Lets look at the evidence.  Lifestyle programs are ineffective, and when
delivered by middle class professionals to people who are marginalized are
patronizing and demeaning.  This is nothing new.  Penfold stated this in 1979
and it has repeatedly been noted in the health promotion, sociology, and
critical public health literature.

Low income people -- when asked what they need to improve their health -- do not
say help with changing their diet, exercise regimens, and cutting out tobacco.
The want decent income and neighbourhood resources to support their and their
families health.  These reuqests go unheeded.  What is given instead is the
message that you are responsible for your own poor health -- Tough luck!  Is it
any wonder that neo-loberal and neo-conservative governments are so keen to push
out lifestyle messages.  Do we as health promoters need to be complicit to these
activities?

The bottom line is that if low income and other people exercised and ate fruits
and vegetables until they became marathon athletes they would still die younger
from a range of diseases since numerous studies indicated that these behaviours
do not negate the effects of stress, deprived, and isloated environments.

Health promotion is about listening to communities and enabling people to gain
control over the determinants of health.  Putting fruits and veggies into
people's faces or getting them to run around the block is NOT health promotion!
It is a means of gaining government support for 'health promotion' programs.

dr

Send one line: unsubscribe click4hp to: [log in to unmask] to unsubscribe
See: http://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/click4hp.html to alter your subscription