The
Washington Post recently ran a short news item about the health benefits of fidgeting. This
subject always interests me because I am, or at least I was, a very fidgety person.
The headline ("Fidgeting might be good for your health, new study suggests") didn't exactly match the conclusions of the study; that didn't
surprise me -- news, especially online news, frequently has bait-and-switch headlines. What did surprise and irritate me a bit was that the quote from the co-lead author of the study makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe one of my readers can
explain it to me. Here's the quote:
"While further
research is needed, the findings raise questions about whether the negative
associations with fidgeting, such as rudeness or lack of concentration, should
persist if such simple movements are beneficial for our health," study
co-lead Janet Cade of the University of Leeds said in
a statement.
What? I get the
part about "negative associations," and it's probably true that all
these years while I've been fidgeting I've been distracted and, more important, I've been rude to anyone nearby (sorry). But
what does "...raise questions about whether the negative
associations...should persist if such simple movements are beneficial for our health" mean? Is Dr. Cade saying that if fidgeting
leads to better health, and therefore longer life, it should also lead to
reduced rudeness and better concentration? That's the best I can do. Opinions?
Oh, one more thing.
The Post article links to the study and gets the name of the journal wrong.
They call it the American Journal of Preventative Medicine while the real name
is the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. I've long hated the word
"preventative" and I always edit out that errant "ta."
I guess I'm done. I'm
going to stand up now and go fidget since that seems to be the only exercise I get
these days. Unless complaining counts as exercise.
6 comments:
Yes, if the science isn't confusing enough, the media over-hype or over-awfulizing makes it even harder to figure out what's right for you. Though the fidgeting thing isn't new is it? I remember years ago reading that people who fidget have higher metabolisms. I tried to learn to fidget. That so didn't work. A Zazzy at rest tends to stay at rest.
My reading of the quote is that if fidgeting is really good for you, the perception of fidgeting might need to change -- to no longer be viewed as distracting or rude. I don't think you can train yourself to fidget so this would seem to be about as logical as trying to change the perception of any other natural trait that happens to be good for you. Not that I can come up with an example.
Perhaps changing the perception of the behavior would mean that it would no longer be socially acceptable for people like me, who can't stand to have repetitive movement in our field of vision, to duct tape the offender to their chair. That is okay now, right?
So, to change the perception of fidgeting - do we pour money into public service announcements like the anti-smoking campaign? Oh, dear, I'm about to head into a rant on someone else's blog. Better get off my soap box now.
Thanks Z. I think you got it. I think that's exactly what the scientist was trying to say. Talk about non-news! Please accept my invitation to rant on my blog any time you like.
Zazzy said what I would have said.
I'm totally with you on preventative, though there are many, many worse offenses.
I am a fidgeter and at my age you are just going to have to accept it, good or bad.
There is a cat video film fest coming to AFI.
That's my reality.
I'm a fidgety sort too and I've decided that it's just how I am, whether it's good for me or not. Many studies say contradictory things at times about booze, salt, carbs, etc. Who knows what's actually good or bad for us? :)
Post a Comment