Only 5% of Canadian Youth Active Enough: Report

The 2014 Active Healthy Kids Canada Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth is out.. and.. have to catch my breath.. that's a big title..

On page 10 of the 100+ page long form report I read stats that show about 5% of kids 5 to 17 years old get the recommended 60 minutes of daily moderate to vigorous physical activity, providing us Canadians with a D- grade.  Which maybe we can justify because hey, Australia and the US also were awarded a D- for youth physical activity, so maybe we're really leaders and onto something big.

Like our obesity.  From the 70's to present time childhood obesity has doubled from about 15% to 30%. About 60% of adults are overweight or obese.

I found it interesting that around 80% of parents believe that there is adequate infrastructure for physical activity for youth close to where they live, but only 37% of parents report being active with their kids.

75% of kids participate in organized sports. What's going on here? The report say's only 5% are active enough, yet also say's 75% of kids participate in sports.

The report breaks down some numbers:

75% of 5 to19 year olds in Canada participate in organized physical activities.

Of those, 46% do so year round and 53% participate for less than 8 months and up to 11 months of the year.

34% participate at least 4 times per week, 50% 2 to 3 times per week, and the rest drop off dramatically from there.

Of the whole 5 to 19 year old group participation drops from 83% of 5 to 10 year olds, to 61% of 15 to 19 year olds.

One study showed that 24% of kids playing organized soccer got at least 60 minutes of physical activity while only 2% of baseball players met this level of activity during their practice.  Hockey scored a 50% of kids meeting the 60 min physical activity bench mark.

After the drill down we can see how we can arrive at the overall low physical activity grade.

The report didn't mention anything about how some youth practices are actually over exuberant with getting young athletes to train too hard too soon, but that's another subject I guess.

The report goes on to mention how kids are getting too much screen time, don't walk enough for destinations that are within a reasonable walking distance, like perhaps school, after school activities, or whatever.

While there was some mention that we have developed a culture of convenience and that this influences us to drive instead of walk or ride a bike, I saw no mention of what I think is a larger influence overall.

We love overeating, don't like exercise, and hate being told what to do, especially where overeating and exercise are concerned.

The report did produce a line that I quite like, "we built it and they didn't come", referencing how Canada is actually one of the best equipped nations when it comes to infrastructure for active living like fitness centres, parks, arena's and walkways, but we don't seem to use these facilities that much.

It was also noted that 61% of parents agreed that their kids spend too much time watching TV or using the computer.

I could present you more of the stats, some of which are interesting, but I don't think this report addresses the real issue so I won't go into all the comparisons of Canada's provinces or Canada to other countries. If you're into that data, click the link to the report at the bottom of the page.

I wonder how much we're (adults) influencing our youth with our sedentary habits.

Most adults are overweight and out of shape.  You can certainly gather up a few thousand active people and make it look like there's a lot of interest in living healthy, but overall we're still trending towards increasing our waistline and decreasing our physical activity.

The most difficult task I've experienced as a coach in helping people switch to healthy living is getting people to let go of the reward associations with unhealthy living.  It's hard to not perceive that a walk around the park shouldn't be treated as a behavior that needs the reward of an ice-cream cone or two.

We also have this weird irony where most of the population is overweight, yet there is an unfair judgmental stigma against being overweight. Complicating the matter with another level of irony; although we're all aware of the idea that healthy choices really are better for us, we also offer unfair judgment to those who do make healthy choices; they're the "health nuts".

We have the idea that exercise is a punishment of sorts (which is why you're a nut.. self punishment), which is best delivered by either a screaming commando, methodologically plotted by a science geek, or gently conveyed through a mystic.. whatever way you cut it, exercise is hard, and is delivered by some kind of guru type who of course is a health nut.

So you're wrongly condemned for being overweight while living in a culture that adores and defends overeating, while also being wrongly condemned for making healthy choices while we all know we should be making healthier choices.  If you do make a healthy choice you have to begrudgingly  submit yourself to a health nut guru who's going to punish you and make you do things that you're not sure you really want to do.

