Tag: Lets

  • To combat obesity, let’s change how we measure ourselves

    To combat obesity, let’s change how we measure ourselves

    When Mary Garrett was a child, kids walked to school and played outside after school. But today is a different world. Now Garrett worries about the lifestyles of the children she sees at the Tatnall School, in the U.S. state of Delaware, where she is a nurse. 

    “I don’t think kids have that kind of opportunity anymore,” she said. “I think the lifestyle changes, even having fewer sidewalks, like the neighborhood we live in now doesn’t have sidewalks.” 

    Kids, she said, don’t have that flexibility and freedom anymore. And that could be a big reason that so many young people are overweight.

    According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), 1 in 6 children ages 2-19 in the United States are classified as overweight, while 1 in 5 children are diagnosed with obesity. Severe obesity has also increased from 7.7% of the population to 9.7% in two years. On the global scale, obesity has similarly skyrocketed. 

    The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that obesity has more than doubled in adults since 1990 and more than quadrupled in adolescents. 

    According to the WHO, in 2022, 2.5 billion adults were overweight. 37 million children under the age of 5 are classified as overweight. 

    Changing the way we measure weight

    Many factors contribute to obesity, such as genetics, types and amount of food and drink consumed, physical activity, sleep habits and access to necessities like areas to exercise and food. Nurse Garrett concludes that two key factors are physical activity and the rising convenience and prevalence of processed snacks. As the rise of a more sedentary lifestyle, for instance, not walking to school, becomes more popular, the need to spend time outdoors engaging in activity becomes even more critical. 

    In a report published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology journal, a group of 58 experts are recommending that obesity should no longer be defined by a BMI, or body mass index that is calculated according to height and weight, but by a combination of measurements, including waist circumference and evidence of health issues.

    The new classification for BMI makes it easier to determine obesity, which begins to tackle the issue of where obesity stems from and how to prevent it in children as young as age two.

    The NIH defines being obese as “a person whose weight is higher than what is considered to be a normal weight for a given height is described as being overweight or having obesity.” 

    However, Garrett said that that definition is not that simple. “BMI was actually based on a white man’s profile. So it doesn’t take into account females versus males, Latino versus white,” Garrett said.

    Yet, obesity is not restricted to one demographic. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the prevalence of severe obesity is 9.4% higher in women than in men in the United States, while it is significantly lower in adults with at least a bachelor’s degree.

    Keeping kids healthy

    Access to nutritional food, outdoor spaces in which to exercise, and unhealthy sleep habits are a global concern, particularly in developing countries. Wilmington, Delaware, is no exception. Doctors calculate a person’s weight status from a young age, beginning with a child’s pediatrician.

    The weight of a child is calculated based on comparison with other same-age and same-sex children using charts from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. The subject of obesity and living a healthy lifestyle is a critical conversation for parents to have as they raise the next generation.

    There are an endless number of factors that can lead to a person being overweight or being diagnosed with obesity. 

    The NIH says that genetics and medical conditions, two variables outside of anyone’s control, can make it difficult to maintain a healthy weight. Obesity can also increase the risk of health problems like type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. Yet, there are modern societal factors besides just potato chips and soda that have emerged that play a large role in the rising rate of obesity in the United States. 

    Garrett sees kids eating processed foods a lot. “I think there’s also changes in our food and eating habits that could have an impact,” she said. “I think a lot of our food choices have been impacted by marketing.” 

    Pushing junk food

    A rise in advertising for processed foods on television, which the overwhelming majority of children have access to in the United States, contributes to this. 

    Researchers at the University of Ottawa in 2021 found that on average, children see approximately 1,000 food-related advertisements on television each year. Yet, can you remember the last time you saw an ad for a salad, or maybe grilled salmon with vegetables? Probably not. But it’s likely you saw a Burger King ad in the past day, maybe even twice or more a day. 

