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

[regentrude]

I live in a small city of 20k people. Our top priority for the choice of house was biking distance to work for DH. We are in walking distance from the schools: 0.6 m to the elementary, 1 mi to the middle school, 1.5 miles to the high school. However, we were the only family from our street to walk to elementary school - everybody else drove the half mile (and no, these were not parents en route to work, but SAHMs who then turned around and drove the half mile back home.)

When we moved here, there were no other cyclists to be seen; now it's a few more.

It's a 45 minute walk to work, I only do that when it has snowed. But I have no excuse for not biking other than my own laziness. 

 

Lots of people choose to live out in the country because they have different priorities.

 

 

[frogger]

I grew up in western Canada, and all my extended family lived on farms. They certainly weren't biking and walking to town very often. The distances were either too great or it was too cold. Plus they were transporting things to town or from town. People were active from working on the farm, participating in physical activities like hockey and curling in the winter, riding/rodeo and baseball/softball in the summer. And the number of restaurants and donut shops in town was much less.

 

In the cities where I've lived in Canada, I've walked, biked, taken public transportation or driven. Again, weather is a huge factor. It's often too cold and dangerous to walk or bike in the winter. Even though there are a lot of bike paths and sidewalks, they don't always get cleared from ice and snow sufficiently to be safe and accessible. Public transportation has the same issues with snow and ice. There are long delays, long waits for busses, and the cost of public transport isn't easily affordable for everyone, either.

 

It's not just being "forced" to put away the car that is going to save people from obesity. It's choices people are making about the food they eat, and the amount they move their bodies.

Nobody is saying farmers need to bike to town and tow back their seed back home. The original comment was that cities, that's right cities need to be more walkable.

 

I live in Alaska and I cringe at the people moaning and groaning about how fast the roads are plowed, sanded, and that there is never enough of them and then complain about taxes. Meanwhile people in California are paying more for their roads then they are.

 

My husbands cholesterol dropped to the mid normal range mostly from biking to work. It's probably great for his heart that he isn't dealing with pathetic drivers every night either. He gets home happy rather than angry. Did I mention we live in Alaska? His commute was 20 miles each way but he changed jobs and it's only 14 now. I don't think everyone should have to do that but I do think if more people did especially those who live in town closer to their work, the attitudes would change towards side walk clearing etc. It wouldn't just be the poor, the elderly, or other disadvantaged folks that have to climb a snow bank to push the cross walk button or wait for a bus.

 

We also still get to use our vehicle when neccessary. We don't have to haul lumber home on bikes when building something and I don't have my daughter bike to orchestra hauling her harp in sub zero temperatures. :) Making streets more user friendly for everyone doesn't force everyone to give up their car. The people being forced currently is everyone not barricaded in a vehicle. When you can't cross a road for fear of being killed then that feels a little more like being forced. You are forced to drive an expensive new vehicle, preferably with every safety feature possible so people can race around while looking at their phones.

Edited February 14, 2018 by frogger

[Julie Smith]

Some countries do have a version of a "fat tax" 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_tax#Japan

 

Poor diet is a mix of a lot of things...in my social circle it's an expression of freedom...the idea that I'll do what I want, eat and drink what I want, regardless of the consequences.  It's not just the food, its the other medical advice.  And its aided by not having to pay the bill.  So my solution is that the bill is paid by those who make the choice.  I'm not alone in that, many companies are surcharging employees who are overweight/obese if they aren't working towards a healthy weight.  I'd add to that with a tax on junk food and alcohol.  Plain fact is they aren't all overeating...they have plenty of social going on and they are adding a lot of liquid calories while socializing..then passing the bill for the consequences on, har de har har.

 

[Χά�ων]

Um, that's not an accurate picture of modern American cities.

You are correct, and it says more about the person who holds that view than anything else.

[Julie Smith]

One thing I remember as a kid was all these little old ladies hauling purchases around in tallish basket pull carts that held maybe 2-4 grocery bags worth of stuff.  They would struggle to pull them up the hills and tall stairs to their homes, but they were independentish.  I don't even know where to get something like that now.  So that does kind of cramp my walk to shop style--I'm limited to what I can carry.  Luckily those Ikea totes came out and they are very sturdy and hold a lot of stuff.

 

I walk everywhere.

 

I use to use one of those cart things, but I now use a hiking backpack. I LOVE that bag. In our house it is called, "The Bag of Supreme Awesomeness" I can hold lots of food. It even has what I call, "cup holders" at the side that can fit waterbottles or in winter it's where I stash my hat and mitts when I am indoors. 

 

I

[MBM]

We rarely take our car to the grocery stores which are all within a few blocks. Much easier to walk.

 

IKEA sells a foldable rolly cart for not too much. It only holds one bag plus a little more. Does the trick for me but usually I just use a large tote that I can carry over my shoulder.

[Frances]

I live in a big city (community developed between 1880s and 1920s).

 

I live within .5 mile of the library, school, train, bus, Wal-greens, Walmart (!!!), Dunkin Donuts, restaurants, etc etc. Hubby bikes to work. I walk to dentist, bike to doctor. Great grocery (not just city Walmart) within .75 mi. Multiple parks within .5 mile.

 

I live in my multi-story attached house with 5 kids. My neighbors love my kids - and my kids love my neighbors.

