Happiness & Television

Relevant, straightforward research is what I like. Because of that I've been meaning to post this for awhile, but I haven't had time to give this study the attention it deserved, until now.

But first I want to give you a brief background of the events leading up to this post. What Happy People Don't Do (11/19/08) piqued my interest while browing the NYTimes website, but if you look at the article, there isn't a lot of identifying information about the original study, if, for example, one wanted to find it and analyze it for oneself. I tried to email the columnist, but of course, she has no email. I tried to email NYT and got no response. So. Helpful.

Then I came across this random article Happy People Watch Less TV (11/24/08) on a site where the leading stories are "Britney's Ex in Jail" and "Katie Holmes Declares That She Wears The Pants". Unexpected!

FINALLY, I found the original article here, just waiting to be downloaded. I'm not even sure how that happened. I might have blacked out.

Anyway, the point is that it's found! And I read it and it's interesting. Both the NYT article and the other one gloss over the results, but the conclusions by researchers John Robinson and Steven Martin are more poignant.

Firstly, the methods are pretty fascinating. They looked at the data from the General Social Survey or GSS conducted in 1975 and 1985, which surveyed more than 45,000 people. However, researchers used two different kinds of methods to obtain information about people's happiness during daily activities. Some people recorded their relative happiness for each activity the following day, while others recorded their happiness throughout the day in a diary. It may not seem like much of a difference, but there is a lot of evidence showing that as we get farther away from our experiences, our constructed memories of events can alter/be altered by our remembered feelings. For a more thorough explanation, Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert is a good read.

After analyzing the results from two major studies, Robinson and Martin found that people who reported being "very happy" engaged in significantly more social activities, religious participation and newspaper reading.

"The major exception," they explain, "was for TV viewing." It was the only activity to correlate significantly lower with happiness, and actually could be seen as a predictor of general unhappiness.

The study couldn't affirmatively comment on causation, but it does offer two possible interpretations:

1. TV watching causes unhappiness: TV viewing is enjoyable enough, but it ultimately fills time that could be spent doing more productive activities--things that could increase long term happiness.
   
2. Unhappiness causes TV watching: "TV is not judgmental nor difficult, so people with few social skills or resources for other activities can engage in it." People who don't participate in many social activities or go to church or read the newspaper (random?) are more likely to be unhappy and watch TV to fill their time.

So really, it's a chicken and egg situation. Are we watching TV because we're unhappy, or is TV making us that way?

Robinson and Martin suggest that more specific studies look at TV viewing to answer the question. Personally, I'm not sure that there is going to be one answer. There are many different motivations for watching TV, which can change day to day as well.

If nothing else, it seems important to think about why we're watching TV. Is our favorite show on? Are we doing it because we're bored? Is it for a class?

Maybe just the simple act of evaluating our decision to turn on the TV can eliminate needless consumption and we can find more productive activities to occupy our time.

The benefits of red wine are virtually limitless

The Onion wins again. And so does Laura.

Study Finds Link Between Red Wine, Letting Mother Know What You Really Think

According to a study published Monday in The American Journal Of Medicine, a previously unknown ingredient in red wine has been shown to cause a marked improvement of vocal clarity and emotional acuity—while reducing overall inhibition—after only four glasses.

"It seems the benefits of red wine consumption are virtually limitless," said Dr. Susan Zheng, lead researcher on the study. "Many were unable to recall a single time their mother had paid more attention to their sister's soccer games than to their starring role in the school play. But after drinking only one bottle of standard Merlot, these participants could not only remember, but could actually sing whole stretches of Annie Get Your Gun, even while sobbing. It's extraordinary."

The positive effects of wine consumption were seen in as little as three hours, with 86 percent of participants showing greater resistance to unsolicited career advice, 77 percent displaying increased mental function in the area of the brain devoted to reminding you why Dad left you in the first place, and 60 percent demonstrating less concern to "play this little happy-happy game anymore."

