<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.2" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Public Health Advice for the Next President - Exercise</title>
	<link>http://www.healthpolcom.com/blog/2008/07/01/public-health-advice-for-the-next-president-exercise/</link>
	<description>A Forum for Discussing and Analyzing Healthcare Issues</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:48:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Liz</title>
		<link>http://www.healthpolcom.com/blog/2008/07/01/public-health-advice-for-the-next-president-exercise/#comment-775</link>
		<dc:creator>Liz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:50:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.healthpolcom.com/blog/2008/07/01/public-health-advice-for-the-next-president-exercise/#comment-775</guid>
		<description>Mike, I think you have made an excellent choice.  Exercise is very important and most people do not do enough of it.  Even more important than that, it is not controversial!  I am not a Washington insider, but I can't imagine that anyone in power would disagree with encouraging exercise.  (Well, maybe companies that want people to watch TV or sit at a computer would object....)

My own belief is that diet is even more important than exercise.  So many diseases that are epidemic in our country -- including many of the ones you cited -- can be reversed with a healthy diet.  The problem is that there are a lot of vested interests regarding food (read "Food Politics" by Marion Nestle for more on that).  There is just no money in encouraging people to eat more fruits and vegetables...and a lot of money in encouraging them to do otherwise.  Even if a President were to prioritize diet, I don't think he/she could get very far at the current time.

I am not sure what to make of the article you cited.  I think of bone density as a surrogate measure;  would a 2% decrease in intertrochanteric bone density, in the setting of an 11% weight loss, really lead to increased hip fractures?  Or is it statistically significant but not clinically significant?  I guess that would have to be another (more expensive) study.

In any case, I think your answer was a good one, and I hope the next President was listening.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike, I think you have made an excellent choice.  Exercise is very important and most people do not do enough of it.  Even more important than that, it is not controversial!  I am not a Washington insider, but I can&#8217;t imagine that anyone in power would disagree with encouraging exercise.  (Well, maybe companies that want people to watch TV or sit at a computer would object&#8230;.)</p>
<p>My own belief is that diet is even more important than exercise.  So many diseases that are epidemic in our country &#8212; including many of the ones you cited &#8212; can be reversed with a healthy diet.  The problem is that there are a lot of vested interests regarding food (read &#8220;Food Politics&#8221; by Marion Nestle for more on that).  There is just no money in encouraging people to eat more fruits and vegetables&#8230;and a lot of money in encouraging them to do otherwise.  Even if a President were to prioritize diet, I don&#8217;t think he/she could get very far at the current time.</p>
<p>I am not sure what to make of the article you cited.  I think of bone density as a surrogate measure;  would a 2% decrease in intertrochanteric bone density, in the setting of an 11% weight loss, really lead to increased hip fractures?  Or is it statistically significant but not clinically significant?  I guess that would have to be another (more expensive) study.</p>
<p>In any case, I think your answer was a good one, and I hope the next President was listening.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
