Of studies and their all too apparent conclusions

Studies are published only to reveal findings that we are already familiar with. Or they keep contradicting one another, leaving the reader confused and back to square one.

A recent one I read was about the connection between junk food, TV watching or video game playing, and burning calories. Even before I’d started perusing the article, I knew what the conclusion would be.

The authors of the study try to highlight the fact that playing active video games helps burn more calories rather than being a mere couch potato. And speaking of potatoes, all those bags of crisps lying within reach while one’s engrossed in watching the idiot box have this nasty habit of emptying themselves with such rapidity that it is apparent that there are invisible gremlins at work.

But the proximity of junk food while playing an ‘active’ video game (somehow that sounds like an oxymoron to me) seems a daft idea. However active you might be while playing such games, if you’re going to keep dipping your hand into the bags of goodies and stuffing your face, you’re undoing the little good that that exercise is trying to achieve.

So, we’re told by those learned authors that watching TV or playing video games combined with eating is a futile exercise. Ha, like we didn’t know this already. What they found surprising was the fact that even if one’s hands were occupied with the controls or whatever, one was able to multi-task with ease. The amount ingested while hard at play was considerable, not unlike the predicament of the still figure with eyes glued to the screen watching a movie or serial.

The study concludes that TV viewing is bad for the health. Did I really have to go through a thousand-word piece to glean this nugget of wisdom?

We all know what’s good for us and what isn’t. But that knowledge rarely helps us make the right lifestyle choices.

I have decided to come up with some studies of my own. I don’t need to test my theories on a number of people simply because I know the outcome of each. For example, one of these could focus on the relationship between exercise and energy levels. The less you do, the more tired you feel. The flip side of the coin is the more you do, the hungrier you feel. So, if being idle makes you eat to help pass the time, you might as well be active and eat to your heart’s content. This way you won’t feel so guilty as you will be convinced you’ve earned your just desserts.

Then there is the chocolate debate which has raged for years. Is it good, bad or ugly? Studies have been conducted over the years, with the conclusions at odds with one another. One year we are given the green signal to go ahead and indulge. The next we are told it is a food to be avoided at any cost.

My study on the subject is simple. Never abstain completely from any food which you crave as that will only make you resort to underhand tactics. The moment the doctor tells you a certain food is forbidden, your longing for it increases exponentially. Now that you can’t have it, you must have it. Instead, eat what you like but don’t stuff yourself as that will only defeat the purpose. If you over-indulge, you will never want to touch the stuff again. So, moderation is key.

The best part about my studies is that they don’t require massive amounts of funding and I don’t need to approach people with bowl in hand. In other words, my advice or findings are gratis. And, knowing human nature as I do, no one is going to pass over a freebie.