There are renewed calls this week for the Australian government to implement a range of measures aimed at improving our diets. These include restrictions on junk food advertising, improvements to food labelling, and a levy on sugary drinks.

This time the recommendations come from a parliamentary inquiry into diabetes in Australia. Its final report, tabled in parliament on Wednesday, was prepared by a parliamentary committee comprising members from across the political spectrum.

The release of this report could be an indication that Australia is finally going to implement the evidence-based healthy eating policies public health experts have been recommending for years.

But we know Australian governments have historically been unwilling to introduce policies the powerful food industry opposes. The question is whether the current government will put the health of Australians above the profits of companies selling unhealthy food.

Diabetes in Australia

Diabetes is one of the fastest growing chronic health conditions in the nation, with more than 1.3 million people affected. Projections show the number of Australians diagnosed with the condition is set to rise rapidly in coming decades.

Type 2 diabetes accounts for the vast majority of cases of diabetes. It’s largely preventable, with obesity among the strongest risk factors.

This latest report makes it clear we need an urgent focus on obesity prevention to reduce the burden of diabetes. Type 2 diabetes and obesity cost the Australian economy billions of dollars each year and preventive solutions are highly cost-effective.

This means the money spent on preventing obesity and diabetes would save the government huge amounts in health care costs. Prevention is also essential to avoid our health systems being overwhelmed in the future.

What does the report recommend?

The report puts forward 23 recommendations for addressing diabetes and obesity. These include:

• restrictions on the marketing of unhealthy foods to children, including on TV and online
• improvements to food labelling that would make it easier for people to understand products’ added sugar content
• a levy on sugary drinks, where products with higher sugar content would be taxed at a higher rate (commonly called a sugar tax).

These key recommendations echo those prioritised in a range of reports on obesity prevention over the past decade. There’s compelling evidence they’re likely to work.

Restrictions on unhealthy food marketing

There was universal support from the committee for the government to consider regulating marketing of unhealthy food to children.

Public health groups have consistently called for comprehensive mandatory legislation to protect children from exposure to marketing of unhealthy foods and related brands.

An increasing number of countries, including Chile and the United Kingdom, have legislated unhealthy food marketing restrictions across a range of settings including on TV, online and in supermarkets. There’s evidence comprehensive policies like these are having positive results.

In Australia, the food industry has made voluntary commitments to reduce some unhealthy food ads directly targeting children. But these promises are widely viewed as ineffective.

The government is currently conducting a feasibility study on additional options to limit unhealthy food marketing to children.

But the effectiveness of any new policies will depend on how comprehensive they are. Food companies are likely to rapidly shift their marketing techniques to maximise their impact. If any new government restrictions do not include all marketing channels (such as TV, online and on packaging) and techniques (including both product and brand marketing), they’re likely to fail to adequately protect children.

Food labelling

Food regulatory authorities are currently considering a range of improvements to food labelling in Australia.

For example, food ministers in Australia and New Zealand are soon set to consider mandating the health star rating front-of-pack labelling scheme.

Public health groups have consistently recommended mandatory implementation of health star ratings as a priority for improving Australian diets. Such changes are likely to result in meaningful improvements to the healthiness of what we eat.

Regulators are also reviewing potential changes to how added sugar is labelled on product packages. The recommendation from the committee to include added sugar labelling on the front of product packaging is likely to support this ongoing work.

But changes to food labelling laws are notoriously slow in Australia. And food companies are known to oppose and delay any policy changes that might hurt their profits.

A sugary drinks tax

Of the report’s 23 recommendations, the sugary drinks levy was the only one that wasn’t universally supported by the committee. The four Liberal and National party members of the committee opposed implementation of this policy.

As part of their rationale, the dissenting members cited submissions from food industry groups that argued against the measure. This follows a long history of the Liberal party siding with the sugary drinks industry to oppose a levy on their products.

The dissenting members didn’t acknowledge the strong evidence that a sugary drinks levy has worked as intended in a wide range of countries.

In the UK, for example, a levy on sugary drinks implemented in 2018 has successfully lowered the sugar content in UK soft drinks and reduced sugar consumption.

The dissenting committee members argued a sugary drinks levy would hurt families on lower incomes. But previous Australian modelling has shown the two most disadvantaged quintiles would reap the greatest health benefits from such a levy, and accrue the highest savings in health-care costs.

What happens now?

Improvements to population diets and prevention of obesity will require a comprehensive and coordinated package of policy reforms.

Globally, a range of countries facing rising epidemics of obesity and diabetes are starting to take such strong preventive action.

In Australia, after years of inaction, this week’s report is the latest sign that long-awaited policy change may be near.

But meaningful and effective policy change will require politicians to listen to the public health evidence rather than the protestations of food companies concerned about their bottom line.

