aging · challenge · femalestrength · motivation · running · Science · technology

No Surrender: Dancing with Resistance and Acceptance as I Approach a New Decade

Cognitive surrender is an essential new term that’s arisen to describe the abdication of our own reasoning to a machine that sounds fluent, confident, and authoritative. Studies are showing that when people interact with AI tools, they accept flawed reasoning at a startling level (almost 75% of the time). Not because they don’t have the capacity to reason better themselves. But because it is easier not to question. As a writer, it will likely come as no surprise that I’m leery of outsourcing. I worry about dulling not just my cognitive capacity, even more so my creativity.

And, yes, I have started working with AI tools, because I also think it’s important to understand what these machines are all about and how I might use them in an un-surrendered manner. I almost used the word collaborate in that last sentence, instead of use. I chose not to, because I’m not yet ready to acknowledge these machines as entities. That feels like surrender. This from someone who is more than willing to see trees as sentient beings well before reading Michael Pollan’s new book, A World Appears.

I am exploring the border between surrender and leveraging these cognitive machines to free my time for deeper engagement with the world. More akin to my vacuum cleaner than a friend.

I have been thinking a lot about surrender in my body, too. Every time I read an article about aging and activity, which tells me that I should move more gently, now that I’m on the verge of a new decade, a part of me growls protectively. Not yet.  

This physical version of surrender can be seductive. Messaging that encourages the little voices that say: I’m older now. Intensity is harder. Recovery is harder. Maybe I should just… let these things be harder. Be gentle with myself. Slow down. Stop. Lie down. The End. Okay—those last four are the hyperbole kicking in.The reasoning (without exaggeration) arrives fluently, confidently, with authority. And, as with AI reasoning, if I’m not careful, I might accept these blandishments about aging without interrogating the particularities of my own case.

I see the parallel this way: an authoritative-seeming signal in the form of an AI answer or an aging body; the availability of a path of least resistance; the ways that acceptance is not neutral, reshaping what we expect of ourselves and ultimately what we are actually capable of.

What the cognitive surrender research captures is that the problem isn’t using external tools. We humans have been off-loading cognitive tasks for a while now. Thank you, calculators. The red flag is what happens when we stop verifying. When silken reasoning substitutes for truth. When we accept not because we’ve evaluated, but because it’s so frictionless (and pleasant) to not expend the effort.

In the physical realm, adjusting our expectations as we age is not always surrender. Of course not. Surrender is unexamined acceptance.  Letting the message of limitation go unchallenged. Sliding past the effort of finding out just what we are still capable of.  

I turn 60 this year. I’d like to say I feel easy, breezy about that. I don’t. I’m in search of the right balance of grace and grit. I have set myself the goal of running a half marathon (21 kilometers or 13.1 miles) every month. Twelve months, twelve runs (among all the other runs I will do). When I was younger, that distance was a regular sized effort. Last year, I did not run that distance even once. And my year culminated in foot surgery in late November (which I wrote about here).

The decision has an element of stubbornness, to be sure. I am a Taurus, after all. On New Year’s Day, I started the year running 21k with my brother on mountain trails. I had a genuine concern that I would not run the whole distance. It took a while. I got it done. I was inspired. And so, this challenge. As I write this, four 21k are done. Eight to go.

I hear the voices that tell me: You’re not built for this anymore. I’m checking their veracity. They might be right. I might not be up for the challenge. I want to be gentle with myself, if I’m not. This is not about punishment. It’s about exaltation. The joy of discovering, each month, that I still have the capacity.

When I was a child, my mother always made us take the stairs. I remember glancing longingly at elevators as we passed them by. Now I live on the eighth floor, and I take the stairs almost every time I leave or come home. Not always. I’m realistic, not rigid. Not because I’m proving something. Because the habit of not surrendering has become its own kind of instinct. My mother was training something in me: the reflex to push gently against the available convenience, to stay curious about what I might actually be capable of.