    Most advertised products boast organic ingredients or appeal to certain dietary plans. Garrett, on the other hand, questions whether a vegan and gluten-free protein bar is healthier than simply making a peanut butter sandwich on homemade or whole bread. 

    This poses the question: What role are parents playing in a child’s view of what is healthy and what isn’t?

    Kids can’t be expected to be well-versed in healthy choices from the moment they are born. It is up to the parents or guardians to educate and provide an example for children as they learn to make their own choices. 

    Tackling family obesity

    Globally, there is a clear relationship between parent and child obesity. In a study published in 2021, researchers from Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine in South Korea found that children with overweight or obese parents are 1.97 times more likely to be overweight or obese than peers with healthy-weight parents.

    Garrett is a parent and believes that a lack of education could be one of the reasons why so many parents struggle to properly educate their children on healthy choices. 

    “I don’t think we learn enough about nutrition and guidance for families to best raise their children as healthy eaters and healthy people,” Garrett said. She pointed to the ‘MyPlate’ symbol created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to showcase the five food groups and how much of each should be consumed at each meal. “I’m not really sure that the [U.S. Department of Agriculture] is always giving us the most comprehensive healthy information,” she said.

    What we need, she said, is to teach more about nutrition. When giving students guidance on what healthy eating looks like, as well as educating parents on nutritional components, a healthy diet is sure to be an easy skill to master. 

    Another flaw with how we define obesity is its lack of incorporation of athletes. Researchers in Australia in 2018 found that athletes, or those who train daily for a specific sport, have a significantly lower BMI than the average person. 

    Weight differs from person to person

    Garrett said that the absence of a clearly specified description of BMI for athletes can pose many types of problems.

    “You could put an athlete who weighs, I’m just making this up, but say 5’10” weighs 160 next to another person who’s 5’10” and weighs 140 and their BMI could be the same, but the athlete is more muscle and the other person is perhaps more fat,” Garrett said. 

    This explains what many athletes struggle with: knowing what is healthy when performing and exercising at a high level.  Two teens may have a similar height and weight, but one may be a top-notch athlete who practices their sport for up to three hours a day. This difference completely changes what the USDA or other medical resources may say about appropriate nutrition. 

    This factor, which includes many school-age children who participate in school or club sports, adds another layer to the question of whether the body mass index is a good way to measure obesity and being overweight or not. 

    As a distance runner since the sixth grade, proper fueling has long been a topic of both interest and necessity for me. However, with the rise of ads for different processed foods and fitness influencers online, I began to question my own relationship with food. Was what I was eating healthy enough? Would eating less make me faster?

    Food and health

    Food not only provides for your body physically, but also mentally. A positive relationship with nutrition has long been something I have worked on achieving, particularly as I became more competitive in my sport. I learned that not only does food give me strength, but it also gives me the power to perform to my best ability. 

    Underfueling can be the source of injury and a negative and self-deprecating mindset, and is not talked about enough when discussing an athlete’s mental and physical health.

    I can’t compare my body to another that doesn’t run 40-mile weeks or who doesn’t race competitively. Learning about the right choices to keep my body healthy and ready to perform at a high level has been one of the most critical aspects of my athletic career. 

    As obesity rates continue to rise, it is critical to continue educating the next generations on the right steps to take in making healthier choices. It can be as simple as promoting fruits and vegetables over a bag of chips at school or planning a family bike ride instead of playing video games. 

    With new definitions for BMI adding a new complex layer to the quest to reduce obesity, nothing is as important as staying on top of suggestions and guidelines from medical experts. Becoming well-educated on healthy habits can affect not only an individual but also the people around them. 

    As Garrett concludes: “I think we could change a lot by teaching our kids and families.”


    Questions to consider:

    • How is obesity measured?

    • What are some factors that contribute to weight problems?

    • Can you think of ways schools can help children and teens live a healthier lifestyle?

     

     

    Source link

  • UConn Med now lets students opt out of DEI pledge of allegiance

    UConn Med now lets students opt out of DEI pledge of allegiance

    Great news: UConn School of Medicine administrators are going scalpels down on the school’s attempt to forcibly transplant politics and ideology into its incoming student body. 

