2 ms·

I think the reason wellness programs aren't as effective is because most health claims aren't scientifically validated. Therefore much effort is spent trying to

I think the reason wellness programs aren't as effective is because most health claims aren't scientifically validated. Therefore much effort is spent trying to convince people to change behavior which may not have positive impact on health. In fact, many of these behaviors may cause more harm than good. I also think people subconsciously suspect much of the advice is of dubious validity, which may be why the public at large is relatively unaffected by health recommendations. There is a trend in public health to move away from educating the populace and towards regulation, especially food distribution and composition. Regulating industry can affect food consumption much more dramatically than attempting to get people to change their behavior voluntarily. But I don't think enough people are examining the recommendations themselves, and demanding very good science to back up the advice. Luckily for all of us, food manufacturers have an economic incentive to fight against dubious science ... often maligned for fighting regulation, I think in this case they have a point, and without that economic incentive I might be prevented from buying potato chips. And what kind of world would this be without potato chips?

Retric 13y ago
Only looking at direct healthcare spending not indirect costs such as sick days. the overall ROI was $1.50 — that is, a return of $1.50 for every dollar that the employer invested in the program. They add that wellness programs do reduce time off which would further increase savings, but ignore the fact that healthy people are more productive and employees view perks as additional pay which aids retention. Which suggests wellness programs are vary cost effective. PS: RAND is a political organisation that looks for facts supporting there conclusions rather that doing actual research.
aaronblohowiak 13y ago
Calorie counting + weekly weigh-ins. Keeping a food diary, journaling or full-on counting is repeatedly shown to be among the best long-term weight loss and maintenance. It does not require substantial alteration to the diet, just portions. There are no prohibitions and you can eat out and about with your social groups as normal, making compliance pretty high. For most people, exercise is useless for weight loss[1]. The educational impact of complying with a calorie counting program can have lasting effects on food choices even if the person stops adhering to the program as rigorously. Example: a bowl of strawberries has fewer calories than a slice of cheese. If you get in the right mindset of optimizing the 'yum' and the fullness per calorie, it impacts you even on 'cheat' days. 1: It is incredibly easy to out-eat any moderate exercise regime; a single soda can undo a half hour of running. I suspect that most people who are in the obese and overweight zones do not have the cardiovascular or muscular fitness to make any meaningful dent in their caloric budget. That being said, fitness is important for general health and there is definitely a range of BF% where exercise goes from inconsequential to critical for body composition purposes. Calories in / calories out is NOT the whole story. But it is enough of the story and compliance is easy enough that it has the best results in the long term.

Retric 13y ago

Only looking at direct healthcare spending not indirect costs such as sick days. the overall ROI was $1.50 — that is, a return of $1.50 for every dollar that the employer invested in the program. They add that wellness programs do reduce time off which would further increase savings, but ignore the fact that healthy people are more productive and employees view perks as additional pay which aids retention. Which suggests wellness programs are vary cost effective. PS: RAND is a political organisation that looks for facts supporting there conclusions rather that doing actual research.

aaronblohowiak 13y ago

Calorie counting + weekly weigh-ins. Keeping a food diary, journaling or full-on counting is repeatedly shown to be among the best long-term weight loss and maintenance. It does not require substantial alteration to the diet, just portions. There are no prohibitions and you can eat out and about with your social groups as normal, making compliance pretty high. For most people, exercise is useless for weight loss[1]. The educational impact of complying with a calorie counting program can have lasting effects on food choices even if the person stops adhering to the program as rigorously. Example: a bowl of strawberries has fewer calories than a slice of cheese. If you get in the right mindset of optimizing the 'yum' and the fullness per calorie, it impacts you even on 'cheat' days. 1: It is incredibly easy to out-eat any moderate exercise regime; a single soda can undo a half hour of running. I suspect that most people who are in the obese and overweight zones do not have the cardiovascular or muscular fitness to make any meaningful dent in their caloric budget. That being said, fitness is important for general health and there is definitely a range of BF% where exercise goes from inconsequential to critical for body composition purposes. Calories in / calories out is NOT the whole story. But it is enough of the story and compliance is easy enough that it has the best results in the long term.