Jump to content

Menu

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


Soror
 Share

Recommended Posts

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". 

 

 

 

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

 

What we're biologically programmed to do is eat all the calories we can when they're available, then suffer through periods of low calorie availability, then eat when we can again.  We're also programmed to make the absolute most calories out of a piece of land and figure out how to store them through a difficult winter - this is how Europeans, at least, and others living in hard winter climates survived and prospered.

 

Unfortunately, we've gotten very good at it, and we've also gotten very good at not having to expend physical labor.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

I think a lot of the proposed thoughts are good. I'm not sure what is the best course of action, as I've stated. I started this thread because I wanted to hear the ideas of others and have enjoyed reading all the thoughts. I think there are so many aspects to address and before I jumped on anything I'd want to research more.

 

It is sadly ironic that we are educating our youth so much more about health(which I think is great- I do the same with mine at home), yet we continue to get fatter. As you said people know smoking is bad and do it anyway, just like people know that soda and junk food is bad but eat it anyway. So, we need more than education. I'm interested in reading more from how Buettner has helped different locations move towards healthier habits.

 

Personally, I'm not opposed to a tax on soda and such, it it was shown to be beneficial. As a society we determined smoking was bad and taxed the hell out of it, there may still be people who smoke but it is WAY lower then it was. I see taxing soda and fast food as analogous, none of them are necessities (especially so with soda). But before I jumped on anything I'd see if it has worked in places that have already gone this route. From what I read in Mexico, where they are taxing sodas, the consumption has decreased 2 yrs running but it is too early to determine if that has translated into health benefits.

 

I think that would just be the tip of the iceberg though. As mentioned there are so many more things we need to address, setting up our cities and lifestyles so that we move more. Making sure healthy food is affordable, instead of subsidizing bad food. Slowing down our lives so we have time to eat and cook real food and make sure our kids have enough time to sleep. Changing school schedules so kids have time for free play and PE, serving our kids better food (finding foods that are healthy and palatable). 

 

And then there are a million more things.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Of course they could do it.

 

My husband lived in a place where people didn't work in the afternoon (unless they were stupid Canadians.  But locals didn't because it was crazy.)  My sister lived in a place for a month where it was the same, in the hot season especially - in fact the shops closed for lunch, and then they opened again at about supper time and stayed open until midnight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The city I live in is actually rather historical, established in the early 1800s.  Many of the buildings in the downtown area have dates on them in the mid to late 1800s, or early 1900s.  There are some pics of the early 40s in the library or in the mall that look like something out of A Christmas Story in terms of the businesses, the lighting the people.  It's so cool to look at really.

 

In the 60s, an explosion destroyed several blocks downtown (killed like 40 people.)  As part of the rebuilding effort, the city created a downtown "promenade."  Parking lots behind the buildings, the road itself completely closed to traffic and routed round the outside of the downtown area.  Shops, restaurants on either side of the walkway now, almost like an outdoor mall of sorts.

 

What they found was that this HURT the businesses.  Now, it wasn't because people couldn't get to them, parking was plentiful around the area so that people who didn't live within walking distance of the downtown area could certainly get there.  But not having the vehicle traffic through the downtown area hurt it.  In 1997, they tore the whole pedestrian area up, leaving sidewalks in front of the buildings and reopened the street traffic. 

 

They may have done it too late....most of the buildings downtown are completely empty.  Many are suffering from neglect from being unused and unmaintained, there are some where the facades are literally falling off. It's really sad to drive through. Now, I hold no illusions that this is the only thing responsible for the decline of the area.....but it cant' have helped. 

 

 

In some places this sort of thing has worked very well.  There seem to be significant details in terms of how the pedestrian areas fit in with the larger street grid, for example.  You have to fit the local situation.  It can help to experiment before making permanent changes.  

 

It might be different even just over time - downtown areas took downturns all over North America in the 60's whereas now they are reversing their value with previously desirable suburbs.  There are a lot more people living in many downtown areas now.

 

But you can do different things in terms of traffic too - one is that you can keep a street like that open to cars but give pedestrians priority - you build the street in such a way as to make that safe and give visual cues.  Cars can go through but it will be quite slowly.   

 

It depends on what you are looking to accomplish.  IN my city, they need to think about how to keep cars out of the downtown, and they've been reluctant.  But it is a peninsula with a restricted access, so traffic management is a serious problem.  But that won't make sense everywhere.  Bigger wider sidewalks might be a better option in some places.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you thought you were getting heart disease or a heart attack you wouldn't seek help? 

