurance.  Many life insurance policies are even written to pay higher rates if someone dies in a car accident while wearing their seatbelt.  Why?  Because the statisticians that work at insurance companies want to promote the safest, healthiest habits from their participants.  Those who fail to comply pay higher rates.

To the people that say that you’re better off to use a positive reward to promote desired behavior than negative reinforcement, I’ll point back to smoking.  Why are taxes on a pack of cigarettes so high these days?  For many state governments needing more revenue, they will propose further increasing the taxes on cigarettes.  Smokers sure squawk about this, but the public at large doesn’t seem to mind.  I think its safe to say that smokers are being punished by being asked to pay ever increasing taxes on a product they say the need.  Non-smokers couldn’t care less though, because a) the taxes don’t affect them, and b) they view cigarettes as a public health nuisance.  Many cities have even started pushing the simple act of smoking out of public places because of the risk it poses.

I think we have to admit that the spiraling rate of obesity is a public health nuisance, and by some accounts, substantially increases healthcare costs for the public at large.  Given that fact, it wouldn’t surprise me to see this trend growing, as providers seek to contain healthcare costs, and force participants to move in a direction that favors prevention.  So, what do you think?  Is it fair for people who are obese to pay higher rates for health insurance than those who aren’t?  Let’s talk about his.

I’ve been mulling this over for a while now, trying to decide what exactly was meant by this comment.  Last week, we had a supplier come in for a presentation.  One of the people in the group is German, and I had met her several years (and about 30 pounds) ago.  We had our meeting, and as they were heading out, she made the comment that I “…looked very healthy…”  Now, I’m quite certain she didn’t mean anything bad at all, but its amazing what gets lost in the translation sometimes.  The way it was delivered, I was left feeling somewhat like a horse…

I told the story to my wife, which over the weekend got passed along to the rest of my family.  Of course, they all thought it was hilarious.  The running joke for the day was how “healthy” I looked.  It equates to setting your best friend up on a blind date with someone who has a “great personality,” right?  We all know what that means.

It’s funny the sort of things we find ourselves questioning, as attempting to live a healthy lifestyle.  It’s also silly how sensitive we become to statements that may have meant nothing to us before that time.  But there you have it.  So, has anyone had someone make a comment that was seemingly innocuous, but you were left asking what exactly they meant?  It seems to be happening to me more and more lately…