Finish This Thought . . .

. . . Wellness matters because . . . Well, why does wellness matter? And, why does it matter to you? It’s not even that easy to define. We know wellness is “a multidimensional state of being describing the existence of positive health in an individual as exemplified by quality of life and a sense of well-being. Wellness is not just the absence of illness, but the active process of achieving an individual's full potential of physical, mental, and spiritual well being.” No doubt, defining wellness is a mouthful.

And, it’s sort of like poetry—most of us can recite a poem (even a bad poem), but can we define "poetry?” And, how do we individually define wellness? It seems that getting back to the individual definition brings wellness home to each of us.

So, back to why wellness matters. The National Wellness Institute says, “wellness is an active process through which people become aware of and make choices towards a more successful existence.” Who can argue with that? Employers know that better health means better productivity. We all know (or by now should know) that the prevention of expensive-to-treat and mostly preventable chronic illness means a reduction in the need for health care services—and less drain on our health care system.

Then there are the personal reasons—who wants to be ill? Don’t we all want to “be there” for our children, and our grandchildren? Don’t we want to enjoy our retirement? Don’t we just plain want to feel good?

LoneStart Wellness encourages everyone to take a fresh look at the opportunities we all have to begin to improve our personal—individual and collective—health. Call it healthy living, personal responsibility, even green health. With a little initiative, we 309 million Americans can dramatically reduce our health care burden and begin a new, national wellness movement based on knowledge, prevention and sustainability. A lofty goal, but one we each have the personal power to carry out.

That sounds like a pretty good way to explain why wellness matters . . . but why does it matter to you? Only you know the answer to that question, but we’d like to hear your thoughts.

A New Take on Independence Day

This weekend we’ll celebrate Independence Day—but are we really—independent? Are we self-determining, self-regulating? You know this is a wellness and well-being blog, so you can guess where this is going. But, read on . . .

Food for thought: Many of us are already focused on the traditional hot dog / hamburger cookout on the grill, accompanied by chips, soft drinks . . . the list goes on. But, what if we use this Independence Day as the time to shift our “food focus,” just a little bit at time? If we do, we can take a giant step in declaring our independence from chronic illness by Independence Day 2011 . . . a goal worth pursuing, a battle worth winning.

Here’s why: The foods we choose to eat on a daily basis contribute 80 percent to whether we will develop diabetes, heart disease, or cancer. Already, almost one-half of all Americans report having a chronic illness—and those illnesses account for 75 percent of our national spending on health care (and we are all well-aware of those costs). Furthermore, almost 80 percent of all chronic disease is caused by three preventable health behaviors—obesity and overeating, physical inactivity, and smoking. The good news . . . weight loss, as modest as 5 to 15 percent of total body weight in a person who is overweight or obese, reduces the risk factors for some diseases, particularly heart disease.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says obesity has roughly the same association with chronic health conditions as 20 years of aging. It contributes to 53 diseases including heart disease, diabetes, arthritis and some types of cancer. Obesity costs our health care system about $147 billion a year. To put that figure in perspective, the American Cancer Society estimates that all cancers combined cost our health care system $93 billion a year. So ending obesity would save the health care system fifty percent more dollars than curing cancer.

How about this? What if this Independence Day (even if it’s after the big feast) we declare our independence from overly-processed, junk and fast food? What if we look for healthy substitutions? What if we find ways to work in a little more physical activity? What if we make just one modest yet meaningful change in our nutritional behaviors each month? If we as a nation of individuals can each make the effort to independently create a positive change for ourselves, we will collectively do great things for our country—and our own long-term health and wellness. “We the people” can take control of our wellness behaviors—and outcomes. “We the people” can become the solution rather than part of the problem. We are all stakeholders in this effort, and together we can turn the epidemic of overweight, obesity, and inactivity around and reduce our risk factors for preventable chronic illnesses.

Yes, it's a mouthful, but don’t you think it’s something well-worth chewing on?

Functional Foods, Nutraceuticals . . . Who’s In Charge Here?

Are we talking about something that’s good for us, as the title would imply, or are we talking about a marketing strategy? Read more and decide . . .

And, exactly what are functional foods and nutraceuticals? Functional foods have been created so that consumers can eat an enriched food product close to its natural state—in place of taking a dietary supplement. These foods are enriched or fortified through a process called nutrification, which restores the nutrient content of a food back to a level from before the food was processed. (Seems like a pretty round-about way to eat something good for you.) Actually, aren’t all foods functional in the sense that they have nutrients or other substances that provide energy, sustain growth or support vital processes?

Now, combine the words nutrition and pharmaceutical and you have a nutraceutical—a food or food product (or supplement) that supposedly provides health benefits. There is minimal regulation over which products are allowed to display the nutraceutical term on their labels yet almost two-thirds of the American population takes at least one type of nutraceutical health product.

Do you remember way back, when once upon a time, people actually ate real food? But, today too many of us are consuming too many food-like products—and too little real food. And, even if we don’t realize it, we’re buying more and more functional foods. Food manufacturers don’t want us to stop buying their products—and now the big trend / trick is dressing up these make-believe foods with a healthy image. Look at the addition of vitamins to soft drinks, calcium to ice cream, milk and orange juice; and omega-3’s to any number of products.

There’s still more to consider . . . we’re eating more (more calories and fat), because we think we’re eating something that’s good for us. In a way, functional foods and nutraceuticals are really “calorie distracters.”