The report didn't cover this.  Very few do.

It feels uncomfortable to talk about how we mess up by overemphasizing the reward of eating too much.  The reward attachment is strong, the cultural socialization is strong, and eating too much crap tastes pretty good too; don't want to give that up.

Where exercise is concerned we also have an number of conflicting habits and perceptions.  For those on the no exercise side, many can't see the value in it and may despise the idea of being told to exercise.  It feels too much like someone is meddling in personal affairs. Instead of taking healthy choices at face value, the choices are treated as a kind of oppression or social engineering attempt.

"Don't tell me what to do".  We can get pretty defensive when we're being told what to do, or think we're being told.

For others it's the old "no time" excuse.

For many who do exercise they often have unrealistic expectations of super gains over short periods and that hard exhaustive exercise is the only good exercise.  This soon fizzles out and ends with injury or simply giving up.

We're all messed up when it comes to a balanced and informed take on what exercise is why we do or don't do it.

Our youth are less and less active because adults are less and less active.  It's true that there is growth in the number of people taking up physical activity, which is great, but we still have faster growth in those who leaving being physical activity as well as our population growth overall, leaving space for the sedentary to outnumber the active.

It's in our culture to be inactive and eat too much.  We've socially engineered ourselves to live this way. Somehow we have to get a grip and reverse the trend.

I think a multilevel approach is good; we need reasonable easy access to being physically active, we need some of our tax dollars going towards projects that work, and we need non government resources to kick in as well.

We have all that happening now, but like the report said, we built it and they didn't come. The main piece we're missing is taking a step back from believing that overeating and inactivity are actually not worth the appreciation we assign.  We need to challenge the notion of what we think healthy eating and exercise really are.

I only gain fat when I eat too much.  I lose fitness when I don't exercise.  I feel better, am happier, and am more healthy when I eat healthy and keep up my exercise.

Healthy choices are not restrictive, they're liberating.

It's the unhealthy crap we love so much that is restricting.

Straighten this out, and we'll allow ourselves to naturally gravitate towards healthy choices instead of lamenting them.  It's likely our kids will model our behavior.  They already do now.

After all, who is really going to be motivated to give up something that is perceived as rewarding for something that isn't?

Canadian Youth Activity Report

Second Hand Smoke vs Car Exhaust

There is no such thing as smokers rights.  It's a euphemism.  It's fake.  It's a manipulative play on the more meaningful term, human rights.  It's interesting that the right to smoke somehow, without question, automatically defaults to being superior to the right to not inhale somebody else's second hand smoke if they don't want to.

So we're not really talking about a right here, more like righteousness.  Funny how those two get mixed up.

Speaking of so called Smokers rights is meant to hijack the emotions, connotations, and legitimacy that embody true human rights issues.  The poor helpless smokers are being abused and downtrodden and all they want to do is enjoy the simple pleasure of their personal choice to smoke.

I'm not buying it. Not when it's in a public place or in a work place where there are others who don't want to smoke but are given no choice when somebody decides to light up in the presence of others.

I'm pretty happy that if things keep going the way they are, I'll never have to inhale the odorous and harmful second hand, third hand, or side stream smoke from someone who's addiction clouds their judgment so profoundly that they actually believe it shouldn't be an issue for others who don't smoke, to have to contend with their habit.

Imagine sitting on a park bench that is absent of the cigarette butts that so many careless smokers discard thoughtlessly littering the sidewalk. I don't have to imagine this anymore.  There is already park space where smoking is banned.  It is quite nice to take in the tranquil vista of a park without a sea of cigarette butts and without the experience being interrupted with the punctuation of somebody's cigarette smoke.

Wouldn't it be great to be able to walk into a building and not have to run the gauntlet of smokers who clearly don't care that their actions affect others so negatively. Why yes, this is great. It is a palpable difference. It will be even better when such bylaws are more wide spread and actually respected.

