Late one night recently, I watched the documentary "Supersize Me." One of the many factoids I remember from my hazy late night viewing was that one of the doctors said that most of us get from between 3,000 steps per day (very sedentary) to 6,000 steps per day (average) as we go about our normal activities. He said we should aim for 10,000 steps per day. That got me thinking--how much do I walk each day?
I figured that since I live in the country with three kids, a dog, and a two story house that I probably walked more than the average, but those old jeans still don't fit, so I decided I'd keep track. I am discovering that the goal of 10,000 daily steps is harder to reach than I thought. I made it today, in part because I shoveled out an entire truckload of composted horse manure into my garden and started hand-tilling it in around some of my plants--hardly an everyday occurrence. Yesterday I took my youngest to preschool, went clothes shopping, and later in the evening went grocery shopping, and still reached only around 7500 by the end of the day.
Apparently the idea of aiming for a certain number of steps per day has been around for a while: the Japanese, who average 3 pedometers per household, have been doing it for over 40 years and refer to it as "Manpo-Kei," which takes its name from a pedometer marketing slogan from the 60's and basically means "10,000 step meter." (While interesting, I was disappointed: I thought the phrase would have some nice Zen-like meaning about health and balance, but no--it was a commercial). In one study researchers discovered that in an old order Amish community, the men averaged 18,000 steps per day; the women, 14,000. Contrast that to our average number of televisions and cars per household, along with our low daily step counts, and it's no surprise that more than a few of us can't get away with that extra Krispy Kreme.
So I'm thinking I'll keep track of my steps for a while and see if I can't raise my average, and while I'm at it, start pacing when I eat brownies. . .
Friday, May 11, 2007
Monday, May 07, 2007
Well, Duh
It's in the Observer today: 20 percent of kids under two have TVs in their bedrooms, and the cited study suggests this practice might adversely affect brain development. To which I say, um, we need a study to tell us this?
In addition, 43 percent of 3 and 4 year olds have televisions in their rooms. Never mind that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends NO television whatsoever for children under two, and only very limited viewing after that; never mind that author Roald Dahl needed no such study to conceive of Mike Teevee as one of the more obnoxious characters when he wrote Charlie and the Chocolate Factory some 43 years ago.
Yet in spite of this, it seems everyone I know except my sister and maybe two of my friends lets their children watch TV with abandon. Even, perhaps especially, educated people who ought to know better. Their justification is that the kids watch Baby Genius Einstein Savant Jump Start Whatever, completely ignoring the recommendations and the evidence that early television is harmful to developing eyes and minds regardless of the program content. Watch a child reading and his eyes make jumps as he scans chunks of information at a time: 'saccadic movements' for the educationally geeky. Watch them watching television--actually, most of us can mentally picture the steady gaze of someone watching the tube--and there is no scanning, just a steady, vapid stare. Add to that the fact that the average program changes scenes or vantage points roughly every three seconds--tv's famous "flicker"-- and you have a child trained to constantly changing stimulation who is going to be boooooored and fidgety when he or she has to sit in an actual classroom watching and listening to a teacher who doesn't change activities every few seconds.
My kids watch TV. My oldest had to wait until he was around two and even then it was very controlled, maybe 1/2 hour each day; my second child didn't get to watch her own programs until around two but inadvertantly saw some television by virtue of her older brother. My youngest most definitely saw the most before the recommended age simply because he was in a house with two older siblings and I'm not a masochist. Without a doubt, sometimes we allow that extra hour-or two-simply because Daddy won't be home for two more hours or we need to get dinner on or talk on the phone or go to the freaking bathroom alone. It happens. But we ought to have the common sense to know it's not great and that there are tradeoffs. When my kiddos watch a lot of television they forget how to play. They whine and talk back. They fight more and mope around when they have to turn it off. They beg for toys and junk food and start to tell boring recaps of the programs they've been watching. They make me wish I could just turn it back on and be done with it, but it is then I know I have to stand firm and insist they find something to do. I have never been under any illusion that there is anything beneficial for them in any way, shape or form about watching television. I'm fully aware that when I indulge it, the benefit is for me and me alone. And considering the deprogramming (pardon the pun) that must occur after a few days of too much television, even that benefit is questionable.