Gary Sacks, Professor of Public Health Policy, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Humans and our ancestors have been running for millions of years. Back then, it helped us capture – or avoid becoming – prey. Now, we do it to keep fit, boost mental health, unwind in nature, or play our favourite sport.

But while many of us were taught how to ride a bike, throw and catch a ball, or kick a footy, it seems very few people are ever taught how to run. You might’ve wondered: am I running wrong?

Well, the truth is there’s no one right way to run. Your ideal technique depends on factors such as leg and foot length, muscle mass, and even how springy your tendons are.

It also depends on whether you’re out for your Sunday run or running full pelt in a sprint.

That said, thinking a little more about how to run can make it feel easier and faster, and reduce injury risk.

Here are five basics to keep in mind.

1. Feet: how you land matters

Some of us land on our heels, others on the balls of our feet. If you grew up running barefoot, you’ll more often land towards the forefoot.

Debate rages on which is best. The truth is heel-first striking stresses the knees a bit more while forefoot landing places more impact on the calves and Achilles tendon.

So, if you’re injury prone in one of those areas, it might be worth adjusting your style.

But for healthy runners, there’s no strong evidence one technique is better for injury.

If you’re considering a change, do it slowly over several months, ideally with expert help.

As you run faster, you’ll bounce more in each step. You’ll naturally land more on your forefoot, especially when sprinting.

2. Legs: softer landings and smoother strides

Three things are worth focusing on:

• minimise the twisting of the legs under your body as you land, to reduce strain on knees and ankles
• keep your pelvis level during landings (dropping or rotating it increases injury risk)
• don’t bounce too high; a smooth, low trajectory uses less energy and keeps impacts manageable.

These principles are perfectly demonstrated by Ethiopian former long-distance runner Haile Gebrselassie:

Just keep relaxed, and allow the knees and ankles to flex normally.

If you find your landing style causes stress or pain, consider running with slightly shorter strides.

Then there’s the “leg recovery phase” – when your leg swings forward after push-off. During jogging, we pull the leg forward briefly with our hip muscles, but otherwise it’s a pretty passive task.

In sprinting, however, the faster leg recovery powered by your hip can contribute about 25% of your forward propulsion in each step. So make sure you flex at the hip while you push back into the ground, so your legs act like scissors as they swing.

Also, the faster you run, the more your knee should flex, and the more the foot should rise under you. This helps the leg swing forwards faster.

In other words: pick your feet up more as you pick up the pace.

3. Arms: built-in shock absorbers

During jogging, your arms help with balance, absorbing bumps or stumbles, especially on uneven ground, as seen here: https://www.youtube.com/embed/ifctluuNkXE?wmode=transparent&start=0

They swing mostly passively and act as shock absorbers during jogging; they can’t do their job when they’re stiff. Relaxation is key.

To keep energy cost low, try bending your elbows to keep their mass closer to your shoulder and keep your shoulders relaxed.

When sprinting, your arms become more active. They help stabilise your whole body in the short time your feet are on the ground.

Top sprint coaches often insist the “drive arm” (the arm swinging backwards) contributes to forward propulsion, thanks to physics.

But the limited studies to date suggest the effect on propulsion is moderate; future studies might shed more light.

That said, the fastest sprinters, like Usain Bolt, are renowned for their aggressive backwards arm drive: https://www.youtube.com/embed/D09QkQ8Cyow?wmode=transparent&start=0

See how his drive arm whips backwards with rapid extension of the shoulder and elbow? Meanwhile, the recovery arm – swinging forwards – is more flexed and moves much slower.

4. Torso: lean just a little

When we run, the torso naturally rotates left and right. That’s fine, although when we run faster there should be less rotation. A more aggressive arm swing helps balance out these rotations.

Our pelvis then rotates in the opposite direction to the torso. The twisting helps us balance, but also contributes a little to forward force.

But as we run faster, these rotations should become smaller as we use our arms to balance better. As your speed increases, swing your arms a bit harder and your body, legs and other arm will follow.

Finally, it’s generally accepted that we keep our torso upright when we run relaxed, with only a very slight forward lean.

But if we want to speed up, leaning forward is a great way to accelerate quickly without doing too much tiring muscle work.

And for those with knee troubles, leaning forward a bit might help reduce impact on the knees.

5. Head: a balancing act

You might be tempted to tilt your head down when you run, to watch your feet or in an effort to accelerate forwards.

But during upright (non-sprinting) running, try to keep it in normal position. Rest your head quietly on the top of your shoulders, just as as evolution intended.

During sprinting, try looking about 20 metres in front of you (a slight chin tuck is fine). When jogging, try looking ahead toward the horizon.

Not sure what your own technique looks like? Try asking a friend to take a quick video of you running. Compare it to an experienced runner running at the same speed.

You might be surprised what you notice.

Anthony Blazevich, Professor of Biomechanics, Edith Cowan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.