 

ETA: The biggest draw for me (and why we won't consider moving to a cheaper neighborhood for more house) is that my kids have a ton of freedom since they can walk to all these places, too. And to their friends' houses. (And soon, for my oldest, to the bus to go downtown.)

 

Emily

Yes, this. It made such a huge difference in our lives, especially when I went back to work. My son could walk to karate, friends’ houses, the library, both of our work places, the swimming pool, the YMCA, his university classes, the public access TV station where he volunteered, and when he was an older teen, the Amtrak station to catch the train to nearby cities to visit friends. My husband and I both had this kind of freedom growing up in small Midwest towns, although we tended to bike rather than walk except during the winter, and are very thankful our son was able to have it in a much larger city.

[AimeeM]

I don't know about this thing about not working for everyone.

 

Sure, there are people who are unusual, and some who are really unusual.

 

But lots of societies with very homogeneous diets, where people all eat pretty much the same thing as everyone else, and often the sae thing every day, have had far far fewer diet related problems than we do.

 

I don't think finding a standard diet that would be much better for almost everyone is really the hard part.

 

Most societies with homogeneous diets are, well, homogeneous societies in general -- no?

 

I'm not a scientist by any means, but I would think it stands to reason that for the same reason some people remain healthy (and of a healthy weight) eating crap foods, the reverse can be said and that same crap food diet can cause another a host of health problems. And there are some people who lose weight easily on a certain diet, while others have to try different diet after different diet to find one that works.

 

My FIL ate the same Fried-Fish-Friday, Spaghetti-and-Meatballs-Monday, Lasagna-'Til-It's-Gone, Genuine-Philadelphia-Soft-Pretzels-On-a-Regular, Corner-Sub-Shop-Cheesesteak diet that my DH ate growing up. DH is diabetic and overweight -- my FIL passed away in his mid-80's weighing in at no more than 90 lbs sopping wet. 

 

And, no, I can't believe that any one standard diet will work for everyone. For example, someone who is much more active than I am would need to intake more calories and carbs -- it's one of the primary reasons for those "calculators" put out by the different "diets." Age, amount of routine energy exerted, and genetics absolutely have to be factored in. 

[wintermom]

Um, that's not an accurate picture of modern American cities.

 

I'm talking about the reality of the Canadian city I live in right now. It's gotten a lot worse from when I moved here 25 years ago. Back when I first arrived, I lived in the downtown core and walked around just fine. Now there are daily stabbings and both men and women are harassed on the streets on a regular basis in the evenings. It's not a problem in the day when office workers are around, but it's not exactly fun at night. I wouldn't want to live down there anymore. 

[eternalsummer]

When we were poor, fresh produce never went to waste.  If we had green beans, or apples, it was a Very Good Day and everyone ate them right up.  

 

We were too poor for packaged foods.  Calorie-for-calorie, they are more expensive than rice and beans.  What we could afford was largely rice and beans, and homemade bread, and homemade popcorn on the stove with oil (the oil was caloric).  Biscuits and sometimes eggs for breakfast, peanut butter and bread for lunch, beans for dinner.  Once a week we bought a salmon and a salad to take to DH's grandmother at her nursing home/apartment thing, and that was something we saved for all week and occasionally borrowed money to do.  when we couldn't do that, we did lentils and salad (about half the time).  Salad was a head of lettuce and green onions - she kept dressing in her apt.

 

We could have lived without the salmon but boy was it tasty.

 

When we were splurging we'd buy eggs, canned salmon, and crackers and make salmon croquettes.

 

There was no money in the budget for prepared packaged foods - they are not cheaper than whole foods, they just aren't.

 

Now, eating that way does rely on having a working stovetop and ideally oven (for the bread).  It is also zero fun.  Once DD was in public kindergarten, I felt I had to send food that looked good enough to keep up appearances, so I spent a fair amount of money we didn't really have on pretzels and bags of mini-carrots (which she didn't like) and sandwich bread.  Every day she took a peanut butter sandwich, pretzels, and carrots.  The good thing about the carrots was that they looked like I was sending a veg., but she hated them, so she'd bring them home and I'd send them again for 2 or 3 more days until I just ate them at home and sent new carrots.  I thought that was pretty genius.  It would have been much cheaper and probably healthier to send beans and rice but I didn't want to ostracize her or hear from the K teacher or CPS.

[eternalsummer]

When we lived in the Midwest, nearish to regentrude, no one walked to school.  We all walked when I was a kid (same school, same neighborhood) but by the time DD was in K, everyone drove.  Two blocks from school and people would drive - and wait in a car line 3 blocks long!  They'd have to drive past the school just to get in line for the car pickup.  When I was a kid, we all walked if the weather was decent, and I lived a mile from the school.

 

Here in Colorado, people do walk.  The whole neighborhood near the local elementary walks.  It's not a mile, but at least they aren't driving 2 blocks.  They also get out more on trails and etc. as far as I can see - but then, there are more places to get out and walk here, so that helps.

[wintermom]

You are correct, and it says more about the person who holds that view than anything else.

 

What are you suggesting it says? My dh works downtown and walks right by some rather iffy streets everyday. He says that his women co-workers aren't thrilled about this location either.  So he's lying, or what? You think a 6'1" large man trained in martial arts is afraid of his shadow? 

 

When is the last time you walked alone in the downtown streets of a major city at night? 

[Tanaqui]

When is the last time you walked alone in the downtown streets of a major city at night?

