|
Effectronica posted:Think about what would be necessary to make everyone's workplace in walking distance, so that we can avoid sedentary notions like light rail or busses or subways. Think about the sort of cultural experiences that would be possible in a society like that which could be built today. What? Of course I was including transit in that. It's not like you just step out your door, hop onto transit, and it shows up exactly where you want to go. There's a lot more walking involved than just hopping in your car and driving wherever you need to go, and you're frequently standing (or at least I am, because I don't like sitting next to strangers that frequently smell bad).
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:45 |
|
PT6A posted:What? Of course I was including transit in that. It's not like you just step out your door, hop onto transit, and it shows up exactly where you want to go. There's a lot more walking involved than just hopping in your car and driving wherever you need to go, and you're frequently standing (or at least I am, because I don't like sitting next to strangers that frequently smell bad). Oh, OK, so you actually agree with the broader point, but are convinced walking to and from bus stops is more similar to walking all the way than driving.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Oh, OK, so you actually agree with the broader point, but are convinced walking to and from bus stops is more similar to walking all the way than driving. I'm convinced that some walking is better than no walking, and it's feasible to have a society in which walking forms a significant portion (time-wise if not necessarily distance-wise) of the average person's personal travel. I think if I took transit to work, my average daily walking would be about the same as if I worked within walking distance, too. I think you're being purposefully obtuse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 00:47
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm convinced that some walking is better than no walking, and it's feasible to have a society in which walking forms a significant portion (time-wise if not necessarily distance-wise) of the average person's personal travel. I think if I took transit to work, my average daily walking would be about the same as if I worked within walking distance, too. I think you're being purposefully obtuse. I think you're ignoring the basic problem people are suggesting is the matter- a sedentary society where it is very easy to ignore physical activity. Mass transit doesn't resolve this issue, but thankfully it doesn't seem to be decisive.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
I live in Manhattan. I certainly walk way, way more than I used to before I lived there. New York is notable for having basically the only functional mass transit system in the country good enough that you don't need a car. If every city had such a system, people would get more exercise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:None? So Europe's recommendations are completely arbitrary and not based on any reasonable advisable limit? C'mon man. Yes, simple as that. The other recommended daily values have extensive research behind them - the split for just simple sugars is way more shaky and don't reach the same standards. It's stupid because there's way too many ways to calculate what sugar is "added" and what sugar is "non-added". It's simple for say, fruit juice, extremely complex for something like pre-packaged meal. And it's not like getting 20 grams of sugar because one variety of fruit's juice naturally has tha tmuch is better for you then getting 20 grams of sugar from a naturally less sweet juice that had sugar added in. Yes I realize that is focused heavily the legalistic issues - but the legal issues are what going to matter for enforcement and creation of standards.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I live in Manhattan. I certainly walk way, way more than I used to before I lived there. New York is notable for having basically the only functional mass transit system in the country good enough that you don't need a car. If every city had such a system, people would get more exercise. Yeah, the idea that mass transit takes away from walking is insane. Earlier tonight, I walked to the LRT station (1 block). I took the LRT several blocks to another stop, from which I walked 7 blocks to the pub I wanted to go to. In essence, this is no different from me walking 7-8 blocks to go to a slightly closer bar. Mass transit adds to the utility of walking, rather than replacing it as cars do. When I was travelling in Spain, I could literally travel all the way across the country, door to door, without stepping foot in a private vehicle or causing myself any inconvenience over alternative means of transit. I suppose you could argue that walking the entire way would've been healthier, but I suspect the several kilometers I walked every day were plenty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 06:51
|
|
|
On the other hand, more than half the adults in New York City are either overweight (34%) or obese (22%). Don't get me wrong: walking and biking are preferable to driving for many reasons. It's just that they don't seem to be immediately correlated to fitness, at least in the case of NYC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:On the other hand, more than half the adults in New York City are either overweight (34%) or obese (22%). Keep in mind that that's better than the US as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Keep in mind that that's better than the US as a whole. Significantly better. National average obesity rate is 35 % per the CDC. Looks my for stats on national average for overweight as opposed to obese I'm seeing around 70% of Americans: http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statistics/Pages/overweight-obesity-statistics.aspx So your typical New Yorker is roughly half as likely to be overweight or obese as the average American. McAlister fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
McAlister posted:Significantly better. National average obesity rate is 35 % per the CDC. You got the statistics a bit wrong, New York's 34% overweight rate and 22% obesity rate are separate, the overweight statistic is discounting the obese one so together its 56%. So its still better, but not half.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
fishmech posted:And it's not like getting 20 grams of sugar because one variety of fruit's juice naturally has tha tmuch is better for you then getting 20 grams of sugar from a naturally less sweet juice that had sugar added in. I see your broader points, but disclosure about how much is being added has value for making responsible food choices.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 13:05
