s/o Death by diet....How do we stop it?

[Laura Corin]

Another aspect is the move from physically active to desk-bound jobs due to the decline of manufacturing and the mechanisation of many jobs.  Over the last fifty years, people in the US and the UK move a lot less, on average, in the course of their normal work, however they go to and from the workplace.  This is much more significant than whether you run after work and much harder to fix at this stage.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Laura Corin

[wintermom]

So what was the point of mentioning the colour?

 

 

I don't know. I guess I just mentioned it because it is the truth. I've never heard the Scandinavian diet noted as being a diet to strive for. You can get it at Ikea for dirt cheap. It's not particularly exotic or pretty. The Scandinavian people are pretty cool, though. ;) 

[hornblower]

I think it would help if we would all stop thinking and talking about food all the time.  

 

But I also think that's never going to happen because the only reason we're here is that evolution selected for the ones who could do think about food & plant for it, who could also do quite well on low cals & periods of actual severe deprivation, and then also gave us the brains to enable us to make food widely available and super palatable. We're doing this to ourselves.

 

Just like we humans keep falling in love with the wrong people, doing other self - defeating actions over and over again. And then we use our brains to justify why we're right and can't/won't change.... 

 

I think obesity trends will continue inching up, especially since we're already seeing the normalization of obesity and the suggestions that "it's not that unhealthy". 

 

 

 

[Soror]

Glad to hear they have generous allowances on that.  So it would probably work out for me, but it's not always as simple as doing everything right.  I eat more healthfully and exercise more than my husband.  He is significantly overweight.  I am not.  YET his health tests come back better than mine.  I didn't luck out in the genetics department apparently.

 

The gym thing is cool.  They offer gym discounts with our insurance, but only at specific gyms that are far more expensive (and farther) than the one we go to. 

No, sometimes you lose the genetic lottery but if you do the "right" things you are more likely to be healthy. 

 

I have great labs for the things they test. My weight is normal. I don't smoke(neither does hubby) they count off big for that. My cholesterol is freakishly low. The only thing I've ever had elevated is fasting glucose, I was inching towards pre-diabetic after my last baby.

 

But here is the messed up mentality. The first year they did the tests they gave rewards just for doing them, but the following year they said you would need to be in range or have a 5% improvement over the previous year. My dh and the guys at work are purposely packing on pounds so that first year so the standards for improvement were lower the next year. He was practically mad at me for not throwing my tests(no way I was going to gain weight on purpose but I guess he wanted me to eat a cheeseburger right before to throw off my glucose and cholesterol numbers) and thought I was just about stupid because I was happy I'd got a 100 on the test. He had some idea that if I didn't do as well the next year I'd be penalized, which was stupid. I told him no way they are not going to penalize me as long as I pass, sure enough it came time for the next year and as long as you passed you were good (I aced it again fwiw). Him and his friends however are still battling those pounds. He ended up losing his in the last month last year and then slowly gained it back and is on track to do it again this year. It infuriates me, his weight problem is nearly 100% soda at work, he goes off of it and he magically loses weight. It is like crack though.

[Carol in Cal.]

Let's examine the great American "drive-through" concept. People stay in their vehicles to avoid getting out and walking a few steps into the building. Even if the wait at the drive-through is longer than it would take to go inside, use the washroom, get your stuff, have a cigarette in the parking lot, and then drive away. 

 

The only way you are going to get some people to move is by taking away the vehicle or make it so expensive that most people can't afford to drive. But then the car manufacturing industry would figure out a way to sell people enviro-friendly cars with government funding so that people could be happy and vote for them. ;)

Weirdly enough, I occasionally go to drive through restaurants but almost never fail to get out and go inside.

 

I hate eating a meal meal in my car.  It's a bit messy.  I don't like to risk a spot of grease getting onto my upholstery, and it feels kind of demoralizing not to stop and sit at a table and not be able to wash my hands if I need to beforehand or afterwards.  The only stuff I actually eat in the car is things that I prep in advance for that, fig newtons in a little bag or chunks of hard cheese or beef jerky or veggie spears.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

A traditional scandinavian diet, and a medeterrainian diet, and an Indian diet, are pretty different, but they are all pretty healthy.  I think that centres around using largely fresh foods, reasonable amounts of different types of foods, not much that is processed,   not a ton of snacking, sitting down to meals at home most of the time.

It also centers around not skimming and eating only the very best of the cuisine.  We tend to be exposed to the holiday or banquet foods of other cultures, and not realize that that's not how they eat everyday.  

 

It also centers around eating slowly, together, in community.

[Χά�ων]

I've really enjoyed reading everyone's various points, I've ran out of likes.

 

This convo made me think of my husband's work, they have employed the carrot approach. If we pass health exams (that have generous allowances) we get money in our HSA, $400 for me and $800 for him. Local gyms are subsidized by his work, as long as you go 8x a month.

 

 

I would be all over subsidized gym memberships if we could pick facilities. DH's work offers only one gym and it is lacking in everyway except the price, even with discounts. Sigh. I wish they would subsize sneakers for DH to walk to work, or a bike to commute with, those would be used more. Or even give a monthly allowence to be spent on general fitness so we could hire a personal trainer who works in one of the parks using public facilities.

[Serenade]

There’s a bit about the change in the Wiki article on body mass index. And yes, it was in 1998 that the changes went into effect, after the CDC and National Institutes of Health decided to bring the US into agreement with WHO’s BMI classifications. The article says that 29 million people went from healthy to overweight when the threshold for normal weight was lowered from a BMI of 27:8 to 25.

 

Thank you for sharing that and mentioning the Wiki article.  For years I've been trying to figure out when that happened, and what exactly it was.  I was using the wrong search criteria, and that is why I never found anything.

[Mergath]

What kind of traditional Scandinavian diet are you talking about? It traditionally includes everything white; potatoes, flour, white fish, cabbage, and then ball up protein like meatballs and fishballs. 

 

It's not the diet that keeps Scandinavians slim, it's the fact that they actually move on a regular basis. The ones that don't move and eat too much are just as overweight as anyone else in any part of the world. 

