|
|
Post by SI on Jan 14, 2010 8:08:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by coachj on Jan 14, 2010 10:31:42 GMT -5
...around the same time the "Home Computers" started - (TRS-80 -Vic-20 - C64 etc) then into Turbo Grafx - Nintendo later in the 80's but, this was also the time the Hockey started losing players to soccer as it was on the rise and the family income needed to be increased to keep up with the cost of living (GTA house prices doubled) - both parents now had to work and these new electronics became the baby sitters. It snowballed from there and continues to snowball today.
Staggering numbers but something we already knew, we didn't need CORE to confirm this.. and the so called experts keep telling us that since the 80's we have been on the decline because we are burning out runners...??!! I think they just like to read their own posts.
It seems today that kids that are involved in sport are very involved and those that are not do nothing at all..No real middle group to speak of –
If the expected cost to service these pending health issues is in the billions then it would only make sense to be proactive and sink half these expected costs into early development programs and stop the wave – But that would make too much sense. Kinda like the recent bailout given to the auto industry, maybe the better solution would have been to give each auto worker 500k and close the Canadian operations – this would have been 50% of the bailout package give to the big 3, instant stimulation and better long term worker development..
|
|
|
|
Post by Steller on Jan 14, 2010 11:00:51 GMT -5
This type of epidemiological news has been coming out for quite some time in the scientific community-- with many studies showing that exercise is as, if not more effective, than any pharma/drug/pill approach (with much less side effects!). Unfortuantely, these great positive exercise study results don't seem to get the same media explotation as the negative studies, such as effects of smoking etc. Yet, it sickness us nutrition and exercise scientisits that the provincial and federal governments do not want to put more spending into either top-level or grass roots sports. see: www.thumbsupforfundingsport.ca/Content/thumbsup/index.aspTeaching and pushing activity and sport in youth is the first step in teaching an life-long active lifestyle.... sorry for my rant... |
|
|
|
Post by coachj on Jan 14, 2010 11:21:25 GMT -5
This type of epidemiological news has been coming out for quite some time in the scientific community-- with many studies showing that exercise is as, if not more effective, than any pharma/drug/pill approach (with much less side effects!). Unfortuantely, these great positive exercise study results don't seem to get the same media explotation as the negative studies, such as effects of smoking etc. Yet, it sickness us nutrition and exercise scientisits that the provincial and federal governments do not want to put more spending into either top-level or grass roots sports. see: www.thumbsupforfundingsport.ca/Content/thumbsup/index.aspTeaching and pushing activity and sport in youth is the first step in teaching an life-long active lifestyle.... sorry for my rant... No need to be sorry...It is all facts! People wanna piss and moan about why things are broken and all these people wanna do is put band aids on- (Just put the political agendas aside and do what is known to work) A positive note is a vast majority are starting to think for themselves and filter out the rubbish and fist pounders pushing soft development programs with low retention. 1 big mistake was the removal of the "Participaction" program of the 70's and the "Health Hustle" .. If they just take the grade 3's +under and start from there, it will turn the big ship around in 7 short years. |
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Jan 14, 2010 12:27:06 GMT -5
Coachj, the fact that epidemiological shifts may have reduced the base of potential athletes in our sport-- as it will have done in EVERY sport-- does not get us off the hook for poor, sport-specific youth development programs. Poor LTAD programs only exacerbate a larger problem by using up kids who are already active and have made a commitment to sport. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever-- and you never have-- that the "hard" development program you seem to support is a solution to either the larger epidemiological problem OR the problem of failed retention in our sport. And our problem is this sport at the moment is clearly one of retention more than of a shrinking base (I thus disagree with SI's basic premise when it comes to distance running). Our numbers and quality in the age class ranks are as good or better than they have ever been. We are thus not having any trouble getting kids started. What we are having trouble with is getting them to the senior elite level in any numbers. When you have a sensible solution to THAT problem, feel free to let us know about it.