    In 2022, UConn finalized its own version of the Hippocratic Oath, which includes a promise to “actively support policies that promote social justice and specifically work to dismantle policies that perpetuate inequities, exclusion, discrimination and racism.” Most recently, UConn required the incoming class of 2028 to pledge allegiance not simply to patient care, but to support diversity, equity, and inclusion.

    In January, an admissions staff member at the medical school told FIRE that the oath is mandatory for students. That’s a problem because, as a public university, UConn is strictly bound by the First Amendment and cannot compel students to voice beliefs they do not hold. 

    Concerned about this and similar cases, FIRE wrote the UConn School of Medicine on Jan. 31, calling on the school to make clear that students have every right to refuse to pledge allegiance to DEI. 

    We got back radio silence.

    After following up via email, we finally got some good news from UConn. The school’s communications director clarified, “UConn’s medical school does not mandate nor monitor a student’s reciting of all or part of our Hippocratic Oath, nor do we discipline any student for choosing to not recite the oath or any part of it.”

    Public institutions have every right to try to address any bias that might impact medical education. But forcing med students to pledge themselves to DEI — or any other political ideology — is First Amendment malpractice. They have no more right to do so than they do to force students to pledge allegiance to a political figure, or to the American flag. 

    In the landmark 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court held that students could not be forced to salute the American flag, saying, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” 

    In the medical context it gets even worse, as these nebulous commitments could become de facto professionalism standards, with students facing punishment for failing to uphold them. (After all, they took an oath!) What, exactly, must a medical student do to “support policies that promote social justice?” Presumably, that would be for UConn to determine. And if a student disagrees with UConn’s definition of “social justice” or chooses not to promote it in the prescribed way, could she be dismissed for violating her oath? 

    FIRE has repeatedly seen administrators of professional programs — including medicine, dentistry, law, and mortuary science — deploy ambiguous and arbitrarily defined “professionalism” standards to punish students for otherwise protected speech. It’s no stretch to imagine it happening here as well.

    UConn isn’t alone in making changes to its version of the Hippocratic Oath. Other prestigious medical schools, including those at Harvard, Columbia, Washington University, Pitt Med, and the Icahn School of Medicine have adopted similarly updated oaths in recent years. However, not all schools compel students to recite such oaths. 

    When we raised concerns in 2022 about the University of Minnesota Medical School’s oath, which includes an affirmation that the school is on indigenous land and a vow to fight “white supremacy,” the university confirmed that students are not obligated to recite it. 

    We’re glad that UConn has now done the same. FIRE celebrates this surgical success, and we won’t stand by while schools try to graft ideology onto student minds.

    Source link

  • Free speech advocates converge to support FIRE’s ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ federal court appeal

    Free speech advocates converge to support FIRE’s ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ federal court appeal

    FIRE, supported by a wave of prominent organizations and scholars as “friends of the court,” has appealed a district court’s ruling that limited the rights of students to attend middle and high school wearing clothes bearing the “Let’s Go Brandon” political slogan. FIRE is asking a federal appeals court to strike down the decision below and uphold freedom of expression for public school students, and a broad spectrum of free speech advocates and language experts are backing us up.

    So what happened? In April 2023, FIRE sued a west Michigan school district and two administrators for preventing two students from wearing “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts. The “Let’s Go Brandon” slogan originated during an October 2021 NASCAR race. After the race, won by Brandon Brown, members of the crowd chanted “Fuck Joe Biden” during Brown’s post-race interview. A commentator remarked that the fans were shouting “Let’s Go Brandon!” 


    WATCH VIDEO: NASCAR fans chant “Fuck Joe Biden” after the race.

