Living near gym may make you slimmer

Agencies
January 6, 2018

People who live close to gyms, pools and playing fields weigh less and have smaller waistlines than their counterparts residing farther away from exercise facilities, a UK study suggests.

Living far away from fast food outlets also appeared to help people maintain a lower weight and trimmer waist, although this connection wasn’t as strong as the proximity of gyms, researchers report in the Lancet Public Health.

“It is likely that communities without the neighborhood resources needed to encourage a healthy lifestyle put their residents at a higher risk of obesity,” said senior study author Steven Cummins of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

“This could be improved by restricting the number of new fast food outlets in a neighborhood and how close they can be to people’s homes, incentivizing operators of physical activity facilities to open in residential areas with few facilities, or funding local authorities to provide such facilities,” Cummins said by email.

Globally, more than 1.9 billion adults are overweight or obese, according to the World Health Organization. The condition contributes to a variety of common medical problems including heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers.

For the study, researchers examined data on weight, waist measurements and body fat for more than 400,000 men and women ranging in age from 40 to 70.

The study used data collected between 2006 and 2010 that included demographic characteristics like household income, as well as what types of eating and exercising options were available near people’s home addresses.

To determine exercise opportunities, researchers looked for indoor and outdoor facilities for sports and leisure activities such as gyms, swimming pools and playing fields. They didn’t consider public parks or cycling and walking paths.

On average, people had just one exercise facility within 1 kilometer (0.62 miles) of home. And almost one-third of participants had no options this close to where they lived, the study found.

People typically had to travel just 1.1 kilometers (0.68 miles) to reach a fast food outlet. Nearly one in five people had a fast food restaurant within a half-kilometer (0.31 miles) of home.

Better access to exercise options translated into a healthier weight.

Compared to people who had no facilities near home, people who had at least six places to work out weighed less, had a 1.22 centimeter (0.47 inch) slimmer waistline, and had a body fat percentage that was 0.81 percent lower on average.

At the same time, people who lived at least 2 kilometers (1.24 miles) from a fast food outlet had a waistline 0.26 centimeters (0.10 inches) smaller than individuals who lived less than a half-kilometer away, the study also found.

One limitation of the study is that not all fast food restaurants may have been included in the database, the authors note. The study also didn’t account for the proximity of healthy dining establishments near home, or the type of food and workout options close to where people worked.

The study was not a controlled experiment designed to prove whether or how neighborhood characteristics like the availability of gyms or greasy spoons might impact obesity rates.

It’s hard to rule out the possibility that healthier people may choose to live near the amenities they need to stay healthy, said Pablo Monsivais, author of an accompanying editorial and a nutrition and exercise researcher at Washington State University in Spokane.

But the study still suggests that where we live matters, Monsivais said by email.

“Individually, each of us makes choices that affect whether we maintain a healthy weight or put on pounds, but these choices are shaped by the environments we inhabit,” Monsivais added. “This study looked at just a few features of the environment, but research shows that things like green space, walkability, noise, air quality and the availability of healthy food choices all seem to matter for our health and body weight.”

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 16,2020

New Delhi, Mar 16: A recent survey across 140 districts of the country shows that about 54 per cent of Indians are finding travelling to be unsafe as the deadly coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic sweeps globally.

The big worry that people have is community transmission, something that researchers from around the world have approximated at 10 per cent of total infections and more common in places like Wuhan in China, South Korea, Iran and Italy.

The months of March to June have historically been high travel season for most Indians, largely due to the summer vacations in schools. "But it seems that Indians do not want to take a chance with this rather scary virus and are either cancelling or postponing their travel plans," concluded the survey by LocalCircles.

The survey gathered more than 22,000 responses from participants in tier one, two and three cities. It said 48 per cent Indians plan to cancel their international business travel for the next four months.

Besides, nearly 38 per cent of respondents said they had to pay cancellation fee to the website, travel agent, airline or railways.

"These are testing times for the entire travel and tourism industry -- airlines, hotels, travel agents as well as small tour and taxi operators. The best solution at this point is to adjust cost structures, stay flexible and work with a collective approach to minimise the period of impact to both citizens and business," said LocalCircles.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 15,2020

Should you let your babies "cry it out" or rush to their side? Researchers have found that leaving an infant to 'cry it out' from birth up to 18 months does not adversely affect their behaviour development or attachment.

The study, published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, found that an infant's development and attachment to their parents is not affected by being left to "cry it out" and can actually decrease the amount of crying and duration.

"Only two previous studies nearly 50 or 20 years ago had investigated whether letting babies 'cry it out' affects babies' development. Our study documents contemporary parenting in the UK and the different approaches to crying used," said the study's researcher Ayten Bilgin from the University of Warwick in the UK.

For the study, the researchers followed 178 infants and their mums over 18 months and repeatedly assessed whether parents intervened immediately when a baby cried or let the baby let it cry out a few times or often.

