Holy smokes, Batman! And by smokes I mean "Lucky Strikes." Check out this heading and subhead to a research finding:
Lifestyles of the old and healthy defy expectations -
Einstein researchers find centenarians just as likely as the rest of population to smoke, drink and pack on pounds. [source]
Damn. That doesn't fit in with our mantra of "you are what you eat" and "you are what you smoke and drink, or don't."
By the way, the Einstein researchers aren't necessarily brilliant. Rather they are affiliated with the Albert Einstein College of Medicine at Yeshiva University.
Okay, this was one study. And the data isn't fantastic. But in some regards, it's not bad either. The researchers interviewed nearly 500 Ashkenazi Jews, living independently and more than 95 years old, about their health and lifestyle. Ashkenazi Jews were chosen as the subject pool both due to their alleged longevity and their relative genetic uniformity. They then compared this to previous information gathered from roughly three thousand cohorts. In brief, this what they found:
Overall, people with exceptional longevity did not have healthier habits than the comparison group in terms of BMI, smoking, physical activity, or diet.
What? Really? Okay, so maybe those really long-lived individuals benefit from good genes. Yet lifestyle might matter more for those with so-so genes. Might.
My personal opinion is that soda is bad. It's like the cocaine of beverages. High on calories, devoid of nutritional value (beyond calories if calories are needed). I additionally suspect it may 'grow' a child's propensity to develop a 'sweet tooth.' But maybe it doesn't.
[Cue cranky old man voice] "And in my day, it was water or milk, and it was good enough for me!"
I have also suspected that the consumption of soda may play a role in the rising proportion of obese children and adults in our society. But I could be wrong. In fact, a recent study...
... suggests that—at least for middle school students—weight gain has nothing to do with the candy, soda, chips, and other junk food they can purchase at school. [source]
Huh? How can that be?
BTW, I like the inclusion of "suggests" -- for it is only one study. Kudos for the qualifier "at least for middle school students" as well.
As for the data the study conclusion was based upon: Nearly 20,000 students tracked over 8 years. Not bad, not bad at all.
The authors of the study admit they were surprised by the finding. Which, in brief, was this:
[W]hile there was a significant increase in the percentage of students who attended schools that sold junk food between fifth and eighth grades, there was no rise in the percentage of students who were overweight or obese.
Lead author Jennifer Van Hook recommends looking at younger children to prevent obesity. And that . . .
. . . to reduce childhood obesity and prevent unhealthy weight gain need to concentrate more on the home and family environments as well as the broader environments outside of school.
To both of those I would say yes, but. But remember to do the research. For the causes and solutions to a problem may not be what they seems they should be.
Just as alcohol comes in different strengths, so too does science. On one end of the spectrum you've got shots of pure vodka, on the other you have some hyper-fruity concoctions with only a slight hint of rum.
Mind you, sometimes you've got to start with the fruity stuff. Maybe often. You then progressively distill out the impurities and up the strength. Scientifically speaking.
A recent study on home births and midwifes struck me as quite fruity. Allow me to highlight the chunks of pineapple and candied cherries.
First, the title: Midwives Use Rituals to Send Message That Women's Bodies Know Best.
"Rituals" . . . fine. But it depends what they are. Might be a legit variable. Yet a ritual isn't good by default, simply because we like the word.
Then, "women's bodies know best"? That strikes me as pandering and at least partially mistaken. It implies always. There is plenty of research showing people don't really know their bodies well, nor are they skilled at interpreting what their body is 'saying.' Sometimes, sure. Maybe what the midwives are doing is giving the women greater confidence to . . . trust and accept the incredibly dynamic changes their bodies go through during childbirth. To relax (relatively).
Next we have a paragraph that has a cloying taste, to me -- one that manifests bias.
The midwife experience uses these rituals to send the message that home birth is about female empowerment, strengthening relationships between family and friends, and facilitating participatory experiences that put mothers in control, with the ultimate goal of safe and healthy deliveries less focused on technological intervention.
Um, technology isn't bad, nor is empowerment always good. These are mere words and we really have to get into the nitty-gritty to evaluate any goodness or badness.
Data source alert: in-depth interviews with midwifes and their clients. That's bottom-shelf, low-proof brew. Even when you add the 'in-depth' umbrella.
What strikes me as most cautionary and likely telling about the quality of the science conducted -- and the questionable intellectual diligence of the scientist -- is the use of jargon. The use of terms that are less scientific, more political. They are aimed at persuading by way of their first-sniff attractiveness or repulsion. Empowerment, rituals, participatory, mind-body connection, family, home . . . how can you not root for those? Technology, hospital, medicalized, equipment . . . who could have warm and fuzzy thoughts about something medicalized?
Consider this bit from the news release:
Cheyney also documented the use of common phrases to create birthing mantras. She lists phrases such as "don't fight it," "let your body do it," "open," and "let it be strong," as key components to the home birth ritual.
"Don't fight it" is a . . . mantra? Oy. Another colorful word with questionable substance behind it.
Oregon State University researcher Melissa Cheyney seemed to argue that home births were better than hospital births. And some times for some people, they no doubt are. For other people at other times, probably not.
Finally there is this, at the core of the issue -
Cheyney said evidence shows that hospital births result in about triple the rate of cesarean section for low-risk women compared to midwife-attended home births. Because of her unique role as both a researcher and midwife, Cheyney was able to gain access to hundreds of home births in various parts of the United States, and also witnessed more than 60 hospital births.
