Is your morning commute making you sick?

A study conducted by Swedish researchers recently published in BMC Public Health suggests that those who commute to work by car or public transportation are more likely to have problems with both their physical and mental health than active commuters who walk or ride their bicycles to work.

The results are based on the findings of two public health surveys conducted in 2004 and 2008 by a team of Swedish researchers that culled data from around 21,000 people between the ages of 18 and 65 who work in Scania, Sweden. The study has found that those who commute to work by car or train are more likely to report stress, exhaustion, and generally poor health in addition to a greater number of missed work days compared to active commuters. The study also points out that the longer the commute, the worse the health complaints were reported, especially for those who rely on long commuter train rides to work every day. 

Dr. Redford Williams, professor of medicine and Director of the Behavioral Medicine Research Center at Duke University in North Carolina, says of the results, “We know that people who have a lot of demands and very little control over how they meet those demands are at a higher risk for negative health effects. And when you're relying on a train to get to work, it's totally out of your control most of the time."

An article by ABC News on the findings points out that while the research has not identified whether or not such a long commute to work is directly responsible for health problems, the present difficulties with finding work often do not allow job-seekers a lot of flexibility in choosing jobs that are far from where they live, suggesting that the problem is likely to persist for a while coming. 

Williams opines that, in light of these findings, those with a choice should probably choose a job requiring the shortest commute. Since the active commuters reported less stress and fewer health worries than those relying on cars or public transportation, the study’s findings seem to confirm that a good way to decrease stress and improve your overall health is to oil up that bicycle and counteract the stress of the workplace with a good blast of wind in the face on the way to work. 

The full text of the study’s findings can be found here.

Nature and the Outdoors Vital for Kids

Time spent outdoors is now being considered as one of the main markers for Canadian kids' health and activity levels. Exposure to fresh air and nature has been shown not only to raise overall health, but also to alleviate anxiety, and improve concentration and feelings of wellbeing. 

Since 2005, Active Healthy Kids Canada has been issuing “report cards” with the objective of assessing Canada’s commitment to active, healthy children at all levels: at  schools, in the community, and  as it is regulated at the municipal, provincial and national levels. The Active Kids Canada Report Card for 2011 has just been released, with a new twist:  the report card now includes an indicator for “Nature and the Outdoors.” 

The analysis of outdoor activity alongside other indicators such as playground equipment, community programming and educational policy, is based on the idea that even spending a little more time outside offers major potential benefits to kids for becoming active and healthy. And while a conclusive “Nature and the Outdoors” grade for the 2011 Report Card has not been decided (in light of the difficulty in achieving comprehensive data on the subject), the research has led to new findings which will hopefully lead to increased outdoor activity in Canadian children.

For instance, it’s been discovered that as they progress from elementary school to high school, kids spend much less time exercising outdoors, even though spending time outside can help alleviate anxiety and similar conditions in children while improving their concentration and mood. The trend away from outdoor exercise in children has been called “nature deficit disorder,” by American researcher Richard Louv – a trend this new addition to Active Healthy Kids Canada’s yearly Report Card hopes to counteract.

Stressing that “being out in nature” can be as simple as spending an afternoon sitting under a tree, researchers like Louv and Leanne Clare of the David Suzuki Foundation insist that the first step toward healthier children is getting them to spend more time in the outdoors. 

Those who have directed their efforts toward research on the relationship between nature and healthy children hope to use the knowledge they are gaining to encourage educators and communities to implement nature in their programming, a tactic they believe can be applied to anything from working with troubled children to practicing math. While this year’s results were inconclusive, researchers hope to draw attention to this relationship in the interest of advising schools, communities and policy makers on how to improve the health of Canadian children with nature.

Links to this and previous years’ Report Cards, as well as explanations of Healthy Active Kids Canada’s mission statement and methodology can be found here: www.activehealthykids.ca/ReportCard/2011ReportCardOverview.aspx

Working out when under the weather

With cold and flu season fast approaching, the active lifestyle many of us enjoyed during the summer may be waning. When the inevitable winter sniffles arrive, many of us naturally prefer to hide under the duvet than dedicate ourselves to exercise, but staying active can often help shorten the duration of common colds and in the long run, findings show that exercise helps your immune system fight simple infections.

How do you decide whether you should be getting physical when feeling under the weather? Here's what Dr. Edward R. Laskowski at the Mayo Clinic advises:

• Mild to moderate physical activity is usually ok if you have a garden-variety cold and no fever. Exercise may even help you feel better by opening your nasal passages and temporarily relieving nasal congestion.
• Exercise is usually OK if your signs and symptoms are all "above the neck" — symptoms you may have with a common cold, such as runny nose, nasal congestion, sneezing or minor sore throat. Consider reducing the intensity and length of your workout, though, or you may feel worse. Instead of going for a run, take a walk, for example.
• Don't exercise if your signs and symptoms are "below the neck" — such as chest congestion, hacking cough or upset stomach.
• Don't exercise if you have a fever, fatigue or widespread muscle aches.
• Let your body be your guide. If you have a cold and feel miserable, take a break. Scaling back or taking a few days off from exercise when you're sick shouldn't affect your performance. Remember if you do choose to exercise when you're sick, reduce the intensity and length of your workout. If you attempt to exercise at your normal intensity when you have more than a simple cold, you could risk more serious injury or illness.

