Childhood Obesity: What Can Be Done to Fight the Battle?

According to the American Obesity Association in 2005, 30% of children ages 6 to 11 are overweight and 15% are obese. Because of these disconcerting statistics, there are many questions as to why this trend is occurring and what parents can do to prevent childhood obesity from continuing. It appears that parents are either not aware of the methods available to stop child obesity or are choosing to ignore these various approaches. In this post I have commented on two blogs regarding the problem of obesity in children, and what has been believed to be some issues linked to the continually-high statistic rates. The first blog post is a Weight Loss Blog by the Wellspring Family Camp, a weight loss camp for families pictured below, in which it describes how children who watch a significant amount of TV are exposed to hundreds of junk food advertisements, making them susceptible to learning unhealthy eating habits. In the second post at Huliq.com, Harminka discussed a study that found that individuals living near supermarkets as well as large parks or open green areas, like the one shown below, are at a decreased risk for being overweight. My comments on these posts can be read below.

I found this post quite interesting, partly due to the fact that a good amount (30%) of the TV ads viewed by children were for food, specifically fast food and unhealthy snacks. This is unsettling because it gives kids the wrong idea about what they should be eating. I completely agree that parents should be aware of how much television their children are watching. A good point was made that not only is watching TV a sedentary activity, keeping kids from physical activity, but in addition it involves advertisements promoting kids’ interest in junk food. Fortunately however, an article was published by Jon Land two days ago stating that in 2008 commercials for unhealthy food products will be banned during programs appealing to adolescents under age 16. This will hopefully not only directly reduce kids’ exposure to such foods, but also indirectly diminish the adverse consequences to their body that comes from eating sweets and fats. I think it is particularly alarming that the study found that the ads “influence parents to buy their children snack foods that have no nutritional value,” because these parents are essentially aiding in the child obesity epidemic. Parents should avoid buying these kinds of snacks and encourage more outdoor activity. They should also emphasize the importance of sit-down family meals as opposed to advocating snacking in front of the TV. It is up to parents to start changing the harmful lifestyle of their kids who are overweight.

I was not entirely surprised to read that living close to large parks or “green space” and supermarkets is associated with a reduced risk for being overweight. It makes sense that children who have access to such vast, open areas of land will have a greater opportunity to enjoy physical activities, allowing them to be more active. In addition, access to supermarkets containing fresh, healthy food choices is extremely beneficial. Lower-income families may lack such means, thus making it difficult for them to obtain fresh produce, like fruits and vegetables. This post supports these ideas stating that proximity to both green space and supermarkets “affects weight by positively influencing physical activity and dietary behaviors.” In light of this, why is obesity still such a growing problem? Parents can take advantage of the parks and supermarkets around their neighborhoods to educate their children about the importance of physical exercise and healthy food choices. More must be done to get young people active. Parents must take responsibility and be good role models for their children by maintaining a healthy lifestyle in order for their kids to follow their lead. It may be too often that parents buy into their children’s pleas for junk food, and avoid opting for healthier options. If America is going to combat obesity, there must be a fundamental change in our children’s behavior as well as a transformation in the behavior of parents.

Fish as Brain Food: To Eat or Not to Eat

While it has been widely recognized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) since 2004 that pregnant women should not eat more than 340 grams (12 ounces) of fish a week because of the danger of mercury poisoning, recent news addresses the benefits of consuming fish during pregnancy, contradicting this well-established view. Mercury is a toxin found in fish and seafood, and can damage the nervous system, especially in growing fetuses. At the same time, fish and seafood are rich sources for nutrients like omega-3 fatty acids, which are essential to brain maturation. This poses a difficult dilemma regarding the decision to consume fish, and whether it is a friend or foe to development.

Dr. Joseph Hibbeln of the National Institutes of Health conducted a study published just last week monitoring the eating habits of almost 12,000 pregnant women in Britain. After tracking the developmental progress of the children born through age eight, the researchers found that women who ate more than 340 grams per week of fish “had smarter children with better developmental skills.” Hibbeln and his colleagues assessed issues including the children’s social and communication skills, their hand-eye coordination, and their IQ levels. According to PsycPort.com, eating more than the FDA and EPA recommended amount of fish during pregnancy benefited the children’s brain development, suggested in the picture below, while children whose mothers ate no fish were 48 percent more likely to have a low verbal IQ score. Another article adds that in addition to low verbal IQ scores, these children may face “suboptimum performance on tests of social behavior, fine motor activity, communication, and social development.” In addition, Jennifer Warner of WebMD describes in 2006 a study that showed that pregnant mothers who took fish oil supplements as opposed to olive oil supplements improved their baby’s hand-eye coordination and brain development, based on tests taken when the children reached age two and a half.