 

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

 

[wintermom]

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

 

What can I say. I guess everyone is nice and slim in your city then. There are no cars, and everyone walks. The rest of us nobs must be doing something wrong.

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't know about this thing about not working for everyone.

 

Sure, there are people who are unusual, and some who are really unusual.

 

But lots of societies with very homogeneous diets, where people all eat pretty much the same thing as everyone else, and often the sae thing every day, have had far far fewer diet related problems than we do.

 

I don't think finding a standard diet that would be much better for almost everyone is really the hard part.

I dunno, maybe the outliers die young or something.

[katilac]

Two blocks from school and people would drive - and wait in a car line 3 blocks long!  They'd have to drive past the school just to get in line for the car pickup.   

 

 

School pickup lines are a spectacular piece of modern insanity. During dd's brief foray into kindergarten, we lived too far away to walk, but no way on earth was I sitting in that pickup line. I just parked the car a few blocks away and walked from there. Her poor teacher was so confused. "I don't have her listed as a walker." So I'd try to explain, and she'd look more confused, and I'd end up like, does it matter? You have her sitting outside regardless of whether I walk up or drive up! Walking for ten minutes each way rather than sitting in a running car (because deep south) for 30+ minutes was just beyond her comprehension. 

[frogger]

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

Well, NYC is a lot bigger than the city I live in (or right outside of depending on your definition) but our crime rate is worse. Crime and city size aren't directly related. The last list I saw of cities with the worst crime rates didn't include New York even if it included my city even though I wouldn't even call our city a major city. :(

[Sk8ermaiden]

Since I've made my way through this whole thread now, I wanted to add that down here in my slice of Texas (land of sprawl), walkable communities have become a marker of the upper middle class. The new master-planned communities being built in the suburbs have beautiful city centers and wonderful, safe trails to get you to them. The houses in those neighborhoods go for major money, and all the venues in the city centers are high end. 

The older, in-town walkable areas command some of the highest prices in the city. So it's pretty obvious to me that walkability is desirable to most, but no one wants to provide it unless you can pay. $$$$

 

It's a shame, because most places I visit in a week are within 5 miles of my house, and I could bike, but it's extremely dangerous. We'd need raised pedestrian bridges and sidewalk installation; I don't think reforming the actual traffic is possible here (within a generation anyway). I'd gladly pay a little extra in taxes for infrastructure. 

[Χά�ων]

What are you suggesting it says? My dh works downtown and walks right by some rather iffy streets everyday. He says that his women co-workers aren't thrilled about this location either. So he's lying, or what? You think a 6'1" large man trained in martial arts is afraid of his shadow?

 

When is the last time you walked alone in the downtown streets of a major city at night?

I was walking around the streets in the heart if downtown in a major city this evening at 11:30pm. I guess it is technically, yesterday now. I was within a few blocks of an alley where a significant amount of drug sales happen, and I have frequently walked right past said alley. I usually am out after midnight when I run (downtown) which is 3-4 times a week when the weather permits. Never had a problem.

 

Late one night I had a horrible stomache ache so I grabbed a bus to a convience store for a 7-up. I ended up leaving right before a man and when he realized we were both headed the same way he announced himself and said he was going to the bus stop and sped up to go around me so I would not feel as though he was following me.

[MBM]

I live in Chicago and Evanston and have had my purse snatched once in the Loop at noon at McDonalds while holding it and another time someone attempted to steal it in front of the old Bergdorf on Michigan.

 

There are certain areas I won’t go, period, because the crime is often serious and unpredictable. Other places I won’t travel to at night. South Evanston/North Chicago does see a number of shootings and knifings, sometimes random. A year ago, a med student was robbed and knifed while walking with two friends on Sheridan Rd, a major street, in Chicago near Loyola. It was fatal. There are serious crimes committed nightly and even during the day in those areas. Even today in Chicago, a police officer was fatally shot in the head in the Loop at 2 pm at the Thompson Center.

 

My best friend was murdered in NYC when she walked home around 11 pm. Murdered for the $26 in her purse. Crime occurs there, too.

 

You can’t protect yourself all of the time, but I don’t give a flying fig if someone is offended that I might choose not to travel through areas I feel are unsafe.

[The Governess]

Home Ec, shop, and other such classes fell into disrepute because they were gender segregated.

It's hard to imagine how to start them up again.  They require expertise and equipment and those are hard to come by.

 

There is a lady at my church who was a professor of sewing at a local community college for many years.  She is probably 85 or so now.  But wow, she was an EXPERT.  Her degree was in home ec with a sewing emphasis.  I'm not sure that's even a degree anymore.

 

I am 60 and have never attended or even visited an elementary or middle school that had a kitchen classroom, a sewing classroom, or a shop classroom available.  Not one.  There are some high schools that have a shop of some sort but that is it.  I took the one textile oriented class in my (large) high school curriculum that was available, and the most sophisticated equipment we got to use was a frame loom for making Ojibway bags, a frame for stretcher embroidery, and a crochet hook.  IIRC there were a couple of table looms that you could try if you already knew how to use them and supplied your own yarns, but that was not part of the curriculum.  It takes up a lot of room and effort to install and maintain shop or sewing or cooking equipment, and I think the schools were glad to be out from under that need.  