The AI researchers found that people with higher fluid IQ scores were more likely to maintain their own judgment under pressure. I do not claim any extra intelligence. I think gentle resistance is more about habit. The habit of fact checking.

This is what I want to hold onto as I run my way through this year, one half marathon at a time. Not the delusion that there no limits that come with age. I have plenty. Instead, I want to cultivate the discipline of inquiry, to distinguish real limits from the limits that are presented with confidence, waiting for me to accept them without scrutiny.

My body, like a large language model, will tell me what it thinks I want to hear in smooth and reasonable tones. Rest. Take the elevator. Watch Netflix.

Sometimes my body is right. And I will be dancing with surrender and resistance, until I find the choreography that leads to graceful, gritty acceptance.

aging · fitness · food · health · nutrition · Science

Why one new anti-aging supplement is great… if you’re a dolphin

One never knows what one’s media feed will present to one on any given day.

Last Monday morning, the following ad appeared:

Ad for Fatty 15 (TM), a bottle of pills claiming to improve  your health in miraculous ways.
Ad for Fatty 15 (TM), a bottle of pills claiming to improve your health in myriad and miraculous ways.

My first thoughts were:

  • Fatty15?
  • FATTY15?
  • Really?!
  • THAT’S the name the marketing team came up with in order to SELL this to me?
I am so very confused. Thanks Uday Mittai from Unsplash, for the perfect rendition of it.
I am so very confused. Thanks Uday Mittai from Unsplash, for the perfect rendition of it.

Okay, what in the wild and unregulated supplement world is this FATTY15 thing? Here’s the TLDR version.

  • There are a lot of fatty acids.
  • They are found in lots of foods we eat.
  • Omega-3 fatty acids are a good fatty acid. They’re found in e.g. salmon, walnuts and edamame.
  • Trans-fats are a bad fatty acid. They’re found in e.g. many ultra-processed and fried foods, and many baked goods.
  • C15:0 is a recently found fatty acid. We don’t know much about it.
  • A new company called FATTY15 (again, wtaf) wants to sell it to you, promising you whole health in a bottle.

BUT BUT… HOW DID THE DOLPHINS GET INVOLVED?

Patience– I’m getting to this now.

It turns out that some dolphins work for the US Navy. They detect underwater mines and enemy swimmers (don’t ask me how). Part of their employee health plan includes research on and treatment of diseases related to dolphin-aging (they get some of the same diseases we do).

This person below– Dr. Stephanie Venn-Watson, the translational medicine and research program director for the Navy’s National Marine Mammal Foundation– led a crack team of dolphin health experts to manage their care.

Honestly, if my job were to make sure that dolphins lived their best life ever while in the emply of the United State government, I'd look that happy, too.
Honestly, if my job were to make sure that dolphins lived their best lives ever while in the employ of the United States government, I’d look that happy, too.

Here’s some info from this article:

The team analyzed the dolphins’ blood samples taken throughout their lives to identify molecules present in the healthiest dolphins. One of the top nutrients was the molecule C15:0, a saturated fatty acid (pentadecanoic acid). In the human diet, C15:0 is present in dairy fat—whole milk, butter, and cheeses.

Obviously, dolphins don’t have that option after infancy, unlike humans. But don’t worry– your research dollars found a solution:

…when they fed [older] dolphins with chronic diseases diets higher in C15:0 (fatty fish), they became healthier. Further research supported their findings that C15:0 lowers risk and can actually reverse many chronic diseases [in older dolphins, maybe], making it an essential fatty acid, a nutrient that the body does not produce but is essential to health.

Venn-Watson co-wrote this paper to argue for proof of concept for C15:0, but with no human studies. Then she started a company to try to sell C15:0 to humans, since dolphins a) don’t carry credit cards; and b) C15:0 supplements are covered by their navy employee health plan. She also wrote a book to help shill this stuff. And gave a TEDx talk to shill some more. But we have any actual evidence that it works?

