CAT | Solutions
We can’t all be those people with “26.2” stickers on the back of their cars, but as it turns out we may be able to enjoy similar benefits when it comes to heart health. Results of a new study conducted by researchers at Iowa State University reveal that even a short run (5 to 10 minutes) is good for the ol’ ticker.
Using information from more than 55,000 U.S. adults (only one-quarter of whom stated they were runners) researchers divided the study participants in five different groups based on factors such as how often they ran, how far, and their average speed. To their surprise, they saw similar benefits across the board in terms of reduced risk of death from heart disease—meaning the folks who ran fewer than 10 minutes a day had the same benefits as those who ran about 30–35 minutes daily (roughly five days a week).
Even after researchers took into account outside factors such as age, existing health conditions, and diet and lifestyle habits, the results of the study still showed shorter runs were just as beneficial as longer runs when it came to overall heart health, and that running may be a better exercise option for those with busy schedules because it produces a greater benefit in less time—more bang for your buck, so to speak.
“Because time is one of the strongest barriers to participate in physical activity, this study may motivate more people to start running and continue to run as an attainable health goal,” said study author Duck-chul Lee of the Iowa State Kinesiology Department.
Something to think about the next time you complain about not having time to work out!
Earlier this year we blogged about some upcoming changes to the Nutrition Facts labels found on packaged foods and beverages. Among the proposed changes are clearer information about fats and sugar, updated daily values and serving size requirements, and a new design that would highlight certain elements deemed significant to public health. But is it enough? Many health officials say no.
The Associated Press recently spoke with former FDA Commissioner David Kessler and former CDC official William H. Dietz, who voiced their concerns that the new labels still won’t be enough to help consumers decide which foods are really good for them. They and other experts would like to see even more improvements, including changes to the following:
- Nutritional Values: Even though more consumers are reading nutrition labels than ever before, experts worry they still may not have a clear enough understanding of what those labels mean or what foods they should really be eating (i.e. real food vs. processed junk). Experts would like to see the FDA offer clarity beyond just listing numbers and technical terms.
- Ingredients Lists: How often do you just glance over those long lists of ingredients you can’t pronounce—picking out the one or two you think might be most important? Experts believe if the FDA kept it simple (for example, listing all forms of sugar as a single ingredient) it would be easier for consumers to understand just what might be ending up in their bodies.
- Sugar Amounts (and Types): Although the proposed changes include making a distinction between naturally occurring sugars and added sugars (those added in during processing and preparation), health officials believe it’s still not enough. They want to see a daily value created for sugar to help people determine how much sugar they should really be eating on a daily basis.
- Front Labeling: Several years back the FDA talked about making changes to the front of food packaging in addition to changing the Nutrition Facts labels, but the effort has since been put on hold. Experts agree that change is still needed and suggest highlighting the main ingredients up front, along with the total number of calories and possibly how many additional ingredients there are.
Finally, a number of health officials would like to see more context when it comes to how much of certain nutrients folks should be aiming for in their daily diets. Because it’s hard to think in percentages, experts think clearer labeling could help people determine exactly how much of a certain ingredient they are consuming and whether or not it is more than they need.
Needless to say, the food industry disagrees with many of the recommended changes and believes they provide more information than necessary. With the public comment period on the proposed changes now extended through August, it looks like only time will tell what the food labels of the future may look like.