America's Health: How do states compare?

A report called "America’s Health Starts With Healthy Children: How Do States Compare?" is getting quite a lot of play in the consumer press. The study was issued by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and can be found here. A few of the study's finding relate to the effect of income on health. Here is an excerpt from the "key findings" subsection:


Nationally, and in every state, the percent of children with less than optimal health varied with family income. Compared with higher-income children (in families with incomes at or above 400% of the Federal Poverty Level), children in poor families (below 100% of the Federal Poverty Level) were more likely—over six times as likely, in some states—to be in less than optimal health. Differences were not confined to comparisons between the top and bottom groups. With few exceptions, children in middle-income families (200-399% of the Federal Poverty Level) also appear more likely—over twice as likely, in some states—than children in higher-income families to be in less than optimal health.

Is dietary knowledge enough? Was Rome built in a day?

A new USDA ERS report asks the rhetorical question, "Is dietary knowledge enough?" The full title of the report is "Is Dietary Knowledge Enough? Hunger, Stress, and Other Roadblocks to Healthy Eating."

Of course, we all know that dietary knowledge is indeed not enough, or else many of use would be eating far more vegetables and fruits and far fewer cookies and $1 double cheeseburgers. But the report gives a much fuller examination of the issue, and points the finger at away from home eating as the downfall of many. From the report's summary:

When individuals extend the interval between meals or consume more of their food away from home, they are significantly more likely to consume more calories and more calories from solid fats, alcohol, and added sugars (discretionary calories) at each eating occasion. For example, going 5 hours between meals instead of 4 adds about 52 calories for someone on a diet of 2,000 calories per day; extending that interval from 4 to 6 hours would add about 91 calories to the meal. Going longer stretches between meals is also estimated to lower diet quality at each meal. The location at which someone makes his or her food choices and when these choices are made significantly affects what and how much is consumed. Not surprisingly, people are estimated to consume more calories when eating foods from a restaurant compared with foods prepared at home—about 107 more calories per meal. The model suggests that people who work more hours in a week—a proxy for time pressures—are also more influenced by the interval between meals than those who work fewer hours. As an individual who works more hours in a week goes longer between meals, he or she will choose a meal that is significantly higher in calories, higher in discretionary calories, and lower in diet quality. At 4 hours between meals, an individual who works 40 hours a week is estimated to eat about 20 percent more calories than someone who is not employed. At 8 hours between meals, the calorie discrepancy jumps to nearly 40 percent.
Our model shows that a situational change in caloric intake and diet quality is more pronounced among individuals who are less informed about diet and nutrition. A person with a knowledge score of 50 (from USDA’s Diet and Health Knowledge Survey) is estimated to increase per-meal caloric intake by about 28 percent when eating away from home, while a person whose score is 100 points is estimated to eat about only 12 percent more calories. As people change their dietary goals based on prevailing nutritional beliefs, situational factors like hunger and time pressures will continue to interfere with long-term health objectives. Making specific reference to such situations and suggesting ways to mitigate their effects should enhance the usefulness of educational campaigns designed to improve diet quality. For example, encouraging consumers to take more active control in limiting the interval between meals and choosing nutrient-dense snacks, such as fruits and vegetables, may help them better align their intentions to eat well with their actual behavior. Limiting intake of foods prepared away from home is also estimated to significantly decrease caloric consumption. Thus, another possibility would be to encourage individuals to plan ahead or seek out information about nutrient and caloric content of foods prepared away from home.

TK: The message: eat at home and don't wait so long between meals. Practical tips for consumers in their semi-serious quest to lose weight.

A holiday reminder

This story tells us five foods that control appetite, and two of the five are fresh produce. Number one is water, number two is leafy greens, number three is instant banana pudding, number four is pickles and number five is apples. One great quote: "I dare you to eat 1,000 calories of apples - it's impossible." Pecan pie, on the other hand....

Another reminder for the holidays - because of canker, no Florida citrus can be shipped to other citrus states this year, even as part of a gift package.

Shocking but true

Young people who prepare their own food at home instead of going out to eat have healthier diets than their peers who eat out more often, one U.S. study finds. I suppose it would take a dedicated junk food fiend with a flair for the kitchen to eat worse than a Whopper, french fries and a milk shake. The University of Minnesota study does make one helpful suggestion: young people need to be taught how to prepare economical and healthful meals. Even among those who prepared food at home, only about 3 in 10 met the threshold of five servings of fruits and vegetables a day.