 

My experience with Scandinavian food is more with Scandinavian-American food, but from what I've eaten and from what I've seen in documentaries and cookbooks, a big part of the diet is doing horrible things to meat and fish and then eating it. Fermenting it, soaking it in lye, pickling it... I don't know how healthy that is because a lot of these processes seem to involve adding a ton of sugar or butter at some point, lol. And there's a lot of different kinds of carb-y dessert breads. 

 

It's not as bad as eating at McDonalds every day or something, but it isn't exactly the ideal healthy diet, either. At my house we save the traditional foods for holidays. You wouldn't want to ruin the... specialness... of pickled herring or lutefisk by eating it every day. ;)

[frogger]

They are talking reality. I went to NYC last week for medical..first thing I did in prep was look up the slashing reports, then plan my route and time for safety. I got lucky. Out here rural, people don't walk in town any more, the cross country team is all that's left and they have a mandatory safety protocol that includes PD sweeping their route before and during....the issue for all is the scofflaws, the mentally ill stalkers, and the opiod thieves/users. The town is walkable for those who can manage sidewalks that aren't smooth if they don't fit the prey profie..mostly that's older men walking and college men running while the school team is out..you don't see the women or dc out any more unaccompanied. Right now we've got opiod thief activity all over...apparently pawn shops have lists and these people are robbing to order. If I go up to my son's suburb though, the whole place is walkable and the ladies are out in force. The people in the neighborhood make a place walkable far more than anything else.

 

I don't believe I should have to move. I've been here 25 years, the town has been here over 100 years. It was a safe place, lovely for children and the elderly until the last ten years, and that's due to a very small amount of people ignoring zoning laws (putting high traffic group homes and businesses in residential neighborhoods), the mentally ill, and the criminal.

So the reality is that someone is going to steal your property and force you to walk? You can still drive. How is that different?

 

A few posts back I also responded defending people who were saying they didn't feel safe to walk to someone else. Well, explaining that crime rate isn't directly coorelated with size. If you live in the highest crime rate neighborhood in America then perhaps you ought to recognize that your situation doesn't apply to the whole continent and there are still people who must walk though even there.

 

It may be rational in some places but nationwide I assure you that more people are dying of heart attacks than being murdered because they walked a few blocks and you are probably more likely to get hit by a car driven by some scared person than shot by a criminal where I live even with our high crime rate.

[Bluegoat]

I don't know. I guess I just mentioned it because it is the truth. I've never heard the Scandinavian diet noted as being a diet to strive for. You can get it at Ikea for dirt cheap. It's not particularly exotic or pretty. The Scandinavian people are pretty cool, though. ;)

 

Scandinavian food was quite trendy for a few years.  I suppose pretty is a matter of opinion.  And it's fairly cheap and works in a northern climate, unlike some, which I appreciate since it's similar to mine.

 

It's quite healthy as long as you don't just eat the sweets.

 

A couple of articles - a bit over the top like many diet articles:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/nordic-delights-the-scandinavian-diet-is-among-the-healthiest-and-most-delicious-in-the-world-1654155.html

 

http://time.com/4293048/scandinavian-diet-new-nordic-diet/

[wintermom]

My experience with Scandinavian food is more with Scandinavian-American food, but from what I've eaten and from what I've seen in documentaries and cookbooks, a big part of the diet is doing horrible things to meat and fish and then eating it. Fermenting it, soaking it in lye, pickling it... I don't know how healthy that is because a lot of these processes seem to involve adding a ton of sugar or butter at some point, lol. And there's a lot of different kinds of carb-y dessert breads. 

 

It's not as bad as eating at McDonalds every day or something, but it isn't exactly the ideal healthy diet, either. At my house we save the traditional foods for holidays. You wouldn't want to ruin the... specialness... of pickled herring or lutefisk by eating it every day. ;)

 

You've just opened the door for the fermenting food lovers to jump in and say how healthy this is and how it fixes people's gut issues.  :laugh:

[MBM]

So the reality is that someone is going to steal your property and force you to walk? You can still drive. How is that different?

 

A few posts back I also responded defending people who were saying they didn't feel safe to walk to someone else. Well, explaining that crime rate isn't directly coorelated with size. If you live in the highest crime rate neighborhood in America then perhaps you ought to recognize that your situation doesn't apply to the whole continent and there are still people who must walk though even there.

 

It may be rational in some places but nationwide I assure you that more people are dying of heart attacks than being murdered because they walked a few blocks and you are probably more likely to get hit by a car driven by some scared person than shot by a criminal where I live even with our high crime rate.

This is a conversation we’ve had often in our house. My husband’s PhD is in statistics from UChicago and the youngest is studying theoretical math, economics and the statistical application of both of those subjects to social sciences. (In fact, police departments have hired the students to analyze data.) What my husband strongly believes is that if risk can be easily removed to keep a person safe, then you do so. If it’s easy to gather info about crime and then make a judgment that fits your level of comfort to add a bit more safety, then it’s not such a bad idea. When we check crime statistics wherever we’re going, we don’t weigh it against heart attack risk. It’s very much a personal decision colored by perceptions and past experiences.

[Bluegoat]

It also centers around not skimming and eating only the very best of the cuisine.  We tend to be exposed to the holiday or banquet foods of other cultures, and not realize that that's not how they eat everyday.  

 

It also centers around eating slowly, together, in community.

 

No, that isn't what I'm talking about at all.

 

I've said a few times I'm talking about traditional food cultures.

[Samm]

Speaking of statistics, I recently read that 60% of US children will be obese by the time they're 35.   https://www.webmd.com/children/news/20171129/60-percent-of-us-kids-could-be-obese-by-age-35#1

 

This data should alarm people but I think it's easy to "unnotice" it because the ramifications are just too terrible.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Samm

[Tsuga]

Greta mentioned on the McDougall thread about how many people die due to diet. Coincidentally, I overheard two different convos discussing the same thing yesterday. Being the time of year when people generally think about health I thought it might make good food for thought, ha!

 

I'm very wary of food evangelism but very much agree that our collective diets are in need of overhaul, what we are doing is obviously not working, we are continuing to get fatter and more unhealthy by the year. 

 

Do you think we will figure this out or just continue on track until those at a "normal" weight are the outliers? I just keep thinking of the movie Wall-E, are we headed there and are we going to stop?