My preference is to not have by-laws for this kind of thing.  But we do.  We know we need these by-laws because we know how incredibly harmful smoking is to everyone who is exposed to cigarette smoke.  Yet, many smokers overtly express their uncaring demeanours by smoking around those who don't smoke, even when it should be self evident this is not the right thing to do.  Uncaring? Sort of.  That's how these actions effect others.  But the smoker, who is addicted to a substance that provides a reward, is suffering from clouded judgement. That's one of the effects of addiction, it clouds judgment.  It allows the user to contrive justification for their habit, even at the expense of others, by enabling the perception that others needs are not as important their need to get a dose of the drug affecting them.

It isn't as though there are few and far between incidents of smokers conglomerating outside building entrances, there are often hoards of them stinking out the joint. But with newer bylaws that add distance from the entrance of buildings to where one can inhale death-sticks, the smokers gauntlet is thankfully becoming more uncommon.

And yes, wouldn't it be great for those who currently smoke to quit, to rid themselves of the ball and chain that hurts them emotionally and physically everyday.

Yes, that will be great when and if it happens.

Smoking is perhaps one of the most stupid decisions that a person could possibly make.  It's astounding that otherwise smart people still make the decision to smoke.

Or is it?  Addiction and long term habitualized practices are very difficult to overcome.  So is it actually a stupid decision to smoke?  Or, is it a complex addiction that alters reasoned thinking, interfering with the rational choice to quit or treat others respectfully?

It's equally astounding that smokers still try to create arguments to justify their habit.

There is no evidence that the earth is 5 to 10 thousand years old; it's literally impossible for this to be even remotely true, yet people still make up unbelievably crude reasons to suggest the earth is so young.

I put the arguments in favour of smoking in the same room.  It's just idealogical bafflegab.

When I used to smoke (shouldn't be a surprise), I recall knowing I was making a stupid decision, as well as making up all sorts of denial based rationalizations to justify continuing to smoke.

Demonizing non-smokers as panty-waisted do-gooders allowed me to feel superior to them, which made it seem ok to condescend to their cry's for me to be considerate of their precious clean air.

I'm just telling it like it is.  I made these mistakes.

I remember hearing from other smokers that those do-gooder non-smokers are hypocrites because they drive cars that pollute, yet get angry with smokers for stinking out the air people breath.  This doesn't really make sense, but when I was a smoker, I wanted it to make sense so I could find more excuses to defend my addiction (there's the clouded judgment).

I hear smokers and smoking apologists today making this talking point but baseless argument.  They argue that since car exhaust is bad for you, and you wilfully drive a car, that therefore you're a hypocrite, and your anti-smoking argument is invalid.

It's a false equivelency logical fallacy.

Car exhaust being unhealthy, doesn't make cigarette smoke healthy, or invalidate raising concern for the ill-healt effects of smoking.

Usually I write this argument off as faulty reasoning, but I decided to put the rhetoric to the test.  How do car exhaust and smoking compare to each other?  Has anyone done this? I thought this argument was a joke, born out of the defensiveness of an addiction tormented myopic mind.

But I was wrong.  Researchers have in fact compared car exhaust to cigarette smoke, with both coming out, unsurprisingly, as bad for you.

So here's what I found:

Is anything being done about the emissions from cars? Yes, this problem is being aggressively worked on and cars pollute far less than ever before, more is needed, especially in light of the VW diesel scandal. Electric car sales are increasing every year, taking a growing piece of the market.  Tesla is selling more units of luxury cars compared to BMW and Mercedes in some markets.

Likewise, in recognition of how harmful smoking is, great efforts have been made to curtail smoking in public places, as well as efforts to help people quit smoking.  So in reality both sources of noxious fumes are fully recognized as harmful and both are simultaneously being dealt with via industry standards, by-laws and public education (with the exception that cigarette smoke is still just as harmful as it's ever been, compared to low emission cars, hybrids, and electric cars which all pollute less).

There isn't really an either - or.  It's a phoney premise to pit smoking against car exhaust as a reason to smoke in public.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

The whole car exhaust vs cigarette smoke thing seems to be non sequitur in the ban smoking bylaw debate.

