Media Interpretations

One thing I’ve learned over the years is to take with a grain of salt the information I get through the mainstream media outlets.  This is a lesson I’m sure that we all remember time to time, but particularly so when we come across a story about a topic with which we’re familiar.

Case in point, this week I found this article on CNN’s website regarding the notion that a person can be fat due to genetic factors, but yet still considered fit, and as a result, healthy.  Specifically, the article referred to a newly published study that suggests that regular physical activity can lessen cardiovascular risks among overweight individuals, but not eliminate it.  To the AP author’s credit, s/he presented both sides of the story by interviewing one of the major researchers who advocate the ‘fat but fit’ theory, Steven Blair, and the article mostly stayed away from creating a black and white scenario.

The latter is one of my major issues with the media’s reporting of health and fitness research – they try to boil information down to the simplest, most easily digested piece of information.  “Should you eat eggs or should you not?  Answer at eleven.”  Science, like life, isn’t that cut and dried.  Eggs are a great food item and your body can adjust its own cholesterol production in response to the cholesterol you take in from food like eggs; but sure, you can overdo it.  Similarly, being overweight or obese usually isn’t good, but as mentioned in the CNN article it can be countered somewhat with exercise, not to mention that sometimes (although not as often as some people would like to believe) there are genetic factors at play.  My rule of thumb is boring and cliche, but I’ve found it to be true regarding one’s health and well-being – moderation is key.  It also happens to be the case when deciphering information from the media.

Green Choices

The push to “go green” in various facets of life has reached a fever pitch, and some people are getting tired of it.  The commercialization of green, organic, and natural products has resulted in increased skepticism among consumers according to one survey, which is understandable.  Not only that, the movement has resulted in higher costs of some items related to green living, although some costs have always been higher relative to the traditional options – see Whole Foods for an example (called “Whole Paycheck” by some people I know).  We’ve already seen a run up in some costs at the grocery store as a partial result of the the run to ethanol, which wasn’t really supported by environmentalists in the know during this green push over the past few years, at least as I understand the situation. 

It’s unfortunate that healthier and/or natural options often cost more, but is a sign of where we are technologically I suppose.  Companies have created systems and processes for manufacturing products or food items that minimize costs, so it’s sometimes more expensive to against the grain.  On the other hand, with increasing interest in this area perhaps people will become more educated regarding which options are worth the extra expense and which aren’t.  For example, my wife has done a little reading on this and has determined that we’re fine using a natural, homemade mix as a cleaning agent rather than a traditional store brand.

Ultimately decisions like these come down to what they always do regarding one’s well being – priorities.  People will determine the extent to which they want to go with green, natural, and organic options, just as they evaluate the extent to which they want to be physically active.  Fortunately for us the Internet, while still not easily accessible to everyone in the country today, is a great equalizer in making information available so that people can make (theoretically) educated decisions.

Your Road Map

Health magazine just released some noteworthy information for consumers – their list of the healthiest and unhealthiest restaurants.  We American love to eat out, and for many of us it has become a necessity in sustaining a fast-paced lifestyle, as opposed to simply a luxury.  In fact, the restaurant industry is the third largest in the U.S. (behind the government and health care), according to the National Restaurant Association, as referenced in a Wall Street Journal article this week.  While that same article discusses how restaurants are trying to survive in the current economic climate, there are still a lot of people who eat out regularly, even if they do it less often or have scaled down to cheaper fare.

I always find restaurant nutritional information fascinating, although not necessarily shocking. Research has indicated that - surprise – people tend to make healthier decisions on food when they know the nutritional content of their options, so it’s not surprising that the restaurant industry as a whole has resisted making this information readily available for fear of hurting sales of their more profitable, yet unhealthier options. I can’t say I blame them. Food is a psychological game of emotion for many people, so you don’t necessarily wanting people making rational decisions when buying, just as other retailers don’t.

Personally, I wouldn’t want to make the “right” decision all the time anyway. Life should be about moderation and balance, and skipping your favorite dishes all the time just isn’t any fun. Information like Health’s list though provides good information to consider to strike that balance.

Technology Rising

One of my job responsibilities is purchasing fitness equipment, so I couldn’t help recently being particularly struck by how fitness equipment manufacturers – commercial, not home – have been upping the technological offerings of their recent and upcoming models.  Taking advantage of new technology isn’t anything new, but it seems that things are going to another level at this point in time.  Take cardiovascular equipment, for example.  Heart rate monitors have been available on this equipment for over 15 years, and over the past 10 years technology has improved enough to offer reliable television displays in the console.  Two remarkable innovations, to be sure, but those have been it for a long time.