 

Do you think there is anything we can do to make Americans healthier?

 

Can we put aside our differences and agree on anything?

 

I love the idea of revamping school lunch programs but I see critics respond that food just ends up being thrown away and both sides of the extremes argue that whatever they do isn't healthy anyway, the vegs want no meat and the lc/keto people argue it is too many carbs.

 

I love the idea of WIC like program for everyone with kids under 5 giving out whole foods, fruits, veggies, legumes, grains, and dairy. But if people don't have time to cook will it help anything? 

 

I'm not personally opposed to a soda tax, I think sodas and sweetened drinks are one of the absolute worst foods in terms of our obesity epidemic. Of course, people argue that they should have free will to eat whatever they want (didn't we have the same argument about cigarettes?).

 

I don't believe that any one food, or even most drugs, are bad. It's all about moderation. But we've lost sight of what moderation means with respect to highly refined sugars, fats, etc.

 

And I understand not having time, energy, or sometimes even electricity to cook. And I also know that kids throw things out. But I think these are excuses and people making the perfect the enemy of the good. 

 

I also will say, regarding food waste ("people won't really eat that!"): It's wasted whether or not you poop part of it out. Like, I eat a cake, I gain a pound, is that doing anybody any good at all? I could just not. eat. the. cake. I could literally put it in the compost and it won't be more wasted.

 

Nobody says throwing out cocaine is a "waste". We as a country need to get the heck over the idea that not eating food is wasting. What is wasteful is buying too much: you waste the soil, you waste the water, you waste the fuel on transporting, you waste the trip to the store, the space in the fridge, the time you spend to eat it, and for what?

 

I guarantee you that less than 1% of this country actually NEEDS a candy bar at any given time and the remaining 1%, only because of a medical condition or severe abuse. We could throw out every single candy bar, every candy aisle, and probably 70% of food located in fast food restaurants right now and it wouldn't be a waste. Why?

 

Because we don't need those calories. We just don't. So why is it wasting to put it in the compost vs. putting it in our mouths, endangering our health, and then putting it in the sewer?

 

So in my opinion that change of mindset is the critical piece here. Understanding that we are being sold products that are emotional support when we really need therapy and medical care and a hug, and that this is not "preventing waste", is the first step we need to take to get healthy.

 

I also think that stopping focusing on "fat people" would be helpful, because we need to stop the behavior, and not stop the people. Also because, it's super hard to lose weight, so we need to focus on the people who aren't fat yet to really have a chance at helping stop the epidemic. It's the kids aged 6mo - 12 who need to be the focus.

 

And folks... if they throw out an apple, it is not the end of the world. They can toss it. If they toss it, they weren't hungry anyway. They just wanted the sugar high.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Tsuga

[Bluegoat]

This is a conversation we’ve had often in our house. My husband’s PhD is in statistics from UChicago and the youngest is studying theoretical math, economics and the statistical application of both of those subjects to social sciences. (In fact, police departments have hired the students to analyze data.) What my husband strongly believes is that if risk can be easily removed to keep a person safe, then you do so. If it’s easy to gather info about crime and then make a judgment that fits your level of comfort to add a bit more safety, then it’s not such a bad idea. When we check crime statistics wherever we’re going, we don’t weigh it against heart attack risk. It’s very much a personal decision colored by perceptions and past experiences.

 

 

People often need some perspective.  Being told that a heart attack for your kid is more likely than being kidnapped is a level of understanding that can prevent a lot of stupid, and a lot of wasted angst and hysteria.  No to mention I'd rather not have the resources of police departments wasted. 

 

And "easily" so often becomes intrusive, even when people think it isn't.

[Sandwalker]

Last week. And you can't find a more major North American city than NYC. Care to try again?

Why are you being so argumentative? Individual experiences and cities will vary.

 

And the safety of your example depends upon where in NYC you're walking and what time of day/night.

[MBM]

The resources wasted? What do you mean by that? The pd request their help for free or very low pay and it helps them.

[Carol in Cal.]

No, that isn't what I'm talking about at all.

 

I've said a few times I'm talking about traditional food cultures.

Right, I was just agreeing with you.

[wintermom]

Scandinavian food was quite trendy for a few years. 

 

I know that lutefisk wasn't one of the trendy food items. There's great joke about lutefisk that will hit home with those in the know with this dish. 

 

The joke starts with: "Ole, Sven and Lars die in a tragic Lutefisk accident."  The rest of the joke isn't as funny as the first line.  :lol: 

Edited February 14, 2018 by wintermom

[Carol in Cal.]

For me, bodily integrity is a very high value.

So I do care about crime rates in light of walkability, a great deal.

 

Also, re those stats about violent crime being less common than other forms of injury or death, how much of that is from people avoiding crime as opposed to it not being prevalent?

 

It's easy to say that kidnapping is uncommon, and that is true; but it is also easy to see that when there are almost no kids outside visibly playing or walking alone in public, if you are the one who sends your kid out there, that child is going to be a target by virtue of being rare.  There is a certain amount of safety in numbers in crime rates.  

 

Women tend to get criticized if they walk about alone at night and get attacked.  "What did she expect?" is not an uncommon response.  I consider this unacceptable, but I also recognize that it's a pretty kneejerk attitude.

 

I think that having the PD's and society eliminate and render unthinkable violent street and home crime, particularly against women, is a worthy and worthwhile goal.  That is, in fact, precisely the societal shift that would make my world a healthier place all around.  

 

 

[Sandwalker]

I don't know. I guess I just mentioned it because it is the truth. I've never heard the Scandinavian diet noted as being a diet to strive for. You can get it at Ikea for dirt cheap. It's not particularly exotic or pretty. The Scandinavian people are pretty cool, though. ;)

Also, it's recommended to have a colorful plate of various foods for health.

[ktgrok]

The thing that I notice the most is the perception of serving size. It is totally nuts! If the "average" person needs 2000 calories a day, a standard meal at a restaurant shouldn't be 1500 calories! For pete's sake, a veggie burger at Red Robin is 1200 calories, which ties with the Whiskey River BBQ burger for the highest cal - and that doesn't include fries. How many people assume the veggie burger is healthier? And the freaking onion rings are 1890 calories.