The argument is based on the idea that without question, car exahst is inexorably more noxious than second hand cigarette smoke, followed by the leap of logic that therefore cigarette smoke is not really a concern.

Here's an interesting study:  Second-hand cigarette smoke contains 10 times the fine particulate matter than does exhaust from an ecodiesel car.

Researchers compared (1) a car idling for 30 minutes to 3 cigarettes burning for 30 minutes.  The study took place in a garage where the doors were closed and the fine particulate matter of the car and cigarettes were measured.

The cigarettes produced 10 times the fine particulate matter as the car.

Here's a report (2) that uses second-hand smoke as the default comparator when assessing traffic pollution.  The title says it all, Traffic Pollution Is as Harmful for Kids as Second-hand Smoke.

It's not like this is anything new.  A report published 1999 (3)  (j.College Sci. Teaching) highlights a common freshman laboratory experiment where car exhaust is compared to cigarette smoke with the latter having higher concentrations of carbon monoxide than a well maintained vehicle.

Interesting studies. I haven't heard of anyone dying immediately of smoke inhalation in a smokey room (from cigarette smoke), but of course we know a person can die of carbon monoxide poisoning if they stay in closed garage with an internal combustion engine running. Even so, to try to argue in favour of smoking because it doesn't kill you quickly like carbon monoxide poisoning does, would be another logical fallacy. Smoking still makes your life worse and can definitely kill you. These studies quantify the airborne pollutants from cigarettes that harm us. You won't die the day you're in a smokey room, but your lungs are still harmed, there's increased carbon monoxide in your blood, and the chances of you dying younger are proven.

Also interesting is how easily we can fall into denial and rationalization of facts that compete with what we want to believe or don't want to hear.

Smokers tend to rationalize smoking and lash out at those who show concern for them and their health. Thats the power of addiction; it clouds judgement.  The reward seeking brain circuitry that is present in addicted smokers is profound.  An addicted smoker will find themselves making all kinds of excuses to justify smoking because the nicotine reward is profound, and they will feel strongly compelled to continue revisiting the reward.

That's what the real issue is here; convoluted and impaired reasoning spurred by addiction.  There actually is no real or justifiable argument that supports smoking.

The world will be a better place with fewer people smoking.  People will feel better physically and emotionally, will be more healthy, and this isn't a bad thing or something that should spur arguments.

There have been many times where the callus actions of smokers have been intolerable to me.  And I'm making no bones about that. It happens, it's real. Overall though, people who smoke are suffering, whether or not they feel comfortable about accepting that for themselves or talking about it to others. Sometimes that reflexive action of doubling down and lashing out just takes over.

Slowly though, more restrictions of where people can smoke are being put in place. Ardent smokers will often choose to perceive this in a way to protect their denial based narrative: big brother is trying to restrict them personally.  But really it's about protecting everyone from the harms of smoking.  It simply isn't fair to dose people with deadly carcinogenic particles to suit ones own addiction.

Societally I think we have to continue to mature, which in my mind includes stopping things like smoking.  There is no safe level of smoking, it's just stupid.  Most people have managed to realize the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. This is the level of understanding that smoking is bad for us.  There isn't any point debating it, because the facts are in and the debate is over.  Smoking can't do anything good for us, it can only harm us.  It's just the way it is.

Offence was not meant to the smokers who actually give a damn about others, which is probably most smokers.. but.. due to addiction.. any person battling addiction can end up making bad choices that harm themselves as well as others.

(1) Particulate matter from tobacco versus diesel car exhaust:

an educational perspective 

(2)

Traffic Pollution Is as Harmful for Kids as Second-hand Smoke

(3) COMPARING THE CO CONTENT OF CIGARETTE SMOKE ANDAUTO EXHAUST USING GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY

Your best New Year's resolution

How do you feel when you make a New Year's resolution?  Do you feel good, elated that you're finally going to do something about those nagging procrastinations?

Is there any self doubt in whether or not you'll follow through?

How do you feel after 8 weeks when you've completely abandoned every effort to fulfill your resolutions?

