Doctors know a lot about prescribing medications. “Take two brisk walks and call me in the morning. “But for many patients, a light get-moving plan might be just what the doctor should have . Many of us aren’t exactly in peak physical condition. But a large number of people are actually deconditioned. So says the Mayo Clinic’s Michael Joyner in an essay in The Journal of Physiology. After surgery, illness, pregnancy or extended inactivity for any reason, people might feel faint or  when they try even mild exercise. These signs, Joyner argues, should be  by doctors not as symptoms that should be treated with drugs, but rather as a medical state of deconditioning that might be better helped with a gentle, guided  program. It might sound counterintuitive that fatigue can be beat back with exercise. But remember Newton—Isaac, not Fig. A body at rest stays at rest. And a body in motion needs to resist  forces acting upon it that might slow it down.

In lab tests, music and lighting can affect how much people eat. Now a study has found that  the ambiance of a fast food restaurant to more of a fine-dining  lessened the amount of food people crammed into their pie holes. To quote the paper, “softening the lighting and music led people to eat less, to rate the food as more enjoyable, and to spend just as much. “That last finding means that fast food joints, which are accused of  to the obesity epidemic, might actually try it. The study was led by well-known eating behaviorist Brian Wansink from Cornell University and  in the journal Psychological Reports. The researchers converted part of a Hardee’s so that it had soft lighting and slow jazz instrumentals. The patrons were  to possibly eat more in the relaxed section, because they’d linger, maybe get dessert. But they actually averaged 18 percent fewer calories per meal than the folks in the rowdy section—down from an average of 949 calories to 775. The overall  appears to have been a more satisfying meal. Even if there was less of it.

Telling people to change unhealthy  doesn’t work. Otherwise, we would all already be slim, fit, nonsmokers.Whether it’s habit, the  of an ad or just the easiest option, we often rely on  behaviors to get us through the day. And even though we know taking the elevator, grabbing a beer or drowning a salad in ranch dressing are not the healthiest choices, we keep making them. Unless those bad choices become too  . Making bad choices harder is actually the best way to help people get healthier, argues a new essay in the journal Science. Simply  elevator doors to close really slowly actually  more people to climb stairs.Limiting the places that sell tobacco cuts overall consumption. And then there’s the trusty old salad bar trick: put healthier  closer than other choices and more people pick them. Little changes like these reach everyone—not just the people  with a health message. And they get us healthier just by letting us stay on autopilot.

Most of our serious illnesses and deaths in the U.S. now come from  diseases, such as heart disease. But we know what works to improve health. A new report recommends 43 changes that can make big  .To arrive at their recommendations, researchers reviewed more than a thousand studies of public health. Their findings are in the American Heart  journal Circulation. Some of the suggestions, such as tightening  on smoking, are already paying off in many areas. Others, such as increasing taxes for unhealthful foods, might face stiff  , but could pay off large dividends in health savings later. But some surprisingly simple suggestions could be easiest to  . Try extending the hours for public parks and schools’ recreation  . Or improving sidewalks and visual appeal of neighborhoods to make people want to walk, bike or run there more often. The authors of the paper argue that the next step is just for policy makers to put these  into action.

Are human beings inherently  or selfish? A new study finds that when people have to make the choice instantly, their first impulse is  —which indicates that generosity is innate. Only when they have more time to consider their choice do they behave more selfishly. The research is in the journal Nature. In the study, researchers ran several tests in which each  in a small group received money, and then had to decide how much to  in a shared group fund. The more time people had to choose how much to donate, the less they gave. Subjects told they had to make a decision within 10 seconds even gave more than others who were told they had to wait the same 10 seconds before deciding. Because snap decisions are based on intuition, the researchers  that generosity is the intuitive human response. But given time, we can reason our way to a more selfish decision. This intuitive cooperation might be either genetically hardwired, or a  construct. Either way, next time I run a fundraiser, I’m  a stopwatch.