 

 

 

 

Yup. My husband eats out a lot for work and it is killing his weight loss efforts. I mean, how the HELL is a salad 1400 calories??????? Are they using lard instead of lettuce?? Looking at you, Chillis!!!!!

 

I couldn't make a meal that high calorie if I TRIED at home! 

[Bluegoat]

Right, I was just agreeing with you.

 

Ah, ok.  I thought you were saying something totally different.  In fact, the opposite of what I now realize you meant.

[Bluegoat]

The resources wasted? What do you mean by that? The pd request their help for free or very low pay and it helps them.

 

I mean the idea that a risk that can be easily mitigated should be, even if it's very small.

 

If it really just came down to individuals choosing where to walk, that would probably be fine, but IME that kind of attitude to risk doesn't stop at where individuals walk.  

[Bluegoat]

I know that lutefisk wasn't one of the trendy food items. There's great joke about lutefisk that will hit home with those in the know with this dish. 

 

The joke starts with: "Ole, Sven and Lars die in a tragic Lutefisk accident."  The rest of the joke isn't as funny as the first line.  :lol: 

 

I can't see it catching on.  

 

The Inuit make something quite similar and seem to like it, though.

[HS Mom in NC]

I changed my diet after watching my Baby Boomer parents follow the doctors' orders about diet and exercise and do much better than my in-laws who disregard them and suffer the consequences.  It's quite a contrast. (They're all within 3 years of age of each other and live within an hour of each other.)  I also know I'll be the one caring for the in-laws (SIL is deceased so my husband is their only child.) I don't want my kids to take care of me any longer than is absolutely necessary, so I'm doing everything I can to avoid predictable problems. I've made changes to our diet and we're moving (for various reasons) somewhere where outdoors is a lovely place year round for active living and we can grow some of our own vegetables.

As a Christian I've been doing more intensive Bible reading and come to the conclusion that the American Evangelical churches I've been in are almost all neglectful in teachings about fasting, self-denial, contentedness, gluttony, greed, and excess.  Since I have my own Bible and I'm obligated to read it regularly on my own, I've seen that there's no excuse for my failures in this area of my own life just because leadership has failed.  So I've been making some spiritual changes too.  I can't do that for anyone else. 

The practicalities of cities already built are hard to overcome.  I haven't heard any concrete ways of overcoming them from people yet. Many cities are already strapped for infrastructure funds, so how you're going to redo the city to make it more walkable is a mystery to me when the nation is already up to its eyeballs in debt. How would they expand the roads when most of the roads are entirely built out? Don't interpret that as me saying, "Nuh uh." Interpret that as me saying, "Tell me how exactly it CAN be done in the real world with concrete actions."

Sure, more walkable cities are a great idea , but if you live in extreme weather like I currently do, you're not going to have people walking much except around sunrise in the early mornings and after sunset at night between May-Sept. because it's a heath hazard during the most of the day and we don't cool off every much at night to the shock of most summer visitors. I've got a cousin in rural Maine who faces real challenges getting around in heavy snow years.

Most people here don't live within walking distance of their employment and many don't go to a neighborhood public school, so where will they walk?  To the grocery store?  That's a mile and a half away, which according to google maps is a 45 min. walk each way. I shop once a week and there's no way I could bring that much home with me.  If I had the time to walk that far how would I get the large things home? There are no bike baskets big enough for a typical Target run of household items or a grocery items and riding along the very busy roads I live near is dangerous.  I cook mostly from scratch and have a diet of mostly plants so that's a lot of individual ingredients each trip. How would someone do that on public transportation?  Make more trips and buy less each trip?  Who has that kind of time?

2-3 times a week my kid goes to Tae Kwon Do with a master from her birth country, married to a Caucasian woman from here for exercise and cultural reasons-it's a 20 min. drive in my car, 2 hours and 11 minutes walking, 36 minutes biking on incredibly busy roadways no one bikes because of the risk.  Public transport always takes longer, even if you have access to it.  According to google maps it's a 2 hour bus ride.  Her math tutoring is 3 days a week is 3.5 miles away along some of the busiest streets in the city (wide and completely built out).  Driving in my car-10 minutes.  Walking 1 hour 21  minutes.  Riding a bike 23 minutes and dangerous.  Her enrichment program for homeschoolers (the only one of its kind in the state) is 11 miles away: 25 minutes by our car, 1 hour 28 minutes by bus, or 54 minutes of very dangerous biking. Not. gonna. happen.

[Soror]

Speaking of statistics, I recently read that 60% of US children will be obese by the time they're 35.   https://www.webmd.com/children/news/20171129/60-percent-of-us-kids-could-be-obese-by-age-35#1

 

This data should alarm people but I think it's easy to "unnotice" it because the ramifications are just too terrible.

That is very depressing. That article really points out the importance of early intervention. 

 

But we just continue to sit on our hands and say it is people's choice and you can't take away people's freedom to kill themselves. 

[MBM]

Bluegoat, what do you mean? Not quite understanding. I use an app that sends me a daily map showing when, where and time of crime and from that, it’s possible to see trends. For example, the university campus in our suburb is almost always very safe but in other areas, there are daily incidents. I’m checking out a part of the city as well, where my (naive) youngest might be living this summer just to see where crimes tend to occur. It’s no guarantee but the info is easy to see on a map and does help guide our decisions at times.

 

(On my phone and having quote problems.)

[Greta]

 

It may be rational in some places but nationwide I assure you that more people are dying of heart attacks than being murdered because they walked a few blocks and you are probably more likely to get hit by a car driven by some scared person than shot by a criminal where I live even with our high crime rate.

 

 

Good point.  I live in a high crime city (by which I mean that violent crimes occur at a rate of 2 - 2.5 times the national average, depending on which crime you look at).  Your post made me curious, so I looked up some stats.  

 

Per 100,000 people here per year:  10.9 were murdered and 148.3 died of heart disease.

 

By way of comparison, out of 100,000 people nationally:  5.3 people were murdered and 192.7 died of heart disease.

 

So compared to the nation, my area has much higher rate of murder, and lower than average rates of heart disease.  And yet, even so, we're still 13.6 times more likely to die of heart disease.  Nationwide, you're 36.4 times more likely to die of a heart attack than to be murdered.