They found that it made little difference to the baby’s development by 18 months.

The use of parent’s leaving their baby to ‘cry it out’ was assessed via maternal report at term, 3, 6 and 18 months and cry duration at term, 3 and 18 months.

Duration and frequency of fussing and crying was assessed at the same ages with the Crying Pattern Questionnaire.

According to the researchers, how sensitive the mother is in interaction with their baby was video-recorded and rated at 3 and 18 months of age.

Attachment was assessed at 18 months using a gold standard experimental procedure, the strange situation test, which assesses how securely an infant is attached to the major caregiver during separation and reunion episodes.

Behavioural development was assessed by direct observation in play with the mother and during assessment by a psychologist and a parent-report questionnaire at 18 months.

Researchers found that whether contemporary parents respond immediately or leave their infant to cry it out a few times to often makes no difference on the short - or longer term relationship with the mother or the infants behaviour.

This study shows that 2/3 of mum's parent intuitively and learn from their infant, meaning they intervene when they were just born immediately, but as they get older the mother waits a bit to see whether the baby can calm themselves, so babies learn self-regulation.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
April 21,2020

The Lockdown is not a cure but a critical strategy to prevent the geographical spread of COVID-19.

While pandemics at this level involves actual life threatening situations for individual's or significant others in one's immediate circle, it envisages a marked disruption in routine life. Even after the pandemic has been contained and will come to pass; it's aftermath will leave a trailblazer which demands planning and implementation of a post pandemic reconstruction of society with potentially traumatic experiences varying in intensity, multiplicity and duration.

Degree of Trauma

It would do well for each one of us to realise that the pandemic is "potentially traumatic", since not everyone will experience COVID -19 as a traumatic event in their lives. Yet, there will be those who may develop post pandemic stress reactions, depression and related dysfunction and pathological reactions while still other exhibit healthy reactions to the same set of circumstances.

"Psychological reactions to the pandemic can be distilled into four distinct prototypical patterns, namely, Resilience, Recovery, Chronic and Delayed patterns which may vary in intensity, multiplicity, and duration. Resilient individual have an ability to bounce back from adversity and experience modest or little disruption in normal functioning and are able to maintain a relatively stable, healthy levels of psychological functioning even after enduring the pandemic. Recovery pattern is characterised by relatively rapid reduction in symptoms and return to normal functioning whereas chronic pattern is characterised by symptoms and dysfunction of a long duration," says Pune-based military psychologist Lt Col Dr Samir Rawat.

Challenges at the Individual and Community Levels

From a psychological perspective, post pandemic reconstruction would entail catering to the problems, concerns and needs of those adversely impacted by the COVID -19 with stress symptoms typically characterised by individual's experiencing an overwhelming trauma of the pandemic (for example, recurring nightmares/ breaking into a cold sweat, flashback of stressful events, increasing irritability, low frustration tolerance or emotional numbing).

It could also manifest in depressive symptoms which may result in lack of interest or diminished pleasure in activities and things which you earlier liked to do, feelings of worthlessness or even survivor guilt in case of a loss of a loved one due to COVID-19, fleeting thoughts of death and suicidal ideation. Physical symptoms, on the other hand could be a decrease in appetite, weight and sleep problems, inability to focus and lack of concentration.

Undoubtedly, the pandemic will cause a financial loss of varying magnitude to many, especially the marginalised and economically disadvantaged strata of daily wage earners; it will also lead to loss of jobs (already beginning to show), homelessness, occupational difficulties and new challenges in interpersonal relations at work and on the home front, besides physical health problems and psychological barriers with new norms of accepted social behaviour (social distancing, handshakes, an obsession for cleanliness to name a few).

Emotional battles

Many factors may influence whether individuals come out stronger and more resilient or surrender to the pandemic. Emotion Regulation is one such long term critical factor that can play an important role in contributing to varying degrees of adaptation with negative or positive outcomes. While we know that primary emotions are fear, anger, disgust, joy, anticipation, acceptance, sadness and surprise, other basic emotions include wonder, love, desire, joy, hatred, sadness, attachment, disgust, rage and even expectancy .

To be able to regulate these emotions and avoid negativity , especially on social media platforms is likely to increase efforts in emotion regulation which involves initiating, increasing or maintaining an emotional response.

This means by regulating or on the other hand by stopping, decreasing or avoiding an emotional response, that is, by down-regulating, depending on the individual's objectives and goals or his /her ability to regulate emotions in the valued and given direction.

"One of the best ways to regulate emotions is through cognitive restructuring wherein we change the way we think; after all it is not the event but the interpretation of the event which is perceived as stressful and finding meaning promotes resilience and reduces risk and vulnerability to stress," advises Dr Rawat.

Adding, "Clearly, we need to have a psychological plan to prevent, mitigate and minimise negative outcomes by post pandemic reconstruction of society at an individual and community level all over the country; this has to be integrated by all leaders across verticals in diverse domains."

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.