So in light of these results it seems as though pregnant women who eat less than the government recommended levels of fish may be causing more detriment than aid to their child. It is possible that limiting fish consumption will reduce the intake of necessary nutrients like long-chain fatty acids, shown below, to aid children’s neurological and cognitive development. As indicated by Dr. Gary Myers, there is little evidence to back up the FDA’s advisory to limit seafood consumption while pregnant. He states that “it is very clear that omega-3 fatty acids are very important for brain development, [and] it is less clear that mercury at the levels you get from eating fish poses a risk.” But in saying this it is important to understand that one must keep a balanced view and consider not just the factors that improve health, such as the beneficial effects of the nutrients in fish, but also the risks that could be potentially harmful, including eating fish with mercury. While it is promising that the study did not find evidence of increased harm from eating fish, thus challenging government advice that limiting seafood intake is of great value, one still must be cautious and skeptical in interpreting the results of the study because of its self-report nature. And after all, one may be apprehensive to ignore and defy FDA and EPA suggestions simply based on one study's results, since these suggestions are put in place for the purpose of protecting the public’s health and well-being.

Because of this contradicting evidence, one may still be confused about the decision to eat fish or not, specifically regarding pregnant women. Should one eat fish and take the risk of possibly ingesting mercury in order to improve a child’s cognitive development, or should one be safe and avoid all fish even if it may mean lower IQ scores in the child? Even if there is no clear-cut answer, it might be feasible to reach a happy medium. For example, WebMD reporter Salynn Boyles states that pregnant women can abide by FDA and EPA warnings to avoid shark, swordfish, king mackerel, or tilefish, which are more likely to have high mercury levels, but still eat other fish low in mercury. These include shrimp, salmon, canned light tuna (not albacore tuna), and catfish. Pregnant women ought to be well-informed about the levels of both mercury and omega-3 fatty acids in certain fish, as indicated by the graph, in order to make an educated decision about which they should eat. Until a definitive answer can be made as to the better option, individuals must make the choice suitable to their own beliefs. In the meantime, we hope the FDA will maintain its obligation to promote public health, while psychologists simultaneously continue to search for new knowledge and findings.

Adolescent Sex, Drugs and Depression: Which Leads to Which?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which one led to the other? That is the type of question plaguing many confused individuals regarding the association between adolescent sexual activity, drug use, and depression, shown below. Numerous articles have opposing opinions on this matter. For example, some articles state that there is no doubt that risky behaviors such as sex, drug use, and alcohol lead to depression, and others contradict arguing that depression leads to these risky behaviors. Despite these conflicting views, it is at least clear that there is an association between risky behavior and depression. This much we do know. In response to two blogs which emphasize the position that sex and other high-risk behaviors leads to depression, I have commented that this prediction cannot be regarded as a factual, straightforward cause-and-effect relationship. I think that people may easily be confused by the link between sex and depression and whether or not there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the two, and therefore that is why I have commented on these entries. In addition, I address the issue in one blog regarding its support for abstinence only education. I believe in educating teens to the best ability possible, and that entails utilizing all information available. If interested, the comments just mentioned regarding the two blogs can be read in their entirety below.

In response to the entry by Janice Crouse, it must be noted that the data for The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill study, which claims that “sex and drug behavior predicted an increased likelihood of depression, but depression did not predict behavior,” came from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Longitudinal studies are correlational research studies, which indicate that no causal relationships can be detected because it is not a controlled experiment; it is merely observation. Therefore, there is not “solid evidence” claiming those who engage in risky behaviors like sex and drugs will become depressed. In contradiction to Crouse, the message is certainly not clear. Are teens who engage in risky behavior at risk for depression, as Crouse claims? Possibly. But isn’t it also possible that depressed teens are at risk for engaging in risky behavior? The relationship between the two is in fact, quite fuzzy. In addition, it is not sensible to state that it is a myth that teens are going to ‘do it anyway,’ referring to sex, because some teens most certainly will. Even if only a few teens ‘do it anyway,’ isn’t it vital that these teens know about safe-sex practices? It is true that contraceptive methods and the prevention of disease transmission is not entirely effective, however it is still important that teens be educated on theses issues in case they decide to buy into this so-called ‘myth.’ I agree that “we ought to be telling adolescents the truth…and make them aware of the possible consequences and risks that they are taking,” but part of this truth involves providing them with “condoms and teach[ing] them safe-sex practices,” which Crouse undermines. Adolescents will only be denied the truth if they are not given all resources and information regarding sex, the consequences that come of it, and safe-sex practices. Providing abstinence-only programs not only misguides adolescents to believe that abstinence is the only option, but by limiting sex education and “protection,” teens or even adults who do become sexually active may be uninformed and thus perpetuate the spread of disease and cause harm to others.

