Counting Sheep: More than just a good nights sleep?

On second thought, it might be easier to count coyotes these days. All jokes aside though, if you're trying to lose a few pounds and it's just not working, there is something in addition to food and exercise you need to consider. Hitting the sack eight hours a night. Sounds simple enough, but we're starting to learn more and more just how important this really is. Sleep can directly affect our weight, what we eat, and even the genes that determine our weight too. Just a single night of poor sleep can sabotage weight control by slowing metabolism, increasing hunger, and contributing to a myriad of other factors that directly affect our bodies, minds and ultimately the number on the scale. 

So why does this happen? When we don't get enough sleep oddly enough several things happen to physiologically prevent us from maintaining a healthy weight. Inadequate sleep lowers our natural metabolic rate so we end up burning calories less efficiently, often by as much as 20% less. We can also have higher levels of hormones running through our bodies which increase hunger, and don't leave us satisfied after a meal. Other research has shown sleep deprived people will consume on average an extra 300 calories daily, frequently higher fat food choices. 'Yes, I would like a lemon poppy seed muffin with my medium double double please'- sound familiar? People who get a good night of rest find it easier to resist overeating. Especially when it comes to consuming those high calorie foods. Of particular interest for us women, new preliminary findings are showing we are even more inclined to overeat and prefer junk when we feel tired throughout the day. As if this wasn't enough, a lack of sleep can also trigger stress hormones throughout the day. Ones which have been linked to extra weight around the belly. One of the most recent studies on sleep, only released last week, has taken the sleep-weight connection one step further. It's suggesting the less sleep we get, the more our genes contribute to how much we weigh, and vice versa.  So essentially individuals who sleep longer at night have a lower body mass index (BMI) and will be at less risk for health complications associated with such, than those sleeping fewer hours.

Often people have problems getting to sleep. Diet can actually be a contributing factor here sometimes. For some, caffeine, high fat meals, or drinking fluids close to bedtime can disturb sleep. Eating too much or too little can also disrupt sleep. Alcohol is somewhat of a double edged sword. Small amounts can aid in sleep, whereas larger amounts can worsen insomnia.

Six out of ten Canadians get less than the recommended sleep hours that experts suggest. So how much sleep is enough? Most will tell you it's anywhere from seven to nine hours a night. Among other things, like food, more isn't always better. People who sleep fewer than six hours a night, or more than nine are also more likely to be obese. Science tells us people who sleep less than eight hours a night often have the above body miscues and also higher levels of body fat. Those who sleep the fewest hours per night often weigh the most. The bottom line? If you snooze you lose win - just be sure it's around eight hours of shut eye. 

As seen in The Telegram May 7, 2012

Would You Like Tax With That?

Two recent topics really got my mind thinking outside the box the past few days. The release of the 2012-2013 provincial budget, and the new drive thru rules for the city of St. John's. At the end of March the city established new regulations for drive-thru businesses which included not being within 15 metres of homes or 150 metres of schools and daycares. Also just to recap, the government is facing a 258 million deficit after recording surpluses in six of the seven most recent years. So what do the two have to do with one another? Well, nothing to be honest. But it did get me thinking about an idea which to my knowledge hasn't been explored in St. John's. It is being actively pursued in other cities, most recently Charleston, South Carolina, and that's a fast food drive-thru user fee.

We know obesity is a factor of energy in (food) and the energy we put out (exercise). An imbalance in that equation can and will lead to weight change. This is just one, as there are many other contributors to the rise in obesity we currently see. Another significant contributor and one we often forget is that fast food is readily available and it's cheap. Amidst rising grocery store prices, we still see extra value menus, dollar menu items, and super sized meals for just pennies more. If the low cost of eating fast food is adding to the obesity problem, potentially the solution lies in increasing the cost. How can we give people the incentive to pay a little more? Increased physical effort? Lack of convenience? Certainly. This is where a drive-thru user fee could be not only helpful, but healthful too.

A drive-thru user fee, or tax would be like having someone pump your gas for you. A small service charge or  premium to each drive-thru order. Add 10% to each purchase (that's less than the tip while eating in) and leave the purchase of walk-in meals alone. At the very least, it may entice some to park and walk rather than waiting in the car.  

Some may argue it's an invasion of personal choice. Others might suggest that we are already being taxed enough, so why suggest to pay more? The rebuttal here is we tax cigarettes in part because of their health cost. Poor dietary choices and sedentary lifestyles are health choices with significant increased health costs as well. We all need to work together and encourage healthy eating and exercise. One individual’s personal decision to lead a sedentary lifestyle in the end actually costs all taxpayers.  Consider West Virginia, apparently the 'unhealthiest' state in the US. Just only weeks ago they banned all fast food drive-thru windows in an effort to get people moving and combat obesity. The idea of a tax really isn't that far fetched when you consider some of our American counterparts are out right banning the drive-thru windows.

Revenues from a fast food drive-thru tax could go directly to government health programs. A bigger budget to help trim bigger bellies. Another added bonus is it would help the environment too. Imagine. We could fight obesity, and reduce gas emissions from idling cars in parking lots and (dare I say) streets too.  More parked cars and less drive thru traffic will accomplish a feat or two for the city as well– making the area safer for pedestrian and drivers. Sounds like it could be a win-win-win.

As seen in The Telegram April 30, 2012