[Tsuga]

 

 

 American Evangelical churches I've been in are almost all neglectful in teachings about fasting, self-denial, contentedness, gluttony, greed, and excess.  

 

This was super noticeable when I was in the church, particularly with respect to food but also television and self-indulging in things like trucks... like culturally if it's okay, it's okay? Why is a $50k truck less gluttonous than a $50k BMW (assuming neither is used for work which the vast majority are not)? So bizarre. Anyway, the church could do a lot to move activities to be more service-oriented than food oriented, but it is hard when obviously you don't choose leadership based on their fitness abilities, nor would you want to.

 

It needs to be a cultural change, not around kinds of food, but around "what are we doing with our time, are we spending it consuming or are we spending it creating? How can we incentivize people in the short term without offering cookies?"

 

People need a model. We can't expect thousands of church leaders all to come up with their own plan.

[Bluegoat]

Bluegoat, what do you mean? Not quite understanding. I use an app that sends me a daily map showing when, where and time of crime and from that, it’s possible to see trends. For example, the university campus in our suburb is almost always very safe but in other areas, there are daily incidents. I’m checking out a part of the city as well, where my (naive) youngest might be living this summer just to see where crimes tend to occur. It’s no guarantee but the info is easy to see on a map and does help guide our decisions at times.

 

(On my phone and having quote problems.)

 

What I am suggesting is that what that kind of information tells you in terms of real risks may not be nearly as helpful as it tends to feel.  It's not that statistics or even just observation are totally useless, but they typically need some real context.

 

On the other hand, there are downside to the way that kind of approach risk avoidance. Partly because it can make us modify behaviour that is not really very risky but may in fact have benefits, but also because people having a constant sense of risk in their lives don't always respond in healthy ways.

 

For example, just in light of this question of walking.  There are many people who have a sense that walking out at night is risky, or in particular areas, but quite often the real risk to individuals is very low.  But they still don't walk.  That has impacts on their health.  It also impacts the perceptions of others.  When fewer people are walking, it actually makes it more risky than it was before.  And it tends to mean there is less infrastructure for walkers over time.

 

I think having an accurate sense of real, comparative risk is pretty important, or our attention is in all the wrong places, often with detrimental effects.

[Bluegoat]

This was super noticeable when I was in the church, particularly with respect to food but also television and self-indulging in things like trucks... like culturally if it's okay, it's okay? Why is a $50k truck less gluttonous than a $50k BMW (assuming neither is used for work which the vast majority are not)? So bizarre. Anyway, the church could do a lot to move activities to be more service-oriented than food oriented, but it is hard when obviously you don't choose leadership based on their fitness abilities, nor would you want to.

 

It needs to be a cultural change, not around kinds of food, but around "what are we doing with our time, are we spending it consuming or are we spending it creating? How can we incentivize people in the short term without offering cookies?"

 

People need a model. We can't expect thousands of church leaders all to come up with their own plan.

 

 

Hmm, well as someone from the more catholic side of the spectrum,, I would say there is a model, a few of them actually, developed for community use for over 1000 years.  Very much a practical approach to moderation.

[Bluegoat]

I changed my diet after watching my Baby Boomer parents follow the doctors' orders about diet and exercise and do much better than my in-laws who disregard them and suffer the consequences.  It's quite a contrast. (They're all within 3 years of age of each other and live within an hour of each other.)  I also know I'll be the one caring for the in-laws (SIL is deceased so my husband is their only child.) I don't want my kids to take care of me any longer than is absolutely necessary, so I'm doing everything I can to avoid predictable problems. I've made changes to our diet and we're moving (for various reasons) somewhere where outdoors is a lovely place year round for active living and we can grow some of our own vegetables.

 

As a Christian I've been doing more intensive Bible reading and come to the conclusion that the American Evangelical churches I've been in are almost all neglectful in teachings about fasting, self-denial, contentedness, gluttony, greed, and excess.  Since I have my own Bible and I'm obligated to read it regularly on my own, I've seen that there's no excuse for my failures in this area of my own life just because leadership has failed.  So I've been making some spiritual changes too.  I can't do that for anyone else. 

 

The practicalities of cities already built are hard to overcome.  I haven't heard any concrete ways of overcoming them from people yet. Many cities are already strapped for infrastructure funds, so how you're going to redo the city to make it more walkable is a mystery to me when the nation is already up to its eyeballs in debt. How would they expand the roads when most of the roads are entirely built out? Don't interpret that as me saying, "Nuh uh." Interpret that as me saying, "Tell me how exactly it CAN be done in the real world with concrete actions."

 

Sure, more walkable cities are a great idea , but if you live in extreme weather like I currently do, you're not going to have people walking much except around sunrise in the early mornings and after sunset at night between May-Sept. because it's a heath hazard during the most of the day and we don't cool off every much at night to the shock of most summer visitors. I've got a cousin in rural Maine who faces real challenges getting around in heavy snow years.

 

Most people here don't live within walking distance of their employment and many don't go to a neighborhood public school, so where will they walk?  To the grocery store?  That's a mile and a half away, which according to google maps is a 45 min. walk each way. I shop once a week and there's no way I could bring that much home with me.  If I had the time to walk that far how would I get the large things home? There are no bike baskets big enough for a typical Target run of household items or a grocery items and riding along the very busy roads I live near is dangerous.  I cook mostly from scratch and have a diet of mostly plants so that's a lot of individual ingredients each trip. How would someone do that on public transportation?  Make more trips and buy less each trip?  Who has that kind of time?

 

2-3 times a week my kid goes to Tae Kwon Do with a master from her birth country, married to a Caucasian woman from here for exercise and cultural reasons-it's a 20 min. drive in my car, 2 hours and 11 minutes walking, 36 minutes biking on incredibly busy roadways no one bikes because of the risk.  Public transport always takes longer, even if you have access to it.  According to google maps it's a 2 hour bus ride.  Her math tutoring is 3 days a week is 3.5 miles away along some of the busiest streets in the city (wide and completely built out).  Driving in my car-10 minutes.  Walking 1 hour 21  minutes.  Riding a bike 23 minutes and dangerous.  Her enrichment program for homeschoolers (the only one of its kind in the state) is 11 miles away: 25 minutes by our car, 1 hour 28 minutes by bus, or 54 minutes of very dangerous biking. Not. gonna. happen.