Now, there are some great new innovations that have come to market and others coming down the pike all within a relatively short time span (although they each have likely been in development for some time).  There are new cardio pieces that now allow users to connect their iPods (and in some cases, MP3 players) and not only listen, but also watch video, all while the equipment charges the iPod’s battery.  On some models, users can also plug in USB jump drives to save their workouts and then load them up the next workout with the same jump drive; in addition, workout statistics can be saved on the drives and then uploaded to a website where you can track and analyze the data (also available for some strength training equipment).  Personally, I’m geeked about the possibility – and it’s coming – of an OnStar type of diagnostic service being available for cardiovascular equipment that will directly alert the facility’s service provider, who then walks in and fixes the issue before the facility operators even know there’s a problem.  (And why should users care about that?  Less equipment downtime and faster repairs, that’s why.)

One challenge to adding these fun toys is that this stuff costs money, yet the membership costs of belonging to a health club – clubs’ main revenue source – haven’t changed much over the past 30 years.  Nominal monthly fees have gone up somewhat over that time, although some discount chains have actually lowered prices, which means that in real dollars the cost of membership has been stagnant.  Therefore, things aren’t adding up.  I know of one regional chain in particular whose business plan I’d love to see, because they have all the latest equipment, personal TVs on all cardio pieces, premium group exercise classes included in the monthly dues (not all facilities do this due to class costs), decent locker rooms, and good locations, all at a montly fee well below market value for a comparable facility (but with comparable non-dues revenue sources).  Not only that, but they keep adding facilities.  Barring an owner or group of owners who are ridiculously wealthy and can bankroll the operation, my bet is that they’re leveraged to the hilt.

Regardless of the costs, operators are going to have to figure out how to make technology a significant presence in their facilities, because the more pervasive it becomes in our personal lives, the more it’s expected to be available in all areas of our lives.  This could result from increasing the number of in-facility revenue sources or decreasing costs, both of which the technology itself could help, so it’s possible that the new toys could help pay for themselves.  This isn’t a trend though – technology in the fitness industry is here to stay, which is ultimately a good thing all around.

Outsourcing Stress

Sunday’s Chicago Tribune featured an interesting article on the downside of U.S. companies’ outsourcing of their call centers to places like Bangalore, as experienced by Indians – that being harmful lifestyle changes associated with the job.  Because India is several hours ahead of the U.S., Indian call centers require employees to work overnight, resulting in some of the same things that our desk-bound and/or overnight workers face here in the states, including stress, sleep deprivation, weight gain, depression, and negative effects on relationships.  Interestingly, many of these jobs apparently pay pretty well there and are held by college graduates.  The article featured one gentleman in particular who eventually decided the job wasn’t worth the negative impact it was having on his family life.  Looks like economic prosperity isn’t the only thing we share with the world via globalization.

I generally think that Americans work too much and don’t enjoy much leisure time, especially in comparison to other cultures.  The flip side of course is that we’re more economically prosperous than just about everyone (depending on your metric of choice).  So do people – focusing here on the nebulous ‘middle class’ – really mind working as much as they do if they’re able to afford the luxuries of our consumerist society?  I’ve gone back and forth on this, and while I believe that many people would probably say that they’d like to work less than they do, I don’t really buy it.  Why?  Because most people could work less right now and still have money to pay their bills if they really wanted to, but they don’t because doing so would mean drastically cutting back on discretionary spending.  If you asked the average person if they could do without their favorites, whether those be technological toys like iPods or small, daily treats like a trip to Starbucks, I think the honest answer would be no.  So most of us determine that whatever ills we experience from the daily grind are worth whatever the money brings us, whether things or opportunities, and without question, this can certainly be true.  For those people who are fortunate enough to be passionate about their job, they get that added benefit on top of making the dough, so they’re even less likely to dial it down.

Regardless of one’s religious affiliation, or lack thereof, the Protestant work has been and continues to be a major force in American society, so that’s somewhat of an excuse for our neurosis.  I’ll be very curious to see in the coming years, however, how globalization impacts other cultures, such as India’s, in the areas of work-life balance and related health issues - particularly for those cultures that have historically placed prime importance on leisure.  I wonder how many of them will decide that the trade off isn’t worth it.