Another big NHS story to hit the news recently is the idea of the NHS providing incentives to motivate patients to become healthy.
An interesting idea in theory, as there is evidence that incentives do encourage people to continue behaviours - so if your goal is to quit smoking the the NHS rewards you, by whatever means, you are more likely to stick at it. In this example, the short term rewards for quitting is just as great (if not better than!) the long term reward (good health.)
But this idea hasn't come without controversy.
The first barrier is whether incentives are actually effective - or would the NHS just be throwing money away? So far, the results seem mixed - some hits and some misses. Unfortunately there is very little evidence at this point in time to suggest that even the positive evidence will last long term, especially after incentives are removed.
Unsurprisingly, in my mind at least anyway, a large percentage of the public is actually against NHS incentives, which struck me as rather amusing as the percentage of overweight and obese people in the UK is over 50% (or so my quick google for statistics told me.) Read into that what you will - there's no direct link between the two points, I honestly just found that interesting.
.. But people just don't feel incentives are fair.
And perhaps this is what it comes down to - fairness. It's not fair that people ruin their own health then are paid by the taxpayer to improve their health. The public seems to have no problem with surgery, e.g. for heart or lung problems, after the event - we don't seem to want people dead! - but it's not viewed as fair to help people before the absolutely need it.
I don't know which way to think - it's just an interesting point of note.
The thinkers at the NHS may have been along the right lines - motivation, it can be argued, is the number one reason people change their behaviour. I mean, why would you change your behaviour if you weren't motivated to do so - right? So their heart was in the right place.
But perhaps their are other motivations that can be used in the stead of taxpayers money? Smokers, for example, save a huge amount of money by simply not buying cigarettes! If smoker 'Frank' enjoys playing sports, what's going to motivate him more than being able to breath properly when he's running around the pitch?!
Motivation may be the key to helping people improve their on health - but maybe financial incentives are not the way to about it?
Looking to help motivate people yourself? - For more information on Motivation, have a look on our website www.skillsdevelopment.co.uk and check out our course "Motivational Interviewing and Beyond."
Showing posts with label Obesity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obesity. Show all posts
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
Friday, 10 December 2010
Depression and it's link with Obesity
A new recent study has found that past surveys show having a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or more increases a person’s risk of depression by 50% to 150%.
Lead author said: “I expect that the relationship between depression and physical activity goes in both directions, Increased physical activity leads to improvement in depression and improvement in depression leads to increased physical activity. We see in our study that they go together, but we can’t say which causes which.”
In the study, women involved were put in two groups.
Group 1: Focused on weight loss
Group 2: Focused on weight loss and depression.
38% of the women who had at least a one-half point decrease on the Hopkins Symptom Checklist depression score lost at least 5% of their body weight.
But only 21% of the women who had no decrease in their depression score lost the same amount.
It seems that levels of depression can greatly affect your weight, perhaps suggesting that you must first help the mind before the body can be effectively helped also.
Simon GE, et al. Association between change in depression and change in weight among women enrolled in weight loss treatment. Gen Hosp Psych, 32(6), 2010.
Lead author said: “I expect that the relationship between depression and physical activity goes in both directions, Increased physical activity leads to improvement in depression and improvement in depression leads to increased physical activity. We see in our study that they go together, but we can’t say which causes which.”
In the study, women involved were put in two groups.
Group 1: Focused on weight loss
Group 2: Focused on weight loss and depression.
38% of the women who had at least a one-half point decrease on the Hopkins Symptom Checklist depression score lost at least 5% of their body weight.
But only 21% of the women who had no decrease in their depression score lost the same amount.
It seems that levels of depression can greatly affect your weight, perhaps suggesting that you must first help the mind before the body can be effectively helped also.
Simon GE, et al. Association between change in depression and change in weight among women enrolled in weight loss treatment. Gen Hosp Psych, 32(6), 2010.
Monday, 15 November 2010
2 Articles into Obesity
Two interesting articles caught my eye this week on the Subject of Obesity.
1. Researchers confirmed that Obesity and Overeating are directly linked to excessive activity in a specific gene found in the human body.
You can't argue with a headline like that! It immediately grabbed my attention.
