Currently browsing posts about: Activity

It’s always nice to have some evidence for what you think makes sense.  David Katz and his Yale colleagues analyzed a bunch of studies attempting to improve both school nutrition and physical fitness.  Taken one by one, these studies generally showed negligible improvements in body weight, if any.  But these investigators analyzed a selected group of 19 (of 64) studies that met their inclusion criteria.  Taken collectively, these studies showed that the interventions improved body weight.  The overall effects on weight were small, but in the hoped-for direction.  Katz et al’s conclusion: combined nutrition and physical activity interventions are worth doing, especially when they include parental involvement along with cutting down on TV.

If the link to the paper doesn’t work for you, try the abstract on PubMed.

The Department of Health and Human Services has just issued new guidelines for physical activity.  They come with a guide for adults, a toolkit for community organizers, and research information for professionals.  The approach is easy: some activity is better than none; more is better than less.  Seems like good advice (but if you are worried about weight, you still have to eat less).

The Department of Health and Human Services has just released the report of a committee that has just spent the last two years reviewing research on the benefits and risks of physical activity for specific population groups.  Guess what?  It’s good for you!  And to summarize all that research: some is better than none, more is better than less, higher intensity is better than lower intensity.  The “some is better than none” part should be an inspiration to everyone to get out there and start moving.

Or so says a new study from Europe. If anything, the study finds that physical activity in Europe has slightly increased since the early 1980s, a result that is consistent with findings of the CDC for Americans (the chart plots the percentage of people who say they never do physical activity; that percentage is declining). What this means, of course, is that people who are gaining weight must be eating more. Big surprise.

In 2001, Congress gave $125 million (a fortune!) to the CDC to develop a marketing program to encourage kids to be more active. The result was VERB (run, jump, dance, play, etc). I was dubious (I thought it was great that the CDC was teaching kids the parts of speech) but lo and behold: while the money poured in, VERB worked. But the funding stopped and the program is now history, and written history at that. Everything about it, from theoretical model to results to interpretation, is now summarized in a supplement to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. The overview paper is a good place to start. Encouraging more physical activity is politically neutral; everyone thinks it would be great if everybody “moved more.” So how about giving CDC the funds to see if its program wizards can do the same with “eat less,” particularly of soft drinks and junk foods. Any chance for that happening?

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says physical activity is increasing among U.S. adults. At least that’s what U.S. adults say they are doing. It’s almost as hard to get good information about activity as it is to get information about diet. The latest results could be true. They are consistent with some studies, but not others. If so, it’s good news but doesn’t this mean that weight gain must be due to overeating, not to too little activity (at least across the population)?

The Centers for Disease Control and Promotion (CDC) announces that obesity rates are leveling off, at least among white women. The data show less favorable trends among men and women of color. One reason for the slowing down of obesity trends may be another favorable trend: the prevalence of regular physical activity seems to be increasing.