sh648

Evidence-based Olympics: The science of sport

August 3, 2012 By sh648 1 Comment

Much of the world is watching the 2012 Olympics with excitement as athletes attempt to swim faster, jump higher and dive more gracefully than humans ever have before. The casual spectator might be surprised at the amount of science that goes into competition at the Olympic level.

Here at EBL, we tracked down a round-up of media on scientists working with Olympic athletes to help them become the best they can be.

Among the interesting research is a study trying to determine the most efficient freestyle stroke technique for swimmers. A mechanical engineering professor at John Hopkins University used laser body scans and underwater video of two Olympic-level swimmers to create a computational fluid dynamic model to compare the two different freestyle strokes. His work determined that a method known as the “deep-thrust” swimming style is the most effective way to swim freestyle.

Another professor of biomedical engineering at the University of California is using physics to help elite divers. She installed force sensors on diving platforms to measure the forces divers use when they begin their dives. “The athletes feel the forces and the coaches see the effect of the forces,” Professor Jill L. McNitt-Gray explained. “By measuring forces, they could both get a sense of what they actually are.”

And a mechanical engineer at Sheffield Hallam University in the United Kingdom studies the role technology has played in the history of sport. He’s written extensively this year on the effects of rule changes and technology on sporting performance over time.

Certainly, there are many more examples of science in sport such as aerodynamic helmets used in cycling and the biological effects of endurance sports, to name two.

When it comes down to individual competitions, luck and human spirit certainly do play a role – especially at the Olympics. But it’s interesting to take a look behind the scenes to see the role that science plays as well.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness, In The Media Tagged With: evidence-based practice, food and nutrition, Health and Wellness, intervention research, research translation, science in the media

Move it or lose it: Real evidence on physical activity

July 31, 2012 By sh648 1 Comment

In honor of the 2012 London Olympics, the British medical journal The Lancet published a series of publications about the state of physical fitness across the globe.

The series includes a plethora of new evidence:

One large-scale report collected data on physical activity levels for adults 15 years or older from 122 countries worldwide. It found that more than 31 percent of adults are physically inactive. The researchers found that inactivity levels rise as people get older, and the women are less likely to be active than men. It also found that physical inactivity is more problematic in higher-income nations.

A far-reaching analysis in the series uses advanced statistical methods of quantify the health implications of physical inactivity on the major non-communicable diseases in 122 countries across the globe. The authors concluded inactivity was a contributing factor to heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer and colon cancer. The estimated that 9 percent of premature death across the word were related to physical inactivity.

Another article provides a comprehensive review of evidence-based strategies for promoting physical activity. The review found that community and mass media informational campaigns helped encourage people to get moving. It also found that schools and worksites are good venues for promoting physical activity through education, sports and social groups. Finally, the authors found that finding ways to encourage activity within a community – including building sidewalks, implementing policies that encourage active transportation and building parks and gyms – are all good ways to improve physical fitness.

While the Lancet provides a wide range of data about physical activity across the world, the take-home message is a simple one: It’s important to get moving, no matter what your age. Policy makers at all levels around the world should make it a priority to increase physical activity levels in their communities and countries.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness, policy Tagged With: behavior change, Community, Health and Wellness, policy, research translation

Evidence update: How are America’s children faring?

July 20, 2012 By sh648 Leave a Comment

As a society, we put a tremendous value on the health, well-being and education of our children. But how do we know how they are doing?

Each year, the U.S. government publishes a report – America’s Children in Brief: Key National Indicators of Well-Being – that combines the data from 22 federal agencies to provide a reader-friendly, evidence-based account of the status of children in the U.S.

This year’s report unveils some interesting trends:

Preterm births declined for the fourth straight year. And fewer children died in the first year of life.
Average mathematics scores increased for 4th and 8th grade students,
The percentage of children living in poverty increased, and the percentage of children with at least one parent employed full time, year-round decreased,.
Fewer you were victims of violent crimes last year
Fewer young children lived in a home where someone smoked.

You can get the full story at http://www.childstats.gov.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Youth Development Tagged With: children and youth, policy

The science of political campaigns

July 17, 2012 By sh648 1 Comment

The 2012 presidential candidates will spend billions of dollars to encourage people to vote for them this year. Independent analysts currently estimate that President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney will spend more than $6 billion in their campaigns. But how do they really know that money will bring them votes?

It turns out there is an emerging cadre of researchers using scientific techniques – specifically the randomized controlled trial – to find out which campaign strategies actually bring people to the polls.