    Since then, the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and Republican members of Congress have used the phrase widely, including during Congressional floor speeches, to show their displeasure with the Biden administration. The “Let’s Go Brandon” slogan airs uncensored on broadcast television, national cable news, and broadcast radio for all to hear. In the case on appeal, FIRE’s clients wore their “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts to school to express their disapproval of Biden and his administration. 

    During the lawsuit, the school acknowledged the students did not cause any disruption with their apparel. Yet this past August, the District Court for the Western District of Michigan upheld the school district’s censorship of “Let’s Go Brandon” apparel, holding “Let’s Go Brandon” is legally indistinguishable from “Fuck Joe Biden” and therefore constitutes “profanity.” 

    As FIRE’s appeal argues, that’s not how speech works. “Heck” is not the same as “hell,” “darn” is not the same as “damn,” and “Let’s Go Brandon” is not the same as “Fuck Joe Biden.” The government may not censor public school students’ political expression absent substantial disruption. Nor may school districts bypass this First Amendment protection by dubbing disfavored political speech “profane.” 

    This case will play a critical role in protecting the rights of other minor students to engage in non-disruptive political expression as guaranteed under the First Amendment.

    Last week, 18 individuals and organizations, including some of the world’s foremost linguistic experts, joined together to file eight amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” briefs in support of minors’ free speech rights. These briefs urge the Sixth Circuit to recognize what has long been understood outside the courtroom — sanitized expression is, by design, distinguishable from the profane language it replaces: 

    Linguistic Scholars: Dr. Melissa Mohr, Dr. Rebecca Roache, Professor Timothy Jay, Professor John H. McWhorter, and Professor Steven Pinker are internationally recognized linguistic scholars whose works focus on the history, psychology, and sociology of swearing. Each has written extensively on how language works and the role it continues to play in society. Together, they submitted a brief through Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, helpfully delineating the different types of “sanitized expression,” including euphemisms like “Let’s Go Brandon,” and describing their ubiquity and importance in political discourse. As they state at the beginning of their brief: “This case is not about swearing; it is about not swearing.”

    First Amendment Scholars: Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Professor Clay Calvert, Professor Roy Gutterman, Professor Mary-Rose Papandrea, and Professor Joseph A. Tomain submitted an amicus brief through Cornell Law School’s First Amendment Clinic and attorney Michael Grygiel. Drawing on decades of study, the scholars methodically apply seminal First Amendment decisions to this particular case. Their brief argues: “the lower court failed to apply Tinker’s ‘substantial disruption’ test, as required when schools seek to prohibit student expression within the school environment that communicates a political message,” and thus “departed from longstanding public student constitutional free speech principles.”

    Liberty Justice Center: The Liberty Justice Center’s amicus brief asserts the district court’s decision represents an unprecedented expansion of “profanity” and is part of a nationwide increase in political censorship. The brief describes how “censorship of entirely mainstream political discourse has become all too common around the country” and school authorities increasingly seek to restrict free expression. The LJC argues that the district court’s opinion exacerbates this growing problem, by authorizing schools to treat “every euphemism . . . as the equivalent of its reference.”

    Dhillon Law Group, Young America’s Foundation, and Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute: These organizations submitted an amicus brief asserting the lower court’s failed to properly apply Tinker and its progeny to the students’ “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts, which likewise represented political, non-profane student speech. Through careful analysis of First Amendment doctrine, their brief explains that the “district court erred in disregarding the political nature of appellants’ ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ apparel” and undervaluing the importance of First Amendment protections in K-12 public schools.

    National Coalition Against Censorship: The National Coalition Against Censorship submitted an amicus brief through Covington & Burling LLP to challenge the district court’s categorization of “Let’s Go Brandon” as unprotected “profane” expression. The brief argues that the “district court’s analysis would create a new, ill-defined category of ‘euphemistic’ profanity,” and “give school officials wide latitude to silence viewpoints they find objectionable, a result at odds with existing First Amendment doctrine.” The brief asserts that the lower court’s decision “represents a serious departure from our nation’s historical commitment to protecting political speech” and urges the Sixth Circuit to reverse. 