And when you feel better? Keep exercising in the winter months to avoid illness. Some findings report that moderate intensity exercise - daily 20 to 30 minute walks, going to the gym every other day, or biking with kids a few times a week - may reduce the number of colds you get. In one study reported in the American Journal of Medicine, women who walked for a half-hour every day for one year had half the number of colds as women who did not exercise. In this study, researchers associated regular walking with increasing levels of infection-fighting white blood cells. In another study, researchers found that the number of T-cells - a specific type of white blood cell - in 65-year-olds who exercised regularly was as high as those of people in their 30s.

Walking and life expectancy

Walking is one of the simplest, least expensive, and most effective things you can do for your health. It strengthens bones, tunes up the cardiovascular system, and, psychologically, can clear a cluttered mind. Hundreds of studies have documented its benefits, and now, researchers say that later in life, walking becomes as much an indicator of health as a promoter of it.

As we get older, the stroll that was once a walk in the park may get difficult for any number of reasons: angina, arthritis, bad balance, failing vision. Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh have shown that after about age 65, how fast we walk may predict how long we have to live.

Walking, or gait, speed has long been recognized as a proxy for overall health and vitality and has been measured in many research projects. The University of Pittsburgh researchers didn't conduct a new study, but used some sophisticated statistical techniques to pool the results of nine that had already been done. They standardized the disparate ways gait speed had been measured in those studies — no small feat — and then did some further analysis to see how gait speed correlated with how long people lived.

What they found was a remarkably consistent association between faster gait speed and longer life that was true for both men and women ages 65 and older. More precisely, each increase of 0.1 meter per second in gait speed was associated with a 12% reduction in the risk of dying during a study's follow-up period. They also calculated that people with gait speeds of 1 meter per second or faster lived longer than would be expected given their age or gender. (One meter per second is equivalent to 2.2 miles per hour and just a bit slower than the speed needed to cross the street at most timed traffic lights.)

When the researchers factored in body mass index, blood pressure, prior hospitalization, and several other factors, the relationship between gait speed and longevity didn't change much. In other words, walking speed seemed to be independently associated with life expectancy, not just a marker for other conditions that would affect it.

More number crunching produced interesting correlations between gait speed and five- and 10-year survival rates that make some easy comparisons possible. For example, just 15% of the men ages 75 to 84 with a very slow gait speed of less than 0.4 meters per second (imagine someone shuffling) lived for another 10 years. In contrast, half of those with a speedier gait of 1.2 meters per second or faster lived at least 10 years. Women live longer than men, so the survival rates were longer at both slow and fast speeds for them, but the pattern was the same: faster walkers had much better five- and 10-year survival rates than slower ones.

So does this mean that if you're older and you work on improving your walking speed, you'll live longer? No, you can't draw that kind of a cause-and-effect conclusion from this study, which is based on statistical associations in observational studies. On the other hand, countless other studies have shown associations between physical activity and better health and longer life. For the vast majority of people at any age, regular walking improves health.

The University of Pittsburgh re searchers envision a day when standardized measures of gait speed, along with other information, might be a low-tech way for doctors and other clinicians to assess the overall health and life expectancy of their patients. In fact, you could do it yourself at home. All that's needed is a reliable watch that keeps track of seconds and some tape to mark off four meters in a hallway or large room. A slow gait could trigger action to improve modifiable risk factors or, in a very old person, to avoid certain interventions — say, certain types of surgery — because life expectancy is too short. Clinicians would also be a position to give their fast-walking patients the good news about their health and life expectancy prospects.

Exercise: The male-female divide

While we know exercise is good for us, many researchers continue to investigate exactly how it affects our nervous system. One of the moest interesting studies conducted recently includes a look at the patterns between the sexes, which is revealing how differences affect blood flow and oxygen delivery to skeletal muscles.

Led by Emma Hart, Ph.D., a research fellow under Dr. Michael Joyner at the Mayo clinic, the research team’s study reveals a difference in how nerve traffic (nerve pulses per minute) influences the way men and women regulate blood pressureT

The findings may have important implications for understanding how hypertension and other disorders of blood pressure regulation occur in men and women. “We took some young men with variable nerve traffic and showed that people with very high nerve traffic had constricted blood vessels but a lower cardiac output, and that was one of the factors that kept them from having high blood pressure,” says Dr. Joyner. In young women this relationship was absent. “It’s an indication that the women’s blood vessels and cardiovascular systems responded to nerve impulses differently.”