 

 

Did I really sound like that's what I was getting at?  Okay, let me try this again, because apparently I was very unclear.  I avoid certain parts of my city (especially in the evening or at night) because I know I'm at greater risk for violent crime there.  I avoid certain foods because I know they put me at greater risk for heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes.  If I were being attacked, I would call 911.  If I were having a heart attack, I would also call 911.

 

But what I was commenting on was the fact that the fear is disproportional to the risk.  Both in myself and in society in general, it seems to me there is a great fear of things like murder, terrorism, and plane crashes, enough fear to generate action on a society level, while the attitude about the "diseases of Western civilization", the things that are actually FAR more likely to kill us, is "Oh well, we're all going to die eventually!  What can you do?"  The rare causes of death frighten us, but the mundane ones bore us.  

 

I think that's a little odd.  Am I the only one?

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

Sorry, I forgot about the rest of your post!  I agree, given the options available, a heart attack is not a bad way to go.  But I'd much rather have that heart attack at 92 than at 62.  So I eat the way I do first and foremost to try to improve my quality of life, but also to try to change when I die.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I really sound like that's what I was getting at?  Okay, let me try this again, because apparently I was very unclear.  I avoid certain parts of my city (especially in the evening or at night) because I know I'm at greater risk for violent crime there.  I avoid certain foods because I know they put me at greater risk for heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes.  If I were being attacked, I would call 911.  If I were having a heart attack, I would also call 911.

 

But what I was commenting on was the fact that the fear is disproportional to the risk.  Both in myself and in society in general, it seems to me there is a great fear of things like murder, terrorism, and plane crashes, enough fear to generate action on a society level, while the attitude about the "diseases of Western civilization", the things that are actually FAR more likely to kill us, is "Oh well, we're all going to die eventually!  What can you do?"  The rare causes of death frighten us, but the mundane ones bore us.  

 

I think that's a little odd.  Am I the only one?

 

Actually, I was trying to make the comparison a little better.  If one realizes they would be going into the high crime district of a city at the time crimes were more likely to occur, it makes sense to avoid those areas in the same way if one thought they were prone to heart disease or in the early stages of having a heart attack they would also adjust their living or seek help.

 

One honestly can't compare the pure rates.

 

When folks are afraid of flying in an airplane they often think it's safer to go by car.  It isn't.  It's much more dangerous to go by car, but at least they are comparing travel.

 

To compare rates between murder and heart attack deaths, one would need to look at the same age (maybe even gender) to know which one is statistically more likely - and that will vary by places too.  I suspect at a younger age and in some areas, murder is statistically more likely.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I forgot about the rest of your post!  I agree, given the options available, a heart attack is not a bad way to go.  But I'd much rather have that heart attack at 92 than at 62.  So I eat the way I do first and foremost to try to improve my quality of life, but also to try to change when I die.

 

For me it all depends upon the quality of life between 62 and 92 - and what kind of death is the option at 92 if a heart attack isn't it.

 

None of that is known ahead of time.

 

I'm glad I enjoy mostly healthy eating, but I also don't mind enjoying my soda daily or the potato sticks I just had as dessert following ice cream as a main dish while on vacation... and this coming after a fish & chips lunch.  Those last few things are certainly not daily foods - not even monthly foods - but nice to enjoy without guilt when I want them.

 

I don't ever want my life ruled by food "musts."  We eat what we want, when we want, but the majority of that time, it's pretty darn healthy because we like healthy foods.  Sometimes our exercise is solely for our health, but most of the time we try to make that enjoyable too, plus there are times we suspend those "expectations" due to weather or travel or people with us.  In all of it there's no guilt whatsoever.  I suspect guilt would lead to stress and we're definitely the "no stress in our lives" lovers.  I think the stress would cause more problems than the food/exercise exceptions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is some truth to the idea that there are trade offs for walkability.

 

When I lived in suburbia, I was researching places to move. We ended up getting a little acreage outside of town. I remember reading that places with higher tick and snake populations tend to have lower crime rates.

 

It was a good move for the time, but I got tired of driving 30 minutes to the grocery store, 1 hour to swim practice or piano lessons or a friendĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s house. We spent a lot of time in the car, but we lived somewhere inexpensive and safe.

 

Now we live where we can walk to restaurants, grocery stores, the library, the dentist, art galleries, the theater, and more, but there is definitely a high crime rate.

 

At 7:00 last night, an unarmed man was killed by the police in an alley a couple of blocks from our house. Gun shots and high speed chases are daily occurrences.

 

You get used to it. We carry fox repellent (pepper spray) and the kids have to at least go in pairs and I prefer it if they also take a dog with them to walk.

