William Ashley Posted January 5, 2011 Author Report Posted January 5, 2011 (edited) I think MADD is fudging the books, listening to them ,we should see bodies lying all over the place. But it seems poor william needs the govermnet to lead him around by the hand and tell him how to live, must be terrible being like that. A responsible government perhaps, the current conservative government, no. Hitlarper just wants a weak subserviant ingorant muslim hating mass to acheive his means of destroying democracy and freedom. Canadians need a government that cares about their health and wellbeing, not treats them like rollypollies. Not meant to be related to the fitness site http://www.rollypollies.com/ nor the 1960's hurdy gurdies. More so related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roly_poly The first entry on wikipedia. Do any of them look fat - they look like they are having fun. Edited January 5, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
Topaz Posted January 5, 2011 Report Posted January 5, 2011 All this weight problem is a North America problem but have any of you watch the Food Network show "Drive-ins Diners and Dives"? The host Guy, goes around America, going to all these places looking at the food these places serve. There no wonder people are over weight by what they order in the eateries. High fat, salt, cholesterol etc. Then there's the "biggest Losers" were probably all these people go to lose the weight they put on. The highest so far is 400+ lbs and they do lose it but some put it back on after leaving the show. Quote
WIP Posted January 6, 2011 Report Posted January 6, 2011 Perhaps we should look at this from another perspective. If a bigger and bigger portion of the population become lazy, obese, physically weak, immobile, etc, those few of us who remain fit will have a bigger and bigger relative advantage But, on the downside, we have more obese, unhealthy people, driving up health costs and ending up in nursing homes at an earlier age. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted January 6, 2011 Report Posted January 6, 2011 Yes, sport participation is declining and I wonder if there is a parallel statistic about computer gaming, Nintendo, xBox and the like. I don't think the answer to the youth fitness problem is more sports programs. Kids used to go out and play after school, but safety concerns, and kids stuck in afterschool programs, waiting for parents to come pick them up and drive to McDonalds on the way home, are a big part of what's wrong with modern life. The only physical activity most kids get, is highly structured sports programs, which just does not make up for all of the hours of inactivity during the week. Young children are supposed to be active most of the day. Unfortunately, they have to adjust to the sedentary life, or end up with a prescription for Ritalin. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted January 6, 2011 Report Posted January 6, 2011 The old standards had i believe 90m a day of exercise for kids. Wtf??? I was a very spry, athletic kid and i'm not sure if i hit that mark. Maybe on a gym day with 45m of exercise, plus 45 minutes worth or recess. 150m a week for adults = 20m a day. That's very reasonable and people can be pretty fit if you find time for 20m a day of solid sweating activity. Personally i think 30m would be a better goal. Ultimately, there's not much point to trying to force people to do activities that they are not enjoying. Exercise should be something that's enjoyable, and something to look forward to during the day....not an obligation to try to get in shape. As long as I've had a Y or other fitness club membership, it never fails that the gym is packed in January, and then after a few weeks, when those New Year's resolutions become distant memories, then there's lots of free space in the weight room or on any of the machines! The most productive way for people who think they're too busy to exercise, to get some simple aerobic exercise, is to leave the car in the driveway, and walk, run or bike anywhere that's less than two miles away. I usually run to work three days a week, and run to the gym.....I don't see a whole lot of point to jumping in the car to drive to a fitness club, and running on a treadmill or an eliptical machine etc. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Shwa Posted January 6, 2011 Report Posted January 6, 2011 I don't think the answer to the youth fitness problem is more sports programs. Kids used to go out and play after school, but safety concerns, and kids stuck in afterschool programs, waiting for parents to come pick them up and drive to McDonalds on the way home, are a big part of what's wrong with modern life. The only physical activity most kids get, is highly structured sports programs, which just does not make up for all of the hours of inactivity during the week. Young children are supposed to be active most of the day. Unfortunately, they have to adjust to the sedentary life, or end up with a prescription for Ritalin. Yes, I agree. In the same post you quoted, I also mention getting outside, the "go out and play" ethic - whatever happened to that? All my kids got that and they are very healthy kids. I guess the commute, double income requirement for success nowadays comes into play. I really believe sports could be a primary component, but it doesn't have to be teams sports and it could include any game and activity. What is needed is cheap and easy accessiblity to facilities that are not hogged out by the elite sporting programs. One of the great things we have in out city is known as the neighbourhood sports association based around neighbourhood parks. They offer inexespensive organized house league type sports - soccer, hockey, softball. But regardless, organized sports is one thing, but simply getting out and moving around in a safe environment is very important. Quote