Among them are Todd Rogers, a behavioral psychologist at Harvard University, and David Nickerson, a political science professor at the University of Notre Dame. Together, they conducted a study in the 2008 Democratic primary in Pennsylvania that attempted to determine whether get-out-the-vote reminder calls made a significant difference in voter turnout.

For the study, Rogers came up with some questions that would ask people about their plans on voting day such as “What do you think you’ll be doing before you head to the polls on Tuesday?” and “Where do you think you’ll be coming from that day?” His theory – based cognitive psychology principles – was that these questions would plant a seed voters’ minds to helps them remember to vote.

The researchers used the questions in a randomized controlled trial. Some citizens received phone calls asking the questions, others received the standard get-out-the-vote call and others did not receive a phone call. They found a dramatic result: People who were asked the planning questions were twice as likely to vote as people who were not.

There are other examples of scientific studies applied to campaign strategies. Rogers and a colleague at Yale University found evidence that messages which tell people high turnout is expected are more effective at motivating voters than messages which emphasize low voter turnout.

And a review of field studies in get-out-the-vote campaigns found that many of these strategies improve voter turnout, but tend to mobilize well-represented groups of people and miss under-represented groups – effectively widening disparities in the electorate.

Here at EBL, we think it is great news that social scientists are applying scientific methods to the art of political campaigning – especially where so much money is involved. And we hope it’s information that candidates use in their campaigns.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, In The Media Tagged With: behavior change, economics, evidence-based practice, policy, Politics, research translation, science in the media

Sitting all day is bad for your health

July 11, 2012 By sh648 2 Comments

We’ve all heard the messages about the importance of exercise. We know that as little as 45 minutes of activity four times a week can boost your heart health and energy, stave off depression and lead to stronger bones and joints. But does it matter what you do for the rest of the day?

New evidence says that it does.

A new systematic review published this week sought to answer the question, does prolonged periods of sitting lead to an earlier death? With so many people in desk jobs – tethered to computer monitors and spending free time in front of the television – it is an important question to ask.

The review looked at five separate studies that measured time spent sitting and mortality rates in the United States. The researchers adjusted for other variables including age, health status and physical activity. What they found is indeed surprising.

People who sat for prolonged periods on a regular basis were at a greater risk for an early death. Using a statistical model, the researchers found that people who sat for less than three hours a day increased their average life expectancy by about two years.

A separate study of more than 200,000 adults living in the southern hemisphere found that people who sat for more than 11 hours a day had a 40 percent higher risk of dying in the next three years compared to people who sat less than four hours a day. This study adjusted for other factors such as health status, age and physical activity levels. And it found a clear relationships between sitting and mortality rates. Essentially that means the more people sat, the higher their risk of death.

The take-home message for this one is pretty clear: get up and move. But what’s a person with a desk-job to do? Doctors say getting up for 10 minutes every hour can help. You can also invest in or make your own standing desk, which will allow you to do desk-work on your feet.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness Tagged With: behavior change, evidence-based practice, Health and Wellness, research translation

To spray or not to spray?

July 3, 2012 By sh648 1 Comment

Lyme disease – an infectious disease spread by ticks that thrive in wooded areas – is on the rise in the Northeast. The disease can be debilitating if undiagnosed, causing chronic fatigue, joint pain andneurological problems.

As a mom, it’s a really worry for me. My kids are outside every day, often on trails or in wooded areas. I check them daily for ticks, but one would be easy to miss.

This year, I’ve often debated with other parents the risk and benefits of using bug spray. On one hand, there is clear evidence that the insecticide DEET – or N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide – effectively repels ticks. But on the other hand, there are cases where it is clear that DEET has led to health problems including skin problems, hallucinations and seizures.

So I went hunting for some more sweeping analyses on what the evidence says about DEET. The Journal of Family Practice provided a good summary of several systematic reviews on the use of DEET in children. Both found the risk of adverse reactions was low – about 0.1 percent of children exposed experiences an adverse reaction – and that there was no clear dose-dependent relationship between exposure and extent of severity of the reaction.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control maintains that DEET doesn’t present health concerns if it’s used according to the instructions, including not applying it to open wounds, under clothing, or near eyes or mouth.

As a mother, though, the narrative reports of small children undergoing hospitalization for seizures and neurological problems – even though it’s a very small number of cases over decades – stick in my mind. So we use bug spray with DEET sparingly. If I know the kids will be in the woods or fields where there are higher populations of ticks, I’ll give them a light spray – always with a bath that night to wash off all of the spray. Even though the evidence shows DEET is safe, I still feel uneasy about this issue.