    Manhattan Institute: The Manhattan Institute’s amicus brief emphasizes the critical importance of preserving free speech rights in K-12 public schools, where students develop the skills necessary to productively engage in democratic society. The brief describes case law reflecting the importance of these freedoms in primary and secondary schools — and argues the district court’s opinion fails to “accurately reflect this understanding.”

    Parents Defending Education: Parents Defending Education submitted an amicus brief through Consovoy McCarthy PLLC arguing that the district court’s decision cannot be reconciled with First Amendment principles. The brief emphasizes how the school codes at issue in this case are part of a growing and concerning “trend of schools adopting speech codes prohibiting controversial speech.” And the brief asserts each of the cases relied on by the lower court are distinguishable.

    Buckeye Institute: The Buckeye Institute’s amicus brief contends that under established First Amendment doctrine, “[r]egulation of speech under the First Amendment should constitute a rare exception.” Yet, they argue, the Michigan school district, motivated by desire to censor what it deems undesirable speech, disregarded that doctrine in order to censor non-disruptive political speech “that does not fall within one of the Supreme Court’s approved exceptions” to the First Amendment’s protection. 

    Our clients and their counsel are grateful for the support of this impressive and diverse amicus coalition. This case will play a critical role in protecting the rights of other minor students to engage in non-disruptive political expression as guaranteed under the First Amendment.

    Source link

  • Let’s Learn About Telehealth (Sessions from the National Telehealth Conference)

    Let’s Learn About Telehealth (Sessions from the National Telehealth Conference)

    In May, I was pleased to see the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) offer a virtual Telehealth Conference. I am always on the lookout for good professional development opportunities, so I signed up. 

    My schedule had a conflict on that day and I was unable to attend, BUT they posted videos of the sessions online. I was so excited and I could not wait to block time on my schedule, grab some lunch, and listen to the sessions.

    You can listen to the sessions as well!

    Here is a list of the sessions and the video links:

    Leaders from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will discuss priorities and highlight key efforts across the Department to expand access to telehealth services.

    Providers and experts will discuss telehealth’s key role in access to behavioral health services as well as the integration of behavioral and physical health services, especially for those in underserved communities.

    This session will discuss ongoing efforts to facilitate access to inter-state telehealth services through HRSA’s Licensure Portability Grant Program.  Through this program, HRSA provides support to the Federation of State Medical Boards and the Association of State and Provincial Psychology Boards.  Participants will learn about current options to address licensure portability reform and have an opportunity to provide feedback.

    This session will discuss key policy and infrastructure issues at the state and federal level needed to ensure continued access to telehealth beyond the COVID-19 public health emergency.

    This session will discuss key considerations for integrating telehealth in various medical settings.  Participants will learn of current models and provide input on ways to address challenges and barriers.

    This session will provide an overview of Federal efforts and resources to improve access to broadband, which is a key component to the delivery of telehealth services as well as other social determinants of health.

    This session will discuss current efforts to assist providers in using telehealth and considerations for training the workforce for tomorrow. Issues to be discussed will include provider-to-provider mentoring, developing telehealth curriculum for providers and addressing burnout.

    This session will provide participants with an opportunity to learn more about the HRSA supported Telehealth Resource Centers including their work and expertise in assisting providers with implementing telehealth services.

    This session will discuss leveraging telehealth technology in addressing and treating COVID-19.

    Experts will discuss the key telehealth issues and priorities identified by their stakeholders and how those telehealth issues may evolve beyond the pandemic.

    Check out the sessions. Which session was your favorite?

    ***

    Check out my book – Retaining College Students Using Technology: A Guidebook for Student Affairs and Academic Affairs Professionals.

    Remember to order copies for your team as well!


    Thanks for visiting! 


    Sincerely,


    Dr. Jennifer T. Edwards
    Professor of Communication

    Executive Director of the Texas Social Media Research Institute & Rural Communication Institute

    Source link