 

My middle daughter lives in a town that is both walkable and low crime. The trade off there is affordability and diversity. I know it is a great place for her, but I wouldnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t want to live there. I find the trendy, yuppie whiteness unappealing.

 

I think it is great that people have options to live where they get what they value most. I just think we would be hard pressed to find a place that is walkable, safe, affordable and has good jobs available. You might be able to get a couple, but there will always be a trade off.

 

As far as food and obesity I do what works for my own family, but I have no idea how you could make these improvements on a national level.

 

One thing I have done in my own neighborhood is to teach kids to cook during the summer. During the week, each kid picks something from my cookbooks to learn to cook. We practice make each thing once during the week. Then on the weekend, we have a dinner party for their parents with China and placecards and cloth napkins.

 

This summer IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m teaching the neighborhood kids to sew and to spin. I should see if this next batch is interested in cooking too.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting back to the statistics of death, homicide is #2 behind accidents for 15-24 year olds.  Heart attacks come in a distant 5th.

 

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10lcid_all_deaths_by_age_group_2010-a.pdf

 

Heart attacks only beat murder once one reaches the age of 35 and even then I wonder how much it varies based upon specific locations.

 

Heart disease is only #1 once one reaches 65 and then it's such a major life ender that it wins the overall total, but of all the potential ends I see listed on that first page, it's the most appealing to me TBH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a thing that HAS been done and IS helpful, requiring restaurants to list nutrition information has been hugely helpful to me! I definitely have changed what I order, and if I order, because of it. Knowing vaguely that the english muffin with ham/egg/cheese is better than the croissant with bacon/egg/cheese is not the same as seeing HOW much higher calorie one is than the other. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I'm not saying that there isn't a model out there in theory. What I'm saying is that you need to spoon feed it, pardon the pun. The same people who do Awana and whatnot literally do everything. They do everything. They are also teaching Sunday School, managing the Trunk or Treat, they are your room parents. They need something to open and go, and "becoming Catholic" doesn't count, lol.

 

Re: Walkability (not at you Bluegoat):

 

Walkability is a red herring for now. We are working on walkability in Seattle. Come suffer this transition with us. It's not a realistic plan in the next few years, best case scenario you go through a 20 year transportation redesign. Worst case scenario, it just won't happen.

 

We need a real plan for right now.

Edited by Tsuga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I was trying to make the comparison a little better.  If one realizes they would be going into the high crime district of a city at the time crimes were more likely to occur, it makes sense to avoid those areas in the same way if one thought they were prone to heart disease or in the early stages of having a heart attack they would also adjust their living or seek help.

 

One honestly can't compare the pure rates.

 

When folks are afraid of flying in an airplane they often think it's safer to go by car.  It isn't.  It's much more dangerous to go by car, but at least they are comparing travel.

 

To compare rates between murder and heart attack deaths, one would need to look at the same age (maybe even gender) to know which one is statistically more likely - and that will vary by places too.  I suspect at a younger age and in some areas, murder is statistically more likely.

 

Okay, I see what you're saying.

 

 

For me it all depends upon the quality of life between 62 and 92 - and what kind of death is the option at 92 if a heart attack isn't it.

 

None of that is known ahead of time.

 

I'm glad I enjoy mostly healthy eating, but I also don't mind enjoying my soda daily or the potato sticks I just had as dessert following ice cream as a main dish while on vacation... and this coming after a fish & chips lunch.  Those last few things are certainly not daily foods - not even monthly foods - but nice to enjoy without guilt when I want them.

 

I don't ever want my life ruled by food "musts."  We eat what we want, when we want, but the majority of that time, it's pretty darn healthy because we like healthy foods.  Sometimes our exercise is solely for our health, but most of the time we try to make that enjoyable too, plus there are times we suspend those "expectations" due to weather or travel or people with us.  In all of it there's no guilt whatsoever.  I suspect guilt would lead to stress and we're definitely the "no stress in our lives" lovers.  I think the stress would cause more problems than the food/exercise exceptions.

 

 

 

Sure!  But the things which increase lifespan are usually the same things that increase "healthspan", so by doing things that will increase my odds of making it to 92, I'm also increasing the chances that it will be quality time.  Daily exercise improves quality of life as we age, I'm sure we're all in agreement about that.  It improves mobility, decreases fracture risk, decreases risk of debilitating diseases, decreases depression and anxiety, and so on.  Same with diet.  A diet that decreases my chances of developing diabetes, for example, doesn't just mean reduced odds of dying from a diabetic stroke (which is how my grandmother died) but it also means reduced odds of amputation, blindness, kidney failure, and a lot of other things that would make life much harder and less pleasant (including one of my personal big fears:  a stroke that doesn't kill but leaves you debilitated).

 

I don't even strive for 100% compliance to my "ideal diet" though!  Like you, I leave room for indulgence, and when I do it, I enjoy it completely guilt-free.  If I were battling a particular disease which could be treated through diet, I probably would demand better compliance of myself.  I do avoid migraine trigger foods pretty religiously because if I don't, I get punished with a migraine!  But other than that, I try to do the best I can 95% of the time, and I don't worry about the other 5%

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I guess I missed that post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here, we have a revitalizing downtown, but the next town down the road is great.  The difference is the mix of businesses.  Some businesses just don't want to update to fit the current customer base.....I knew one lady who went out of business, decrying a box store.  Said box store offered the same brands, but a lower tier that fit with the wallets of the potential customer. Lady was offering high end only, and depending on tourists from the City.  Tourists didn't stop in, she hung on. Box store, amazon and wally world split the biz and lady finally realized nothing was ever going to come her way during the last recession and closed.  The current business in that spot is doing quite well.  

 

A smaller difference is the landlord's willingness to keep up the property.  weeds, trash, potholes, broken bottles laying around just don't attract customers the way flowers and level sidewalks do.

 

Ours is revitalizing as well, but gee the stores are mostly restaurants and bakeries.  Not exactly conducive to cutting back on junk food.  LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

For one thing your all or nothing attitude tells me that you aren't serious about the conversation. Nobody said you had to do everything in the early morning and evening. We already discussed that everyone has unique situations.

 

I already explained that I think your temperatures are more challenging and you ignored it. I lived with my grandparents in a record breaking summer and have done outdoor stuff in Arizona quite a bit. I know the dangers of heat but the main difference between us is I look for solutions while you look for problems.

 

I know lots of people who live in very hot enviroments who choose to strap on their running shoes and head out for a run at 5 AM because it makes their life better.

 

Once again you focus on doing everything without a car like you are obsessed. That is no different than the person who can't eat healthy because they can't buy the non GMO, organic specialty stuff every day of the year so they just eat junk all the time. There is an in between. Small differences in daily activity and attitude make a big difference over a lifetime.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For one thing your all or nothing attitude tells me that you aren't serious about the conversation. Nobody said you had to do everything in the early morning and evening. We already discussed that everyone has unique situations.

 

I already explained that I think your temperatures are more challenging and you ignored it. I lived with my grandparents in a record breaking summer and have done outdoor stuff in Arizona quite a bit. I know the dangers of heat but the main difference between us is I look for solutions while you look for problems.

 

I know lots of people who live in very hot enviroments who choose to strap on their running shoes and head out for a run at 5 AM because it makes their life better.

 

Once again you focus on doing everything without a car like you are obsessed. That is no different than the person who can't eat healthy because they can't buy the non GMO, organic specialty stuff every day of the year so they just eat junk all the time. There is an in between. Small differences in daily activity and attitude make a big difference over a lifetime.

 

Nothing you listed addressed the impracticalities and challenges I listed.  It could easily be argued that you're not the one taking the conversation seriously because you keep insisting people change, but you don't suggest any changes that are actually doable to large regions of the country. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I forgot about the rest of your post! I agree, given the options available, a heart attack is not a bad way to go. But I'd much rather have that heart attack at 92 than at 62. So I eat the way I do first and foremost to try to improve my quality of life, but also to try to change when I die.

Also a heart attack is not necessarily lethal. Many people live many years afterwards, those with major heart damage often die slowly of congestive heart failure, which is not a fun way to go.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing you listed addressed the impracticalities and challenges I listed. It could easily be argued that you're not the one taking the conversation seriously because you keep insisting people change, but you don't suggest any changes that are actually doable to large regions of the country.

 

The suggestion was to make cities walkable. How is that not feasible? We already discussed that you do it bit by bit as things need replaced.

 

Can you explain why making cities walkable is unfeasible to large portions of the country?

 

I say this as someone who HAS walked around Mesa, Maricopa, and Chandler. You realize that many people who can't afford cars have to find a way to deal with all of your issues because they simply don't own vehicles already so to the upper and middle classes who do own vehicles, fine don't walk but that doesn't mean cities shouldn't be walkable.

Edited by frogger
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In areas with extreme temperatures maybe we could have more indoor walking/strolling/exercising areas? Tunnels? Shopping malls that are more conducive to daily activity vs just clothes shopping? I know lots of malls have indoor walking clubs, but something even more than that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also a heart attack is not necessarily lethal. Many people live many years afterwards, those with major heart damage often die slowly of congestive heart failure, which is not a fun way to go.

Yes, thatĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s a very good point. Bypass surgery saves lives, but it still comes with pain, trauma, risks (blood clots, infection, and others), and a long recovery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, thatĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s a very good point. Bypass surgery saves lives, but it still comes with pain, trauma, risks (blood clots, infection, and others), and a long recovery.

 

Or... one could be content with the earlier death by not extending life.  It all depends upon what is important to them.  I know for myself, I have no plans to grow old once the quality of life is no longer there - with the quality of life defined by me, not anyone else.

 

But that's probably the discussion of a different thread.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or... one could be content with the earlier death by not extending life. It all depends upon what is important to them. I know for myself, I have no plans to grow old once the quality of life is no longer there - with the quality of life defined by me, not anyone else.

 

But that's probably the discussion of a different thread.

Yes, I donĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t want to keep living when my quality of life is gone either (quality being, as you said, defined by me). But IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢ve never set up a medical directive or Ă¢â‚¬Å“living willĂ¢â‚¬. I really should do that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is.....a very large portion of the country doesn't live in cities like many people think of them. A very large portion lives in what might best be described as "small cities." It's true that the census classifies some 80% of the country as living in "urban" areas....but what the census deems "urban" isn't the same as what most people really think of as urban.

 

The city I live in is best described as a small city. The population is about 30k, and on the decline. There is a single library, with no other branches. How do you make a library walkable for 30k people? There are 4 grocery stores. Only one is "walkable" to me....IF you consider 3.5 miles walkable (having done multiple 5ks, that's a little over an hour walk, if you are in shape.)

 

The truth is that once you get outside the metro areas of the major cities, population density just isn't large enough to support "walkability." Even in "cities."

 

Hmm, thatĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s interesting. So what does the census consider urban? IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢ll have to look into that.

 

It wouldnĂ¢â‚¬â„¢t honestly occur to me to think of anything smaller than about 300,000 people as a Ă¢â‚¬Å“cityĂ¢â‚¬. I would call that a town. I live in a city of over 400,000 and I think of it as a small city. When I lived in places of 100,000-200,000, I thought of them as bigger towns. I grew up in a place with 20,000 and I thought of it as a small town. Not saying IĂ¢â‚¬â„¢m right! ThatĂ¢â‚¬â„¢s just my perception. Interesting how weĂ¢â‚¬â„¢re defining the terms so differently!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are agreeing on what is healthy...definitely not sugar, hfcs, and simple carbs in the quantities that the morbidly obese are downing. Some of them are trying to fine tune it further.

 

The rocket science part is the blood sugar roller coaster -- people who don't understand the difference between a simple carb and a complex carb also don't have enough math skill to understand what is happening to their blood sugar as they go about the day, feeding every two hours. No desire to test and adjust insulin. No desire to give up sugar, hfcs, simple carbs, junk food despite what the blood sugar is. No concept of what fiber is. They aren't getting off the roller coaster and they will continue to pack on the pounds until they reach the limit of what they can ingest.

This is an important thing to understand. If I have to fly or drive (yes, I do those things to :) ) If I don't eat sugar I really don't feel hungry that day. Change that to hard excercise and I become ravenous. If I started with a donut though my blood sugar will mess with me all day.

 

If I allow myself to get in a hurry and skip breakfast and lunch then what do I crave big time when I start getting hungry but carbs and sugar. If I give in then my day is over because I'm ready for a nap. I think a lot of food nutrition education really skips the insulin part and I think it would be a great thing for people to understand in relation to their own bodies since everybodies body handles it a little differently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is.....a very large portion of the country doesn't live in cities like many people think of them.  A very large portion lives in what might best be described as "small cities."  It's true that the census classifies some 80% of the country as living in "urban" areas....but what the census deems "urban" isn't the same as what most people really think of as urban.

 

The city I live in is best described as a small city.  The population is about 30k, and on the decline.  There is a single library, with no other branches.  How do you make a library walkable for 30k people?  There are 4 grocery stores.  Only one is "walkable" to me....IF you consider 3.5 miles walkable (having done multiple 5ks, that's a little over an hour walk, if you are in shape.)

 

The truth is that once you get outside the metro areas of the major cities, population density just isn't large enough to support "walkability."  Even in "cities."

 

Walkability is not just about walking from home. It's also about how many times you need to move the car when you are out shopping. I like towns where the library is near the supermarket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walkability is not just about walking from home. It's also about how many times you need to move the car when you are out shopping. I like towns where the library is near the supermarket.

That's a great point!!!

 

So many places no longer have a "down town" shopping area, but that would help!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't find the article I was reading the other day with that info.