As for the larger problem, if enrollment in organized sports-- in "soft" or "hard" programs-- was the sole solution to this larger problem, it wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is. Kids are enrolled in organized sport in higher numbers than ever before in Canada. What we face is a broader public health problem, for which greater social equity, more resources for phys-ed in schools, better funded public recreation facilities, etc., etc, is the long term solution. A culture of paranoia among parents as regard allowing their children to play outside is also a problem, but not the central one.
|
|
|
|
Post by responserunner on Jan 15, 2010 0:34:03 GMT -5
I blame the suburbs if people could walk/ride a bike to work then maybe they wouldn't be so fat. European cities were designed when cars didn't exist and their obesity problems are abismal in comparison to ours. North American cities have flourished after the creation of the Automobile; hence the suburbs. I agree that electronics and general mechanization have also had their impact but, if you take away cars and replace them with bikes I'd imagine a drop in obesity.
I would say is diet is the second problem. The amount of s__t they put into our processed foods is astonishing. Look on any packaged food and you'll find a number of names which represent cheap over produced, over subsidized and under priced American corn. I can't remember the exact list but here goes: anything with the word corn (there are lots), dextrin, malodextrin, dextrose, fructose. These processed ingredients are what helps Big Mac meals contain 1000 calories without the ability to fill you up. The average potato only contains 75 to 100 calories, a can of coke contains 160 calories. How does that make any sense?
FYI: Coca cola is sweetened with high fructose corn syrup.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steller on Jan 15, 2010 4:20:59 GMT -5
Actually, most studies show that activity levels play a much larger role than diet in our current problem. On average, since the 1980's people have actually been eating less total calories and less % of those calories as fat, yet obesity and over-weight are reaching epidemic proportions. It really is the total lack of activity that is the main driver of this situation. We evolved over thousands of years to MOVE! On average, our ancestors moved ~15 to 20km per day. Now, on average, the people in the fittest state in the US (Colorado) move only 5km/day. If I remember correctly, individuals from Louisiana only move about 1km per day! If you are moving ~15km per day it honestly probably does not matter much what you eat, most will not become obese. (obviously, for optimal performance it does matter what you eat though!). The main issue is time: over thousands of years we evolved to move and we evolved to store fat very efficiently, due to “feasts and famine”. Basically since WWII, in Westernized countries we have engineered all activity out of our daily lives and it is pretty much 100% feast. So we are talking less than a generation, and no time for any evolution or genetic pressure to act. For an example check this out: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUpo_mA5RP8 This is how our ancestors used to have to hunt. |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 15, 2010 8:19:23 GMT -5
Throwing money at the problem won't do a bit of good. Unfortunately(or fortunately), whether that opinion is valid will never get tested.
|
|
cda
Full Member
Posts: 267
|
Post by cda on Jan 15, 2010 9:02:23 GMT -5
I still do this at the grocery store. |
|
gtown
Full Member
Posts: 139
|
Post by gtown on Jan 15, 2010 9:05:30 GMT -5
Didn't our ancestors also have ridiculously short life expectancies? Like the Jerry Seinfeld bit about how spring break started. People hit age 19 and figured they were in their last years and it was time to head down to Florida, haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldster on Jan 15, 2010 11:55:05 GMT -5
Throwing money at the problem won't do a bit of good. Unfortunately(or fortunately), whether that opinion is valid will never get tested. If you beg the question by calling it "throwing" money, then no, it won't work. "Throwing" anything indiscriminately is rarely a good strategy! Some careful "investment" of money, on the other hand, is probably the ONLY thing that's going to work. Don't we already know, for instance, that a dollar spend on kids (for, e.g., early childhood ed. and other basic interventions) saves tons of dollars down the road? In countries with more generous welfare states-- i.e. where money is properly invested in collective social well being-- most health indicators are better. In other words, if left up to "personal responsibility" alone, our collective health and well being are likely to go straight to hell in a hand-basket (or perhaps a full-sized shopping cart). |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 15, 2010 12:37:15 GMT -5
The people who have the most influence on the kids(the parents) don't care(their obesity problem is as bad as the kids') so, no, I don't think it will work here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steller on Jan 15, 2010 15:55:31 GMT -5
I disagree SI.
I agree that many of the current fat parents probably don’t care—but agree with Oldster in that the careful investment of money is needed.