In this study the researchers bred mice with a particular gene that was identified in 2007 amongst heavier human subjects, which they believed could be the 'fat' gene. In the recent study they found that the mice with overactivity in this gene, "although healthy, ate more and became fatter than normal mice."
I argue that I wouldn't say these mice (nor people with this gene) are 'genetically' obese, they just eat more. Although their body may be telling them that they are hungry, when perhaps they are not, they don't have to eat and therefore put on weight.
Still, regardless of what people can conclude, it was an interesting study.
2. Lose weight by eating junk food?
A researcher recently proved that this IS possible. How? Just don't overeat!
Mark Haub, nutrition professor, believed that "It's all about how much you eat, not what you eat."
He tested the theory on himself, only eating a maximum of 1800 calories today (down from the usual 2600) and he ate only food that you would typically found in vending machines.
After 2 months of his experiment, his weight dropped to 174 pounds, and his BMI dropped to a healthy 24.9. The experiment even improved his other health statistics!
I wouldn't recommend this diet, and nor did he, but it is interesting how this actually seems, in a roundabout way, to back up the first article.
Although some may have this overactive gene, in the end it really does seem to be the quantity of what you eat that determines your weight. As Mark Haub showed, quantity makes a large difference, and quality seems to take a step back. The mice study shows that an veractive gene is merely causing people to eat more, increasing their weight.
To me, this evidence shows very clearly that it is nurture that alters our weight and nature is sitting the fight of Obesity out.
Article 1: Mice
Article 2: Mark Haub
1. Researchers confirmed that Obesity and Overeating are directly linked to excessive activity in a specific gene found in the human body.
You can't argue with a headline like that! It immediately grabbed my attention.
In this study the researchers bred mice with a particular gene that was identified in 2007 amongst heavier human subjects, which they believed could be the 'fat' gene. In the recent study they found that the mice with overactivity in this gene, "although healthy, ate more and became fatter than normal mice."
I argue that I wouldn't say these mice (nor people with this gene) are 'genetically' obese, they just eat more. Although their body may be telling them that they are hungry, when perhaps they are not, they don't have to eat and therefore put on weight.
Still, regardless of what people can conclude, it was an interesting study.
2. Lose weight by eating junk food?
A researcher recently proved that this IS possible. How? Just don't overeat!
Mark Haub, nutrition professor, believed that "It's all about how much you eat, not what you eat."
He tested the theory on himself, only eating a maximum of 1800 calories today (down from the usual 2600) and he ate only food that you would typically found in vending machines.
After 2 months of his experiment, his weight dropped to 174 pounds, and his BMI dropped to a healthy 24.9. The experiment even improved his other health statistics!
I wouldn't recommend this diet, and nor did he, but it is interesting how this actually seems, in a roundabout way, to back up the first article.
Although some may have this overactive gene, in the end it really does seem to be the quantity of what you eat that determines your weight. As Mark Haub showed, quantity makes a large difference, and quality seems to take a step back. The mice study shows that an veractive gene is merely causing people to eat more, increasing their weight.
To me, this evidence shows very clearly that it is nurture that alters our weight and nature is sitting the fight of Obesity out.
Article 1: Mice
Article 2: Mark Haub
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
Nutrients in milk link to obesity
Taken from yahoo news:
Feeding babies milk enriched with nutrients to promote faster weight gain in infancy makes them fatter later in life, researchers have suggested.
Body fat mass in five to eight-year-olds was 22% to 38% greater in those who were given nutrient-enriched milk as babies than those who had standard formula, according to a team based at the University College London Institute of Child Health.
Researchers looked at two randomised, controlled, double blind studies - where neither they nor the mothers knew which kind of milk they were assigned - involving small newborn babies in hospitals in Cambridge, Nottingham, Leicester and Glasgow.
Mothers who had no plans to breastfeed were given either standard formula milk or a formula containing extra protein, energy-boosters, vitamins and minerals.
In the first study, which was conducted on 299 babies between 1993 and 1995, the formula was used for nine months.
Researchers then measured the body fat of 153 (51%) of the children in their homes between 1999 and 2002.
The second study involved 246 infants between 2003 and 2005 - until it was stopped early due to evidence of the link between early over-nutrition and later obesity - of whom 90 (37%) were followed up to assess fat levels in 2008-09.
