Fun for the Whole Family

Last week a colleague showed me a part of a Kellogg’s cereal box that advertised the company’s latest marketing ploy – a pedometer.  Working in the fitness industry as we do, we got a kick out of Tony the Tiger’s new role as fitness pusher (inside humor of fitness geeks - you had to be there).  I have to say though I applaud the effort.

I thought a bit later as to who would actually benefit from the toy, which may not be as obvious as it seems.  On one hand the cereal certainly targets kids, but I had to wonder how many kids actually need pedometers.  It almost seems to be making a case for quantifying play and informal leisure.  I’m familiar with the use of pedometers and activity monitors on children for the purposes of research, and have read several scientific journal articles featuring this type of study.  If you’re doing a research along these lines, using these tools makes sense.  Personally though, I can’t imagine sticking one on my toddler, beyond simply trying it for kicks and giggles to see how he reacts and whether it accurately measures anything on a rambunctious little person.  Older kids?  Maybe.

Which brings me to my second thought – the declining physical activity of children and adolescents and resultant increase in weight.  My job entails keeping up with health trends, so I’m aware of the obesity epidemic, who’s involved, and the argument around its legitimacy.  Still, while the professional side of me recognizes this, perhaps it’s the optimistic side of me (or naive side?) that’s making me ask, is this really where we are?  That we need to give children a pedometer to create a game out of and incentivize being a kid?

Which brought me to my next thought, which was that regardless of whether the kids actually need a pedometer, maybe it’s the parents who could benefit from its use.  I could see a kid playing around with one for all of 10 minutes, but then perhaps a curious parent checking it out for a day or two as one way to act upon the already abandoned New Year’s resolution.  Certainly possible.  Likely?  I don’t know.

For now I’ll avoid the related discussion regarding possible motivations for Kellogg’s to do this in the first place.  Maybe I’ll tackle it when I have more time to write.  In the meantime, I’ll close with a link to a funny post by another blogger describing his initial reactions to the instructions that accompanied his Kellogg’s pedometer that he received earlier this year.

Still Smoking

Earlier this year a state-wide smoking ban went into effect here in Illinois, disallowing smoking in any bar or restaurant.  Personally, I’ve loved it.  It’s nice to go out for dinner or meet a few friends on the town without dealing with it, not to mention coming home without smelling like smoke.

It appears though that there are some questions regarding the enforcement of this law that leave some holes for smoke to pass.  The Chicago Tribune recently reported that the law basically prohibits smoking “in public places and within 15 feet of their exterior doors and windows,” but noted, “that’s as clear as it gets.”  Apparently the key question is how exactly the law is to be enforced, to include the role and punishment (if any) of bar and restaurant owners and the appeal process of individuals who receive citations.  As a result, according to the Trib at least one county Attorney General has said that he’s told police that he refuses to prosecute violators until the law’s language becomes more specific.

I understand that these and related questions need to be answered before the law can be fully effective.  I just hope that this doesn’t open the door to exemptions to the law, which some lawmakers and constituents (i.e. bars, restaurants, and casinos) want.  I’m all for individual rights and support people who want to hasten the inevitable as long as they keep it away from me.  My problem is with people who seem to think that they have the right to smoke in public places.  As I see it, given what we know about the impact of smoking on health, their right to smoke stops when it meets my right to breathe clean (relatively speaking, depending on where you live) air. 

Private entities are a separate issue.  They should need only to consider their membership; I would hope that they recognize that there will be patrons who don’t want to be exposed to smoke and subsequently create a truly separate area for smoking – not something like the ridiculous notion of smoking and non-smoking sections of restaurants.  After all, the last I checked, smoke doesn’t stay in a particular area just because you want it to.  The question is whether these private establishments can and should be trusted to make and execute the decision with regard to non-smokers.  I think they should be trusted, although I don’t know whether they can be trusted.

Regardless, Illinois lawmakers need to quickly figure out this issue for public places, because it puts bar and restaurant owners in a tough spot since they’re trying to satisfy both sides.  And if these establishments have a majority of patrons who want to smoke, then to hell with the non-smokers since the majority, by nature, will probably have more money to spend than the minority.  Hopefully the lobby that is the American Cancer Society has even deeper pockets.

Parents vs. Bimbos

Although the blog is “Fitness and Wellness in America,” I’m actually heading across the pond for the inspiration for my first post.  No, the post’s title isn’t referring to anyone in particular, but a British website that features a self-described fashion game titled “Miss Bimbo.”  The game allows users to live the bimbo life by finding a “cool place to live,” buying the latest fashion, getting a job, becoming a socialite, dating “hotties,” and using ”meds or plastic surgery” to become the bimbo queen.  Apparently users can even control their bimbo’s eating habits so that you can go for the waif look if that’s what it takes to win.

I came across this site via CNN, and the disturbing thing is that according to their story, Miss Bimbo is attracting young girls as the main users – no surprise, after looking at the site’s design and branding.  Being a beliver in capitalism as I am, I think the site’s creators (two Englishmen) have done something creative to make money, and I give them credit for it.  That’s their job.  Now, parents of the world have yet another opportunity to step in and do their job.  Personally, there’s no way I’d let my daughter get on that site, and if she did find her way on it, we’d be having a conversation about materialism, consumerism, body image, and self-worth – at least as much as I could get her to understand at whatever age she finds this site or similar messages on other media.

Issues such as eating disorders and over-exercising have roots in personal and familial factors, no doubt, but societal contributors can be just as influential, and this site just adds to the chorus of those who focus on things and aesthetics for happiness.  This message is common enough in today’s modern societies that, sadly, hearing and seeing it isn’t particularly surprising anymore, but what bothers me about this site – although also not surprising – is the age of the target audience.  The frequency of this message and the sheer variety of channels through which it’s conveyed makes parenting in the 21st century that much more difficult.  I don’t expect to keep my kids in a bubble, nor do I expect companies and entrepreneurs to make my job as a parent easier – I simply note this website as yet another source of a familiar parental lament, that being that there are some conversations that seem to be necessary earlier and earlier in a child’s life.  I wonder though how many parents, and adults in general, could benefit from someone sitting them down for the same conversation.