Healthier skin/hair? NO
Balanced metabolism? Uh-uh. Deeper Sleep? No chance. 3X more cellular benefits than omega-3? What does this even mean?
Healthier skin/hair? NO
Balanced metabolism? Uh-uh.
Deeper Sleep? No chance.
3X more cellular benefits than omega-3? What does this even mean?

And is it FDA-approved? Hell to the no. Just like all those other untested supplements. Please, oh, please just save your money.

BUT BUT THE FATTY15 WEBSITE!

It says all kinds of things that maybe are true. What about their claims?

Text on a slide discussing claims about essential fatty acids and a related study, highlighting skepticism towards certain assertions.

To sum up:

  • The dolphins are going to be okay.
  • We are going to be okay.
  • Eating food and moving our bodies are good things to do, be we human or dolphin.
  • The one supplement that I personally can recommend is to supplement your viewing by adding Heated Rivalry to your watchlist. You’ll be glad you did.

fitness · nutrition · research · Science

I love coffee, I love tea; when it comes to dementia risk, they love me

Yes, yet another study has come out linking some food/beverage product to increased/decreased risk of something-or-other. In this case, however, it’s about how coffee (and also tea) lower dementia risk and modestly better cognitive function.

I’ll drink to that.

The eight shades of coffee.Thanks Nathan D from Unsplash for the photo.
Many shades of coffee.Thanks Nathan D from Unsplash for the photo.

These results were drawn from very large cohorts of healthcare professionals in the UK that have tracked behaviors and conditions over 40+ years. So this is not a randomized controlled trial. Still, this is how researchers find connections between habits like drinking coffee and health outcomes. So, what did they find this time?

There was a statistically significantly reduced dementia risk, with lowered risks for higher caffeine intake (up to 4 cups a day of coffee, 2–3 of tea; no improvements reported for higher daily intake).

There were very modest reductions in subjective cognitive decline (self-reported by participants) and objective cognitive decline (performance on cognitive tests) in the caffeine consumers. Again, the reductions increased along with caffeine intake, but hit saturation at 4 cups of coffee a day.

A notable fact about this study is that they were able to distinguish the effects of caffeinated coffee and tea (vs. decaf beverages). Caffeine is reported to be neuroprotective and anti-inflammatory (I could insert fancy text from the study, but trust me, it’s very science-y).

But, we also know that caffeine is NOT good for everything that ails us. It can affect sleep quality and cause all sorts of bad upper GI symptoms. But not everything that’s good in one way is good in all ways. That’s simply not coffee’s fault.

So, all’s I’m saying is, Coffee doesn’t drink coffee; people drink coffee…

Oh, and one more thing: I love this ditty– Java Jive– performed here by the Manhattan Transfer. Enjoy with a steaming mug.

fitness · Research Roundup · Science

Research roundup– moving is good and good for us…

Amidst all the chaos and destruction in the world, science is still happening (although the funding situation is also chaotic and destructive, but never mind that for the moment). Interesting questions are being asked, tested, and interesting answers are being given. Here are some of them (mostly courtesy of Sam, who sends these to me– thanks, Sam!)

Question: Does exercise result in a net calorie reduction, or does the body compensate to balance things out?

Answer: we don’t know yet. But, a bunch of scientists are hard at work testing different active subpopulations (from Tanzanian Hadza hunter-gatherers to American collegiate cross country runners) to look for ways that human metabolism responds to energy output. This article from Outside magazine gives a detailed and accessible overview of recent research on the topic.

Good news: even if exercise doesn’t result in a ton of extra calories burned (if that’s your goal), it still results in other good things, like increased longevity, better sleep and overall well-being.

Walking with kids is fun. By Krzysztof Kowalik for Unsplash.
Walking with kids is fun. By Krzysztof Kowalik for Unsplash.

Question: Does cycling make you smarter?