What could be more true?? Actually this has never happened to me, and I pray to the Baby Jesus that it never does. I suspect that once the buzz wears off, the initial relief of spilling your guts would be replaced by an overwhelming sense of regret and dread... and not just that you're going to hurl, although I'm sure the hangover would be severe.

This article actually prompts several interesting concepts, but I'll have to save that for later.

WebMD: Making us smarter or stupid(er)?

This is part of the sidebar that appears on the Women's Health homepage on WebMD.

Yes, headlines are supposed to be snazzy and eye-catching. These, however, are down right absurd. Let's go through them one by one, shall we? (I know I've been numbering things a lot lately, but I like it.)

• How to Lose Weight Fast... oh, and also, How Do It Safely. So, the headline is kind of a misnomer. I got ready to be so annoyed! And then it turns out that the advice isn't so ridiculous. The problem is that Dr. Michael Dansinger, the doctor from Biggest Loser, describes the diet and exercise regimen that the show's contestants follow. Which is CRAZY. Dr. Dansinger recommends eating between 1050 and 1200 calories a day and exercising for one hour. (Most dieticians, the article notes, generally recommend 1200 calories a day as a minimum.) Alright, ambititious!

• Why Men Cheat, from Oprah.com. Marriage counselor M. Gary Neuman gives the ladies the 411 on why men mess around.

  What's the number one reason men cheat? Ninety-two percent of men said it wasn't primarily about the sex. "The majority said it was an emotional disconnection, specifically a sense of feeling underappreciated. A lack of thoughtful gestures," Gary says. "Men are very emotional beings. They just don't look like that. Or they don't seem like that. Or they don't tell you that."

Men are people?! Um... yeah. And guess what else? WOMEN CHEAT ALSO. Take a look at some of the statistics in a recent NYT Well blog post (More People Appear To Be Cheating On Their Spouses, Studies Find, 10/27/08) and you'll see that while the rate of men who cheat is higher, it's not that much higher. Sorry, it's just another Oprah doctor that I can't get behind*.

• What is a Gluten-Free diet? Slideshow of gluten filled products that you can't eat. Weird.
• 8 Things No One Tells You About Marriage from Redbook. This should be good.

  Waking up from a good dream to face the harsh morning daylight may not seem like a reason to celebrate. But trust me, it is. Because once you let go of all the hokey stories of eternal bliss, you find that the reality of marriage is far richer and more rewarding than you ever could have guessed. Hard, yes. Frustrating, yes. But full of its own powerful, quiet enchantments just the same, and that's better than any fairy tale.

And also, you're drunk? This sounds like a Deep Thought to me. Honestly, I couldn't get past the first page of this crap. Maybe I am a completely atypical lady, but I would never enter into a legally binding relationship expecting hearts and flowers and poetry 24/7. No one would want that anyway! It would get so freaking annoying after awhile. Be realistic people. However, if you can imagine a long, fulfilling partnership and you've discussed major issues like finances, procreation, retiring to Florida, etc. you should be good to go! But I've never been married, so maybe I'll be scrambling in 10 years trying to find this article to help solve my life crises...

• 16 Cold and Flu Remedies Another slideshow. No groundbreaking remedies.
• 10 Gynecology Secrets Shhhh! Don't tell! I hate it when the word "Secret" is in headlines. This article offers some interesting information, but I wouldn't swear by this advice. And also I would ask my doctor before doing something like sticking my birth control pill in my vag. That just seems strange.
  
• The History of HIV Slideshow. Not that informative. Just watch And the Band Played On if you're curious.
• The Flat Belly Diet Shut up.
• The Cookie Diet Shut up again. Ok I didn't read either one of these, but I bet you they are stupid.
• What Does Gout Look Like? Random slideshow. The first picture is over John Barrymore, "relaxing his swollen gouty foot." Mmm uric acid.

