America on the Move!

Okay. Now, if his suggestions were implemented to promote health instead of weight loss, then they wouldn't be bad. I wouldn't mind getting zoo tickets when I bought a car or some such. However, one of his suggestions gave me one of those funny mental images: "Other businesses can help ... This may involve providing pedometers and incentives for walking to employees or rewarding customers for more physical activity." Rewarding customers for more physical activity? Hmmm. Maybe Target could install a wind tunnel to make it more difficult to get to the sale racks. Or they could erect a giant version of those wheels that laboratory animals frequent, and we could all run for coupons. I'm always game for a bargain!

It's so silly to tell someone to exercise and eat less. As soon as I stopped restricting calories, exercising became so much easier and more enjoyable. Debra, what if stores that validate parking offered a small discount for people who don't require parking? Parking costs malls in some areas a lot of money, so it would make financial sense. (I don't drive, and I'm always interested in initiatives that get people out of their cars.)

I think all this obesity so called solutions are just ploys to detract from real issues of poverty, crime, government theft of taxpayer money you name it, instead of focusing on that they focus on something that really is not a problem, too bad, they are creating an enviroment of guilt (about eating) and unhappiness in people who really haven't done anything wrong except being born in a socieity that pushes appearances over what is right or healthy.

Maybe Target could install a wind tunnel to make it more difficult to get to the sale racks. ROFLOL Now that is an idea, huh? I wish I could somehow work my online game, World of Warcraft, onto my computer where I could run my character around by treadmill use.

Bite your tongue, Viola! Then again, it would make getting a mount all that more important... The deal about the 100 calories: "Every widdle biddy change helps." No, it's not a direct quote, but that's what they're going for. It's no different from the "eat one less doughnut per week" crowd, or the "park a little further from the store" crowd. Little changes, made effectively, will lead to results, given time and consistent effort. "This may involve providing pedometers and incentives for walking to employees or rewarding customers for more physical activity" My reaction to that was: Could my reward be a smiley-faced cookie? Somehow I think they'd think that would defeat the purpose.

No more RPGs for you....Dance Dance Revolution! If we're going to have a wind tunnel can we have the Diving for Dollars game from Beat the Reaper? I'll let Dr. Hill go first....

I think it's hysterical that on the same page as this story on "Take steps toward a healthier Colorado" is an advertisement for the Great American Beer Store's huge keg sale...

Only in Colorado...that's one of those juxtapositions that makes me wonder why I'm still living here...

All I can say is...thank Goddess Paul Campos lives there. I can't wait to see HIS take on all this.

Of course this "eat 100 calories less" business is cow-pucky too. Obviously SOME (maybe not ALL but SOME) people's bodies adjust their energy expenditure downward in response to less food. So the body simply fidgets 100 cal less, or produces 100 cal less of heat or whatever that day, and the person's weight, body composition, BMI, yada yada yada doesn't change ONE IOTA, not even if the person does that for 35 days on end (which theoretically should make them lose 1 lb, according to the "3500_cal=1_lb" crowd). That's what's WRONG with the whole theory that just parking a block further away and "taking the stairs" and "cutting out 100 cals" etc., etc. will cause weight loss (in EVERYBODY). It causes ENERGY loss in a lot of people w/out changing their body composition at all. That's because bodies are living things that ADAPT, not locomotives or machines that continue to put out exactly the same amount of energy/day regardless of how much they take in. Bleh.

EVERYONE should eat 100 calories less on that day? I can't believe he's including anorexics in that (if you're already paper-thin and eating 50 calories a day, it's not POSSIBLE to eat 100 fewer...)

But mmailliw, that's what colonics and emetics are for!

mmailliw, perhaps he's suggesting they eat 50 calories less and then do an extra 15 minutes on the bike to earn that extra 50 calories off?

He's just assuming that one cannot be fat AND getting enough exercise. That's fallacy number one. Well said, 2Day. We are adaptable creatures, not machines.

Well, I guess my local wal-mart has jumped on the exercise bandwagon. first, they are so ginormous, and have the habit of separating items that are commonly bought at the same time by many rows - and, for that matter, randomly moving things about in the store so you are often faced with the cognitive dissonance of "I knew the milk used to be here." If you need both aspirin and facial tissues, you better have your walking shoes on. second, they employ about a third of the cashiers they need at any given time, so we're often treated to standing on-line for five, ten, or even fifteen minutes. Finally, it seems that every time I go, there's either no close parking - or more likely, there's an auto-battle-royale for the close parking so I just say "forget it, don't need another fender bender" and park the 1/4 mile away from the store and walk. And the whole "100 calories fewer" thing? Can I say how TIRED, how tired to the BONE I am of the whole chirpy "Oh, if you just cut out one soft drink (or one cookie, or two crackers, or a piece of toast, or your morning orange juice, or whateverthehell) per day, you can lose weight!" BUZZ! Wrong! there are some of us who have TRIED that gimmick, tried it for months, and all we got was a stomach that growled at inopportune times (and FWIW, I don't eat donuts or drink soda, at least not more often than once a month). Yes, eating healthy is great. Yes, exercise is great. But please please please, weight loss cheerleaders, leave us the **F** alone for a change. Hearing your blather actually makes me want to go buy one of those "Big Kat" Kit Kat candy bars and eat it right in your face, because I get so tired of your platitudes.

Well, considering that fat people are at least 60% of the population and anorexics are at most 5%, it's pretty safe to say "everyone" and mean the vast majority of us! (Note: the numbers I've seen say that 4% or so of women will suffer from anorexia nervosa, which puts the rate in the US population at about 2%). Anyhow. I like the 100 calories less a day. Not because I think it was help anyone lose weight so I don't like the idea of this "program". But I do like the awareness of thinking about what 100 calories is, how you can "get it" and heck, for all I think it matter, eat an extra 100 cals. More the idea of "look at the 100 calorie snack you are about to eat. Does it have anything good in it? Is it full of chemicals? Does it really taste good?" etc. I beleive that part of health is being aware of what we eat, not eating too much, not eating too little and agreeing with your body about it! But often we lack awareness of what we eat and how it impacts our health. Same with walking abit extra... not that it will help lose weight, but how it makes us aware of what we are doing or not doing. Many people just don't have time for healthy eating, exercising, healthy snacks or even walking half way across the parking lot dragging three kids... but I still beleive that being aware of all this helps. Of how little is sometimes really needed to move towards better health etc. And great rant, 2Day! But I still don't like the program.

Why is it always the *cheese*? These 100 cal a day people have something against cheese...There is a Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy joke in there somewhere...