What about you? Are you comfortable using buy spray on a regular basis?

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness Tagged With: children and youth, environment, evidence-based practice, Health and Wellness, intervention research, parenting, research translation, science and public opinion

Alcohol consumption: the benefit is in the dose

June 29, 2012 By sh648 3 Comments

We know that excessive alcohol consumption is dangerous. It is well-documented that drinking leads to motor vehicle accidents, serious diseases, and a weakened immune system.

But there’s a saying first coined by Parcelsus in the 1500s : “The difference between a drug and a poison is the dose.” And it certainly applies to alcohol consumption. Two important new meta-analyses underscore this point.

In the first article, the authors included 84 studies that look at the connections between cardiovascular risk and alcohol consumption. They came to the conclusion that the evidence is now so clear that moderate drinking reduces cardiac risk that no further meta-analyses are necessary. Instead “debate should centre now on how to integrate this evidence into clinical practice and public health messages. In the realm of clinical practice, the evidence could form a foundation for proposing counseling for selected patients to incorporate moderate amounts of alcohol into their diets to improve their coronary heart disease risk.”

But they didn’t stop there. They also conducted a second meta-analysis of “feeding studies” (where alcohol is experimentally administered). These studies eliminate the concerns about confounding in the observational studies, and can thus point to mechanisms by which alcohol protects against heart disease.

The finding? “Moderate alcohol consumption had favourable effects on levels of high density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein A1, adiponectin, and fibrinogen. These results strengthen the case for a causal link between alcohol intake and reduced risk of coronary heart disease.”

“We don’t need any more studies examining this association,” said Dr. Cary Reid, a geriatrician at Weill Cornell Medical College. “This meta analysis is well conducted and is one of many conducted over the past decade that has shown a consistent protective effect of moderate alcohol consumption on cardiovascular outcomes.”

The challenge, Reid says, is communicating the evidence to patients. “It remains unclear whether this finding will be translated into clinical practice given clinicians’ concerns about increased alcohol use – particularly among older people – and the associated effects of falls, fractures, and decreased psychological functioning.”

The key message is “moderate.” And there are some specific guidelines about what that means issued by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (The rule of thumb is one drink a day for women and two drinks a day for men.)

So raise a glass – but just one of two, and not if you’re driving – to your health.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness Tagged With: evidence-based practice, food and nutrition, Health and Wellness, research translation

The media gets it right: The health effects of coffee

June 26, 2012 By sh648 2 Comments

Here at EBL, we love it when a major media outlet takes a fair and balanced look at the evidence. As we’ve written about before, mainstream publications don’t always present all of the evidence. But this week, the New York Times published an excellent update on the health effects of coffee.

Health writer Jane Brody first wrote up a thorough review of the health effects of coffee in 2008.

Among the findings she reported:

Drinks with fewer than 550 milligrams of caffeine, which includes a Grande brew from Starbucks, are equally as hydrating as drinking pure water. (Many previous reports have touted coffee’s diuretic effects.)
There is very little evidence that coffee increases your risk of heart attack or abnormal heart rhythms.
Coffee causes a small, temporary rise in blood pressure, but there’s no evidence that it leads to chronic hypertension.
And on a positive note, coffee is found to increase alertness, happiness and endurance in aerobic activities. It also helps blunt the feeling of pain. (No wonder so many Americans love it so!)

Brody’s update, published this week, was based on a study published in May in the New England Journal of Medicine. Here’s how she summed it up:

“When smoking and many other factors known to influence health and longevity were taken into account, coffee drinkers in the study were found to be living somewhat longer than abstainers. Further, the more coffee consumed each day — up to a point, at least — the greater the benefit to longevity.”

That’s good news on two fronts: Coffee drinkers the world over can enjoy brews without worry, and the New York Times gets accolades for balanced, comprehensive reporting.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness, In The Media Tagged With: food and nutrition, Health and Wellness, research translation, science in the media

Studies on same-sex parenting: The details matter

June 20, 2012 By sh648 1 Comment

Here on EBL, we’ve talked frequently about what makes for quality research. There’s new research out this month on gay parents that illustrates the importance of seeking out high quality research.

A new study by a University of Texas sociologist surveyed nearly 3,000 Americans ages 18 to 39 to ask about their family structure growing up. Of the participants, 248 grew up in households where one parent had a same-sex relationship at some point. The study found that children of these parents were more likely than kids in other family structures to be on public assistance, unemployed or in therapy as adults, among other negative outcomes.