I seriously question putting a TV in a child's room, at any age. Recently my oldest, who is eight, wistfully recounted how lucky a new friend of his is: he has a Gameboy, a Playstation, an X-box, and a TV in his room. "Can I ever have a TV in my room?" he queried, surely already knowing the answer. I told him not to feel too deprived, as his best friend's mother is with me on this one so he won't be alone. I explained my reasons weren't to torture him, but that his father and I had worked to limit his screen time and read to him every day of his life because we know that it will help him do better in school. He reflected a moment and said, "Well, Johnny (name changed, naturally) really doesn't do well in school at all." Exactly.
In addition, 43 percent of 3 and 4 year olds have televisions in their rooms. Never mind that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends NO television whatsoever for children under two, and only very limited viewing after that; never mind that author Roald Dahl needed no such study to conceive of Mike Teevee as one of the more obnoxious characters when he wrote Charlie and the Chocolate Factory some 43 years ago.
Yet in spite of this, it seems everyone I know except my sister and maybe two of my friends lets their children watch TV with abandon. Even, perhaps especially, educated people who ought to know better. Their justification is that the kids watch Baby Genius Einstein Savant Jump Start Whatever, completely ignoring the recommendations and the evidence that early television is harmful to developing eyes and minds regardless of the program content. Watch a child reading and his eyes make jumps as he scans chunks of information at a time: 'saccadic movements' for the educationally geeky. Watch them watching television--actually, most of us can mentally picture the steady gaze of someone watching the tube--and there is no scanning, just a steady, vapid stare. Add to that the fact that the average program changes scenes or vantage points roughly every three seconds--tv's famous "flicker"-- and you have a child trained to constantly changing stimulation who is going to be boooooored and fidgety when he or she has to sit in an actual classroom watching and listening to a teacher who doesn't change activities every few seconds.
My kids watch TV. My oldest had to wait until he was around two and even then it was very controlled, maybe 1/2 hour each day; my second child didn't get to watch her own programs until around two but inadvertantly saw some television by virtue of her older brother. My youngest most definitely saw the most before the recommended age simply because he was in a house with two older siblings and I'm not a masochist. Without a doubt, sometimes we allow that extra hour-or two-simply because Daddy won't be home for two more hours or we need to get dinner on or talk on the phone or go to the freaking bathroom alone. It happens. But we ought to have the common sense to know it's not great and that there are tradeoffs. When my kiddos watch a lot of television they forget how to play. They whine and talk back. They fight more and mope around when they have to turn it off. They beg for toys and junk food and start to tell boring recaps of the programs they've been watching. They make me wish I could just turn it back on and be done with it, but it is then I know I have to stand firm and insist they find something to do. I have never been under any illusion that there is anything beneficial for them in any way, shape or form about watching television. I'm fully aware that when I indulge it, the benefit is for me and me alone. And considering the deprogramming (pardon the pun) that must occur after a few days of too much television, even that benefit is questionable.
I seriously question putting a TV in a child's room, at any age. Recently my oldest, who is eight, wistfully recounted how lucky a new friend of his is: he has a Gameboy, a Playstation, an X-box, and a TV in his room. "Can I ever have a TV in my room?" he queried, surely already knowing the answer. I told him not to feel too deprived, as his best friend's mother is with me on this one so he won't be alone. I explained my reasons weren't to torture him, but that his father and I had worked to limit his screen time and read to him every day of his life because we know that it will help him do better in school. He reflected a moment and said, "Well, Johnny (name changed, naturally) really doesn't do well in school at all." Exactly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