If we look at these “designer” foods as a relatively new marketing technique we might come to the conclusion that we’re being had. And we’re paying more for it—these foods aren’t inexpensive. So . . . what if we actually ate more foods as they were intended to be consumed—in their natural state? And, if we spend time preparing those foods ourselves, we’ll know exactly what we’re really eating.

Our question—would you rather consume your calories from something fresh, natural and real, or from a food product that’s been processed, engineered and given a catchy name?

Is “It” Here to Stay?

In a real—and sad way—it’s our own fault. We allow it. The “it” is junk food, fast food and processed packaged food. But no matter what name you use for it, it’s still mostly lacking in healthy nutrients and loaded with empty calories. We’re all targets, and none more so than our impressionable children. While the First Lady aims to end childhood obesity, it’s not going to happen no matter how many healthy school lunches are served or how accessible we make healthier foods—it’s not going to happen as long as obesity is encouraged financially rather than discouraged.

Consider:

• Children ages 8 to 12 see an average of 21 television ads each day for candy, snacks, cereal and fast food, more than 7,600 a year.
• $1,600,000,000 was spent on food ads aimed at kids in 2006 (mostly junk food).
• The Council of Better Business Bureaus responded by establishing the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative as a self-regulatory industry body.
• Jump three years later—in 2009 there had been no substantial changes in food ads marketed to kids.

Why? The explanation lies in free speech. We don’t regulate marketing—but instead “encourage” the industry to self-regulate. Do we really think that’s going to happen?

And now, we have “advergames.” Advergames are a blend of interactive animation, video and advertising, targeted at children and exposing them for extended periods of time to online messages that primarily promote corporate branding and products.

A recent study published in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior analyzed corporate websites linked to TV food advertising aimed at kids. (Yes, many advertisers post their corporate websites on their commercials.) The researchers found the most frequently used strategy to encourage ongoing and return visits to the website was advergames, and 84 percent of the corporate websites assessed included online games for children. The study concluded that, “advergames are clearly a means of casting food with few health benefits in a positive way and potentially priming kids for a lifetime of unhealthy food preferences.”

Now, consider this—Did you know that every day, one in three American kids eats a meal of fast-food? And that, according to a study in Pediatrics, eating fast-food can add six pounds to a child's weight each year. Those extra pounds are no surprise considering that the average fast-food "value" meal contains 1,200 calories and 53 grams of fat. A few quick bites can yield more than half of an adult's fat and calorie allotment for the whole day.

Is self-regulation in the industry working? No. Is another generation at risk for long-term chronic disease linked to poor nutritional choices? Yes.

Have you considered the irony in how our “opportunities” to eat continue to increase, while our “barriers” to consumption continue to decrease? Are you ready to get involved?

The Why

We know our portions, plates and waistlines have grown, and continue to do so. But, have you ever thought about why? Is it just that we like food more than we used to? Is it that we need more food than we used to? Is it that we have less self-control than we used to? Or is it maybe that we don’t know our food has changed? Well . . . some of the reasons why are less obvious than others—so we’ll focus on those.

Everyone who has even one cookbook is familiar with “The Joy of Cooking,” first published in 1931 and still one of this country's most published cookbooks. After studying 18 recipes from 1936 to today, researchers from Cornell University found that 14 of the 18 recipes had an increase in calories—and the difference wasn’t small. The overall calories in the recipes increased by 35 percent. The brownie recipe in the 1997 edition makes 16 brownies, while the identical recipe in the 1975 edition made 30 brownies. This means the 1997 brownie is almost twice as big, thus—more calories per serving. Translation: in case anyone’s missed it, our serving sizes have increased.

You probably don’t know that between 1984 and 1987, in just three years, the chocolate chip cookie recipe on the back of the Nestlé’s Toll House Semi-Sweet Chocolate Morsels package scaled down the number of cookies it makes from 100 to 60. Bigger cookies, more calories per cookie.

And, where do we put these bigger brownies and cookies? Well, on our bigger plates. The average dinner plate has increased in diameter roughly 40 percent since World War II. It stands to reason that if plates are bigger, portions grow bigger to fill them.

Now, to wash down those bigger cookies and brownies, we need a bigger soda. Since the 1960s sodas have grown from the single-serving size standard 6-½-ounce bottle to a 20-ounce bottle. At movie theaters and convenience stores the most popular size is now the 64-ounce fountain "Double Gulp."

But it’s not just serving sizes and portions that have increased—look at the long list of ingredients in common foods—like Graham Crackers. In 1829 the Reverend Sylvester Graham created the first Graham Cracker to promote “temperance in eating.” (Our first diet.) The main ingredient was unsifted, coarsely ground wheat flour with a high fiber content. Now, compare today’s Graham Crackers—note the partially hydrogenated oil (trans fats) and high fructose corn syrup—UNBLEACHED ENRICHED FLOUR (WHEAT FLOUR, NIACIN, REDUCED IRON, THIAMINE MONONITRATE {VITAMIN B1}, RIBOFLAVIN {VITAMIN B2}, FOLIC ACID), SUGAR, GRAHAM FLOUR (WHOLE GRAIN WHEAT FLOUR), SOYBEAN OIL AND/OR PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED COTTONSEED OIL, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, HONEY, LEAVENING (BAKING SODA AND/OR CALCIUM PHOSPHATE), SALT, ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, SOY LECITHIN - AN EMULSIFIER, CORNSTARCH. CONTAINS: WHEAT, SOY.

So, do you see this as progress? Maybe bigger isn’t necessarily better. Maybe less is more?