Answer: Maybe, in some ways, for a little bit. Here’s what this article in The Cycling Week magazine had to say about it:

A study published in the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research found that people scored significantly higher on memory, reasoning, and planning tests after just 30 minutes of spinning on a stationary bike.

This effect is primarily linked to the production of a protein called BDNF (Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor). BDNF acts like a fertilizer for your brain, helping to grow new cells and protecting existing ones from decay.

Essentially, every mile you ride is an investment in your brain’s structural integrity and future processing speed.

Yay! Does cycling do anything else good to your brain? The article also cites research results suggesting that cycling promotes lower dementia risk, increased neurogenesis (creation of neurons in the hippocampus) and psychological resilience (this last one is less surprising if you’ve tackled big hills at very low speed, as I have).

Riding bikes with kids is fun, too. By Mukkpetebike for Unsplash.
Riding bikes with kids is fun, too. By Mukkpetebike for Unsplash.

Question: Can exercise help reduce my cancer risk?

Answer: yes, a bit. But the research study supporting this is small and very preliminary. Here’s the deal, from an article in Men’s Health magazine:

The researchers looked at 30 men and women between the ages of 50 and 78. All met the criteria for having extra weight or obesity. Each person underwent a short but intense cycling test that lasted about 10 minutes.

Afterward, the researchers collected blood samples from everyone and analyzed them for 249 proteins. Thirteen of the 249 proteins increased after exercise. This included interleukin-6, which helps to repair damaged DNA. Exercise raised the levels of other molecules in the blood that work to reduce inflammation, support blood vessel health, and improve metabolism.

According to the researchers, the evidence showed that 10 minutes of exercise was enough to support DNA repair to lower colon cancer risk. Though keep in mind, these were short but intense bursts of exercise. A slow, leisurely stroll wouldn’t qualify.

There are a bunch of things we don’t know, like what is the amount of reduced risk, and what is the variation in different subpopulations. Plus a bunch of other relevant factors that may influence the effects. Still, it’s good news.

Vigorous exercise is fun, too. By Kaspars Eglitis for Unslpash.
Vigorous exercise is fun as well. By Kaspars Eglitis for Unslpash.

Happy week, everyone, and enjoy some movement!

fitness · research · Science

Mini research roundup: new studies show exercise is good for you

News flash: some recent studies out this month strongly suggest that physical activity is beneficially for health.

Yes, I'm as shocked as she is. By Alexanders Krivitskiy for Unsplash.
Yes, I’m as shocked as she is. By Alexanders Krivitskiy for Unsplash.

Now that you’ve had some time to get used to this new-new fact, here are a couple of studies with not-surprising results about fitness and health.

Strength training before endurance training confers more benefits (IN MEN).

A study of 45 young men found small changes in bone health, body composition and overall physical fitness by switching up the order of strength training and endurance training (lifting weights first, then running).

As Miss Manners likes to say, how nice for them.

Small changes in physical activity make a big difference in overall mortality-risk (when you’re looking at the population-level).

Again, the messages here are clear: small increases in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and 30-60-minutes decreases in sedentary time daily reduce mortality risk from 3% (cutting sedentary time) to up to 10% (increasing physical activity by 10 minutes a day in certain subpopulations– it’s a little complicated here). But this is the bird’s eye view, meaning this holds for big populations and not at the individual level. You can peruse the actual study here (in your copious free time, but maybe stand up while doing it…)

One wonders: does putting your hands in the air like you just don't care count as moderate physical activity? Thanks Handon Lu for the picture (from Unsplash.)
One wonders: does putting your hands in the air like you just don’t care count as moderate physical activity? Thanks Hanson Lu for the picture (from Unsplash.)

Stay tuned for more breaking news at Fit is a Feminist Issue!

fitness · research · Science · sleep

Are they coming for the naps now? No. Not over my sleeping body.