To collect information about same-sex parenting, the study asked: “Did either of your parents ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex?” and then asked whether participants had lived with their parents at the time.

But the question does not collect enough information about these families. Are they parents involved in heterosexual marriages who had an affair, or divorced and then entered into a same-sex relationship? We just know. The study didn’t ask any questions about whether participants were raised in stable homes with committed parents who were of the same sex.

The study has sparked a flurry of media attention, including the New York Times and Time magazine, among other

s, with plenty of criticism. And the criticism is merited, said Ritch Savin-Williams, Director of the Sex and Gender Lab at the Cornell’s College of Human Ecology.

“The research design of this study is sufficiently flawed (inappropriate comparison group) as to merit disbelief in the findings,” he said. “It is unclear if this major shortcoming was lack of scientific rigor or in some part influenced by the funding sources that have both religious and political agendas.”

There is a systematic review on same-sex parenting that provides more answers. The review looked at 33 studies that lesbian, gay and heterosexual parents. Their analysis found no difference in parenting ability or the children’s psychological and social success between same-sex and heterosexual parent partners.

Clearly, the issue of same-sex parenting is politically-charged for a lot of reasons. The point we’d like to make here on EBL is that it’s important to understand the details of research study, and draw your conclusions with all of the evidence.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, In The Media, Youth Development Tagged With: children and youth, parenting, research translation, science in the media, social trends

Bodyfat facts: Real evidence on the consequences of obesity

June 14, 2012 By sh648 2 Comments

We often hear in the media – this blog included – that obesity is an epidemic in the United States, and move straight to discussing solutions to the problem. But lately I’ve found myself wondering, what exactly are the health consequences of being overweight or obese?

So, of course, I went on a hunt to find some evidence. It turns out there are many. The Harvard School of Public Health provides a great summary of the health risks of obesity with references – many of them systematic reviews.

Their summary finds obesity associated most strongly with the diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Meta-analyses have found significantly greater risks of developing coronary artery disease, stroke and cardiovascular death.

While the link between obesity and cancer is less clear, there is certainly still ample evidence that shows obesity is a risk factor for developing cancers. A major review of the data by the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research found evidence of an association between obesity and cancers of the esophagus, pancreas, colon and rectum, breast, endometrium, and kidney, and a probable association between obesity and gallbladder cancer. Since the report was released in 2007, the group is providing continuous updates about the evidence on diet, physical activity, body fatness and cancer.

There are other serious risks that come along with obesity: depression, dementia, infertility, asthma and arthritis.

I have to say that, personally, I was astounded by the sheer volume of evidence out there on the consequences of obesity. I know my fair share of people who are overweight. Reviewing the evidence bring their struggles into a whole new light for me. It doesn’t seem like you can live with obesity without some health consequence.

I did find one silver lining though. There is some pretty clear evidence in this report from the National Heart Blood and Lung Institute that losing some weight – even without reaching an ideal weight – offers some health benefits for adults who are obese. The clear take-home message here is to do what you can – eat more fruits and veggies, go for a walk, cut out junk food – to move toward a healthier weight.

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness Tagged With: behavior change, Health and Wellness, nutrition

Disney takes its cues from the evidence

June 11, 2012 By sh648 Leave a Comment

In major news this week, the Walt Disney Co. banned the advertising of junk foods from its television, radio and Internet programming. Under the new guidelines, advertisers who want to promote food and beverages on Disney programming for children must meet guidelines on serving size, calories, and fat and sugar content.

While it’s inspiring that such a large company is interested in promoting health among kids, I was even more inspired that Disney created a policy based on real evidence. Because, in fact, there is a growing body of evidence that links media consumption – and specifically advertisements – with negative health outcomes for children.

This systematic review, for example, looked at 173 studies examining the relationship between media consumption and health outcomes among children. In 80 percent of the studies, more media exposure was associated with a negative health outcome, and childhood obesity had the strongest correlation. This analysis considered the quantity of media that children watched, but not the content.

Another meta-analysis found a significant association between the proportion of children overweight and the number commercials per hour on children’s television, especially ads that promoting junk foods. The study used data from surveys of advertising on children’s television and estimates of the prevalence of overweight among children, in the U.S., Australia and eight European countries. It concluded the quantity and content of advertising on children’s television programs has a specific effect on children.

It’s great to see a major company taking cues from the evidence in an effort to improve the health of children!

Filed Under: Evidence-Based Living, Health and Wellness, policy Tagged With: children and youth, food and nutrition, Health and Wellness, nutrition, policy, science in the media