In young women, the team suspects that reproductive hormones, known to be protective against cardiovascular disease, may prevent the blood vessels from becoming constricted when nerve traffic is high.

“We've known for many years that men and women are different in terms of blood pressure regulation,” says Dr. Charkoudian, who is working on the project. “We know that young women have a lower risk of developing hypertension (high blood pressure) compared to young men. In this study, we focused on the importance of the sympathetic nervous system and its control of blood vessels as determinants of long-term blood pressure. Our data suggest that one of the ways women are ‘protected’ is by an influence of female hormones to alter this nerve-blood vessel interaction.”

The Joyner lab recruits a wide range of people for their studies including the occasional elite or master athlete, active and sedentary people, and those with medical conditions such as hypertension, heart failure, diseases of the autonomic nervous system and, especially people who have problems with blood pressure regulation.

Apple-picking your way to active health!

It's apple-picking season, and if you're lucky enough to live in a region with orchards, then there are so many good reasons to get out amongst the trees. Aside from the exercise and fresh air, experts now agree on the wide-ranging health benefits of this unassuming fruit.

With more than 7,500 varieties worldwide, apples pack a powerful nutritional punch, containing vitamins A and C, potassium and fiber. Apples are free of saturated and trans fats, and a medium-to-large-sized portion has only about 100 calories.

Research also suggests that apples may reduce the risk of certain cancers, specifically colon and prostate. Apples may protect the lungs of adults by reducing the risk of asthma and lung cancer. The fiber content is helpful for optimal functioning of the gastrointestinal tract.

And don't forget to eat the peel: it's ripe with pectin, a type of fiber, and polyphenols, powerful antioxidants, which can reduce cholesterol and LDL (bad) cholesterol levels. A study at Florida State University in Tallahassee published last spring confirmed these heart-healthy findings. There is also some evidence that eating apples helps regulate blood sugar and helps control your appetite.

Last year, the Iowa Women's Health Study reported that, among the 34,000-plus women it's been tracking for nearly 20 years, apples were associated with a lower risk of death from both coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease. Some years earlier, Finnish researchers studying dietary data collected over 28 years from 9,208 men and women found that frequent apple eaters had the lowest risk of suffering strokes compared with non-apple eaters.

Experts attribute the heart-healthy benefits to antioxidant compounds found in apples, which help prevent LDL cholesterol from oxidizing and inhibit inflammation. Plus, the soluble fiber in apples has also been shown to lower cholesterol levels. On top of that, Eating an apple before you work out may boost your exercise endurance. Apples deliver an antioxidant called quercetin, which aids endurance by making oxygen more available to the lungs. One study showed that quercetin - when taken in supplement form - helped people bike longer

Apples are considered a "slow food" because you must take the time to chew them, giving your body time to feel full before you eat too much. The natural sweeteners in apples enter the bloodstream more slowly, keeping your blood sugar and insulin levels steady so that you feel full longer.  Another study found that apples might enhance your memory and keep your brain healthy as you age.

So make the most of the next few weeks - it's peak apple-picking time and this is a great way to sneak a little extra activity into your weekend!

Better food choices start at home

Can a cozy dining table and nice music prompt people to reach for the greens and go light on dessert? 

So suggests a new study probing why people tend to eat more-nutritious meals at home than away from home. The findings, based on data from 160 women who reported their emotional states before and after meals, add to mounting evidence that psychological factors may help override humans’ wired-in preference for high-fat, sugary foods.

“Over the course of evolution in a world of food scarcity, humans and animals alike have been biologically programmed to elicit more powerful food reward responses to high-caloric foods” than to less-fattening fare, the study notes. Given those hard-wired urges, it may not be enough to understand that broccoli is better for the waistline than French fries. Home is known to be where people feel most content, and the positive emotions often associated with home-cooked meals may be part of the recipe for a healthy diet, the researchers indicate.

The findings, published in the July issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, suggest that people who are in a good mood at home tend to prepare healthier meals – and feel more emotionally rewarded after eating them. That cycle of positive reinforcement was more pronounced at home than elsewhere.

  

The report, by Prof. Ji Lu of Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Catherine Huet, and Prof.. Laurette Dubé of McGill University’s Desautels Faculty of Management, concludes that “the home is a privileged environment that nurtures healthy eating and in which healthier food choices trigger and are triggered by more positive emotions.”

This pattern may help explain why people make better choices at home than when eating out, says Prof. Dubé, senior author of the study and scientific director of the McGill World Platform for Health and Economic Convergence.

One limitation of the study is that all 160 participants were non-obese, white English-speaking women. Samples that vary in sex and culture, as well as samples that include children and obese populations, will be needed to demonstrate the extent to which the results can be generalized, the authors caution.

Even so, the findings provide insights that point toward novel strategies to encourage healthy eating, they conclude. Such strategies could rely on factors such as “interpersonal communications, home design and atmospheric cues” including “music, dining landscape, and kitchen equipment, which have all been found to induce positive emotions in both everyday and laboratory contexts.”