 

The middle school I attended was built in the early 1900s.  It had a sewing classroom, a kitchen classroom, and a shop room.  Our classes weren't segregated but I can't recall if they were all required or not. In our sewing class we each had our own sewing machine to work on, and for our final project I made a tunic that buttoned up the front and a pair of leggings. I only wore the outfit once because the tunic came out a little crooked.  I can't remember what we made in our cooking class, but I do remember working in groups and having to follow a recipe.  And in shop class I made a baseball bat out of a piece of wood, among other things.  This was in the early 1990s.  I thought these classes were fun but I didn't realize how rare it was to have the equipment and setup that we had there.  I bet those rooms have been repurposed by now and these classes are no longer offered, which makes me sad. 

 

[frogger]

It's funny how someone mentioning building cities to be more people friendly allowing people to get around turns into they are going to steal MY car and force me to walk by murderers, rapists, and thieves.

 

Listen, you can ride in your car all you want. No one is going to force you to use the sidewalk just because one was built. No one is going to strap a fit bit to you and make you take so many steps on a sidewalk or trail just because it's there. Just please don't run over the rest of us while you are at it.

[Amira]

I don’t think anyone should have to live in a neighborhood where they don’t feel safe (and I wish we would do more to make that a reality instead of an option that’s only available to people with enough money to choose where they live), but we’ve been able to find secure, walkable neighborhoods in various US cities. We usually live overseas, but I rarely drove when we lived in Seattle, Salt Lake, or the DC suburbs. But that means we chose to live in apartments in all of those cities. We give up land and square footage for the walkabilty, not the safety. We’ll be back in the same DC apartment this summer without a car and we’ll still eat and I won’t be in any more danger than if I lived in a less walkable part of the suburbs. Probably less danger, since walking improves health and driving a car is one of the most risky everyday things Americans do.

 

I’m not necessarily opposed to well-crafted sugar taxes though. Even Mexico’s relatively low sugar tax has decreased consumption of sugary drinks, although it will be a while before we know if any of these sugar taxes make a difference in public health. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/22/mexico-sugar-tax-lower-consumption-second-year-running

Edited February 14, 2018 by Amira

[Amira]

But even though I don’t necessarily oppose sugar taxes, I think that limiting choices for SNAP recipients is a bad idea in every way. Especially when the replacement would be a standard box of shelf stable foods that isn’t adjusted for the time constraints, kitchen facilities, and food cultures of the recipients. If your favorite sugary drink cost a little more, there are plenty of other choices that don’t cost as much, no matter how you’re paying for it. But if you’re getting a box of white flour, cornflakes, peanut butter, and shelf stable milk for the “typical†American family rather than several hundred dollars, well, your choices are severely limited and quite possibly in a way that harms your family’s health. And can you imagine what companies would do to make sure their products went into the box?

[MBM]

Chicago’s violence is serious enough to put into place the Safe Passages Routes for students walking to school. They are walked by trained adults whose responsibility is to help protect them from violence.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-cps-safe-passage-shootings-2017-htmlstory.html

 

In summer many of these kids don’t go out to play much because of neighborhood gang violence. Very sad.

 

We didn’t own a car for 10 years and use our current car infrequently. I probably walk 5-6 miles per day just running errands. My husband bikes a lot, sometimes 30-50 miles and the occasional century. We don’t have problems fitting in exercise. I can see, though, how people living in areas of higher crime might opt to not walk.

[Sneezyone]

Good grief, what is with the Chicago obsession? There are hundreds of major metros in America with a million people or more and at least 10 cities over a million. Most are not Chicago. One can't just assume its problems exist in cities nationwide.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Sneezyone

[SparklyUnicorn]

I KNOW it doesn't work for everyone, esp since I have a "thin as a rail and eats extremely healthy foods" younger than me friend/co-worker who has Type II diabetes (and beat bc), but diet can help at least with diabetes.  My whole extended family has it and is extremely overweight eating essentially a "wrong" diet (few fruits or veggies and a lot of plain white bread or similar).  I saw that in my youth and opted to pay attention to the "better for avoiding diabetes" diets (mostly, I still allow one regular sugar caffeinated soda per day, though will stop when blood numbers tell me to).  I have yet to get it, but have remained "borderline" since my teens (prior to soda which was introduced by a college roomie).

 

My mom's diabetes numbers went to 100% better (stop the injected insulin) once she found out she had cancer and cancer feeds on sugars, so adjusted her diet majorly.  She "got" her Type II diabetes when pregnant with me (or so she says - no reason to disbelieve her).

 

I had thought I was genetically doomed with it coming from everyone on my mom and dad's side.  Now I'm really thinking ours is mostly caused by diet (and a susceptibility genetically for it).  My own kids were raised with soda, but have opted to go even farther than me and stay away from that too.  Yea for them!

 

None of us are health food fanatics.  We all have the occasional splurge "just because" or when we are out with others, but having our regular diet being mostly healthy seems to make a ton of difference health-wise with diabetes.

 

Same exact thing happened when my mother got cancer.  I don't buy the "feeds on sugars" thing, BUT she adjusted her diet...not to mention she didn't eat nearly as much being sick from treatments.  She was able to go completely off diabetes meds after being on them for many many years. 