In my view, medical research gets a lot right. We have good evidence that, for instance:

  • ultra-processed foods contribute to health markers that are linked to a variety of serious illnesses (like cardiovascular disease, some cancers, and type 2 diabetes)
  • physical activity is one of the best things we can do for our health, longevity and well-being, across the lifespan
  • developing and maintaining social connections of all sorts helps us maintain wellness and address issues in our own mental and physical health
  • sleep is a magical elixir that rejuvenates us and prepares us for the daily lives we want to lead (okay, the study didn’t use the words “magical elixir”, but they should have)

Here’s what Unsplash thinks healthy living looks like:

Unsplash endorses huge artichokes and hanging upside down more than the usual experts, but hey...
Unsplash endorses eating huge artichokes and hanging upside down more than experts, but hey…

We also know that some health claims are absolute nonsense, like:

  • sleeping with a bar of lavender soap in your bed will NOT help treat or cure restless leg syndrome ( Dr Mehmet Oz said this)
  • (fill in the blank) vitamin supplement NOT will cure (Alzheimer’s, cancer, Parkinson, COVID, etc.) medical condition (Oz promoted a bunch of these, too)
  • Using coffee as anything other than a delightful morning beverage is a BAD IDEA (the Cleveland clinic explains why, if you must know)
  • Virtually all advertised weight-loss products are BOGUS (trust me on this)
Yeah, no to all these things. Thanks, Markus Spiske for Unsplash.
Yeah, no to all these things. Thanks, Markus Spiske for Unsplash.

Let us now return to that magical elixir, sleep. Sleep feels good, does good, is good for us. Check, check, check. But what about its sweet cousin, the nap? Surely that delicious sleep snack must be a positive contributor to our lives, right?

I have to say that a somewhat recent scientific study came out, saying that daytime napping is associated with adverse health outcomes. In particular, it said:

Longer naps, greater intra-individual variability in daytime nap, and higher percentages of naps around noon and in the early afternoon are associated with greater mortality risks.

What?! Nonononononononononono!

Well, Prevention magazine thinks these scientists may be on to something. In this article, it asks the following scary questions:

Whoa. But don’t worry, Imma answer all these, one by one.

First, do some nap patterns increase our risk of death? No, not really.

The study looked mainly at the timing and variability of naps taken by older adults in the UK. It found oh-so-small increased risk for those who took naps at different times of day, for those who took longer naps, and for those who varied the length of their naps (which averaged 24 minutes daily).

BUT (and it’s a big but)…These results varied by gender (men seem more affected than women), by what time people arose in the morning, what time of day they tended to take their naps, how much they slept in general, and how much physical activity they got during the day. See this study for more details. And they failed to show any clinical association, just a small statistical one.

So napping isn’t really associated with death. Okay, one down.

Second: why would napping be associated with death? It’s not, not really.

Some sleep patterns reveal underlying problems rather than cause them; sleep apnea and chronic insomnia, for instance, tend to be symptoms of a variety of health conditions that carry their own mortality risk factors. But we already knew this. One of the study authors conceded this:

“The napping and mortality relationship is complex and may be influenced by adverse or protective lifestyle factors (e.g., nutrition, physical activity, substance use), nighttime sleep patterns, and underlying sleep disorders, medical comorbidities, age, as well as sex and gender-related factors.”

HAH! Told you. Second one done away with.

I told you so. Such sweet words.
I told you so. Such sweet words.

We are now in the napping-is-not-deadly-blog-post homestretch. Prevention asked, timidly, how can the napping-death connection be broken? Easy. See below.

Just get some exercise. Any kind will do. Walking, jogging, shuffleboard, bike riding (outdoors or in), swimming, dancing, playing with friends and family, yoga, strength training, etc. Why does this help keep napping from killing us? Because the adverse napping pattern (not napping itself) is often a symptom of known risk factors (like drinking or unprescribed drug use) and known medical conditions.

So, once more with feeling: it’s not the napping, folks. I mean, if you want to optimize your napping patterns, feel free– there are lots of articles (like this, this, and this) offering tips, which may or may not be true.