 

Making cities more walkable doesn't happen overnight.  And infrastructure is going to need to be dealt with at some point.  Cities can't function without it's maintenance.  US cities have a serious infrastructure deficit.

 

You can change zoning.

 

You can change the way rods are used, make them pedestrian friendly in various ways, change speed limits, add bike lanes.

 

You can adapt to deal with climate.  In hot places an obvious, and traditional approach is to close for lunch and not open again until evening.  

 

 

Most of these kinds of problems are ones that you can look for solutions in other cities.

[frogger]

 

The practicalities of cities already built are hard to overcome. I haven't heard any concrete ways of overcoming them from people yet. Many cities are already strapped for infrastructure funds, so how you're going to redo the city to make it more walkable is a mystery to me when the nation is already up to its eyeballs in debt. How would they expand the roads when most of the roads are entirely built out? Don't interpret that as me saying, "Nuh uh." Interpret that as me saying, "Tell me how exactly it CAN be done in the real world with concrete actions."

 

Sure, more walkable cities are a great idea , but if you live in extreme weather like I currently do, you're not going to have people walking much except around sunrise in the early mornings and after sunset at night between May-Sept.

 

Because you asked, I think you do it the same way you work on a house, one piece at a time. Change isn't going to happen overnight. We have also volunteered to build trails ourselves to save costs. This works in park areas not main thouroughfares of course. When a road is in need of being repaved or added to because of traffic problems or potholes that is the time to look at smart design. It is also a time when the car only advocates come out in full force saying society is set up for cars and anyone that isn't currently in their car needs to just get out of their way. Not you, just people at road improvement meetings. Ug

 

I also believe drivers should pay for a higher percentage of roads through gas taxes etc. Economic theory says if the government subsidizes something it will increase the use. We spend vast amounts of money giving free handouts to drivers. I don't think we should make a drastic change at once since people have made decisions based on current conditions but the current conditions have very faulty incentives due to the government providing seemingly free roads that we all pay a lot of taxes for.

 

I do believe your temperature extremes are more difficult to get around then my cities temperature differences (it seldom gets above 90F here or below -10F) but having had rancher grandparents who worked into their 70's in Arizona I can say that you have the right idea. Morning and evening were when the heavy lifting got done. Mid day was their main meal and nap time.

 

Society changes slowly over time when people find a thing or two that works for them. You don't just suddenly impose a law stating no one is allowed to drive a car. You make small changes. My kids bike to activities, my husband bikes to work, but I still take a vehicle for my weekly shopping trip. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. We find what works for us individually. We recognize there are costs and benefits to each decision and act accordingly.

 

 

Edited for spelling

Edited February 14, 2018 by frogger

[Lang Syne Boardie]

This was super noticeable when I was in the church, particularly with respect to food but also television and self-indulging in things like trucks... like culturally if it's okay, it's okay? Why is a $50k truck less gluttonous than a $50k BMW (assuming neither is used for work which the vast majority are not)? So bizarre. Anyway, the church could do a lot to move activities to be more service-oriented than food oriented, but it is hard when obviously you don't choose leadership based on their fitness abilities, nor would you want to.

 

It needs to be a cultural change, not around kinds of food, but around "what are we doing with our time, are we spending it consuming or are we spending it creating? How can we incentivize people in the short term without offering cookies?"

 

People need a model. We can't expect thousands of church leaders all to come up with their own plan.

 

The Mennonite church modeled this in the past. I'm not (and have never been) Mennonite, so I don't know how much they still talk about it,but their vintage "More with Less" cookbook is excellent for helping individuals and churches reframe their thinking on excessive consumption.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Tibbie Dunbar

[MBM]

Okay, I see.

 

Yes, I imagine what you say can be true but I don’t think people are necessarily harmed by modifying behavior if, for example, they walk a different route or at a different time, maybe walking in the morning. I walk different routes just to see different areas. Then choosing to walk early might make them feel safer and reduce their stress and maybe they’d be sleeping more—also good. Infrastructure, like sidewalks, are legally required in some areas. But I can also see see how putting in infrastructure that doesn’t get used much is a waste.

[Tanaqui]

Why are you being so argumentative? Individual experiences and cities will vary.

 

Really? So why aren't you telling that to the person who said that walking in ANY major city is like asking to get stabbed?

 

I don't like it when people say incorrect things. Especially when those things are inflammatory and, frankly, kinda insulting. It seems to me that "this person is wrong" is a good enough reason to argue. Always.

 

Edited February 14, 2018 by Tanaqui

[creekland]

And folks... if they throw out an apple, it is not the end of the world. They can toss it. If they toss it, they weren't hungry anyway. They just wanted the sugar high.

 

I suppose I can agree that it's not the end of the world, but there sure are better options, esp if one considers the whole planet and not just first world countries.  There's no way in the world that I'm ever teaching kids to throw something useful out.  I care way too much about our planet to think that waste is just fine and dandy.

 

If you don't want something, don't buy it or take it.  (Our school has modified the "must take it part fortunately.")  If you no longer need something, see if someone else can use it or wants it.  If it can't be repurposed, then try recycling or composting.  As a last resort, then things get thrown out.

 

That is very depressing. That article really points out the importance of early intervention. 

 

But we just continue to sit on our hands and say it is people's choice and you can't take away people's freedom to kill themselves. 

 

And how, exactly, do you think this can be done?  When I talk to young lads or lasses who decide they want to smoke - even when we discuss in depth COPD, etc, they don't care.  Many will tell me they expect doctors to have a cure by the time it affects them.  When nutrition info is shared in Health class, there's a portion who celebrates at McDonald's afterward and recalls the info for long in the future holding up their meal/drink with a nod knowing what it's doing to their bodies and not caring in the least.

 

How well has the "War on Drugs" worked?  Did you see that Juuling thread and how popular that is?

 

Even in perceived health conscious countries, smoking levels still tend to be high and drug use occurs.