Molly Posted January 6, 2011 Report Posted January 6, 2011 Yes.. simply moving around in a safe environment. The barriers to fitness that are placed on todays children are overwhelming. Some of it is the failure to recognize accessibility as absolutely key to effective use: Kids who must be driven and attended while they play will play very little. Activities that demand a constant stream of $$$$ will only be followed up by opbsessive parents, not kids looking for something to do. If great blocks of time must be set aside, then it's easier to just flick on the tv instead. If regulatory t's must be crossed, it's rarely worth it. Activity levels would be improved by increasing the number of safe, nearby neighbourhood parks, and generally increasing available sporting facilities-rinks, pools, gymnasiums, playing fields- designed to be within SAFE walking/riding distance, and even line-of-sight of 'home'. Sidewalks and bicycle lanes should be a high priority, and bike paths that go useful places, and not just randomly into some gully... regulations demanding walking 'shortcuts' through sbdivisions, and the lashing of retail and industriasl space to residential permits, to force more neighbourhood-building... Every regulation should be reviewed from the perspective of what exactly is being disincentivized, too. Bike helmets are one that ... well, perhaps it is merely coincidence that the use of bicycles as a means of conveyance and/or recreation, drops in the flusher the very moment that helmets are demanded. Certainly they reduce serious bike injuries, but \i'd feel better seeing some statistical evidence that it isn't just because all but a very few give up biking. In the end, the solution to maintianing physical activity might be wii and other technologies like it. Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
WIP Posted January 6, 2011 Report Posted January 6, 2011 Yes.. simply moving around in a safe environment. The barriers to fitness that are placed on todays children are overwhelming. The playgrounds in many inner city neighbourhoods have been infested with drug dealers and gangs, so it's no surprise that few children are seen there; but even in the suburbs, the playgrounds are empty because both parents are working late, and the kids are either with babysitters or stuck sitting in some after-school program till 6 or 7 at night. And then they are lined up in the drive-thru of McDonalds or Burger King etc. for dinner....and that may be a bigger cause of childhood obesity than lack of exercise. Some of it is the failure to recognize accessibility as absolutely key to effective use: Kids who must be driven and attended while they play will play very little. Activities that demand a constant stream of $$$$ will only be followed up by opbsessive parents, not kids looking for something to do. If great blocks of time must be set aside, then it's easier to just flick on the tv instead. If regulatory t's must be crossed, it's rarely worth it. Yeah, some middle class suburbanites have their kid's activities scheduled, and leave no time for children to use their imaginations. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
dre Posted January 6, 2011 Report Posted January 6, 2011 I wouldn't mind seeing some stats! MADD is a political animal formed around a motherhood issue, like the Liberal gun registry after Marc Lepine's whacko murders in Quebec. Motherhood issues tend to have a very poor record of actually addressing a problem, in real and concrete ways and numbers. Politicians tend to use them to garner votes. Addressing a problem in a 'real world ' way is considered secondary at best. A friend of mine got busted and had to attend one of those education sessions. He said it was a total joke! He had a friend drive him to the particular location, where a bored woman fed a tape into a VCR for them to view. They were treated to lots of graphic clips of people smashed up and killed by drunks and then they were free to go home. He said what struck him was that several of the other attendees drove themselves to the viewing! One of them smelled of booze and was clearly not sober. No one said or bothered to do a thing. Everyone just went through the motions. Another anecdote I know, but typical of how the 'system' tends to operate in reality. If someone has made the claim that MADD has had great success then it is up to them to defend the point. Clearly, the only real measure of success is in a reduction of the percentage of accidents caused by intoxicated drivers, although that stat is skewed a little bit. If you are impaired you are considered at fault, yet often the other driver may have actually caused the mishap. Before the inevitable ad hominem accusation comes my way, my total alcohol intake is about a 6 pack of beer and a couple of shots of expensive Scotch, PER YEAR! Im uncomfortable with the power that groups like MADD and other victims advocacy groups have over government. I dont want the government making decisions based on a special interests ability to emmotionalize issues. If they want to lobby the government to impose restrictions on me, then every second of the communication involved should be on TV and on the internet. If they want to criminalize me for driving after 1 or 2 glasses of wine (.04 - 0.7) then I wanna see compelling studies to support that. Same if they want to prohibit anything else. At the risk of appearing unsensitive people can shove their personal appeals to emotion up their ass. Theyre entitled to them, but they arent entitle to impose them on me, or make me pay for their remedies. I actually think it should be a constitution obligation of government to write evidence based legislation and make sure theyve adequately researched the issue, and that their position is supported by empyrical data. Id wager that MOST of our bad legislation is the result of this sort of reactionism. Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
Bonam Posted January 7, 2011 Report Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) The playgrounds in many inner city neighbourhoods have been infested with drug dealers and gangs, so it's no surprise that few children are seen there; but even in the suburbs, the playgrounds are empty because both parents are working late, and the kids are either with babysitters or stuck sitting in some after-school program till 6 or 7 at night. Yeah... the era of both parents being expected to work has really had a strong impact on kids, how they are brought up, and in general the quality of their childhoods. Guess I was really lucky to have a mostly stay at home mom... All the people arguing for government funded / public daycare so all parents can just dump their kids there from infancy and work all day long will only exacerbate this trend. It's not just a matter of sports but a matter of the interaction that kids can have with their parents, which cannot be substituted for by a daycare administrator or a babysitter. Alas, it seems the trend is to collectivize childcare just like everything else. Edited January 7, 2011 by Bonam Quote