 

What I did find is this

 

https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/urban-rural.html

Thank you! I also found this:

 

In order for a block to qualify as urban, it must have a density of 1,000 people per square mile (ppsm). Using an automated process, qualifying blocks are aggregated to form a central core area. Once the initial identification process is concluded, a second automated pass is initiated with a lower density threshold, 500 ppsm. This aids in identifying blocks that do not meet the initial density threshold, but may contain a mix of residential and nonresidential land use (parks, schools, commer- cial, retail, or industrial uses), and therefore should be included within the urban area.

My city has 2966 people per square mile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how do you get privately owned businesses like pharmacies, grocery stores, etc, to locate themselves near the public stuff like post offices and so on.  Businesses use a whole lot of demographics to figure out where to plop themselves....how do you get them to consider "how many times you need to leave your car when you are out shopping?"

 

We've lived in places that had walking streets.  They were always quite busy, because once people parked they didn't want to have to keep moving the car.  I think by encouraging walkers it encourages businesses to go where there walkers will be.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how do you get privately owned businesses like pharmacies, grocery stores, etc, to locate themselves near the public stuff like post offices and so on.  Businesses use a whole lot of demographics to figure out where to plop themselves....how do you get them to consider "how many times you need to leave your car when you are out shopping?"

 

You don't. You get the people that do the zoning and approve the building of said business places to do it. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an era where more and more is done online with same day shipping available, I'm not totally sure "normal" businesses are going to stay in business.  Food places will as many (like myself) don't enjoy cooking.  Gyms will as some feel the need to exercise.  Hair places will because that can hardly be shifted to online.  But shopping?  Banking?  Drug stores?  I think most street shopping is a thing of the past almost everywhere.  What the big box stores haven't put out of business, Amazon has (or will) with e-mail and online banking getting their markets.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how do you get privately owned businesses like pharmacies, grocery stores, etc, to locate themselves near the public stuff like post offices and so on.  Businesses use a whole lot of demographics to figure out where to plop themselves....how do you get them to consider "how many times you need to leave your car when you are out shopping?"

 

Like Ktgrok said, you get the local council to do it.

 

I've never been to the US. I don't know how you organise your shops. I can hardly even imagine having places that need footpaths and there not being at least a nature strip wide enough to walk on. I currently live in a town of 3500 ish. All the shops and the library are in the one shopping strip. I've lived in a town of 6000, and all the shops were no more than a block from one another. Even when I lived in a town of over 100,000 the CBD (downtown) was somewhere you could park and walk around to all the shops you needed. Each of the suburbs also had it's own shopping strip, so even if it wasn't walking distance to your house, you could park the car without needing to move it.

 

If there is a reliable car park within walking distance to the only supermarket, post office, pharmacy and library, people will park their car there and shop. What else would they do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In THIS town..."if you build it they will come" didn't work.  They tried it.  They ended up ripping it all out because it hurt businesses.  The small city I live in is common across the US, not unique.  How do you build "walkable" cities in these areas where population density is too low to support multiple grocery stores, multiple pools/libraries/etc, and ultimately....people generally don't WANT to walk. 

 

Zoning says what people and businesses can or can't build in particular areas.  It doesn't force people or businesses to actually build there.  So if zoning says CVS can build in X area and not in Y area, but X area doesn't meet their requirements........they just don't build.  They can't be forced to build in areas where they don't believe the dollars aren't going to follow.  They can only be restricted from building in areas the government doesn't want them. 

 

There are reasons why malls like you describe don't work. It's not because they can't work ever, it's because the decision makers did a lousy job of market research.

 

 

 

 

And lets not forget....time is finite.  Are we, as a society, willing to give up, just as an example, the hour our high school junior spends on SAT tutoring just to walk to the grocery store and back (for those who live in areas where the grocery store is a half hour walk instead of an hour.)  Are we willing to allow a walk to the school to drop off our 3rd graders take 20 minutes there, 20 minutes back, 20 minutes there, and 20 minutes back, every single day.  Sure, in a 20 minute incriment, it doesn't sound like much, but as a whole, that's an hour and a half of the day.  That's not an unsizable chunk of the day.  A chunk that could be better spent grocery shopping, or dropping packages off at the post office, or returning library books, or whatever.  I am not sure today's society is really able to handle spending 20+ minutes of walking one way for all...or even most...of their various random errands. 

 
If the neighbourhood has been planned properly, you return the books to the library and go to the post office on the way home from dropping the kids at school, and pick up dinner from the supermarket on your way to pick them up. It may not be how you do things in your town, but it is very normal for people living elsewhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 they ............don't want to do."

 

 

Yes, you hit the nail on the head there. 