So. Did you learn anything? Maybe. I learned that if you can say it in a slideshow, you should! And that orgasms can help ease headaches. And also "gouty" is a word.

Thanks, WebMD!


*That's what she said.

Obesity: Maybe it's not ALL your fault

Finally! Something interesting from this crazy community food list-serve I recently signed up for. Andrew Drewnowski contributed a fantastic article to the November 18 Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The dual burden of being overweight and undernourished breaks down and explains the issue of obesity in concise terms that make a lot of sense and are pretty hard to argue with (although there are plenty of opinions if you check out the comments).

Drewnowski, a professor of epidemiology and medicine at the University of Washington, is a pretty smart guy. I also think it helps that this is his life's work, as the director of the Center for Obesity Research and Nutritional Science Program. Plus, he is a prolific writer of all things edible, cheap and fatty.

In this particular article, Drewnowski dispels three common misconceptions about the American obesity issue:

1. Rising obesity rates are not due to an increasingly toxic food environment, but rather a consequence of a failing economy.
   
2. Obesity and diabetes may have a genetic component, but more importantly they follow a "social gradient"... meaning that economic class is a better indicator of obesity than whether or not your parents were.
   
3. Obesity is not the result of poor choices concerning diet and fitness: "The carefully fostered illusion of freedom of choice disguises the fact that most people have none."

It's pretty standard to blame the obese individual for the fact that they're overweight. People that have financial access to a gym and healthy foods are just lacking education and motivation, right?

Unfortunately, not every obese person is a great candidate for Biggest Loser. In fact, the vast majority of the cast are white, middle class adults. Typical? Maybe not.

As far as kids go, a Time article from June 2008 looks at obesity by demographic (It's Not Just Genetics, 6/12/08):

This [childhood obesity] tsunami, however, is a highly selective one. It discriminates by race: according to the CDC's 2006 figures, 30.7% of white American kids are overweight or obese, compared with 34.9% of blacks and 38% of Mexican Americans. It discriminates by income: 22.4% of 10-to-17-year-olds living below the poverty line--less than $21,200 for a family of four--are overweight or obese, compared with 9.1% of kids whose families earn at least four times that amount.

This is what Drewnowski is talking about. When we talk about obesity and malnutrition as a problem of genetics or "toxic food" or personal choices, we completely miss the bigger picture (and maybe on purpose). Once we're able to admit that obesity and malnutrition are just more consequences of poverty, maybe we'll actually take note of the ROOT of the problem and not just address the various symptoms. I believe thats called "preventative medicine."

"There's a whole anti-oxidant network"

"Young professionals don't eat particularly well", says Dr. Andrew Shao, Vice President of Scientific & Regulatory Affairs at the Council on Responsible Nutrition. "And there is need for supplementation." His association is currently working on initiatives for the research community, urging them not to study supplements in isolation. "When these vitamins are part of a diet, there's a whole anti-oxidant network. But we're setting up these massive, randomized trials where we're giving participants one nutrient and trying for crazy results--nutrition is just not that simple."

From "E said, C said: Talking vitamins," by Aarti Virani in the Boston Metro (for some reason I couldn't find the whole article on the website... probably because it's crap).

I love this quote for three big reasons:

1. It's a practical response to the recent results being reported that vitamins play no part in cancer prevention.
   
2. It's directed towards youngish people who are in the process of developing life-long habits, both good and bad.
3. It recognizes that it's stupid to even try to study one supplement at a time. I think my body would be offended by attempts to simplify the process by which it nourishes itself with the food I feed it. Which is not to say that we can't and will never be able to understand the process, but it seems disrespectful to break down such a wonderfully complex system and spew petty advice like, "Take vitamin A every day and you'll never develop cancer." Come on, now... really?
   

The problem with this advice is that it's COMMON SENSE. It's not new and shiny and impossibly complicated. There are no infomercials about the benefits of "Moderation!" and surely Marie Osmond will never be the spokeslady. It's a damn shame (about the infomercial).