Health for life

As I was browsing Facebook the other night, just about to go to bed, I came across an interesting link that fired me up and kept my up far past my bedtime... an article called "Vegetarianism Demystified by a Toddler". It links to a YouTube video, which Ill just embed here for your convenience... voila!



The video has received overwhelmingly positive feedback from YouTube users. Nearly every comment praises this child for being an irresistible, sweet little boy with a big heart...  See?? Hes only 3, even a TODDLER knows its wrong to eat animals!! What an inspiration!!!

Okay. Fine. Thats your opinion. I, on the other hand, saw it differently. Here is how I interpreted his message...

Little Luiz Antonio is just sitting down to eat his octopus gnocchi, when he begins to question the ethics of eating an animal. After a little back and forth with his mother, Luiz decides we shouldnt be eating animals because theyre cute, and because every living thing deserves to be a winner in life... all of them all at the same time. If theres one thing Luiz is sure of, this is it. It would just be so great if we could all live forever and ever, and we could all live with the animals and pet each other and cuddle. Everyone could be friends. Everyone in the entire world. Well be pen pals and Skype friends and tweet each other and eat grass and well never have any reason to fight. For ever and ever.

Realistically, this is whats going through this little tykes head. Does he sound like an inspiration now? Does he make you want to throw out all your meat and slide headfirst into veganism!? I hope not. Hes a 3-year-old... He has a 3-year-old brain. Is it adorable? Yes. Very. But is it groundbreaking? Inspiring? Life-changing?? No. Get your head out of your ass.

The crux of this argument, what it really comes down to, is whether its human nature to want to be a vegetarian. Thats one of the main points of contention the article brings up. Is it really possible that were naturally vegetarians? Are we herbivorous animals? Is meat-eating just a social construct?

The answer is really very simple. No. No to all three. Big no to all three.

Ive explained my position on vegetarianism before...

1. Humans are not herbivores.
2. Avoiding animal products will not save the environment.
3. Avoiding animal foods doesnt save animal lives.
4. The people most likely to adopt a vegan diet are the people who need animal products the most.
5. Veganism is a very recent phenomenon.

You should probably read the linked article yourself for a little more explanation. Going vegetarian isnt the answer to your problems, and it wont save the world. If youre really honest with yourself, I think thats pretty clear.


I applaud your intent, vegetarians, but I think you need a reality check.
Dont get me wrong, I do understand the rationale behind vegetarianism. Many vegetarians view cessation from animal foods as a sort of "next step in the evolution of humans". In other words, we no longer have to hunt and gather and rely on animal foods to get by, so we can choose to sustain ourselves on plant foods that are less damaging to the environment. We have plenty of plant food for everyone. And of course theres the compassion factor... we no longer need to carry out the "barbaric", "uncivilized" act of eating something that once had a cute face.

Where the vegetarians go wrong here, in my opinion, is in their assumption that an animal-food-free diet is a healthy diet. If we as a species were ever to decide to spontaneously switch to veganism, we would likely kill off a HUGE chunk of our population over the first few generations. What survives long-term would be, in my estimation, a very small fraction of humans, if any.

Dont believe me? Look what happened to this poor infant, who died at just 11 months... born of vegan parents, this little girl died of vitamin deficiencies from her mothers nutrient-depleted, vegan-borne breast milk.
Are you prepared to kill off most of the human race as some sadistic form of forced "evolution" in the name of veganism? Okay that statement was a little dramatic. But seriously, shit just wouldnt work out. Itd be traumatic. We have physiological, biological needs as humans, and some of those needs are only fulfilled through animal foods. Its not morally wrong to eat animals... its just how life works. There is no life without death and vise versa. Its the circle of life. Like the Lion King.


Okay back to Little Luizs video.
Back to reality land, and that cute little cherub. To set the record straight, I do not have kids. Although I do want to have kids some day, I dont want kids at this particular moment, and I dont claim to be any sort of child-rearing expert. I do adore the innocent, naivety of Luizs mind, though. At the age of 3, Im sure a lot of kids have this same peachy outlook on life, and if I were a parent, Id probably like to preserve this blissful ignorant phase for a long as I could. I also dont ever want to force my child to eat anything he uses to eat. Good nutrition is of the utmost importance to me, but so is letting my child have some autonomy. I want to support his/her in life, not get in the way of it.

But thats neither here nor there. Im all about the tangents today.

