When role models are wrong

As an avid cook, baker and self-proclaimed foodie, I can’t help but love Julia Child. She revolutionized cooking for the American home-cook, but for me it’s more than that. She changed careers late in life, proved herself in a field dominated by men, and her career was her passion. But, she also washed her chicken. I can see the logic in it, that washing chicken before cooking would perhaps wash away bacteria, make it easier for a breading or sauce to stick or be absorbed, result in a better taste…I mean reasons that don’t sound awful, do they? Well, regardless, those nasty chicken germs are 1) still likely going to be on the chicken when you’re done washing it with water, and more importantly 2) will likely spray all over yourself and your kitchen. Even after teaching children about hand washing, disease prevention and germs over the course of a summer, I hadn’t really thought about the spray until NPR’s article “Julia Child was Wrong: Don’t Wash Your Chicken, Folks” came out a couple days ago. Check out the “germ vision” video put together by Drexel University to see what I mean:

Although I’d love to think of Julia Child as the expert on all things cooking, her use of butter and other ingredients certainly didn’t lend her to being a nutrition expert of any kind, or in the case of washing chicken, a public health expert. Although in her defense, she never claimed to be either!

Other recommended resources:

• Drexel University. (August 22, 2013). “Don’t Wash Your Chicken!” Video Vignettes Make Cooking Safer. Accessed August 25, 2013: http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/August/Dont-Wash-Your-Chicken-Food-Safety-Campaign/
• Drexel University. (2013). Don’t Wash Your Chicken. Accessed August 25, 2013: http://drexel.edu/dontwashyourchicken/

Say goodbye to the dreaded “D” word

When I say the dreaded “D” word, I’m talking about “Diets.” Considering the word diet, I think of restricted calories, no junk food, and a number of brands where you can purchase branded snacks, meals, supplements, capsules, cookbooks, etc. I’ve also always thought of a diet as being a temporary thing, like you diet before a wedding to fit into a dress, before swimsuit season to look great in a two-piece, etc. But if we’re talking about a long-term change to lose weight (and keep it off!), then a temporary solution won’t work, as researchers Sherry L. Pagoto, PhD and Bradley M. Appelhans, PhD argue in the August 21 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Their viewpoint in this issue points to evidence supporting long-term lifestyle changes, not temporary diets, to support weight loss and more importantly better health.

As someone who is CHES-certified, this news doesn’t come as a shock. Health education theories are also often called “behavioral theories” that address human/health behavior. If you’re planning a health education program for the community, one of the ways you might evaluate success is behavior change, such as do individuals demonstrate a certain skill (vs. number of pounds lost). In the case of a lifestyle change, this skill could be portion control, recognizing hunger cues, maintaining an exercise routine, etc. Personally, it’s where I’ve found the most success in reaching a healthy weight; cutting out sugary drinks or just increasing my exercise was never enough. It takes me portion control and moderation, balancing those good ‘ole food groups, exercising (to where it’s become a part of my daily routine), and choosing foods that are balanced in nutrients to provide the right energy for my body. And it’s definitely been different from “diets” of the past because it’s an ongoing process (to change my lifestyle), and remarkably more successful than anything else I’ve tried.

But if viewpoints from these researchers, my own personal anecdote or experience in health education aren’t enough, consider the success of evidence-based programs. The CDC-led National Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) and the Stanford University Chronic Disease Self-Management Program (CDSMP) BOTH emphasize lifestyle changes to improve health outcomes. The DPP is a 16-week program facilitates diabetes prevention through weight-loss, by reducing fat intake and increasing physical activity over the long term. This program also has monthly follow-up sessions for 6-8 months after the initial 16-weeks. So it doesn’t promote a one-time diet, but a long-term change in eating and activity. And guess what? It’s evidence based, since it’s demonstrated a weight reduction in participants that aids in preventing the onset of diabetes even beyond the follow-up sessions. The CDSMP program facilitates managing one or more chronic diseases, and includes healthy eating and physical activity as components of that. This program is also evidence-based, and has shown improved health outcomes in participants, including reductions in hospitalizations when followed over time.

So, what does this all mean? It’s not a diet that’s going to make a difference, it’s a change in lifestyle. It is a more dramatic change, but it is also a more successful and longer-lasting approach to a healthy weight and healthy life.

 

Other Recommended Resources:

• Knowler W, Barrett-Connor E, Nathan D, et al. (2002). Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. The New England Journal Of Medicine, 346(6), 393-403.
• Wanjack, C. (August 20, 2013). To Lose Weight, Forge the Word ‘Diet,’ Two Experts Argue. Huffington Post. Accessed August 21, 2013: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/21/lose-weight-diet-_n_3789932.html?fb_ref=email_share_box&fb_source=email
• Sobel, D., Lorig, K., Hobbs M. (2002). Chronic condition self-management program: from development to dissemination. Permanente Journal, 6(2). Accessed August 25, 2013: http://xnet.kp.org/permanentejournal/spring02/selfmanage.html
• Stanford School of Medicine.  (2013). Selected Publications. Accessed August 25, 2013: http://patienteducation.stanford.edu/bibliog.html

 

Dove gives another lesson in body image

I feel that body image isn’t a topic often considered a public health issue, but when you consider that bullying (a hot topic now) can cause poor body image, and that eating disorders (still an important issue in public health and medicine) can result from poor body image, maybe it’s something we need to pay more attention to. But who is to blame for setting our “body” standards? Often the media and marketing, who show thin models and stars in ads for clothes, makeup and other products. And often times these women are made to look even thinner through Photoshop, so that we’re not even seeing a “real” thin, but an altered version.

As much as I’ve love to blame marketing for a lot more of the public health issues today (direct marketing to children using cartoon characters on unhealthy food products, distortion of portion sizes, tobacco products, tanning, etc.), I’ll just focus on body image for now. One company that often defines beauty not as thin but as being healthy (healthy skin in particular), is Dove. In their latest ad they spoof Photoshop users attempting to manipulate photos so the subjects look more beautiful (more radiant, as if sun-kissed). Will their ad effect dramatic societal change? I doubt it. But maybe it will at least attract a little attention, as it did in my case. Check out the Dove Canada ad (above) and let me know your thoughts below!

Related articles:

Berkowitz, J. (March 6, 2013). Dove Canada uses Photoshop Trojan horse to shame potential body shamers. Accessed August 4, 2013: http://www.fastcocreate.com/1682534/dove-canada-uses-photoshop-trojan-horse-to-shame-potential-body-shamers

Foster, S. (March 7, 2013). Dove Canada’s Photoshop ‘action’ reverts airbrushed, edited photos. Accessed September, 2013: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/03/07/dove-canada-photoshop-hack_n_2828962.html