The issue of obesity is really a recent phenomenon. The idea of obesity for any adult over the age of 40 yrs was a total non-factor when they were young impressionable kids – sure there were some fat overweight people in the 60 and 70’s, but clinically and morbid obesity that appears to be normal now in N. America just was not that prevalent. I do think that most current adults who are obese are a bit of a lost cause – we need to target the next generation (the kids), where more impact can be made.
It takes money and effort to support school programs that include physical activity, or after school sports, or further nutrition and health education for kids that is actually interesting and engaging. Here in Switzerland, every Wednesday afternoon is a day off school for the students to go with their teachers to go skiing in the winter, hiking in the summer etc. etc. The Swiss, through targeted money which supports fun and cool activity programs, after school sports etc. etc. instill in their kids at a young age the value of exercise. Thus, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that that the 2009 obesity rates in the US were 30.6%, Canada 14.3% and Switzerland 7.7% of the population (and they are only going up). OR…in terms of overweight the US is 74%!
SI -- What approach, that doesn’t cost a single dime, would you propose to implement to combat obesity SI?
Or should we ignore this relatively recent problem, figure there is nothing we can do, and continue on our journey of dys-evolution (reverse evolution)? It is estimated that the kids being born now in the US, are the first generation on this planet that will have a shorter life expectancy than their parents.
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 15, 2010 16:01:06 GMT -5
I don't know what sort of Marshall Plan will get the kids out from in front of their computers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steller on Jan 15, 2010 16:20:03 GMT -5
There is a "marshall Plan" forcing kids to go to school, where they don't sit infront of computers for 100% of the time at school Exercise, gym class, after school sports used to be much more prevelant (they still are at Swiss schools), but those government cut backs (i.e. $$$) changed all that....
|
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 15, 2010 16:26:51 GMT -5
Have kids go to school for as many days and hours as they used to(got reminded the other day how the Christmas break used to be only 10 days) and plow it all into gym class. There-not one thin dime. Still don't think it will help though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steller on Jan 15, 2010 16:35:18 GMT -5
why does it work (not perfectly) in countries that implement more physical education and time for exercise/activities (especially at younger ages)? Do you read the academic papers/studies in this area, or is this just your personal opinion?
There are a couple of great studies on the Dutch, of which many still implement cycling as a mode of transporation into their daily lifestyle. The dutch love to drink/party and put mayo on their fries, but are one of the skinnest Westernized nations in the world. You actually don't need that much daily activity to have a large impact. Approx 120 kcals extra activity per day, theorically can impact ~4kg of weight over the entire year. (email me, and I can send you the studies).
|
|
|
|
Post by responserunner on Jan 17, 2010 15:23:15 GMT -5
This is a little delayed, I haven't been on the board for a while. I'd like to know where you got your stats on caloric consumption going down. I guess you're in Switzerland so that may be the case in Europe, but this is what I found in the U.S. ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/a0205m/United-States-of-America.pdfIt shows 600 calories a day increase from 1981 to 2002. The cheap corn, I spoke of earlier, was a result of a Republican under Ronald Reagan who decided that market forces should rule Agriculture. The U.S. government spends millions of dollars in subsidies every year keeping farmers from going bankrupt; market forces sure do rule. A documentary called, "King Corn" covers all of this and then some. To complement obesity there has also been a large increase in type two Diabetes since they began sweetening soft drinks, and other foods, with high fructose corn syrup. |
|
|
|
Post by coachj on Jan 17, 2010 20:12:05 GMT -5
...you forgot to ad Gluten in that mix.... Wheat addiction is the major issue, gluten is the culprit and biggest contributor to Type 2 , osteoporosis , anemia etc... Also one of the biggest performance hogs. A quick google brought this up but you can search out more recent news and studies..(2002) www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2002/sep/17/healthandwellbeing.health |
|
|
|
Post by SI on Jan 17, 2010 20:42:41 GMT -5
why does it work (not perfectly) in countries that implement more physical education and time for exercise/activities (especially at younger ages)? Are the Dutch fitter because of the implementation or because they "choose" cycling as a means of transportation ? They have what is basically the highest gas prices in Europe which is already much higher than North America. Does that have any impact on their cycling? I don't know but it would seem to make sense. By the way, USAnians, who start to whine when gas hits 3.00 a gallon, make me laugh. For whole bunch of reasons, an immediate doubling of the price of gas would be the best thing they could do down there. |
|