To sum this all up, theres just no reason for Luizs thoughts on meat-eating to be taken as an affirmation for vegetarianism. For crying out loud, hes a 3-year-old child.

Its a cute video. Lets just leave it at that.

Women who exercise regularly spend as much time sitting as women who don’t, according to a new Northwestern Medicine study.

Emerging research shows that prolonged sitting has significant health consequences---and the new Northwestern study suggests that being a dedicated exerciser doesnt prevent women from spending too much of their day sitting.

This research is the latest indication that public health recommendations should be established to encourage Americans to limit the amount of time they spend sitting every day, said Lynette L. Craft, first author of the study and an adjunct assistant professor in preventive medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

“We all know someone who gets a good workout in every day, but then spends a large portion of their day sitting in front of a computer with few breaks,” Craft said. “If these people could replace some of the sitting with light activity---just getting up, moving around, maybe standing up when talking on the phone, walking down the hall instead of sending an email---we do think they could gain health benefits.”

The Northwestern research was done in collaboration with Ted Zderic, of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center and was published in the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity.

Past studies have shown that people who sit for extended periods of time---even those meeting exercise recommendations---are more likely to develop chronic conditions such as diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular disease and some cancers.

This was the first study to use an objective measuring device to examine the relationship between the type of exercise recommended in the government’s Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans and sitting. The guidelines recommend adults engage in a minimum of 150 minutes of moderate intensity aerobic activity every week. Previous studies on physical activity and sitting have primarily relied on self-reported data.

While many of the women in the study met or exceeded 150 minutes of physical activity per week, in reality only a fraction of the women’s days were spent being physically active. The women in the study spent an average of nine hours a day sitting. That number is consistent with previous results from much larger studies that examined the number of hours Americans spend sitting every day.

“I think some people assume, ‘If I’m getting my 30 to 40 minutes of physical activity a day, I’m doing what I need to do for my health,’” Craft said. “Of course, exercise is very important and is associated with many positive health benefits, but negative health consequences are associated with prolonged sitting, and this study shows that just because you’re physically active doesn’t mean you’re sitting less.”

For the study, 91 healthy women ranging in age from age 40 to 75 wore an activPAL activity monitor device during waking hours for one week. The device, which was worn on the thigh, recorded time spent sitting, standing and stepping, and engaging in sustained 10-minute bouts of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity.

Trying to replace some sitting time with more light activity throughout the day---along with the recommended bouts of moderate and vigorous exercise---is an approach more Americans should try to take, Craft said.

Future studies are needed to further examine the relationship between the type of exercise recommended in the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans and sitting. For example, various subgroups such as men, children and the elderly should also be studied, Craft said.

The Lynn Sage Breast Cancer Foundation, the Avon Foundation and the Edward G. Schlieder Educational Foundation supported the study.

A recent study in the Archives of Internal Medicine investigated the effect of combined lifestyle factors on the development of type 2 diabetes in older adults.¹

Researchers analyzed data from participants of the Cardiovascular Health Study:

• 4883 men and women 65 years or older
  
• Followed for a 10-year period (1989-1998)

Five lifestyle factors were studied:

• Physical activity level.
  
• Dietary score. A low-risk score lected:
  • Higher fiber intake
    
  • Higher polyunsaturated-to-saturated fat ratio
    
  • Lower trans-fat intake
    
  • Lower glycemic index
• Smoking. Never smoked or former smoker greater than 20 years lected low-risk.
  
• Alcohol use. Light or moderate intake lected low-risk.
  
• Body fat. Low-risk lected:
  • BMI less than 25 (Calculate your BMI here.)
    
  • Waist circumference 88 cm or less for women (34.6 in), 92 cm for men (36.2 in)

The study found:

"The rate of incident diabetes was 35% lower for each 1 additional lifestyle factor in the low-risk group.

Participants whose physical activity level and dietary, smoking, and alcohol habits were all in the low-risk group had an 82% lower incidence of diabetes.

When absence of adiposity (either body mass index < 25 or waist circumference ≤ 88/92 cm for women/men) was added to the other 4 low-risk lifestyle factors, incidence of diabetes was 89% lower.

Overall, 9 of 10 new cases of diabetes appeared to be attributable to these 5 lifestyle factors."

The authors concluded:

"Even later in life, combined lifestyle factors are associated with a markedly lower incidence of new-onset diabetes mellitus."

________
¹ Lifestyle Risk Factors And New-Onset Diabetes Mellitus In Older Adults, Archives of Internal Medicine, April 27, 2009