 

I don't know that it is caused by diet.  That I don't think is clear.  I can control things with diet, but if I stopped...where would I be at?  The attitude of my sister (and my dad for that matter) is since one can't help getting diabetes, why bother trying to control it with diet since they can't cure it.  (I wish I were kidding.)  I do get that it is not easy to forgo many foods though.  That is understandable. 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I do understand being afraid to walk alone through some cities. I live in such a place.  I would walk during the day no problem, but at night, no probably not.  And in winter this is problematic since the days are so short.  What I find especially annoying in winter is how most of the sidewalks are covered in sheets of ice.  It's a death wish.  I wouldn't let my kid walk to the park the other day because there was too much ice. 

 

So really it's not fair to crap on people for what they are or are not comfortable with. 

[MBM]

Good grief, what is with the Chicago obsession? There are hundreds of major metros in America with a million people or more and at least 10 cities over a million. Most are not Chicago. One can't just assume its problems exist in cities nationwide.

It’s in response to those who were dismissing a poster’s safety concerns about walking in her city in Canada at night. I mentioned Chicago, NYC and a suburb of about 80,000, places I know personally, and used examples to illustrate how others might not feel safe walking around their homes.

 

Plenty of smaller communities deal with similar issues as well. My former reservation town, population 3,000, and surrounding towns have serious crimes now, mostly drug-related, especially after the oil industry moved into the areas. I have friends and relatives who no longer allow their children to roam freely as a result. So safety issues can affect decisions people make in the smaller towns as well.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Oddly I feel less worried in major cities.  Maybe because there are almost always SOME people around.  In a smaller city, no not necessarily.

 

 

[creekland]

Lots of people choose to live out in the country because they have different priorities.

 

This is us.  We have crowd allergies.  I love living out on our farm with just a few neighbors around - really, really good neighbors at that.  When we snowbird, I want a condo on the beach that is in walkable territory, but since we aren't wealthy, I suspect we'll have to settle for "good enough."  Time will tell.

 

BUT, even living rural, we average 5 miles per day walking (10,000 steps - and my phone doesn't count most inside my house).  We have our own 1.5 mile route - or can choose a couple of other options.  It's gorgeous, peaceful scenery (for us anyway).  I don't care to exchange it for city walking - even a small city like where my mom lives.

 

It also takes me less time to get places (grocery, post office, school/work) than it did when we lived in St Pete, FL.  The traffic there slowed us down considerably - traffic lights slow folks down even when there aren't other cars.

 

Good grief, what is with the Chicago obsession? There are hundreds of major metros in America with a million people or more and at least 10 cities over a million. Most are not Chicago. One can't just assume its problems exist in cities nationwide.

 

It's not just Chicago.  When I had my daily "stuff" going on in Baltimore (Johns Hopkins) I was warned by everyone not to walk between the hospital and a motel we sometimes stayed at.  The motel provided a free shuttle service.  Being the stubborn self I am, I walked anyway - several days - in Feb, and sometimes was followed by the shuttle driver in his shuttle when he didn't have other passengers to ferry.  He outright told me he wanted to be sure I was safe even if I wanted the exercise.  He lived in the area.  This was during the daytime.  I can't imagine what it would be like at night.  I didn't venture out at night - no need.

 

I'm glad some think it's safe to walk anywhere, anytime, at night or otherwise, but even though I'm bolder than many, I respect crime reports that suggest differently (when they do - we walked in Amman, Jordan at night with no fear whatsoever - it all depends upon the place).

[SparklyUnicorn]

I am not so worried because NYC has heavy security, but the predators still are out.  Like Chicago yesterday, I know there will be a response...but I don't want anyone to die.  I want everyone to be free of human predators and enjoy this beautiful country, and have the peace to go out and talk to their neighors without looking over the shoulder to see that the next car coming down the road isn't going to swerve and hit them or their kids or discharge a robbery time.

 

Reminds me once DH and I were in NYC and some guy came up to us very excited and said can you believe it...I fell asleep on the stairs over there and nobody took my stuff!  Glad he could be excited about somethin...LOL

[Bluegoat]

But at least in the US, many people choose not to live near where they work for a variety of reasons, but having land seems to be a big one. Being able to walk to work is a huge priority for me and my husband, but I actually don’t find very many people who share that priority when they have the option. I mainly hear about wanting it from people who have no choice because they are in very large, metropolitan areas where they are constrained by housing prices in choosing where they live.

 

I think there are a lot of elements going on with this.

 

Some people will probably always be happy to live further away.  Though that can be modified based on things like fuel prices, infrastructure, etc.  It isn't a bad thing that some prefer this, anyway, some movement between neighbourhoods is a good thing.

 

But we're also so used to having to make certain kinds of choices.  Many people have no real experience of living really close to work, they've never been in much of a position to live within walking distance or a short bus rout.  Cities aren't built that way enough, and property prices don't allow it, or the way zoning is designed doesn't allow it, or the types of housing don't allow it.

 

 - Just as an example, my mom lives in a downtown kind of area.  Lots of people work within walking distance, and there are some family type homes.  But overwhelmingly now they are putting up condos and apartments - they are knocking down flats in many cases to do this.  The vast majority of the condos are one or two bedrooms - they just aren't great for families.

 

At a meeting about knocking down flats across the street from my mother, she asked about this and the developer said that no one wanted to live downtown with kids.  Which is false - there are plenty of people living in the flats with kids, and it's actually a good area for kids with lots of parks, walking distance to library and schools, etc.  What is really the issue is that they are being priced out by the development and not enough could afford condos in the sizes they need for two or three kids.

 

Which is to say, it's about what is good for developers, not people or the city itself.