 

I think the simple solution is to quit subsidizing sprawl. We don't make the users pay for the roads. We make them free and wonder why people use them. That is pretty dumb honestly. It would be very simple to incorporate a gradual increase in gas taxes year by year. Start with a few cents and continue the increase until gas taxes pay for 50% of the roads. Logically, it would make more sense to be at least 75% but 50% would be a good start. That in itself would create very different incentives.

 

We honestly don't have the wealth to continue to sprawl like we do. The sewer lines, phones lines, roads, pretty much everything is drastically more expensive when spread out and yet because people do NOT pay for that expense. Why wouldn't they get a much bigger house out of town?  Really, it would be illogical not to.  Many cities are going broke and can't handle their budgets but no we have to give freebies to all the commuters who want bigger houses farther out of town. Our infrastructure budgets cannot keep up but people got used to one thing and it doesn't matter that it is completely unaffordable they want what they want and the only thing that matters is that someone else pays.  

 

I live in a city that has a population density of 176. I assure you, I understand sprawl. I also understand the only reason it exists is because people from down in the states pay for everything for us.  Let it change slowly but provide the natural and right incentives. 

Edited by frogger
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the US, they would drive the 45 minutes to get to the supermarket with the lowest cost and better selection, drop their mail in the closest post box on the way, schedule their pharmacy pick up to be on their way home from their 25 mile commute from work and get their library books online.

At least......that's how I would do it.  That's how I DO do it sometimes.  And......I am pretty average.

 

Library.....we have already read pretty much every dog related book in the kids section at our local library.  Small towns equal small libraries.  My kid once asked about Moose.  There are exactly TWO books about moose at the library, neither of which are in the kids section.  Why WOULDN'T I go online for library stuff.

 

Pharmacy...I have never ordered online, but again...given a choice between walking even 2 miles there, 2 miles back, in 20 degree weather, plus freezing rain.....or driving 20 minutes...I am going to drive.  OR...if timing allows, order online and never leave the house.

 

Post office....most of the time, I just drop our stuff in the mail box.  Stamps I buy when I am at the grocery store.  When I need to swing by the PO....I just drive through the parking lot.  It's not walkable to me (again, unless 3ish miles is considered walkable....is is reasonable to spend an hour getting to a place and an hour back, if going by car takes like 5 minutes?)

 

Ah yes. I forgot the US has such petrol subsidies. For me it would cost more to drive to another town for a lower cost supermarket than it does to buy from the slightly more expensive supermarket I can walk to.

 

Don't your libraries belong to networks? I can order in any book from any library system in the state.

 

I'm sure you operate in a way that makes sense for your environment. I am not arguing that you shouldn't. I am arguing that there are better ways to plan towns and things can be improved without razing the country and starting over. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the thing regarding "town planning."  So many cities and towns in the US already exist.  "PLANNING" for walkability requires tearing things down and building new things.  Are people who don't want to walk, which studies have shown is a large amount of people, willing to PAY for the reconstruction of places that make it more easy to do something they ............don't want to do."

 

Okay, so if you are all okay with how things are, we don't need to argue about it. But I don't think you need to use inverted commas to show I'm being an idiot. I'm not being an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 For me it would cost more to drive to another town for a lower cost supermarket than it does to buy from the slightly more expensive supermarket I can walk to. 

 

It's the same here, just people can't do the advanced math to figure it out.

 

I know folks who drive 10 - 20 miles (one way) to save 10 cents per gallon just buying gas.  Let's see... your car can hold 13 gallons max, so you save $1.30 in a best case scenario.  It gets 25 miles per gallon.  You're using almost a gallon to get there and back.  Gas currently costs over $2.50 per gallon... which yes, is cheap compared to most places in the world, but...

 

In short, those who want to walk, do so.  It might not be to the store, but it could be like us parking at the far end of the lot, walking in, walking far more aisles than needed to just shop, walking the distance back out, then returning the cart to the store rather than the gathering place that is closer.  As I mentioned in a pp, we average 5 miles per day in steps.  Some of that is on shopping trips.  Other parts of it are doing chores around our farm.  Some of it will be walking around the halls during my prep period if I'm at school.  Whatever we need to make up the difference we do in planned walks.

 

Those who don't want to walk won't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and why do you think people without vehicles shouldn't pay for roads? how is your food going to come in to the city?  even the Amish use roads to deliver to the cities 

 

They still pay, it's just in the form of passed on increased costs for the food and other things.