I hope you enjoyed this post. Now you must excuse me– it’s time for my nap…

This dog is napping. Thanks Mittra Ronjoy from Unsplash.

Shhhh… Thanks Mittra Ronjoy for Unsplash.

fitness · nutrition · research · Science

More evidence is in: ultra-processed food is a global health problem

We are probably all used to getting five-alarm headlines about the perils of some food or other, just to read later on “uh, never mind. It’s all good.” Nutritional research is infamous for big pendulum swings on its pronouncements about the goodness or badness of foods (just search “fit is a feminist issue eggs” for more info).

I’ve written on worries about ultra-processed food a couple of times for the blog:

The newest processed food nutrition studies: more to chew on

New news on ultra-processed food: similar verdict but with more nuance and context

Two reasons why the picture on ultra-processed foods and health hasn’t been so clear:

  • The classification system for level of processing in food is a work in progress, and some foods (like grocery store bread) count as ultra-processed even though they have high nutrition value.
  • Our industrial food system delivers mostly processed and ultra-processed food to most people, leaving them with little access to less processed food; so it’s not reasonable to say “don’t eat these foods” without a new plan in mind.

This very useful (and freely accessible) article in the Conversation by the authors of three new papers on ultra-processed foods lays out a clearer and more dire story.

Here’s the short version:

The food industry’s production of processed foods is changing diets worldwide.

In the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, it’s been consistently high for decades (around 50% of daily energy). Ultra-processed foods are essentially the national diet. The same goes for Australia.

It’s not that the global eating public has become lax or lazy– these products are designed not only to be high in sugar, salt, and fat. Their tastes and textures promote overeating.

Crucially, it’s not just about “too much sugar, salt and fat”. Clinicaltrials show that when adults eat diets heavy in ultra-processed foods, they consume about 500–800 extra calories per day, gain weight and fat mass, and eat more rapidly, when compared with eating a non-ultra-processed diet with the same proportions of macronutrients. This is likely because of higher energy density, tastiness, and soft textures that make overeating ultra-processed foods easy.

Almost a hundred long-term studies show significant health risks associated with a diet high in ultra-processed foods.

92 [studies] reported greater associated risks of one or more chronic diseases. Meta-analyses of these studies confirmed associations for obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, Crohn’s disease, depression, and early death from all causes.

Addressing this global health problem requires big policy solutions, not individual willpower.

Steps recommended by the authors of three papers on this subject in the Lancet medical journal are:

  • changing the composition of food products
  • fixing food environments
  • curbing corporate power
  • addressing subsidies and supply chains

Yes, these are nutrition policy wonk solutions, with complex details and long-term goals. But we all know that really big changes rarely happen without a lot of people working together, exerting political, scientific and economic influence.

So, what can we do? Keep reading, keep (or start) cooking when we can, keep voting, and keep remembering that change is slow, but change can and does happen. I believe this, and encourage you to believe it, too.

fitness · research · Science

How a little bit of culture goes a long way towards wellness, according to science

My sister and I went to the Museum of Fine Arts a couple of weeks ago when she was visiting. We had a great time meandering through the galleries, with no particular goal other than enjoyment. We met that goal easily and effortlessly. Yay!

Now it turns out that science confirms what we experienced… 🙂 A new study out from Kings College, London, found evidence that viewing art in a gallery (it has to be in a gallery, it seems) lowers stress levels. Here’s some more info:

50 volunteers aged 18-40, viewed either original artworks at The Courtauld Gallery in London or reproductions of the same paintings in a matched, non-gallery environment. Participants were monitored for heart rate variability and skin temperature using research-grade digital watches to track levels of interest and arousal.

Cortisol levels — the key stress hormone — fell by an average of 22% in the gallery group, compared to just eight per cent for the reproduction group. Those viewing original art also had more dynamic heart activity – indicating that art engages the body through both emotional arousal and stress regulation.