|
|
|
Obesity rates really took off around 1980 so I think it's safe to blame this on Neoliberalism
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:I see your broader points, but disclosure about how much is being added has value for making responsible food choices. It has value, but it also has negative value: many people might look only at the added sugar, and end up buying things with more sugar overall but less added sugar. It's the same phenomenon that led to people buying "low fat" food that was sometimes significantly more calories than "regular fat" variants.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
fishmech posted:It has value, but it also has negative value: many people might look only at the added sugar, and end up buying things with more sugar overall but less added sugar. It's the same phenomenon that led to people buying "low fat" food that was sometimes significantly more calories than "regular fat" variants. Well, you don't need labeling changes to encourage deceptive advertising.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Well, you don't need labeling changes to encourage deceptive advertising. I suppose that's the point, though, isn't it? Deceptive advertising is a pretty big part of the obesity pandemic. When 'low fat' foods end up having more unhealthy poo poo in them to make up for the lack of fat ruining the flavour otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I suppose that's the point, though, isn't it? Deceptive advertising is a pretty big part of the obesity pandemic. When 'low fat' foods end up having more unhealthy poo poo in them to make up for the lack of fat ruining the flavour otherwise. Low fat processing was erroneous from the start, since fat doesn't necessarily metabolize 1:1 into stored adipose tissue--and was made even more problematic by upping sodium and sugar to compensate for the taste deficit. I'm not a proponent of encouraging artificial ~*~LOW SUGAR~*~ options--but some transparency over what sugars are added artificially during processing would be helpful in making better food choices. As it is, Natural Juice™ =/= natural juice, and the nutritional labeling doesn't help much. Particularly since it isn't always intuitive how much sugars are already in certain foods.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:
Or what it would do is encourage minimizing "added sugars" while ignoring overall sugars (or calories, etc).
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Or what it would do is encourage minimizing "added sugars" while ignoring overall sugars (or calories, etc). Minimizing or reducing added refined sugars would be a net positive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Minimizing or reducing added refined sugars would be a net positive. Even if overall sugars went up?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Apple juice straight from the apple has zero added sugar but has as much actual sugar as an equal amount of coke, and isn't much more nutritious either! That's why talking about "added sugars" is dumb; there's nothing inherently good about sugars native to a food
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Apple juice straight from the apple has zero added sugar but has as much actual sugar as an equal amount of coke, and isn't much more nutritious either! That's why talking about "added sugars" is dumb; there's nothing inherently good about sugars native to a food Except sugar consumed with its native fiber are not as bioavailable, not metabolized as quickly, and don't result in incredible insulin spikes. This doesn't apply to juice, obviously--but adding sugar to an already sugary beverage is pretty ridiculous. It'd be nice to know how much is added. I'm perplexed at how averse you guys are to additional information. LeeMajors fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
i hate fat people (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
LeeMajors posted:Minimizing or reducing added refined sugars would be a net positive. No, it would not. There is no benefit to replacing "added" sugars with "non-added" sugars. There are no improved health consequences for 20 grams of sugar being "natural" or "expected" versus "refined" or "added" - it's literally the same molecules. LeeMajors posted:Except sugar consumed with its native fiber are not as bioavailable, not metabolized as quickly, and don't result in incredible insulin spikes. You are recommending "adding" information that is actually useless, and stands a pretty good risk of confusing people into consuming more calories because it implies that added sugar is bad, but naturally having the same amount of sugar is good. There also isn't a lot of native fiber in cooked foods either, cooking tends to break that poo poo down. In fact, it's a major reason cooking is done for many forms of food!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Even if overall sugars went up? I'm not sure how this logic works. If you're trying to make an analogy to the low fat reign of health consciousness, the overall amount of calories stayed the same/went up because manufacturers compensated for reduced levels of fat with additional sugars. I guess manufacturers could go back to making things with a higher fat formulation but that seems like it would be a wash at best or a small positive considering the claims made by fishmech recently. A law requiring food makers to state the amount of added sugars (however this is defined, seems hazy and easy to sidestep, which is the biggest reason imo this wouldn't do a ton to combat increased calorie consumption) would reflect a consensus that excess refined carbohydrate consumption is not desirable so it doesn't seem likely that the overall levels of sugars would actually go up. The second order effects of policies that are designed to curtail soft drink consumption, even if that consumption is picked up by drinks of similar calorie content have positive ancillary effects as well considering how terrible drinking a lot of soda is for your overall dental health. Dental health in this country is a huge unaddressed problem amongst the extremely poor and working poor, since traditional health insurance doesn't cover dental problems until they become medical emergencies and dental insurance in this country is largely a joke. Dental health also contributes to dietary habits and I would posit that a correlation exists between overall dental health and lower levels of obesity, though how much of that could be directly attributed to better dietary habits I have no idea. None of this addresses the root problem though, which is that we just eat too god drat much. I suspect it lies in the fact that we live in the most consumer oriented economy on the planet and the excessive omnipresent pressure to consume created by a variety of different factors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The kind of society where everything used in daily life is in walking distance and all transportation is necessary for is traveling between arcologies is one that is extremely implausible to ever emerge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
wiregrind posted:You're the only one bringing up the idea of that utopian society. Using public transport rather than driving will still make people walk a lot more than if they were driving from door to door. Improve public transport and pedestrian walkways as another way to combat obesity. Walking a block or ten a day isn't a useful amount of calories burned to counteract obesity. Let's take a 260 pound person for instance. If they walk a whole mile each day, that's ~145 calories. And when you have great public transit, you're not going to end up walking much more than a mile a day. fishmech fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Walking a block or ten a day isn't a useful amount of calories burned to counteract obesity. Maybe it's a dozen small changes that solves the obesity epidemic rather than one massive change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:Maybe it's a dozen small changes that solves the obesity epidemic rather than one massive change. No, the only thing that solves it is across the board cutting down on food eaten.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Walking a block or ten a day isn't a useful amount of calories burned to counteract obesity. The fact that everyone is treating a mile as some kind of impressive walking distance is part of the problem. That's practically nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No, the only thing that solves it is across the board cutting down on food eaten. Well, I guess it's never going to happen then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The fact that everyone is treating a mile as some kind of impressive walking distance is part of the problem. That's practically nothing. Uh, if your transit system is actually good, as people claim to want, then you would rarely need to walk more than a mile in your entire daily commute. If you need to walk a ton to get between places with your city's transit system, it's sucking hard in multiple areas - you also probably still have a ton of people driving, due to aforementioned suck. For instance, something high like 90% of NYC's population can be reached from any other part with less than a mile's walk in the roundtrip, by the combination of bus and subway transit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The fact that everyone is treating a mile as some kind of impressive walking distance is part of the problem. That's practically nothing. yeah but its annoying as poo poo, walking a mile is no big feat but adding a walked mile to my commute would mean an extra hour a day round trip added to my daily routine and I'm better off spending that time in the gym.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Let's take a 260 pound person for instance. If they walk a whole mile each day, that's ~145 calories. And when you have great public transit, you're not going to end up walking much more than a mile a day. That's about 7% of your recommend daily caloric intake, which is actually pretty good for a quick low impact no sweat activity that takes about 20 minutes, or 1% of your day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
SlipUp posted:That's about 7% of your recommend daily caloric intake, which is actually pretty good for a quick low impact no sweat activity. No it isn't, it's closer to 5% for the average person (the 2000 calorie base used for nutrition labels doesn't apple to most people in the least), and they're also already overeating significantly more than the "recommended" intake regardless. That's why they're fat as hell. If we had everyone burning that extra 140 calories a day, for most of the population it would just slightly slow their weight gain rather than halt it or reverse it. And most of the population who it's be enough to halt or reverse weight gain are already not obese to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:yeah but its annoying as poo poo, walking a mile is no big feat but adding a walked mile to my commute would mean an extra hour a day round trip added to my daily routine and I'm better off spending that time in the gym. You walk 1mph? EDIT: So, a mile is about 1600m. Assuming you go to work, walk a distance to grab something from a food truck, let's say, then come home from work, and do one out-of-the-house errand like grocery shopping, or maybe going to the pub, or a friend's house each day, let's break this down: 1) Walk to transit stop. 2) Go from transit stop to work. 3) Go from work to food truck. 4) Go back to work. 5) Go to transit stop. 6) Go from transit stop to home. 7) Go to grocery store,etc. 8) Go home from grocery store. Assuming every single one of those things is a very minimal 200m away, you've walked a mile. Even in dense cities, most things are at least that far apart. PT6A fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Nov 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You walk 1mph? Average walking speed is about 3mph, so adding a walked mile there and back (so 2 miles total) would add 40 minutes total.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You walk 1mph? I presume the time includes the non walking portions spent on public transit. Edit: or that. ^
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
fishmech posted:No it isn't, it's closer to 5% for the average person (the 2000 calorie base used for nutrition labels doesn't apple to most people in the least), and they're also already overeating significantly more than the "recommended" intake regardless. That's why they're fat as hell. A 260 pound, 5'9 25 year old sedentary man needs to eat about 2800 calories to maintain that weight. At about 2400 total calories he will begin to lose a pound a week. If that person walk a full hour every day but maintained the same diet they would burn about 450-500 calories and end up with 2400 total calories, burning a pound of fat a week. You are wrong and you didn't even do the basic math to back up your assurances.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Average walking speed is about 3mph, so adding a walked mile there and back (so 2 miles total) would add 40 minutes total. Well, then you haven't walked a mile; you have, in fact, walked two miles and burned twice as many calories as walking one mile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2015 18:36
|
|