 

Anyway - all this is to say, it would be a bit of a change of mindset for people to have access to housing fairly near where they work  or within range of good public transport.  And it would I think take a certain amount of time for people to get used to it.  

 

It isn't just about what people want, either, although it does make a big difference to quality of life to be able to cut out long commutes.  From the point of view of the city as a whole, this kind of planning is good for infrastructure. And it's good for cutting down pollution. It allows for efficient public transport planning, you can cut down on space dedicated to parking, smaller roadways which potentially could mean more green space or in some places more housing density.  

 

I guess the other thing I'd say is we tend to think of this mainly in terms of making inner cities denser, but that isn't all that needs to be done.  You can also decentralize to some extent.  If some have the need for more land, they could perhaps have that if there were viable smaller towns, or suburban areas were designed to include commercial and even industrial zoning.  My own area is a neighbourhood in a smaller city that was amalgamated into a bigger one.  It's where I grew up, but it also happens to be a 10 min bus ride, door to door, to my dh's office in the downtown of the smaller city, which is it's own centre area apart from the big downtown.  This area has some density going in in some places but also has detached homes with quite large yards for those who want them.  There is also a business/industrial park quite close which employed many people.

[Bluegoat]

I live in a big city (community developed between 1880s and 1920s).

 

I live within .5 mile of the library, school, train, bus, Wal-greens, Walmart (!!!), Dunkin Donuts, restaurants, etc etc. Hubby bikes to work. I walk to dentist, bike to doctor. Great grocery (not just city Walmart) within .75 mi. Multiple parks within .5 mile.

 

I live in my multi-story attached house with 5 kids. My neighbors love my kids - and my kids love my neighbors.

 

ETA: The biggest draw for me (and why we won't consider moving to a cheaper neighborhood for more house) is that my kids have a ton of freedom since they can walk to all these places, too. And to their friends' houses. (And soon, for my oldest, to the bus to go downtown.)

 

Emily

 

Yes about the moving to a cheaper area.

 

Our house is a bit small for our family, it's a 1960 story and a half, for six people.  

 

But - we have a big yard.  Kids can walk to schools including French immersion and IB high school.  We can walk to a lake to swim, drug store, book shop, grocery, dentist, our doctor, a library, the community college, a duck pond, and some other shops.  Bus takes us directly to dh's work, my mom's, the church, the ferry to big downtown, the bigger library, the mall, and two universities.  They can also walk to ballet lessons and violin lessons.

 

The only thing is it's not a "cool" area so we don't have neat shops and it's mostly fast food.  But - that is why we can afford it.

 

But occasionally I wish I had more space, and then I think about driving the kids everywhere and I think no way.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

Most societies with homogeneous diets are, well, homogeneous societies in general -- no?

 

I'm not a scientist by any means, but I would think it stands to reason that for the same reason some people remain healthy (and of a healthy weight) eating crap foods, the reverse can be said and that same crap food diet can cause another a host of health problems. And there are some people who lose weight easily on a certain diet, while others have to try different diet after different diet to find one that works.

 

My FIL ate the same Fried-Fish-Friday, Spaghetti-and-Meatballs-Monday, Lasagna-'Til-It's-Gone, Genuine-Philadelphia-Soft-Pretzels-On-a-Regular, Corner-Sub-Shop-Cheesesteak diet that my DH ate growing up. DH is diabetic and overweight -- my FIL passed away in his mid-80's weighing in at no more than 90 lbs sopping wet. 

 

And, no, I can't believe that any one standard diet will work for everyone. For example, someone who is much more active than I am would need to intake more calories and carbs -- it's one of the primary reasons for those "calculators" put out by the different "diets." Age, amount of routine energy exerted, and genetics absolutely have to be factored in. 

 

 

Yeah, I am not really talking about a "diet" where everyone eats the same amount of calories.  I am talking about general ways of eating.

 

I think the idea of "diet" is a part of the problem with North American eating.

[Bluegoat]

I dunno, maybe the outliers die young or something.

 

Maybe?

 

I mean, people with weird diseases that meant they had to have very specialized diets did.

 

But I'm not proposing that we should make those people eat what everyone else does.

 

I don't, however, think that it is rocket science to have a food culture that is pretty healthy - and enjoyable - for everyone.  

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

I don't, however, think that it is rocket science to have a food culture that is pretty healthy - and enjoyable - for everyone.  

 

I'm starting to think it is rocket science.  People can't even agree on what is healthy.

[Bluegoat]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks that they are being told they are evil for not walking more if there are good reasons not to where they live.  Like - stuff is too far.

 

That is kind of the point of saying - it would be a good idea if cities (and towns) were designed to be more walkable.

[wintermom]

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. ;)

[Lang Syne Boardie]

Listen, you can ride in your car all you want. No one is going to force you to use the sidewalk just because one was built. No one is going to strap a fit bit to you and make you take so many steps on a sidewalk or trail just because it's there. Just please don't run over the rest of us while you are at it.

I just want to apologize for laughing at your username while reading this post! Srsly, though, I have thought of Frogger a million times while walking downtown, hoping I make it across all lanes at the corners and circles.

[Bluegoat]

I'm starting to think it is rocket science.  People can't even agree on what is healthy.

 

I think you can look at almost any society that has strong links to a traditional way of eating, and an opportunity for people to get exercise in daily life, and it's a pretty good way of eating, usually in tune with locally appropriate agriculture too.