That’s good news for me, as I love any excuse to go to a museum or gallery. Dr. Tony Woods, one of the researchers, added this:

“Our unique and original study provides compelling evidence that viewing art in a gallery is ‘good for you’ and helps to further our understanding of its fundamental benefits. In essence, art doesn’t just move us emotionally — it calms the body too.”

You don’t have to tell me twice. I’m on it.

But maybe museums aren’t your thing. That’s fine– science has other good news for you. In a study published in October, researchers in Australia found that:

People [over 70] who listened to music most days slashed their risk of developing dementia by 39 percent compared with those who did not regularly listen to music, the study found.

Here are a few of their key points:

  • Always listening to music was associated with a 39% reduced dementia risk and better global cognition and memory scores.
  • Playing an instrument was associated with a 35% reduced dementia risk, but no significant association with CIND risk or changes in cognitive test scores over time.
  • Regularly engaging in both music listening and playing was associated with a 33% decreased risk of dementia and 22% decreased risk of cognitive impairment no dementia (CIND).

This was an observational study, so the results are associations, not causal links. But it was large– more than 10,000 participants– so the results are encouraging.

Listening to music was NOT, however, associated with subjective cognitive wellbeing. But hey, that’s what the museums are for.

So, science is giving us official permission get our culture on. Yay!

fitness · inclusiveness · research · Science

Not-very-wordy Wednesday: on avalanches and applause

One thing I do in my not-so-copious free time is scan medical journal tables of contents each week. This way I get at least a glimpse at what is going on in medical research at the moment, sometimes provoking a deeper dive into a study or sub-discipline of medicine.

Last week in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association), the top article caught my eye for its very particular area of inquiry: Respiratory Gas Shifts to Delay Asphyxiation in Critical Avalanche Burial– A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Yeah, that's niche.
Yeah, that’s niche.

The researchers were testing a gadget that facilitates increased air flow to a person trapped under snow in an avalanche. TLDR: it worked very well. So that’s good.

The study subjects (24 in total) were about equally divided between men and women.

In that week’s editorial, titled “A Breath of Fresh Air”, the editors of JAMA offered historical context for this new research result. They also said that the researchers should be applauded for narrowing the gender gap in this type of research.

Applauded.

Applauded?

Yes, they said “applauded”.

As in:

A lot of people applauding, captured by Hanson Lu for Unsplash. Great job, Hanson!
A lot of people applauding, captured by Hanson Lu for Unsplash. Great job, Hanson!

I’m afraid I don’t agree here.

I beg to differ. Yes, I used this phrase last week, but what can I say? it just keeps coming up
I beg to differ. Yes, I used this phrase last week, but what can I say? it just keeps coming up

Increasing representation by gender, race, ethnicity, age, etc. in medical research has been and continues to be a big project, with lots of players contributing to small shifts in research participant selection. And I’m glad to see that this study included women as research participants; after all, women as well as men engage in back-country skiing, so it’s important to test out potentially lifesaving devices on all relevant populations.

Do the researchers deserve our thanks? Yes, for working hard as scientists. But for including women in their study? No. They’re just doing their job. They may be doing it well, but it’s their job to do so.

The movement to make human scientific and medical research truly representative isn’t finished yet. I’m glad to see widely-read medical journals paying attention. But I think they can hold their applause.

fitness · research · Science · weight stigma

Bring back the President’s Physical Fitness Test? Uh, just no. Why not? Read on.

CW: some mention of body weight in children and use of the word “obesity”. Sorry, I’ll keep it to a minimum.

If you’re a news-attentive person, you know it’s become hopeless to keep track of all the evidence and good-sense-absent decisions by the Trump administration.

Full and happy discplosure: most of my info is from the superb podcast Maintenance phase episode on this topic. You can listen here and read the transcript here. And I recommend listening to other episodes of this podcast, hosted by the superb Aubrey Gordon and her superb co-host MIchael Hobbes.

If you need a reminder about what exactly was the President’s Physical Fitness Test:

It sort of started with the Kraus Weber Test, developed in the 1940s, which tested children once on a few physical tasks (this I got from Wikipedia):

  1. A simple sit-up with knees bent and feet planted
  2. A sit-up with legs extended and not bent
  3. Raising feet while lying on the back
  4. Raising head, chest and shoulders off the ground while lying on the stomach
  5. Raising legs off the ground while lying on the stomach
  6. With knees straight, bending forward to touch the floor

Then, American Bonnie Prudden used the test on American children (insert lots more detail I’m not including), and found that 58% of kids didn’t pass the test. Meanwhile, only 8% of European children given the test (under other circumstances at different times, etc.) failed the test.

Insert big panic here.

Then-President Dwight Eisenhower was horrified at these results. So, instead of turning to education or medical or public health experts to investigate to see if there was actually a problem (along with increasing funding for physical education in schools and communities), he founded a presidential commision:

The President’s Council on Youth Fitness, which morphed over time into the President’s Council on Fitness, and is now the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition.

Important and famous people have served on these commissions. However, no one did any research at all on:

  • whether the original or modified versions of the test actually measured anything meaningful or useful in children (Spoiler: NO)
  • why American children didn’t do better on the test (Spoiler: they hadn’t practiced calisthenics in school like the Europeans did; with 6–8 weeks of practice kids did fine on the test)
  • what a one-time physical fitness test should show– current physical fitness? potential short-term fitness? potential fitness in adulthood? overall health? predictions about future health? (Spoiler: it showed none of these, as determined by later research)
  • If all schools in the US gave ths test every year to school children, what they would do with the data, like develop funded programs for improving fitness from the baselines, or even track kids’ fitness over time (Spoiler: no one did any of this, ever)

The commissions did make very nice recommendations, like:

Set aside more time and facilities and staff and training for kids to do a wider variety of sports that are accessible to everyone—e.g. fishing, bowling, archery, etc. Also, make time for free play with other kids, without the parents/teachers supervising and guiding (from Maintenance phase transcript)

Doesn’t that sound sweet? (Spoiler: the commission’s recommendations were ignored in favor of modified versions of the original test, which– as I think I mentioned earlier– measured nothing at all, other than someone’s ability to do those required tasks at that time.)

So, this test was given all over the US to all the school kids with no health goals at all. Yep.

Until 2012, when the Obama administration pivoted away from the test and toward an emphasis on overall health and activity, rather than measured (for no reason) performance. Yeah, that sounds better, doesn’t it?

Hmmm. Then why does the Trump administration want to bring it back?

In short, (you can read the long version here) because Trump and RFK think that there’s a crisis of obesity, chronic disease, and poor nutrition in the US, especially among children.

Bringing back this test will Make American Active Again, according to the press release (Spoiler: it totally won’t).

Okay. But, just for the sake of argument, why not bring it back?

Glad you asked. In addition to the above information which leads us to believe that this test doesn’t measure anything or contribute in any healh-goal-directed way to children’s health or fitness, there’s this:

Everyone hates this test. Teachers hate it. Kids hate it. Parents hate it. Why? It makes almost everyone feel bad about themselves or children they care about for no good reason.

There’s some evidence that tests like these make kids hate physical activity. That’s the opposite of what we wanted, right?

Oh, and there’s overwhelming evidence from tons of research that physical activity does not have strong effects on body weight. Physical activity is predictive of all sorts of great health outcomes like longevity, improved mental and cognitive health, and loads of other things we blog about regularly. So, bringing back the test will arguably have no positive effects on distribution of body weight among school children.

Here’s a great quote from Aubrey and Michael:

There was no evidence to do it in the first place. The evidence that it works is non-existent. And the evidence that getting rid of it is good is out there.

Need I say more? Oh, I want to. There’s so much wrong with these tests. But I’ll leave it for another time.

In the meantime, dear readers: do you recall taking these tests in gym class? What did you think? Was there one kid who climbed the rope all the way to the top, and can you remember their name?