public healthy: parental eating habits don't mean squat

Interestingly, parents' eating habits dont' influence kids' eating behaviors nearly as much as one would think, according to some epidemiologists from Johns Hopkins. and that other factors- such as TV or advertising- may play a larger role in the kind of diets kids eat. This study made me a little sad, first because I think it's kinda depressing to think that the influence of TV might outweigh parents, who are actually giving the kids food. (Although this also makes me wonder- how do parents' TV watching habits impact kids? Maybe there's some relationship there, too, since parents are the ones spending the cash in the grocery store).

The study also says that very few parents actually did have healthy diets, and that their kids were more likely to eat healthy too. This makes sense: after all, what's the point of teaching kids about the food pyramid if Mom and Dad are chowing down on Mickey D's?

Lately I just keep wondering, why is it so complicated for adults (and in turn, their kids) to eat healthily? For all our good intentions, it just seems like we make this unnecessarily hard on ourselves. Someone needs to apply Occam's razor to this situach, and instead of bombarding us with endless conflicting studies, literature, education, and magazines, simplify the problem....so we can find, if not an easy solution, a livable and effective one. A person shouldn't have to have an advanced degree in nutrition or a loaded wallet to eat well each day.

(image from http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/ )

newsflash: giving presents to people influences them

Today, the New York Times released an article showing that medical students' preference for a certain drug was influenced when they received even small promotional gifts displaying the name of said drug:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/health/research/19beha.html?_r=1&ref=research


What I find more interesting than the study itself is why this comes as a surprise to anyone. We already know that giving meals and gifts to doctors makes them more likely to prescribe medications. Otherwise, the pharmaeceutical companies, who surely have done their research, wouldn't waste so much time or money producing logo-ridden pens, mugs, and clipboards. I think part of the reason why this issue is still so debated is because physicians think that, with their extensive training, presumable intelligence, and stringenet moral code, can rise above the influence marketing. Yet, according to Gerald Zaltman, Harvard Business School professor, 95% of cognition occurs in the subconscious mind. In fact, according to Zaltman, "(Studies) often reveal that what consumers actually believe or think, as measured by unconscious physical reactions, contradicts what they say when asked directly."

So of course docs are influenced--without knowing it--by the seemingly harmless "flare" pushed in their faces. Even the highest level of education can't, unfortunately, trump the subconscious. If it didn't work, Big Pharma wouldn't do it.

So if doctors are prescribing more expensive drugs for any other reason than efficacy, even unconsciously, might this drive up costs? Massachussetts law makers seemed to think so when they banned all gifts from pharmaceutical companies in an attempt to curb healthcare spending:

http://news.bostonherald.com/business/healthcare/view.bg?articleid=1088148&srvc=home&position=also

What I'm really curious to learn is whether or not this shift in legislation actually changed physician prescribing behavior. Did prescribing patterns change? Did cost decrease? Are people better or worse off for it?


I know I'm not a physician, but if anyone is looking to give me a gift anyway, here's something on my wishlist:





Ok, Ok, I know it's a shameless plug, but I'm turning 24 in a month and I need something to ease the pain!