 

Some are a little better than others, but there is a huge amount of variation and yet people overall did not have the levels of disease related directly to food that we do.

 

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.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Bluegoat

[SparklyUnicorn]

I've said it before, but I also think it is in large part because food is not just about nourishment for people.  You really get a sense for this when you go on a restrictive diet.  So then food becomes a daily battle.  You realize you can't go to parties...you can't go out to eat...you must plan ahead before going anywhere because there is a good chance food will be there and it won't be food that's good for your diet. 

 

Yesterday I went to a meetup group meeting.  It's once a month and there is always pizza.  I eat the pizza because I consider that a splurge/treat.  They always have regular soda.  First time I assumed they'd offer some sort of diet soda and since they didn't I didn't have anything to drink (which is sucky).  I got smarter and bring my own drink now.  I figure what is a slice or two of pizza once a month?  Yesterday they also had cookies. I literally had to battle over the cookies in my mind.  I don't even really like most cookies, but everyone was eating cookies, and I wanted to be a part of it.  Which might sound silly, but it's true.  I didn't eat the damn cookies. 

 

I think one of the reasons I've been very successful with cleaning up my diet is the fact I don't work and I rarely go out (except to the gym where they have a bowl of candy at the front desk that I am not tempted by because I am not much for candy, but come on even the damn gym has temptations).  My husband goes to the gym with me regularly or on his own.  He is still quite a bit overweight.  In fact I think maybe he gained weight since going to the gym for a year and a half.  The extra activity has not helped.  But his work CONSTANTLY has food. 

 

That was all rather rambly I know.

[Bluegoat]

For me, I am not talking about safety, I have walked in downtown Indy at night and been perfectly safe. And really it doesn’t matter where you are, there will alway be some parts that are unsafe.

 

For me, it’s the places available. In a small city of 30k, where there are 4 grocery stores total, how do you make sure everyone can walk to one? When there is a single pool (that’s only open 8 weeks a year anyway), how can that possibly be walkable for everyone? I don’t have a dog so I haven’t specifically looked for one, but I don’t think there’s a single dog park within reasonable driving distance let alone within walking distance. How do you make businesses consider walkability of their customers?

 

The comment about the school pick up lines made me laugh, because it is truly a thing of crazy to see. At the same time though, when people are living 5 and 8 miles or more away from their kids school, walking isn’t really an option.

 

So, I've lived in small towns that were very walkable.

 

One thing is that not everything will be walkable to everyone.  Maybe one person can walk to the pool and another to a hockey rink.  But stuff like grocery stores - they can easily be in walking distance to most if they are sized and placed appropriately.  This used to be done almost everywhere and is still common in many places.  You just have to get away from the idea that the stores need to be enormous.

 

There will also probably always be outskirts to a town, where people won't have as much access.  Keeping it walkable means making these areas fairly small in relation to the size of the town.  Luckily though this is something smaller towns tend to have an easier time with than larger ones.

 

A lot of this will have to relate to planning. So you don't have huge blocks of residential areas without commercial areas.  Areas where there are industrial applications shouldn't't be too far.  You can plan bus routes if necessary.  Rather than one big dog park or playground, you have smaller community based ones.  

 

For businesses, you can do this with zoning and regs about how they place their buildings.  For example, the business area a few blocks from me has recently changed their planning regs to increase walkability.  Parking has to be out back so that the buildings have easier access to sidewalks and are better for pedestrians, is one change.  Traffic flow is managed to make it better for walkers.  Etc.  You can also try and get them to buy into the idea - convince them this is good for business.  This is often easier if they are local and live there as they are more interested in a nice community - as opposed to Walmart types who don't live there and don't care.

 

If you look at how older towns developed naturally, you can see how it needs to be arranged to be workable.  The main thing is to think on the scale of neighbourhood.  What makes a particular neighbourhood vibrant and somewhat self-sufficient?  A bus to downtown?  A shop?  A school?

[wintermom]

 

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.

 

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. 

[Soror]

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. 

 

They have an onsite medical clinic, with visits just $5, labs are free. In addition to medical care for kids to adults (and free PT), they offer counseling and help with losing weight and smoking cessation. 

 

I'm not sure what effect these things have had on the health of the workers but they keep on adding on more benefits so it seems they find it worthwhile. 

 

We live outside of town (I grew up in the country and like the peace and quiet) but I've noticed in town they are working on fixing the sidewalks, which I find really encouraging. Trails are also being expanded, you can nearly bike from one end to the other. Being a dinky little town in the Midwest I think that is a good sign but as has been mentioned there has to be a lot of work done on city planning to make this work and affordable for everyone. I love the idea of being in a place where I could walk everywhere but I love being in the midst of the woods. 

 

At the local Jr. High everyone has PE, every day, I think that is fabulous, I think that should be the standard for every grade at least until high school. But I'm not sure on the state of recess in the elementary. I was interested to read Greta's points about tactics to reduce weight by reducing snacking in school. Here they give out backpacks with food for the weekend with shelf-stable food for low-income families, I think that is a much better idea than a bunch of snacking in class. And no one is going hungry because they can't have a soda in class. 

 

But daily eating is just as bad as ever I think. Just last week someone was complaining that we ran out of drinks for the kids at an event, seriously, if there are water fountains we are not out of drinks. Fast food is a common occurrence for many and the unhealthy food they serve is far more palatable than the "healthy" options. Really people need more real food but with our schedules, people find time to cook impossible. 

