The danger of sitting too much

How dangerous is it to sit too much?

[P]eople who sat more than 11 hours a day had a 40% higher risk of dying in the next three years than people who sat less than four hours a day. This was after adjusting for factors such as age, weight, physical activity and general health status, all of which affect the death risk. It also found a clear dose-response effect: the more people sat, the higher their risk of death. The results are part of the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study, the largest ongoing study of healthy aging in the Southern Hemisphere. It compared the self-reported daily sitting time of 222,497 Australian adults 45 years or older with their likelihood of death in the next three years.
And there's also an American study:

[M]en who sat more than six hours a day during the years of the study (1993 to 2006) were 18 percent more likely to die than those who sat for three hours or less. The death rate for women who sat more than six hours day was 37 percent over those who were seated three hours or less.

Check out this short video urging people to avoid prolonged sitting.

Continue ReadingThe danger of sitting too much

What would happen without public funding for family planning?

How important is it to publicly fund family planning? Consider the following information from a mass emailing I just received from Guttmacher Institute:

Publicly funded family planning services play a crucial role in improving maternal and child health, helping women and couples achieve their fundamental childbearing goals and achieve economic security for themselves and their children. These efforts save almost $4 for every $1 invested and help avert almost two million unintended pregnancies per year, which would otherwise have resulted in 860,000 unintended births and 810,000 abortions. Without these services, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions occurring in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher among women overall and among teens; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double.
The email included this link for additional information on this topic of public funding. Consider the information provided by Guttmacher under the heading: "WHO NEEDS CONTRACEPTIVE SERVICES?" • The typical American woman, who wants two children, spends about five years pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant, and three decades—more than three-quarters of her reproductive life—trying to avoid pregnancy. • About half of all pregnancies in the United States each year—more than three million—are unintended. By age 45, more than half of all American women will have experienced an unintended pregnancy, and three in 10 will have had an abortion. • There were 66 million U.S. women of reproductive age (13–44) in 2008. • More than half of these women (36 million) were in need of contraceptive services and supplies; that is, they were sexually active and able to become pregnant, but were not pregnant and did not wish to become pregnant. The number of women in need of contraceptive services and supplies increased 6% between 2000 and 2008. And consider the following, under the topic, "Who Needs Publicly Funded Service: • Among the 17.4 million women in need of publicly funded contraceptive care, 71% (12.4 million) were poor or low-income adults, and 29% (5 million) were younger than 20. Four in 10 poor women of reproductive age have no insurance coverage whatsoever. Guttmacher offers a wealth of statistics here.

Continue ReadingWhat would happen without public funding for family planning?

Big shake

It was the middle of the afternoon and my family and I (my wife and I have two teenaged daughters) were in the car headed for home. We agreed that this would be a junk food moment, something we don't do often. The two items most mentioned in the car were french fries and a chocolate shake. "Hey, there's a White Castle up ahead," I mentioned. I pulled up and ordered the "large chocolate shake" and some fries. None of us drink soft drinks, though we had all heard that there were some large serving sizes out there. What emerged from the window nonetheless startled all of us: A 44-ounce chocolate shake. We hauled it home and split it among the four of us. By the time we all gave up on it, there was still a bit left. Which inspired me to check the White Castle nutrition website. This 44-ounce drink is 1030 calories including 210 calories of fat (White Castle's large strawberry shake is as much as 1,300 calories in many regions). I'm not writing this to single out White Castle--many fast food joints offer similar fare. It was a worthwhile anthropological adventure, though, to see what (I assume) some people drink all on their own. PS. We all enjoyed the shake.

Continue ReadingBig shake

Long-term fasting and its potential health benefits

In "Starving Your Way to Vigor," an article in the March 2012 issue of Harper's Magazine (available on-line only to subscribers), Steve Hendricks discusses the possibility and the potential therapeutic effects of long-term fasting. How long is it possible for a human to refrain from eating any food (drinking only water)? It was once thought that one would be dead within 10 days. That was a theory that conflicts with the real world. For instance, Hendricks tells the story of a despondent doctor named Henry Tanner (his wife had left him), who tried to starve himself to death. During his long fast, his hunger pangs diminished and various ailments disappeared--he got better.

On the fortieth morning, the collegians weighed him at 121.5 pounds, thirty-six fewer than when he had begun. His other vitals were interesting only for being uninteresting: normal pulse, normal respiration. At noon, he ate a peach, which went down without trauma. He followed with two goblets of milk, which the collegians thought imprudent on a stomach so long inactive. But the milk not troubling him either, he ate most of a Georgia watermelon, to his colleagues’ horror. In succeeding hours he added a modest half-pound of broiled beefsteak, a like amount of sirloin, and four apples.
Hendricks reports that in 1965, a 27-year old Scotsman fasted for more than a year (eating only vitamins), dropping from 465 pounds to 180. His case was reported in the Postgraduate Medical Journal in 1973 and in the Guiness Book of World Records. Hendricks himself decided to fast, to experience the lack of food first hand. At the beginning, he weighed 160 pounds. He proceeded to lose 25 pounds in 20 days, regaining only 5 pounds in the two years since completing the fast. Much of Hendrick's article is a detailed description of his experience. Here's a taste of his article:
I continued to dwindle. By Wednesday, the seventeenth day of my fast, the report from the bathroom was 138, three pounds from home. So near, I considered for the first time whether I might care to fast longer—a month, say, or the Christly forty days, or even a few days more to out-Tanner Tanner. I wasn’t long deciding no. Endurance, even with my ugly swings of mood and energy, was not the problem. The problem was that I missed eating. I wanted the sensation of food in my mouth again—the textures, the flavors, the hots and colds, the surprises, even the disappointments. I also wanted the fellowship of eating. Sitting to meals with family and friends had been sociable enough at first, but in the end it had proved an inadequate substitute for companionship, a word whose roots com (with) and pan (bread) reveal its true meaning: breaking bread with others. Not breaking bread with my intimates, I was an outsider in their rite.
Hendricks relates anecdotes that intense long-term fasting improves or even cures such maladies as hypertension, epilepsy and cancer. He laments the lack of serious scientific research to determine the extent to which the claims regarding these benefits are true. I was amazed to learn of the possibility and potential health benefits of long-term fasting. Last week, on the morning I read Hendrick's article, I decided to see what it would be like to not eat for two days. I only lasted 9 hours. I found myself at work, working on a legal brief and needing lots of mental focus. Not eating was not at all painful, but it made me light-headed and unfocused. I understand that these symptoms would pass if I gave them time, but I pulled the plug and decided that I would try a fast when I didn't need to be at work. I'll let you know if and when I carry through with this experiment.

Continue ReadingLong-term fasting and its potential health benefits