New years resolutions are nothing more than a superficial cultural tradition that in reality amounts to little white lies we tell ourselves sprinkled with some mutual pats on the back for announcing that we're hitting the reset button for sure this year.

It's an act.  Everyone plays their part and we all behave as though the "new you" thing is real, that is until enough time has passed that we relieve ourselves from the roll-playing we do during the annual short term facade.

Come on, really.  Why the emphasis on January 1 compared to any other day of the year?  Break it down.  It really makes no sense at all.

The New Years resolution is dead before it starts as it's only made because of the cultural tradition, not because of a real sense of a need to do better.  Each year the tired and over-hyped rehearsal is repeated and nothing happens.

Let's remove the context of the annual prophecy illusion and look at how to turn around common tribulations like stress, weight issues, poor fitness, crappy eating, and smoking.

One of the most important investments we can make in changing any of our deleterious behaviours is working on changing our sense of reward we have with them.

If we really believe that smoking gives us something good in addition to something bad, we'll continue to justify doing it.  Ditto with overeating and burning the candle at both ends forgoing precious sleep to chase whatever it is we're chasing.

When healthy choices like fresh fruits and veggies, going to bed early, and getting regular exercise are seen as intrusions into our lives, we're unlikely to feel internally motived to make the changes we need to.

It's hard enough overcoming addiction and brain chemistry based adaptations that keep us in a negative spiral.  Why make it harder by trying to justify some level of "good" associated with bad habits?

Research shows us that when we value our bad habits we're more likely to find ways to gradually justify them more and more until we eventually return the way we were living before our New Years epiphany to do better.

My number one piece of advice, if I may, is stop lying to yourself.  That's a big one.  That means looking at denial in the face, accepting that big goals to reinvent ourselves overnight are just fluff we tell ourselves to feel good about voicing something that sounds good but really is fake.

Relief from setting unrealistic goals feels good.  Much less pressure.

Goals can work, I'm not saying no goals.

Start with something easy.. "why do I feel compelled to keep over eating (or whatever)".  Start finding the answer to that and you'll start finding the solution to how to stop.

Living healthy makes us feel really good.  It makes us stronger, smarter, more energetic, and more resistant to injury and illness.  That's worth it.

Maintaining bad habits delivers short term perceived reward, followed by misery.  What's the point in that?

Instead of making a goal to lose 10, 20, 30, 100 pounds, think about making healthy living something that's very rewarding.  If you make a goal to lose 10 pounds you may get there, then say; now what?

Chances are after a meeting a weight loss goal a person will feel justified to overeat and will regain all the weight lost, plus more.

When the goal is a lifestyle change and a change in values, beliefs, and sense of reward with healthy habits, it's more likely that a person will will be successful long term.

What's better, quitting smoking because it's bad, or because healthy living without smoking is far better?

Maybe the best idea isn't to try and delicate the two so much, and to recognize removing self harm and replacing with self help is more productive.  Simply quitting is a huge benefit.  Adding healthy habits adds more benefit.

Find ways to think positively about the changes you want to make, while maintaining a realistic recognition of the harm of unhealthy choices.

Make small changes gradually and think about adapting healthy habits for the purpose of living a healthy, happy life with fewer vices that drag you down.

Simple changes:

Go for a walk.

Do some push ups.

Eat an apple instead of a donut.

Double your veggie servings and reduce your meat serving.

Whatever you eat, eat less of it.

Go for a walk instead of lighting up a smoke.  (I used riding my bike to quit smoking).

When you see the success you can get with small attainable changes you may start seeing that you can make progress and leave the old habits behind.

Avoid having an endpoint or a certain deadline to achieve your "goal".  Make the goal to live with the new habits, this way it's a lifestyle change and a new purpose instead of a short term goal that will ultimately backfire because all you really did was use will power to avoid the bad habit that you still find rewarding.  Axe the reward association with the bad habit, work on feeling good about the new habit and the new will become the normal.

Try it.  Buy an apple, eat it.  That was easy!

Keep up the healthy habits most days for the rest of your life and you'll be set.