 

 I had some junk food growing up, I remember snack cakes in my lunch box, my Mom wasn't all about homemade food, she worked a lot. I remember hamburger helper and spaghetti from a box in addition to food from the garden. But we were active and during school, we didn't eat all day (and then have a bunch of after school activities with a bunch of junk food too). We only went out to eat a few times a year. At my own house, the kids have some junk food but meals are nearly always whole foods from scratch. They know that meals have to include veggies and protein. Sodas are only for special occasions and you need to look at the serving size of special treats. We have weekly poetry time and the girls always make homemade cookies for that. I also keep them active, I think even more so than I was growing up because they are at home and not stuck in school all day. 

[Bluegoat]

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. 

 

Yeah, I don't demonize white things.  Though they actually use a lot of rye flour and whole grains too.  Cabbage is good for you, fish is really good for you, root veg are good for you, meat is good for you.  They have a fair bit of dairy too, as many northern people do, and that also, is good for you.

 

That is pretty much my point.  They are eating things in reasonable amounts, which most people have done traditionally because food is a huge investment of time and energy, there is actually a food culture, and if you aren't eating a ton of processed stuff. That it isn't the same as what you eat in Greece or India is ok.

 

And yes, they move, which is the other element in every case of healthy people.  Mostly because they do it in their daily life, not because they go to the gym or even take up running or join a sports team.

 

Everywhere that people eat too much and don't exercise, they get unhealthy.  Most places have modified processed diets now.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Bluegoat

[wintermom]

Yeah, I don't demonize white things.  Though they actually use a lot of rye flour and whole grains too.  Cabbage is good for you, fish is really good for you, root veg are good for you, meat is good for you.  They have a fair bit of dairy too, as many northern people do, and that also, is good for you.

 

That is pretty much my point.  They are eating things in reasonable amounts, which most people have done traditionally because food is a huge investment of time and energy, there is actually a food culture, and if you aren't eating a ton of processed stuff. That it isn't the same as what you eat in Greece or India is ok.

 

And yes, they move, which is the other element in every case of healthy people.  Mostly because they do it in their daily life, not because they go to the gym or even take up running or join a sports team.

 

Everywhere that people eat too much and don't exercise, they get unhealthy.  Most places have modified processed diets now.

 

Describing a plate of food as white and colourless is simply the fact, not demonization.  Much of northern Europe had the same basic traditional diet, some meat, eggs, flour, potatoes, dairy products and whatever seasonal vegetables and fruits are available. It's not particularly exciting or super healthy, either. They do a lot more supplementing with fresh veggies and fruit now. They also have a lot more immigrants from different parts of the world to influence their food industry - for good and bad. 

 

You grouped northern European diets with Mediterranean and Indian diets, and they could be more different. The only thing that's the same is the fact that it wasn't in huge abundance like it is for the masses of people today. The people who could afford a lot of food were heavier than the poor people. The poor people also had to move around a lot more. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

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. 

 

 

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. 

[Bluegoat]

Describing a plate of food as white and colourless is simply the fact, not demonization.  Much of northern Europe had the same basic traditional diet, some meat, eggs, flour, potatoes, dairy products and whatever seasonal vegetables and fruits are available. It's not particularly exciting or super healthy, either. They do a lot more supplementing with fresh veggies and fruit now. They also have a lot more immigrants from different parts of the world to influence their food industry - for good and bad. 

 

You grouped northern European diets with Mediterranean and Indian diets, and they could be more different. The only thing that's the same is the fact that it wasn't in huge abundance like it is for the masses of people today. The people who could afford a lot of food were heavier than the poor people. The poor people also had to move around a lot more. 

 

So what was the point of mentioning the colour?

 

I think you are totally missing my point, which is that yes, whatever people who want to push some "perfect" diet on us say, actually people who ate many very different traditional diets did not suffer the kinds of disease and obesity that are becoming problems in our culture.

 

I mentioned those three because they are so different.  That was the point of the grouping.  

 

There have been fat rich people in every place.  They aren't hard to find in India or Greece or anywhere else where it's possible for some people to eat large amounts of whatever they want.  That doesn't tell us much except that eating large amounts of whatever you want is probably no good.  

 

Move around.  Eat lot stop being hungry, not till you are full.  Cook your food at home, mostly from scratch.  Avoid snacking.  Eat reasonable amounts.  Cut out most processed stuff.  Eat mostly local and seasonally.

 

The vast majority of people don't need a specialized diet where they cut out food groups or have magic ingredients or avoid all nightshade plants or eat only X amount of fats per week.  

 

A scientific diet is not what keeps a culture healthy.

[Joyofsixreboot]

I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread but I think what we really have is a faulty, industrial revolution view of humans. We think of our lives as something to make more productive and our bodies as machines to be fueled. Eating is something we squeeze in and consume at our desk or in our car. Our jobs demand more productivity with fewer workers and 24 hour availability through modern tech. Sleep is "non-productive" time as is lots of time spent cooking and dining together. We've let media convince us boxes or grabbing a dinner at the drive thru is more efficient. We put our kids into the same improvable mold and spend evenings dashing to activities. Time for socializing,in person, seems to be impossible to find. Now I don't think every person is doing all those things but as a culture it is a way of viewing the world. That is much more difficult to change than taxing pop (soda).

 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk