Archive for the ‘Health and Fitness’ Category

“Goga”: the next fad workout to perpetuate sexist notions of weight loss to women

Caught this on CNN:

It actually hurt my brain it was so offensive.

So, “Goga” is a repackaged, modern, “Curves”-style treatment of those total body vibration machines (originally invented by the Russians!) that were supposed to vibrate your fat cells off.

The technology is nothing new. For years, women have been told we can vibrate our ways to better physical health, while avoiding the development of "unwanted, masculine" muscles. It looks as silly now as it did then.

The technology is nothing new. For years, women have been told we can vibrate our ways to better physical health, while avoiding the development of “unwanted, masculine” muscles. It looks as silly now as it did then.

No lie; this is what people think they do. Except, now, apparently these machines are being sold as having the added effect of being a Bosu ball on speed: they also help you lose weight by making you have to balance against the vibration. “Shakeweight”, anyone?

A Goga machine is a Segway that doesn't take you anywhere.I repeat, it's a Segway. That. Doesn't. Take. You. Anywhere.

A Goga machine is a Segway that doesn’t take you anywhere.
I repeat, it’s a Segway. That. Doesn’t. Take. You. Anywhere.

Here’s the skinny: “Goga” studios claims that ten minutes on one of those contraptions is equal to 1hr in the gym. I went onto the Goga website looking for the science (because I’m a masochist) and, of course, found none. Just a lot of happy women telling me how they lost so much weight and got so much healthier after spending time on a vibrating platform.

Let me be clear — if you are a sedentary, minimally active, middle-aged woman who has never been active, you will lose weight with Goga. Why? Because a) you’ve actually made the decision to focus on your health when you signed up for this ridiculous thing, implying that you probably also have made a few other choices in your life that will focus you on your health, and b) even spending 10 minutes standing will cause you to lose weight versus if you ordinarily spent that time sitting on your couch watching TV.

Pretty much any sort of vertical activity will be better than spending your time doing this.

“If I stuck a vibrating massager under my butt, I could call this a workout.”

Don’t get me twisted: I’m not hating on the women and their new-found vibratory-induced health and fitness. But, “Goga” is literally the bare minimum of working out. It’s literally standing for ten minutes — sure standing on something that’s shaking, but that’s like calling your morning commute by subway a “workout”.

And, do we really need yet another fad workout that caters to the sexist notion that women need different workout programs than men? Everything in this segment, from the soothing spa music to the giant wall-mounted televisions to those god-awful green neoprene 2lb hand weights screams “women are fragile delicate creatures who shouldn’t lift weights like men”.

Which is totally sexist bullshit.

This kind of sexist bullshit.

This kind of sexist bullshit.

Women don’t need to “tone”. We don’t need to shake the fat of our hips. We don’t need to fear sweating, and avoid heavy breathing, and shy away from being dirty, and discourage muscle, and leave it to the men to lift heavy things and put them down. We don’t need “Curves” and “Planet Fitness” and “Goga”, which tells us that we should literally have a “no work” workout to get fit.

We are women. We are made of bone and muscle and sinew. We run, and lift, and sweat and, yes, we can be sexy while we’re doing it. We can be badass beautiful Amazons who can outlift any man on the gym floor.

Wonder Woman didn't vibrate her way to Amazon status.

Wonder Woman didn’t vibrate her way to Amazon status.

There really needs to be a moratorium on all that other crap out there that tells us otherwise.

On fat acceptance and obesity research; or, lying about the science is just another form of fat bigotry

Obese individuals don't deserve to be bullied. But they don't deserve to be lied to, either.

Obese individuals don’t deserve to be bullied. But they don’t deserve to be lied to, either.

Health media and bloggers are a-buzz over a recent study by Flegal and colleagues of the National Center for Health Statistics at the CDC. The study analysed data published in other papers in an effort to build a comprehensive dataset and determine whether BMI corresponds with mortality. In short, the broad analysis revealed that (not surprisingly) morbid obesity is associated with significantly higher likelihood of death; however, the study also found that the “overweight” BMI category is associated with a significantly lower (~6%) risk of death relative to “normal weight” individuals.

With this single statement in the study’s abstract, the primary investigators stirred a massive controversy. Obesity researchers have called this study “rubbish” while self-identified fat activists have taken to CNN to proclaim this paper a definitive blow to institutionalized fat bias.

Before I dive into this controversy, let me first remind us of a few things. The Flegal study used the BMI — or “Body Mass Index” scale — to categorize subjects based on their body weight. BMI is calculated from a person’s height and weight to generate a number that typically falls between 18 and 40; that number then allows you to plot your index against a table that let’s you classify yourself as “normal weight”, “overweight” or “obese”.

An "overweight" person  (called "slightly overweight" in this table) typically has a BMI that falls between 26-29, and an "obese" person has a BMI greater than 30.

An “overweight” person (called “slightly overweight” in this table) typically has a BMI that falls between 26-29, and an “obese” person has a BMI greater than 30.

Now, there’s a simple explanation for the findings of the Flegal study — the BMI scale is deeply flawed. The BMI scale is, in fact, a horrible tool for predicting an individual’s fitness or health status. The Flegal study is simply pointing out how the BMI scale is both over-used and incorrectly interpreted by primary physicians.

BMI was first created as an epidemiological and clinical tool that allows for rapid screening of a patient’s weight status, as a first-step indicator of whether or not a person may be at higher risk for obesity-related diseases. It’s strength was that the input data — height and weight — could be collected with a simple scale and tape measure, and you could arm patients with BMI as a way of monitoring their own fitness level at home. Further, the reason for its existence is that en masse,  high BMI correlates with a host of chronic diseases you really don’t want.

The problem is that in the non-scientific world, the correlative nature of the BMI scale has been confused with causation. While scientists still understand how BMI is (and is not) correlated with poor health and morbidity, doctors and the average citizen puts too much emphasis on BMI, mistaking the fact that having a high BMI means one may be at risk of also having other obesity-related diseases with the misguided notion that having a high BMI will cause those obesity-related diseases.

On an individual level, your BMI is relatively meaningless, precisely because BMI doesn’t directly test the actual health factors that lead to the development of chronic disease — blood pressure, diet, body fat percentage, and lifestyle choices. The BMI scale fails to consider variations in people’s body compositions (by definition, it assumes everyone’s muscle mass, bone mass, and hydration level are the same) in order to produce a rough guesstimate of whether or not a person might be obese or not.

According to the BMI scale, heavily muscled (and clearly fit) individuals like Arnold Schwarzenegger would be considered morbidly obese.

According to the BMI scale, heavily muscled (and clearly fit) individuals like Arnold Schwarzenegger would be considered morbidly obese.

Given these considerations, it’s not surprising that the Flegal study found that folks who fall into the “overweight” category of the BMI scale might have (en masse) a slightly lower risk of death than “normal weight” individuals: “overweight” individuals will include a large proportion of bonafide “slightly overweight” folks, but this group will also include a “contaminant population” of strength training athletes, people who have better access to food because of better socioeconomic status, folks who may eat a more varied nutrient-dense diet, and perhaps even younger individuals (who tend to have more muscle mass). The Flegal study did not — actually could not — tease these confounding factors out.

The bottom line is this: it is quite possible to be a healthy individual and to appear “fat” on the BMI scale. However, it’s also clear that folks who are both fit and fat typically have unusual body composition and weight distribution and/or have spent at least some of their daily energy focusing on maintaining a fit and active lifestyle that result in better heart health, good nutrition, and high muscle mass; even if they still carry a few extra pounds of fat. You can be fit and fat, but it is not the default.

What troubles me in this debate is, in fact, the opposite end of the spectrum, personified by self-identified fat activist Marilyn Wann is equally as alarming as the popular misconceptions about the BMI scale. Wann write in an editorial on CNN:

After a careful review of all relevant research worldwide, the U.S. government’s leading analyst of weight data just confirmed what I’ve long known: Being fat might not be a death sentence.

That this study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association seems at all shocking is a measure of the intensity and pervasiveness of weight prejudice in our society and in our sciences.

In short, Wann weighs the (questionable) findings of this single JAMA article against an entire body of obesity research literature, and finds the thousands of published papers showing a clear connection between obesity and poor overall health to be lacking; worse yet, she lobs a veiled accusation against the scientific community of, in essence, falsifying data based on internalized “weight prejudice”.

This is, in every facet, equivalent to climate change denialists touting the findings of a single, potentially flawed, study with “favourable” findings against reams of evidence that support global warming.

Despite the headline of her article — “You Can be Fit and Fat” — Wann fails to make a single compelling argument that in favour of her overall thesis that obese individuals are just as healthy as non-obese individuals. Instead, she spends the bulk of her piece in CNN speaking about weight prejudice and fat tolerance, telling anecdotal tales of individuals whose primary health advice from medical professionals is to lose weight. Wann goes so far as to suggest that obesity is not, itself, a risk factor for disease, but rather that fat individuals have poorer health because hospitals aren’t equipped with blood pressure cuffs that fit around larger arms:

One woman called in the middle of the night, hoping I knew of an MRI she could use for an important test. The machine at her local hospital, which she’d used before, was being guarded by a technician who strictly enforced the weight limits. The tray that slides in and out of the machine could break. Instead, she was denied potentially life-saving information in a crisis. How many of the deaths blamed on weight are actually caused by medical equipment — everything from blood pressure cuffs to surgical instruments — that fails to accommodate fat people when we need it most?

I’ll never forget the teenage girl who was told by a nurse practitioner that her complaint would go away once she lost weight. Luckily, she had the nerve and the parental backup to get another appointment and the prescription necessary to treat her condition. How many of the deaths blamed on fat actually happen when people are diagnosed as fat instead of being diagnosed and treated for an illness?

Wann’s argument is that obesity is not, in any way, related to fitness. She notes a study that showed that age, not obesity, was the primary cause of death in patients over the age of 65; she forgets that obesity tends to cause early death before the age of 65, and that cardiovascular disease (which arises in part from obesity) is the leading cause of death in America.

Let’s be absolutely clear. Obesity is strongly associated with metabolic disorders (with the latter likely causative of the former). Metabolic disorder is likely the principal cause of cardiovascular disease. Fat individuals are dying because — without being too hyperbolic — obesity kills.

The mouse on the left is the famous leptin mouse, a classic model of obesity. He basically suffers from metabolic disorder leading to profound obesity. The leptin mouse is a notoriously sick mouse, suffering from hypertension, diabetes, acute inflammation, arthritis, and signs of rapid aging. This mouse is not sick because we don't have access to a scale big enough to weigh it.

The mouse on the left is the famous leptin mouse, a classic model of obesity. He basically suffers from metabolic disorder leading to profound obesity. The leptin mouse is a notoriously sick mouse, suffering from hypertension, diabetes, acute inflammation, arthritis, and rapid aging. This mouse is not sick because we don’t have access to a scale big enough to weigh it.

Here’s the thing: Wann is completely on the mark when it comes to wanting to fight against fat intolerance. Obese individuals should not be targets of society’s derision and ridicule. Obese individuals need access to adequate healthcare, insurance, and resources for healthy weight loss. Obese individuals shouldn’t be made to feel shame or self-hatred for their obesity, or to be associated with such negative terms as “lazy”, “unintelligent” or “ugly”. This is about as productive, and as charming, as throwing rocks at the fat kid in the playground until he breaks down and cries. It’s bullying, plain and simple, and it’s nothing I want to be teaching my kids.

But, isn’t it demeaning, patronizing, or — dare I say it — even intolerant to advocate that obese individuals should be treated to a selective interpretation of the science because they don’t deserve to hear the truth that obesity is, demonstrably, a risk factor for one’s health? Doesn’t is suggest that obese individuals can’t, or shouldn’t be, given all the facts about their own medical status because their self-esteem can’t handle it? Doesn’t it imply that we should lie to obese individuals because it’s mean to suggest they need to lose weight? And, when the consequences of these lies is a proven reduction in lifespan and overall quality of life for obese patients, aren’t we at risk of institutionalizing a form of fat oppression by way of deliberately limiting an obese person’s health outcome?

Obese individuals can be smart, beautiful, competent people. But, obesity is also the single greatest health epidemic facing America today, with a full 30% of children now being classified as overweight, and with some developing type II diabetes (traditionally an adult onset disease) as young as age 10.

I get that the fat acceptance movement comes from a place of wanting to encouraging healthier relationships between people and their own bodies. But, the movement against weight bias should be about addressing the institutional bigotry against fat people that aims to shame obese individuals into losing weight, rather than supporting them in that process. The movement against weight bias should be highlighting the mental health and self-esteem issues that obese children face when they are ridiculed by classmates and teachers, instead of offered in-school training and access to proper nutrition. The movement against weight bias should be working hand-in-hand with federal health initiatives that are promoting better eating and more activity by promoting the message that obese individuals should lose weight because they love their bodies, not because they hate them.

Instead, the movement takes a step backward, in my mind, when it highlights fat activists like Wann who would rather fall back on science denial to support her argument. It takes a step backwards when its most high-profile issues involve an extra fee for airline seats rather than actual public policy debates that could genuinely improve the quality of life of obese patients. It takes a step backwards when it focuses on self-described anecdata. The movement simply can’t be about promoting the misguided notion that fat people are healthy because doctors are intolerant bigots; this is just not a rational argument supported by the scientific facts.

The medical community really needs to improve how we assess and treat obesity. We need to throw out the BMI scale, and popularize measures of body fat percentage as our primary assessment tool. We need to be encouraging all patients, including those that are normal weight as well as obese, to take the stairs, to eat better, and to spend more time on our feet. We need to be issuing pedometers to every patient who walks through the door’s of a doctor’s office, we need to be putting nutritional information on ever restaurant menu, and we need to bring back physical education and recess in public schools.

And yes, we need to hear about how our society is intolerant and abusive of obese individuals. We need to challenge our current beauty ideals, which portray skinny women (and some men) who are no more healthy than a morbidly obese individual.

 

At 110 lbs and 6'2", model Jodie Kidd is medically underweight, by BMI.

At 110 lbs and 6’2″, model Jodie Kidd is medically underweight, by BMI.

We need to get Americans comfortable with being active for its own sake — because it’s fun and it’s healthy and it’s better for the environment.

What we don’t need to be doing is give any more airtime to obesity denialists.

6 tips for making a healthy New Year’s resolution… and for making it stick

January 1st is the perfect time to make a resolution about the coming year. Here's how to make a resolution that'll stick.

January 1st is the perfect time to make a resolution about the coming year. Here’s how to make a resolution that’ll stick.

Four years ago, I turned my health and fitness around, and it all started with a New Year’s Resolution (“no more McDonald’s”). Since January of 2009, I’ve completely overhauled my lifestyle.

As January 1, 2013 approaches, there will inevitably be folks out there who want to make their own healthy New Year’s resolutions. Here are 5 tips for making a great healthy New Year’s Resolution, and for making it stick.

1. Decide why you want to make a change.

Sure, everyone has ideas about the better person they’d like to be. But having an idea isn’t the same thing as having motivation. For a long time, I wanted to get skinnier, but it took truly understanding how my fitness level (or lack thereof) was impacting my health, and why I needed to make a change, to get me to actually dedicate to change. This January, don’t just wish you were healthier, decide that you want or need to be healthier, and what you might be missing out on if you’re not. This will also help you anticipate the reasons why you haven’t been pursuing a healthier lifestyle already, and what obstacles life might throw at you in the coming year.

I guarantee that this deep understanding of why you’re doing what you’re doing will get you through those days when the process of getting healthier just kinda sucks.

2. Set a specific goal.

While “getting healthy” or “losing weight” are great goals, they are non-specific, vague goals. Without parameters for success or failure, there’s no way to monitor progress to determine whether or not you’re actually getting healthier or losing weight, and no way to know when you’ve arrived. Without that feeling of progress, most people become discouraged and give up. So, rather than to set vague goals, set specific ones: goals with numbers are the best. Set a goal to lose 10 lbs, or better yet, set a functional goal: to run 1 mile in under 9 minutes, to bench press your body weight, or to do 10 pull-ups without stopping.

3. Set a single goal.

Swept up in the season, New Year’s Resolutioners tend to try and change everything, and all at once. For most people, this is an unsustainable amount of change. If you’ve spent the last year living one kind of lifestyle, it can be a shock to try and change your whole life in a day. Getting healthy is a marathon, not a sprint. Rather than to resolve to cut out all fast food, eat more veggies, exercise 45 minutes a day, AND bike to work, pick one of these resolutions and let yourself slide on the others (for now). For me, it was choosing to tackle my fast food habit; for you, it might be that, or to resolve to exercise regularly, or to eliminate desserts three times a week.

Even though it might feel like setting the bar lower, what you’re actually doing is training the mental discipline it takes to make a lifestyle change. Upon achieving your first goal, you’ll find that setting and achieving the second goal (without losing the progress you’ve made with your first goal) will be much easier because now you’re used to what it takes to change your life.

4. Keep it simple.

Most beginners overestimate their own fitness level and underestimate how difficult it is to get back in shape. So, don’t bite off more than you can chew; setting too lofty a goal is an easy way to get discouraged and give up. If you haven’t been active all year and would like to get back in shape, set a goal of going for a short walk after dinner 2x or 3x a week. If you eat cake every night after dinner, set a goal of having a piece of fruit for dessert instead 3x a week rather than quitting cold turkey. If you want to eat more veggies, set a goal of having salad twice a week for lunch, rather than to go vegan over-night. Setting simple goals, ones that aren’t too disruptive of your every day life, will help you integrate the new habits into your day-to-day activities without shocking your system. It also reduces the chances that you’ll fall off the wagon early and call it quits.

For me, I found that setting a concrete goal of eliminating McDonald’s from my diet — but not worrying about the rest of my diet yet — was the perfect “baby step” to getting me used to thinking about my diet and making conscious choices about it. Once I was used to thinking about, and saying no to, McDonald’s, it was simple to cut almost all fast food from my diet entirely.

5. Set a time frame and reassess.

For all resolutions, it can be helpful to set a time frame for how long you’re going to try your new resolution. If you’ve resolved to hit the gym 3x a week, commit to doing it for a month or two without cheating. Having a time frame will augment that sense of progress because every day that passes is a day that brings you closer to your goal.

Further, reaching your goal time frame isn’t an opportunity to fall off the wagon; it’s a pre-determined time to take a second look at your goals, reassess whether it’s too disruptive (or maybe not challenging enough) and to set a new set of goals. It might be that after a month, you’ll realize that going to the gym 3x a week isn’t sustainable given babysitting costs; this is a perfect time to modify your goals so that more of your workouts can take place at home with the kids. Or, you might find that you can handle 3x a week of going to the gym, and now you want to set a more challenging goal of spending 20 minutes of that time lifting weights. Setting a time frame when you start gives you the perfect chance to modify your goals after having spent some time trying your new lifestyle.

6. Write it down.

By this, I mean plan it all out. Write a letter or a note to yourself outlining what you want to do, how you plan on doing it, and what you hope to get out of this whole experience. This helps make the whole experience feel real, and will turn it into a commitment to yourself. You can choose to carry your resolution with you, or you can choose to leave it at the bottom of a pile of papers on your desk; the important part is writing it down.

There’s conflicting ideas out there about telling other folks about your resolutions (as opposed to keeping it to yourself). It can be helpful to tell folks because they can help support you in the process of changing your lifestyle (e.g. if you need your family to know you plan on hitting the gym more so they can watch your kids or something). On the other hand, for many people, the immediate reward of having other people praise you for making a resolution can undermine their interest in the praise they’ll receive for having actually achieved the reward, making it ultimately easier to cheat and/or give up.

Personally, I’ve found it easiest to let my family know about resolutions, but to not publicize to friends. I think this will vary from person to person. But, either way, the important thing is to make a promise yourself, not anyone else.

BONUS: 7. Make non-New Years’ Resolutions

New Years’ is a great time to make resolutions, but there’s no reason why it has to be the only time to change your life. As I wrote above, getting healthier is a marathon, not a sprint. Making a small change in January is only going to prepare you for the next step in February or March. Be prepared to be constantly in the cycle of assessing your life, resolving to change something, making a plan, and pursuing that goal. In other words, resolutions are a year-round thing. January 1st is just the first step.

Latest Time Magazine Photoshoot Reveals That Paul Ryan Is Actually That 16-Year Old Kid Who Lifts Weights In His Parents’ Basement

This week, Time Magazine, reaffirming its commitment to report nothing that could even remotely be construed as news-worthy in the upcoming presidential election, featured a photoshoot of vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, dressed like an extra from Saved by the Bell and curling some dumbbells. All set against a backdrop that could best be described as “yearbook picture chic”.

Meet the picture that Time Magazine deemed publication-worthy.

This would be way more hardcore if Paul Ryan weren't curling less weight than I do.

And here are the outtakes:

This is actually a 400 lb dumbbell. In the same way that Paul Ryan ran that sub-3:00 marathon that one time.

"No, really, Mitt. This photoshoot is *TOTALLY* gonna help the electorate take me more seriously.

This looks like Paul Ryan is deep in thought, like the thinker. But he's actually trying to scratch his nose. With a 40lb free weight. The man who would be president of the United States if something catastrophic happened to Mitt Romney, ladies and gentlemen.

Hey, at least we can give Time Magazine some credit: they realized that an image of Paul Ryan sitting in a gym in a full suit with dumbbells scattered around him was too absurd even for them. Because showing Ryan as even remotely seriously as a vice presidential candidate is just too implausible.

Someone in the Romney campaign staff deserves a medal for approving this photoshoot. Then they deserve to be fired. Then, I will buy them a steak dinner.

Why be one of the #170in7?

Cross-posted from JookTime (go here for more information about 2 year old Jeremy Kong’s search for a perfect bone marrow donor match, and join the #170in7 campaign)

1% = Chinese donors in the bone marrow registry

7% = Asian donors in the bone marrow registry

0 = matches found for Jeremy Kong so far

 

In memory of Janet Liang

Network of Asian American sites are hosting a cyberdrive

 

7 days to get 170 new bone marrow donors registered

Be one of the #170in7 today!