 

What do you propose doing - enacting some sort of dictatorship letting folks know what they can or can't ingest?  How would you enforce it?

 

No one is sitting on their hands.  The education we provide now is considerably better than when I was in school or even when I started teaching 19 years ago, but if people truly DO NOT CARE, how do you plan to change that and enforce it?

 

You get to make your decisions and they get to make theirs.  That's the way life works.  The more you try to enforce what you think is right, the more backlash you will see actually happening.  One is only going to change things if they want to.

 

Good point.  I live in a high crime city (by which I mean that violent crimes occur at a rate of 2 - 2.5 times the national average, depending on which crime you look at).  Your post made me curious, so I looked up some stats.  

 

Per 100,000 people here per year:  10.9 were murdered and 148.3 died of heart disease.

 

By way of comparison, out of 100,000 people nationally:  5.3 people were murdered and 192.7 died of heart disease.

 

So compared to the nation, my area has much higher rate of murder, and lower than average rates of heart disease.  And yet, even so, we're still 13.6 times more likely to die of heart disease.  Nationwide, you're 36.4 times more likely to die of a heart attack than to be murdered.

 

Have you compared the average age of each?  I suspect many heart disease folks die in their later years and none of us live forever.  Something is going to get us no matter what choices we've made in our lives.  Is this true of murder victims?

 

How many murders don't happen due to choices people have made (similar to how many car accident victims now survive due to using seat belts)?  Have you compared the rate of those who opt to walk outside in perceived dangerous areas to those who choose other areas (or times) to walk in?  That would give you a true comparison.

 

Yes, folks are more likely to die of a heart attack or cancer or other older age things, but comparing that to murder is really faulty at best.

[Greta]

 

Have you compared the average age of each?  I suspect many heart disease folks die in their later years and none of us live forever.  Something is going to get us no matter what choices we've made in our lives.  Is this true of murder victims?

 

How many murders don't happen due to choices people have made (similar to how many car accident victims now survive due to using seat belts)?  Have you compared the rate of those who opt to walk outside in perceived dangerous areas to those who choose other areas (or times) to walk in?  That would give you a true comparison.

 

Yes, folks are more likely to die of a heart attack or cancer or other older age things, but comparing that to murder is really faulty at best.

 

I was thinking it was interesting from a fear and perception standpoint.  I have a lot more fear of murder than I do of heart disease, but I'm actually far more likely to die of heart disease.  It's just an interesting example, I think, of how I'm not very good at risk assessment.

[Carol in Cal.]

Really? So why aren't you telling that to the person who said that walking in ANY major city is like asking to get stabbed?

 

I don't like it when people say incorrect things. Especially when those things are inflammatory and, frankly, kinda insulting. It seems to me that "this person is wrong" is a good enough reason to argue. Always.

Nobody said that.

And really, why would you want to give someone this much power over you?

[creekland]

I was thinking it was interesting from a fear and perception standpoint.  I have a lot more fear of murder than I do of heart disease, but I'm actually far more likely to die of heart disease.  It's just an interesting example, I think, of how I'm not very good at risk assessment.

 

So if you thought you were getting heart disease or a heart attack you wouldn't seek help?  I suspect most would - just like most try to avoid getting murdered.

 

Personally I'd rather die of a heart attack than most other options.  It's relatively quick.  I know some murders are just as quick, but even so, I really don't care to be murdered.

 

I eat the way I do to try to improve my quality of life when living, not to change the way I die.

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

I eat the way I do to try to improve my quality of life when living, not to change the way I die.

 

Not sure what it says about me that I laughed after reading this.  LOL

 

My mother died after battling cancer for over a year.  It was kinda slow, painful, and torturous.  My FIL had a heart attack, went into a coma, then died the next day.  It was a complete shock, but at least it was quick!  So yeah I'll take heart attack over various other possibilities.

 

Now oddly my family all have high cholesterol and some have BP problems.  YET no person on either side has ever died from a heart attack.  Go figure.  So my odds are looking like something awful, slow, and painful.   :lol:

 

OR old age.  My grandmother will die from old age (and dementia). 

[HS Mom in NC]

I do believe your temperature extremes are more difficult to get around then my cities temperature differences (it seldom gets above 90F here or below -10F) but having had rancher grandparents who worked into their 70's in Arizona I can say that you have the right idea. Morning and evening were when the heavy lifting got done. Mid day was their main meal and nap time.

 

If you mean by having the right idea you think I'm advocating most people rearrange their hours according to the weather, you're wrong.  I'm not.  People in rural areas could do that if they weren't interconnected with other people during most days (ranchers, farmers, etc.) But my point was that it's ridiculous today.  How could people get all their shopping, schooling, and business done just before and after sunset and sunrise with foot or bike power or in a timely way on public transportation schedules? 

 

Many people don't grasp how relative the term "cooler" is by region.  Here's a link to our highs and lows last July. https://weather.com/weather/monthly/l/USAZ0166:1:US

It looks like you have to select July 2017 to see it.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Homeschool Mom in AZ

[GoodGrief]

 

And how, exactly, do you think this can be done?  When I talk to young lads or lasses who decide they want to smoke - even when we discuss in depth COPD, etc, they don't care.  Many will tell me they expect doctors to have a cure by the time it affects them.  When nutrition info is shared in Health class, there's a portion who celebrates at McDonald's afterward and recalls the info for long in the future holding up their meal/drink with a nod knowing what it's doing to their bodies and not caring in the least.

 

How well has the "War on Drugs" worked?  Did you see that Juuling thread and how popular that is?

 

Even in perceived health conscious countries, smoking levels still tend to be high and drug use occurs.

 

What do you propose doing - enacting some sort of dictatorship letting folks know what they can or can't ingest?  How would you enforce it?

 

No one is sitting on their hands.  The education we provide now is considerably better than when I was in school or even when I started teaching 19 years ago, but if people truly DO NOT CARE, how do you plan to change that and enforce it?