Professor Atul Singhal, from the MRC Childhood Nutrition Research Centre, UCL Institute of Child Health, who led the study, said: "This study robustly demonstrates a link between early nutrition and having more fat in later life in humans - a finding suggested by previous studies and confirmed in many other animals."
It is interesting to think that what we eat/drink in infancy can have such a poweful affect on our lives in adulthood.
Link to Article
Feeding babies milk enriched with nutrients to promote faster weight gain in infancy makes them fatter later in life, researchers have suggested.
Body fat mass in five to eight-year-olds was 22% to 38% greater in those who were given nutrient-enriched milk as babies than those who had standard formula, according to a team based at the University College London Institute of Child Health.
Researchers looked at two randomised, controlled, double blind studies - where neither they nor the mothers knew which kind of milk they were assigned - involving small newborn babies in hospitals in Cambridge, Nottingham, Leicester and Glasgow.
Mothers who had no plans to breastfeed were given either standard formula milk or a formula containing extra protein, energy-boosters, vitamins and minerals.
In the first study, which was conducted on 299 babies between 1993 and 1995, the formula was used for nine months.
Researchers then measured the body fat of 153 (51%) of the children in their homes between 1999 and 2002.
The second study involved 246 infants between 2003 and 2005 - until it was stopped early due to evidence of the link between early over-nutrition and later obesity - of whom 90 (37%) were followed up to assess fat levels in 2008-09.
Professor Atul Singhal, from the MRC Childhood Nutrition Research Centre, UCL Institute of Child Health, who led the study, said: "This study robustly demonstrates a link between early nutrition and having more fat in later life in humans - a finding suggested by previous studies and confirmed in many other animals."
It is interesting to think that what we eat/drink in infancy can have such a poweful affect on our lives in adulthood.
Link to Article
Tuesday, 7 September 2010
Portion Control: is it all a matter of perception?
Research suggests that the key to losing weight could lie in manipulating our beliefs about how filling we think food will be before we eat it, suggesting that portion control is all a matter of perception.
Test subjects were more satisfied for longer periods of time after consuming varying quantities of food for which they were led to believe that portion sizes were larger than they actually were.
Memories about how satisfying previous meals were also played a causal role in determining how long those meals staved off hunger. Together, these results suggest that expectations before eating and memory after eating play an important role in governing appetite and satiety.
In the first experiment, participants were shown the ingredients of a fruit smoothie. Half were shown a small portion of fruit and half were shown a large portion. They were then asked to assess the 'expected satiety' of the smoothie and to provide ratings before and three hours after consumption. Participants who were shown the large portion of fruit reported significantly greater fullness, even though all participants consumed the same smaller quantity of fruit.
In a second experiment, researchers manipulated the 'actual' and 'perceived' amount of soup that people thought that they had consumed. Using a soup bowl connected to a hidden pump beneath the bowl, the amount of soup in the bowl was increased or decreased as participants ate, without their knowledge. Three hours after the meal, it was the perceived (remembered) amount of soup in the bowl and not the actual amount of soup consumed that predicted post-meal hunger and fullness ratings.
Dr. Brunstrom: "Labels on 'light' and 'diet' foods might lead us to think we will not be satisfied by such foods, possibly leading us to eat more afterwards - One way to militate against this, and indeed accentuate potential satiety effects, might be to emphasize the satiating properties of a food using labels such as 'satisfying' or 'hunger relieving'."
______________________________________________________________
So these diet foods could actually be causing us to eat more as we still think we should be hungry? Interesting!
This study really does highlight how that aspects of our lives that we never really considered anything more than biologically driven really can be altered by our psychological state of mind!
This is an interesting situation for advertisers. Do they want to avoid using 'diet' on their labels so people don't feel like they're missing out on food? Or keep using it because the 'diet' part is the reason people keep buying it?
I know I'll be paying more attention to the fine print now!
Link to Article
Test subjects were more satisfied for longer periods of time after consuming varying quantities of food for which they were led to believe that portion sizes were larger than they actually were.
Memories about how satisfying previous meals were also played a causal role in determining how long those meals staved off hunger. Together, these results suggest that expectations before eating and memory after eating play an important role in governing appetite and satiety.
