1/3
of common cancers preventable with lifestyle changes
As
discussed on The Weekend Wake Up Show with Luke EisBrenner
on CJOB
680 am radio Sunday March 1, 2009 8:10 am. Listen to the
recording on CJOB's
audio vault
The
World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer
Research has released the second of two reports after
reviewing over 7000 studies on cancer. Their conclusions are
that 1/3 of the most common cancers are preventable through
eating healthy and being physically active.
Another
group, The
Canadian Heart Health Strategy and Action Plan, has the
same outcome recommendations, but for preventing Canada's
number one killer; heart disease.
According
to both groups billions of dollars will be saved, not to mention
all the lives saved, if governments spend big bucks on education
and prevention programs ranging from more aggressive food
label rules, banning trans fats, physical activity programs,
and walk/ bike paths.
What
I find interesting about these reports, and they come out
fairly regularly, is the response that such recommendations
are common sense and a waste of money because everyone knows
about the benefits of healthily living.
So,
we all know about the benefits of healthy living and don't
need a nanny state to hold our hands to the produce section
to tell us to buy veggies and enjoy eating them.
Really?
So
if we're all so smart and well endowed with common sense,
then why is the population more obese every year and why do
we have only 30% of the population getting more than 30 minutes
of daily physical activity?
Obviously
there is a gap between having common sense, and applying common
sense.
That
gap is this: We don't value healthy living.
Ask
just about anyone and they'll tell you straight up, the idea
of eating a delicious dessert and relaxing on the couch sounds
much more appealing than eating a healthy salad and going
for walk.
The
trouble is we don't make the link of risk, harm, and reward
appropriately. Healthy choices are seen as interfering with
enjoying life (sic) and unhealthy choices are seen as the
natural default preference of choice.
The
reason why these reports keep coming out is because our state
of health is getting worse because we continue to make unhealthy
choices. It's true many people get sick through no fault of
their own, even despite the healthiest lifestyle, but this
fact should not be used to dilute the truth that many people
set themselves up for serious illness through living unhealthy.
I'm
not playing a blame game here, I'm saying; living healthy
feels great.. feels liberating, and is nowhere near as challenging
as living with obesity, cancer, or heart disease.
Our
civil libertarians will tell us that we don't need governments
to tell us what we already know, and to stay out of our way
when it comes to making personal choices.
I
admit I have some libertarian views myself in that too much
regulation might be in conflict with whole idea of living
in a free democracy, but is this really what is at heart here?
I don't think so.
I
think that the "don't regulate me" response in this
context has more to do with personal denial than really wanting
to defend our democratic rights.
It's
simply easier to start talking about the concept of protecting
ourselves from over regulation than to address our own personal
lack of appreciation for making healthy choices.
The
way to get ourselves out of this mess is to start making healthy
living choices part of our everyday life. Can regulations
do that? If a city has a regulation to make more bike/ walk
paths will we have endless kilometres of unused make work
projects; or will we see more people using the infrastructure?
Every
city that I have been in that has major bike/ walk paths has
many of those paths as a locally cherished and well used recreational
and transportation feature. The river walk at The Forks Winnipeg
MB, The Sea Wall at Stanley Park/ False Creek in Vancouver
BC, similar attractions in Seattle WA, San Diego CA, Toronto
ON, and I'm sure, all over the world.
If
built properly these facilities are used and foster physical
activity.
What
about food labels. Looking for low sodium? Many companies
will boast a "low sodium" signature on their label
when trying to attract the low sodium consumer.
What
if all foods that had too much sodium in them had to put a
big red label front and centre; "Too much sodium".
Instantly a huge majority of processed foods would have this
big label on them. It would demonstrate just how many foods
are too high in sodium.
What
about processed foods that deliver calories, but no significant
vitamins and minerals?
For
those who care these labels would make a difference. For those
who don't care.. what then? What would happen if knowingly
unhealthy doses of sodium and fat were simply not allowed?
Imagine
being able choose foods having the confidence that no matter
what you chose it would not be too high or too low in anything..
Perhaps that's too idealistic to implement as there is nothing
to stop a person from simply eating more or less of something
to alter their intake.
So
we should do nothing at all then? Stay the course?
That
isn't working either.
One
thing we can do, that does not involve any complicated or
controversial government regulation is to make healthy living
more rewarding for us.
Set
a higher personal standard and reap the rewards. Do I feel
better about myself when I don't overeat? Yes. Will you? I
would bet on it.
My
take on this whole thing is;
1)
Take action yourself. Make healthy food choices and get active.
2) Use bike/ walk paths and if there aren't enough of those,
then your city ought to make more.
3) It is simply inhumane to sell foods that are unmistakably
unhealthy; regulate the extremes.
4) Get into the idea that healthy living will give you more,
not take away from what you already have.
©
2009 Cris LaBossiere Rhino Fitness
|