 

 

 

 

I'm of the (probably unpopular) opinion that if it was simpler and more socially acceptable to find and receive quality mental health care, and specifically solid treatment for depression and anxiety, a fair number of our cases of chronic obesity would resolve or fail to develop. It's also my opinion that the well-meaning push to end smoking over the past several decades probably exacerbated our obesity problem. Both tobacco and food are commonly used to self-medicate, calm, soothe. Yes, the affected could opt for vigorous exercise, but it's the rare person in the throes of untreated depression or anxiety that feels like busting out several miles on the treadmill or trail (and cardio actually exacerbates anxiety for some.)

 

About ten years ago in our city, the public outcry led to a school board decision to remove "unhealthy" snacks from the schools. At the time, fat was considered the culprit in heart disease. The schools kept the vending machines, which were a source of funding for various school activities, and took out the full fat chips, chocolate candy bars and carbonated sodas. Then replaced those items with things like low-fat Pop-Tarts, gummy bears, baked chips, and Gatorade. Government public health decisions are not necessarily, and probably rarely, based on good common sense (and I'm speaking as someone who spent close to a decade working in public health, whose husband has close to thirty years in the field, and whose father had some fifty-odd years, primarily at the Centers for Disease Control.)

 

More walkable cities and better availability of quality food would probably help those of us who suffer from the chronic excess of 15 pounds. That would be nice. I suspect serious efforts to legislate diet (for our own good, of course) without addressing the mental health issue is going to lead to people moving onto another readily available way to self-medicate. My guess is that alcoholism rates would explode.

 

Beware of unintended consequences.

Edited February 14, 2018 by GoodGrief

[creekland]

Not sure what it says about me that I laughed after reading this.  LOL

 

My mother died after battling cancer for over a year.  It was kinda slow, painful, and torturous.  My FIL had a heart attack, went into a coma, then died the next day.  It was a complete shock, but at least it was quick!  So yeah I'll take heart attack over various other possibilities.

 

Now oddly my family all have high cholesterol and some have BP problems.  YET no person on either side has ever died from a heart attack.  Go figure.  So my odds are looking like something awful, slow, and painful.   :lol:

 

OR old age.  My grandmother will die from old age (and dementia). 

 

My mom, hubby, kids, and I actually discuss this fairly often with her cancer, MIL's Alzheimers, my 94 year old grandmother's slow and cruddy death in a nursing home after a fall, and us getting up there in age.  FIL has heart disease and is still going strong at 89.  When he goes, he's likely to have the best situation.  His diet is just as bad (or worse) than any of the others, but he stays active - even now - and not once has he done any sort of "just for exercise" workout in a gym or otherwise.  He just stays active and he reads/does puzzles like Sudoku.  I think activity has just as much or more of an input on health.  Of course, he also didn't smoke.  He worked in tobacco (as a foreman) most of his life, but didn't smoke even a single cigarette.  He (and MIL) were the only two at his job who didn't (according to them) and they are the only two still alive.

 

We're working to keep our brains and bodies working with a decent quality of life, but when the end comes, a heart attack ranks right up there among favorable options if we can choose.

[creekland]

I'm of the (probably unpopular) opinion that if it was simpler and more socially acceptable to find and receive quality mental health care, and specifically solid treatment for depression and anxiety, 

 

I'm for this anyway, but I'm not sure which comes first considering a good diet and exercise are correlated with less depression and anxiety.  Either way, once one has something I wish getting care for it were easier to get.

[frogger]

 

 

I eat the way I do to try to improve my quality of life when living, not to change the way I die.

 

 

I love this.

 

Yes, I think this is such a huge part of exercise of being able to get out.  In our state depression is rampant.  Even I get depressed if I stay inside too long and I have no mental illness that I know of. I think humans aren't made to constantly be enclosed although I have no proof for that thought other than a large number of people agreeing with me. 

 

The people I connect with when taking a simple trip outside always makes me happier. I have talked to people traveling the world just by biking next to them for a few minutes, I have helped people with broken bikes. Whether I'm just saying hi or nodding to a fellow at a bus stop. My husband has made so many friends on the trails. I really think that stress, crime, and health is all affected by lack of community and excecis both. Gym memberships are only one third of the equation of being out, having community, and getting exercise although some gyms may have a community atmosphere.   

 

You never meet someone on your way to work when driving a car. You just get stressed out because someone almost side swiped you or ran a red light that practically ended your life. It's almost like people aren't real people once entering a car. I don't know why that is but there seems to be this effect.

 

You also come face to face with the drunk staggering all over the trail. The person who quite literally can't get up off the ground and whose husband is cussing her out while yanking on her arm because she gave up and it is beginning to pour rain. So you go help her get up and to her walker.  Sorry throwing personal stories in there.  I agree that there are places I wouldn't take my children in the middle of the night. It's not a terrible thing to do some risk assessment but I do think it is unhealthy to have to live your whole life in fear, never getting out, never connecting, never seeing the blue sky but through tinted glass.  I'm sure that most car drivers get out sometimes. I'm a car driver too but I find the arguments against making cities a place for people and not just cars frustrating.  If you can't walk anywhere then you must be wealthy enough to afford a trip to the park to hike on top of the cost of the car, licence, insurance, parking. It takes huge investments of time to travel to specific places to "walk" rather than being part of daily life. 

 

Most of these opinions are formed from the few places I have lived and I have never lived in Chicago. People from Chicago will have to figure out what is best in their circumstances but from a city whose crime rate is going down hill fast I think we (my city and probably a lot of others) desperately need more community, connection, exercise,  and education on both food and drugs. 

[creekland]

I do think it is unhealthy to have to live your whole life in fear, never getting out, never connecting, never seeing the blue sky but through tinted glass.  

 

Agreed.  Definitely agreed.  We don't live our lives in fear at all, but we still use seat belts and try to assess our risks accurately.  So many people gasped at our going to Jordan this past fall and letting our son study abroad there for the whole semester (my dad even saying "I thought you were the smart one!!!).

 

But compare stats of ancient Philadelphia (now Amman, Jordan) and PA's Philadelphia (that we flew out of) and it's pretty eye opening (the US version being much worse crime-wise).  We had no issue walking around Amman at night - and even going to a "red" area of Jordan (according to our state dept) to see ruins of a famous castle, but I'd be wary of going into parts of Philadelphia (US) at night, esp without personal knowledge of the specific area. We had a local take us to the castle in the red flag area of Jordan too.