In the first experiment, participants were shown the ingredients of a fruit smoothie. Half were shown a small portion of fruit and half were shown a large portion. They were then asked to assess the 'expected satiety' of the smoothie and to provide ratings before and three hours after consumption. Participants who were shown the large portion of fruit reported significantly greater fullness, even though all participants consumed the same smaller quantity of fruit.
In a second experiment, researchers manipulated the 'actual' and 'perceived' amount of soup that people thought that they had consumed. Using a soup bowl connected to a hidden pump beneath the bowl, the amount of soup in the bowl was increased or decreased as participants ate, without their knowledge. Three hours after the meal, it was the perceived (remembered) amount of soup in the bowl and not the actual amount of soup consumed that predicted post-meal hunger and fullness ratings.
Dr. Brunstrom: "Labels on 'light' and 'diet' foods might lead us to think we will not be satisfied by such foods, possibly leading us to eat more afterwards - One way to militate against this, and indeed accentuate potential satiety effects, might be to emphasize the satiating properties of a food using labels such as 'satisfying' or 'hunger relieving'."
______________________________________________________________
So these diet foods could actually be causing us to eat more as we still think we should be hungry? Interesting!
This study really does highlight how that aspects of our lives that we never really considered anything more than biologically driven really can be altered by our psychological state of mind!
This is an interesting situation for advertisers. Do they want to avoid using 'diet' on their labels so people don't feel like they're missing out on food? Or keep using it because the 'diet' part is the reason people keep buying it?
I know I'll be paying more attention to the fine print now!
Link to Article
Thursday, 2 September 2010
Link Between Everyday Stress and Obesity Strenthened
Stress can take a daily toll on us that has broad physical and psychological implications. Science has long documented the effect of extreme stress, such as war, injury or traumatic grief on humans. Typically, such situations cause victims to decrease their food intake and body weight. Recent studies, however, tend to suggest that social stress--public speaking, tests, job and relationship pressures--may have the opposite effect--over-eating and weight gain. With the rise of obesity rates, science has increasingly focused on its causes and effects--including stress.
A recent study conducted by the Departments of Psychiatry and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, examined the effects of stress on the meal patterns and food intake of animals exposed to the equivalent of everyday stress on humans. The results suggest that, not only does stress have an impact on us in the short term, it can cause metabolic changes in the longer term that contribute to obesity.
Stress is experienced by animals and humans on a daily basis and many individuals experience cycles of stress and recovery throughout the day. If, following stress, we consume larger and less frequent meals, the conditions are favorable for weight gain--especially in the abdomen. We know that belly fat, as well as stress, contributes to the development of cardiovascular disease, immune dysfunction and other metabolic disorders. Further studies using the VBS model will help us understand the relationship between stress and obesity and help us treat and prevent the development of these diseases
(More information on this study can be found by clicking HERE)
__________________________________________
With obesity and body image in the media more and more in recent years, it seems now more than ever trying to maintain a healthy diet and exercise is important - especially if you've had that extra-stressful day at the office!
Possible methods to help you relax? Meditation, Tai Chi or a nice cup of tea!
A recent study conducted by the Departments of Psychiatry and Biomedical Engineering at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, examined the effects of stress on the meal patterns and food intake of animals exposed to the equivalent of everyday stress on humans. The results suggest that, not only does stress have an impact on us in the short term, it can cause metabolic changes in the longer term that contribute to obesity.
Stress is experienced by animals and humans on a daily basis and many individuals experience cycles of stress and recovery throughout the day. If, following stress, we consume larger and less frequent meals, the conditions are favorable for weight gain--especially in the abdomen. We know that belly fat, as well as stress, contributes to the development of cardiovascular disease, immune dysfunction and other metabolic disorders. Further studies using the VBS model will help us understand the relationship between stress and obesity and help us treat and prevent the development of these diseases
(More information on this study can be found by clicking HERE)
__________________________________________
With obesity and body image in the media more and more in recent years, it seems now more than ever trying to maintain a healthy diet and exercise is important - especially if you've had that extra-stressful day at the office!
Possible methods to help you relax? Meditation, Tai Chi or a nice cup of tea!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