William Ashley Posted January 7, 2011 Author Report Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) waiting for parents to come pick them up and drive to McDonalds on the way home, are a big part of what's wrong with modern life. If parent inconvience of picking up there kids is stopping healthy kids add an hour to the school day and get the bus driver back an hour later. Have parents pick up kids and take them to McDonalds if it comes to that - for the kids who don't stay. 45 minutes of PE at the end of the day isn't a deal breaker. Especially if it is a type of recess, where kids don't leave until an hour later. If they already have an hour of PE that day then they can use the time for "study" or "homework" - with peer help from other classess not scheduled due to having full PE, then rotate the after class time - it is community building. Let student bodies meet each other daily. An extra hour of parents to get their stuff done - likely means more time for kids when they do get home. Also how many families each supper at 4:30? What is better than a nice hot meal when you get home. The only physical activity most kids get, is highly structured sports programs, which just does not make up for all of the hours of inactivity during the week. Young children are supposed to be active most of the day. Unfortunately, they have to adjust to the sedentary life, or end up with a prescription for Ritalin. We need more activity (even though ritalin and some other ADD drugs are actually NOOTROPIC...) Edited January 7, 2011 by William Ashley Quote I was here.
dre Posted January 7, 2011 Report Posted January 7, 2011 (edited) Yeah... the era of both parents being expected to work has really had a strong impact on kids, how they are brought up, and in general the quality of their childhoods. Guess I was really lucky to have a mostly stay at home mom... All the people arguing for government funded / public daycare so all parents can just dump their kids there from infancy and work all day long will only exacerbate this trend. It's not just a matter of sports but a matter of the interaction that kids can have with their parents, which cannot be substituted for by a daycare administrator or a babysitter. Alas, it seems the trend is to collectivize childcare just like everything else. The government cant influence the trend in either direction. Peoples priorities are different now... more self centred and geared around istant gratification. If we are going to mortgage our childrens future to enhance ours like we have, then who really cares if they get fat and die? All the people arguing for government funded / public daycare so all parents can just dump their kids there from infancy and work all day long will only exacerbate this trend Sure but then it becomes harder and harder to have a family, our birthrate will go down, and people will whine about immigration. Oh wait.. That all already happened. Edited January 7, 2011 by dre Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
WIP Posted January 7, 2011 Report Posted January 7, 2011 Yeah... the era of both parents being expected to work has really had a strong impact on kids, how they are brought up, and in general the quality of their childhoods. Guess I was really lucky to have a mostly stay at home mom... One income families were the norm when I was growing up, now it is almost impossible for most middle class families. I have a higher income then most, and when we went from being a two-income to a one-income household ten years ago, that meant moving out of the suburbs and buying a cheaper house; and going from two cars to one car......which ended up being best for the whole family; but even a family trying to live modestly, will have a hard time getting by with an income under $50,000 these days. All the people arguing for government funded / public daycare so all parents can just dump their kids there from infancy and work all day long will only exacerbate this trend. It's not just a matter of sports but a matter of the interaction that kids can have with their parents, which cannot be substituted for by a daycare administrator or a babysitter.Alas, it seems the trend is to collectivize childcare just like everything else. I don't know much about it, but I hear mostly good things about the public daycare system in France. I don't know how they do it, but if a daycare system is well-funded and staffed with professionals making a decent living, it would probably be a lot better than dumping the kids off with babysitters. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Bonam Posted January 7, 2011 Report Posted January 7, 2011 One income families were the norm when I was growing up, now it is almost impossible for most middle class families. I have a higher income then most, and when we went from being a two-income to a one-income household ten years ago, that meant moving out of the suburbs and buying a cheaper house; and going from two cars to one car......which ended up being best for the whole family; but even a family trying to live modestly, will have a hard time getting by with an income under $50,000 these days. Fortunately a professional can make 80-100k or more and then their spouse could have the option to remain at home. That option seems rarely taken these days, everyone has their own ambitions and wants to pursue them in the workplace, to the detriment of their children. I don't know much about it, but I hear mostly good things about the public daycare system in France. I don't know how they do it, but if a daycare system is well-funded and staffed with professionals making a decent living, it would probably be a lot better than dumping the kids off with babysitters. Perhaps it could be made a lot better than dumping them with babysitters but no daycare can replace time with one's parents throughout one's early childhood. Quote
