At least once a day, though we may not even realize it, our
critical thinking is tested. I received
this in an email from a friend who participates in a weekly walking group at a
local nature center. It’s good exercise
and a pleasant time, but one of the participants wanted to let us know about additional benefits.
The article attached to the email was about something called
forest bathing, and it tells how walking in the woods can be healthy, in fact,
healthier than walking down a city sidewalk.
The headline tells us: “A Retreat
To Nature Can Boost Immunity And Mood.”
But forest bathing is more than just walking in the woods
and enjoying the natural surroundings.
The outing in the article was led by a Certified Forest
Therapy Guide. It is the guide’s job to
encourage participants to “slow down and become immersed in the natural
environment” and to help them “tune in to the smells, textures, tastes and
sights of the forest.” The guide leads
them through exercises to help them isolate each of these senses to take in the
unique sights, sounds and smells.
It’s clearly not like hiking, because the forest bathers
have no particular destination. It’s a
slow, mindful walk, akin to walking meditation practiced at some yoga
retreats. The emphasis is on the present
moment, rather than on plans or worries.
After describing the experience, they list the
health benefits. The practice began in
Japan where one study showed that walking in a forest environment “led to more
significant reductions in blood pressure and certain stress hormones” than
walking the same distance in the city. I
followed the link and found that this study had only 16 participants – was that
8 in each group (a test group and a control group)? If so, that is an
extremely small sample size; if not, it's not really an experiment. (And always remember that linked does not mean causes.)
They cite other “preliminary” studies as well. One referred to as a “small study” and
another with no mention of sample size or the experimental design, but both touting benefits of being in close proximity to trees or enjoying certain scents of the forest.
Now comes the worrisome part.
Apparently we are not able to get these benefits on our own. The Association of Nature & Forest Therapy
is training and certifying Forest Therapy guides to help. Using this rather sparse scientific
justification and an unsupported assertion that “work-related stress accounts
for up to $190 billion in health care costs each [year],” their
representative makes a leap of faith that forest bathing should be part of every
doctor’s toolkit and covered by health insurance – "It's my hope that the
health care system will include [forest therapy] into the range of services
they reimburse for.”
Now I don’t doubt that taking a nice quiet leisurely walk in the
woods, being sensitive to and appreciating the natural surroundings is surely healthier and more relaxing than walking down a crowded city sidewalk. That’s a no-brainer. But do you need a coach to benefit from it, do
you need to pay and should insurance be involved?
The whole thing begins to sound like the case of therapeutic touch, which has no scientific basis, but for which insurance companies
reimburse hospitals. It reminds me of
the company that sells scooters to the elderly with the sales pitch, “if
Medicare doesn’t pay for yours, it’s free.”
The forest bathing business (and it is a business) wants to slide into
that category enjoyed by some other health-related businesses – “your
insurance will cover most or all of the cost.”
We’ve heard the sales pitches over and over and should know deep down
that when no one is paying, no one is caring how much it cost and no one is concerned
about abuse or true quality. Patients get placebo
benefits and the therapists get insurance money. Our health costs rise and everyone wonders
why.
brilliant, James! I am going to resume reading your blog posthaste! By the way, what is the origin of "posthaste"? it seems to be either redundant or a non-sequitor. Let's check!
ReplyDelete