This is definitely an important issue. But is the solution to the unnecessarily high rate of cesarean births to instead opt for home births? Does a drawback to hospital births automatically make home births better? Though the two issues overlap, it seems to me that there are a number of things going on. For instance, maybe the more important factor is the profit motive (to avoid insurance claims, maybe, to pad the hospital bill, sadly maybe?) Hospitals don't like taking risks, so they tend to avoid them. And they do prefer to make money. Midwives lack the same incentive when it comes to risks, but might share the one about protecting their wallets. Is there an element to a turf war to this? I wonder.
Personally, I think home births are great if they can be done safely and you are into that sort of thing. Other times, hospital births are the smarter choice. But the only way to determine when one type of delivery might be better than the other is to do better science.
[recycled material - first appeared here]
[This is the 2nd part in a 4-part series. Intro here.]
Sugar makes children behave hyperactively. If I had a dime for every time I've heard a parent repeat this nugget of nonsense, I'd have a lot of dimes. But I can see how parents find evidence to fill this particular "belief-net." Any moment they observe a child acting energetically (something children do with great frequency) following the consumption of a sugary food -- bingo! Supporting information.
Meanwhile, the times a child eats sugar and continues to behave
as he or she was before the sugar, or even takes a nap, this instance lights up nothing in the parent's mind. And just as opposing cases are neglected, so are alternative cases. When little Bobby does his Tasmanian devil imitation following the consumption of a slice of pizza, the parent does not think, "Gee, pizza can make kids hyper, too."
An adult who holds the sugar-makes-kids-hyper belief could be accused of being less rational on two counts. First, he (or she) has fallen prey to the confirmation bias. Most likely not intentionally, but naturally. Second, he is probably relying upon personal observation and hearsay, which are weak sources of data. A better source would be scientific studies.
And the research clearly says it isn't so.
Way back in 1995 a meta-analysis of research conducted on the alleged relationship between sugar and behavior appeared in the pages of the Journal of the American Medical Association. The conclusion: "Sugar does not affect the behavior or cognitive performance of children."(1)
It is possible that when some children receive a special treat they become excited for psychological versus metabolic reasons. Maybe they have heard adults claim that sugar leads to hyperactivity and are merely fulfilling a prophecy. To tease apart these influences, placebo controlled,
double-blind studies are necessary.
In 1996 the journal Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition published the finding that twelve such studies failed to provide any evidence that "sugar ingestion leads to untoward behavior" in children with ADHD or normal children. (2) Research that replicates the finding of others adds substantial heft to the information.
If healthy human bodies responded dramatically to sugar, orange juice would be on every parent's list of controlled substances. It's loaded with simple sugars. Diabetics stave off episodes of hypoglycemia by drinking OJ. Yet I don't think you'll ever hear a parent say, "No, Tammy. No squeezed citrus for you. I don't want you thumping the other kids on your bus ride to school."
A full decade after medical/scientific research refuted the link between sugar and hyperactivity I conducted an informal survey of family and friends, seeking their opinion as to whether sugar causes hyperactivity in children, without revealing what I knew. In the responses to my e-mail query, I discovered that the sugar-hyperactivity link was still bandied about and believed. A number provided testimonials that yes, they have personally witnessed the phenomenon. All those canvassed had college degrees and none lived in communes cut-off from the free trade of ideas.
Why does the belief persist? First, the research findings are not getting
through to the general public. Second, the information individuals are basing their conclusion upon is biased.
-
(1) M. L. Wolraich; D. B. Wilson; J. W. White, "The effect of sugar on behavior or cognition in children. A meta-analysis," JAMA. 1995;274: 1617-1621.
(2) Krummel, D.A., Seligson, F. H., & Guthrie, H. A. 1996. "Hyperactivity: is candy causal?" Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 36 (1-2), 31-34.
Note: More recent research has linked additives used in sodas, such as sodium benzoate, to hyperactivity in children. But not the sugar.
I'm a bit confused. The trend in exercise lately is toward shorter, more intense workouts. According to some research, this is as good or better than the more less-intense stuff. Which was good news for me. I don't have nearly the patience or drive to spend a lot time sweating, particularly if I had to do it in a gym environment. Hiking, maybe. Playing some sport or another for extended periods, maybe. But in a gym? No way.
It was with personal interest I read this news release:
Even With Regular Exercise, People With Inactive Lifestyles More at Risk for Chronic Diseases
Selfishly, I wondered, "Does my eight hours a day at a keyboard qualify mine as an inactive lifestyle?" It certainly feels like it, particular on those instances my butt goes partially numb. (That ever happen to you?)
Speaking of butts, it seems that behind the finding was research conducted exclusively from the chair. Which doesn't fully discount it. It's just makes it a new interpretation of previous data.
After reviewing recent literature, University of Missouri researchers contend that physical inactivity is the primary cause of chronic diseases such as diabetes, obesity and fatty liver disease and that even people who set aside time for exercise regularly but are otherwise sedentary, may not be active enough to combat these diseases. Inactivity, in addition to the availability of high-caloric food has led to an increased rate of metabolic dysfunction in Americans.
"Doctor, as I age my weight is seemingly increasing of its own accord. Even despite attempts to the counter-act the trend. Is mine a case of metabolic dysfunction?!"
Seriously, though, I wonder how true the following warning is, if indeed it is true:
"If people spend the majority of their time sitting, even with regular periods of exercise, they are still at greater risk for chronic diseases."
Hmm. Maybe I should find more upbeat online radio stations to listen to. The kind that might get me moving in my chair, if not out of it.
Recent Comments