WIP Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 Fortunately a professional can make 80-100k or more and then their spouse could have the option to remain at home. That option seems rarely taken these days, everyone has their own ambitions and wants to pursue them in the workplace, to the detriment of their children. But, what percentage of the population makes over 80 thou per year? I made close to 70k last year (net income) and I know I don't feel rich providing for a family with one income. Perhaps it could be made a lot better than dumping them with babysitters but no daycare can replace time with one's parents throughout one's early childhood. It may come down to making the best of bad options. One thing that may help with this problem of inactivity, is that daycare providers have more options to keep the kids active than a babysitter, who's motivations would probably be to keep young children as quiet as possible so they can watch TV or something. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
Oleg Bach Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 Some one say potato? That reminds me I had better cook mine up before they go bad....yummy - baked with lots of butter and sour cream. Frankly we are not a herd of animals who's health and fitness is the business of those in the human animal husbandry business. If feminist can say "my body my business" - Then I can say the same...if I want to be a big fat couch potato...that's my business. Not the states...or health practitioners...or any one else . My physical body belongs to me...so kiss my fat couch shape ass! Quote
bloodyminded Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) But, what percentage of the population makes over 80 thou per year? Right...and we're talking about one person, not two incomes. So, a very small percentage. Edited January 10, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Bonam Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) Right...and we're talking about one person, not two incomes. So, a very small percentage. Pretty much any lawyer, doctor, professor, engineer with some experience, middle (or higher) manager, successful accountant, investment/finance professional, etc will be making 70-80k+. We're talking most of the middle class here. It's not a majority but it's not that small of a minority either. Most people I know from university are engineers, programmers, and accountants and not a one makes less than 70k, and this is in their 20s. Edited January 10, 2011 by Bonam Quote
Shwa Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 Pretty much any lawyer, doctor, professor, engineer with some experience, middle (or higher) manager, successful accountant, investment/finance professional, etc will be making 70-80k+. We're talking most of the middle class here. It's not a majority but it's not that small of a minority either. Most people I know from university are engineers, programmers, and accountants and not a one makes less than 70k, and this is in their 20s. While more about $90k income here from 2007: Study: High-income Canadians An annual income of $89,000 was enough to put an individual among the 1.2 million Canadians who made up the top 5% of the country's taxfiler population in 2004, according to a new study. Income tables from 2006 It seems that those earning $70k or more are a pretty small percentage of the middle class, if they could even be considered that. Quote
Bonam Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) While more about $90k income here from 2007: Study: High-income Canadians Income tables from 2006 It seems that those earning $70k or more are a pretty small percentage of the middle class, if they could even be considered that. According to the table in the 2006 study, 2.49 million Canadians make 70k or more. That's out of 24.4 million counted. Subtracting those below 20 and those over 65 (that is, narrowing it down to the workforce), that leaves a workforce of 19.0 million. 2.49 mil / 19.0 mil = 13%. So about 13% of the workforce earns 70k+. I admit, a bit smaller of a percentage than I would have guessed, but still a fairly good sized group of people. Also, how would they NOT be considered middle class? You need to be earning a LOT more than that (or be a rich heir) before you start to fall anywhere close to what could be called upper class. Anyway, this is kind of getting off topic. My point was simple, that it is better for children to have a parent at home with them if the situation allows for the family to be financially secure on just one income. Edited January 11, 2011 by Bonam Quote
Shwa Posted January 11, 2011 Report Posted January 11, 2011 According to the table in the 2006 study, 2.49 million Canadians make 70k or more. That's out of 24.4 million counted. Subtracting those below 20 and those over 65 (that is, narrowing it down to the workforce), that leaves a workforce of 19.0 million. 2.49 mil / 19.0 mil = 13%. So about 13% of the workforce earns 70k+. I admit, a bit smaller of a percentage than I would have guessed, but still a fairly good sized group of people. Also, how would they NOT be considered middle class? You need to be earning a LOT more than that (or be a rich heir) before you start to fall anywhere close to what could be called upper class. Anyway, this is kind of getting off topic. My point was simple, that it is better for children to have a parent at home with them if the situation allows for the family to be financially secure on just one income. Agreed, a little statistical sidebar that surprised me as well... Quote
Molly Posted January 12, 2011 Report Posted January 12, 2011 According to the table in the 2006 study, 2.49 million Canadians make 70k or more. That's out of 24.4 million counted. Subtracting those below 20 and those over 65 (that is, narrowing it down to the workforce), that leaves a workforce of 19.0 million. 2.49 mil / 19.0 mil = 13%. ? Does this mean you are assuming that no one over over 65 (or under 20) has an income over $70 K? Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.