It is quite confident of Shimla Pooja to use such strong language about how teens “spoil themselves with dicey behaviors, like sex and drugs,” making them more vulnerable to depression, without providing any explanation for how this is done. I find it interesting that such bold statements are made in reference to teens engaging in risky behaviors, leading them towards an increased risk at depression, however no evidence is provided to back up this strong claim. For example, it states that new research contradicts the widely-held belief that unsafe or dangerous activities like alcohol, sex, and drugs is used to alleviate the already-existing depressed symptoms, and that it is in fact the other way around, however no research is actually sited or specified. While the entry states that sex and drug behavior predicted an increased likelihood of depression, it is impossible to state that one thing predicted another based on correlational data. Pooja states that increased rates in depression and suicide are “only the result of causal sexual intimacy.” Just because sex and drug use predates depression does not prove that one causes the other. Quite frequently in fact, depressed teens seek out drugs, alcohol, and even sex to escape from their depression and pain, and instead consume themselves with these troubles. It is important that one does not get caught up with what may seem like ‘new and improved’ research and disregard other possible explanations because both explanations are viable. It is valid, as stated, that teens must be familiar with and knowledgeable about the potentially dangerous consequences of these behaviors, and that is why education about sex and drugs will be more effective in delaying these experiences than a lack of such education.

Man’s Best Friend is Indeed in Need: Dogs Role in Reducing Stress

In today’s fast-paced life in which people seem to never stop working, shown below, stress can play a drastic toll on one’s physical and mental health. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health reported from a survey that 34% had difficulty in sleeping because they were too stressed out. Not only is it important to be aware of the impact stress can have on our bodies, but it is also vital to recognize ways to reduce such ill-causing tension.

Research at the Baker Medical Research Institute has shown that owning a pet can have great health benefits including lowering blood pressure, and lowering risk factors for cardiovascular disease. According to Janet Crosby, a Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM), owners of pets also benefit from lower cholesterol, reduced stress levels, and better overall mental health. According to Dr. Allan Schwartz, in a study conducted in 2006 at the State University of New York at Buffalo where participants were subjected to stress-induced tasks, those who were allowed to have their dogs present during the task resulted in the lowest stress response in regards to blood pressure and heart rate. The presence of a dog can provide social support in the form of comfort, companionship, and happiness, which reduces feelings of loneliness and social isolation.

Almost anyone who owns a dog can probably vouch for the fact that these animals provide tremendous joy, love, and devotion. A key explanation for why they are such successful pets is because they simply want to please their owners. It is one reason why they are used so commonly in pet therapy in hospital and nursing centers, as well as for the disabled, shown in the picture to the right. According to Dr. Joseph Mercola, studies have shown that owning a dog played a significant role on survival rates in heart attack victims, as these animals help people cope with illness, loss, and even depression. He also states that research from the University of Missouri-Columbia suggests that interactions with dogs cause changes in hormones, including serotonin, which help individuals cope with stress-related disorders or other illnesses. In addition, non-pet owners, specifically those living without dogs, are “exposed to more persistent fears, increased feelings of panic, experience more frequent headaches, and take more medication for stress-induced illnesses than pet owners.”

It is no surprise that coming home from a long day at work to see that tail wagging fervently because of your arrival can suddenly uplift one’s spirits. Activities as simple as playing fetch, fishing, hiking, or going for a walk with your dog like the picture shown to the left can be a remedy for reducing stress, and improving our emotions, according to Tom Canavan. In addition to their company, the exercise and fresh air is beneficial to one’s health. While it is easy to stay inside on the couch, watching a favorite TV show or surfing the Internet, getting outside incorporates necessary physical activity with release from the stresses of work and everyday life to help one remain healthy. Canavan states how the laughter and enjoyment received from watching your dog’s behavior provides the pleasure and emotional relief needed to reduce stress and anxiety. In addition, he notes how dogs are non-critical and may provide unconditional affection for their masters without the expectation of something in return, which is in “sharp contrast to the stresses and strains of everyday human relationships.”

Because it is true that having a pet, especially a dog, requires great amounts of time, care, effort, and responsibility, it may be important to see the negative side of owning a dog, in addition to the positive side. Some critics of owning dogs may argue how dogs can increase stress by increasing the amount of demands placed on their owner. A considerable amount of time is needed to take care of a dog, including time spent on training it, walking it, and feeding it. In addition, money must be spent on food, toys, shots, and emergency care visits. Nevertheless, for the majority of individuals, the benefits of owning a dog outweigh the drawbacks considerably. It is evident that having a dog can provide great happiness and companionship, while improving health and a sense of well-being. A new dog can easily buy its way into one’s heart, and the constant love and support that is provided from a dog will result in great mood and health-enhancing benefits, which will make it impossible for one to believe that (s)he ever once lived without this remarkable furry friend.