 

I live in PA.  Last I knew we had the highest gas tax in the US.  I'm perfectly ok with that as long as they use the money as promised to help keep fixing roads.  Our winters with their common freezes and thaws for a large part of the year are particular tough on roads.  Who better to pay than those who use them and at an amount consistent with how much they are using?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where do you live that roads are free? I pay tolls, gas tax and gas fees, and part of that goes to pay for roads.

 

For years, I paid a tax on my phone bill to pay for transit in NYC...now my school district pays a payroll tax to NYC transit...and we live half an hour from commuter rail, 100 miles from the subway. No one from here can attend a NYC public school, we don't have school choice. Those that commute pay taxes to NYC, as well as an entry fee via via commuter rail or bus fee or bridge toll.

 

and why do you think people without vehicles shouldn't pay for roads? how is your food going to come in to the city? even the Amish use roads to deliver to the cities

 

And NYC has a higher population density than 176 so you are proving my point.

 

 

If your food is coming into town in trucks the prices would go up with taxes. You would be paying for roads.

 

Last I checked, Alaskan drivers pay for a whopping 12% of our roads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think food needs to be focused on more than activity. 

 

If this is based upon some sort of study rather than your perception I'd like to see it if you (or others) have a link.  I think all the studies I've read that include both show activity is better than diet (with the best being a combo).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.  Just checked gas taxes.  As of 2016 anyway, PA still wins at 50.4 cents per gallon!  Alaska is the lowest at 12.25 cents.

 

https://taxfoundation.org/state-gasoline-tax-rates-2016/

 

I'm not sure how much changed last year, if anything.

 

If my mathematics is correct, petrol is roughly US$4.50 a gallon here. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/30/exercise-vs-diet-for-weight-loss_n_5207271.html

 

 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/upshot/to-lose-weight-eating-less-is-far-more-important-than-exercising-more.html

 

 There are tons of others.

 

 

I know these links talk about weight....but I think we are ignoring the elephant in the room if we don't talk about how weight relates to health.

 

Sure, activity is important.  It's really really difficult to burn off a 1400 calorie red robin burger

 

Ok, you were talking weight loss.  In that case I agree.  I thought you were talking longevity and health.  Those seem to correlate better with ample activity than diet, but starting activity can sometimes even increase weight as more fat turns into muscle and the body becomes more efficient.  The best is still probably a combo of both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the case of this particular situation, they did actual studies before they tore the whole thing out.  And I am not sure that "experimenting" with roads and sidewalks and actual feet on the ground is all that cost effective.

 

But my point is more that.....improving walkability is great if people ACTUALLY want to walk.  Truth is.....lots of people just don't want to.  That's the culture factor that needs to change. 

 

It's not that hard to experiment with making a pedestrian street.  You just close it off without making permanent changes - put in benches or trees or whatever but don't change the roadway.  If it doesn't work the way you want, you open it up again.

 

They did this in a street near here a few years ago, and painted it to look like plaid.  They've just opened it as a slow car zone permanently this year.

 

You can also do things like temporary pedestrian zones for a day or a few days for markets and things which can get people into the idea of pedestrian zones.

 

Anyway - the 60s was horrible for inner cities all over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Sure, activity is important. It's really really difficult to burn off a 1400 calorie red robin burger

 

 

Hahahahaha, oh, you were serious.

 

It really is a matter of perspective. I think what a person eats should coorelate with the persons body type and activity level.

 

I still remember when I said to my daughter, "Eat according to your lifestyle". She asked if my lifestyle tasted good.

 

I answered in the affirmative. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The truth is.....a very large portion of the country doesn't live in cities like many people think of them.  A very large portion lives in what might best be described as "small cities."  It's true that the census classifies some 80% of the country as living in "urban" areas....but what the census deems "urban" isn't the same as what most people really think of as urban.

 

The city I live in is best described as a small city.  The population is about 30k, and on the decline.  There is a single library, with no other branches.  How do you make a library walkable for 30k people?  There are 4 grocery stores.  Only one is "walkable" to me....IF you consider 3.5 miles walkable (having done multiple 5ks, that's a little over an hour walk, if you are in shape.)

 

The truth is that once you get outside the metro areas of the major cities, population density just isn't large enough to support "walkability."  Even in "cities."

 

 

But this is exactly what people are saying.

 

The reason it is this way is because it is how you are building the towns and cities and even villages.  How you choose to build them.

 

There is nothing inevitable about that.  People can choose to build them differently.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

I'm not sure you are addressing my comment in context.

 

I am referring to the point made by policy wonks who claim that offering fresh food and better food in schools is a bad idea because kids throw it out.

 

In my opinion, it is better to offer and model excellent dietary choices, even if they are denied, than to claim defeat so you can shove cheap crap like fries, etc. in front of children.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...