Obesity in the Netherlands

[Greens]

I had assumed that a country with many more cyclists would have less
obesity. Since there's a lot more bicycling going on in the Netherlands, I
figured they'd be a fine example of what bicycle culture was capable of in
making the population healthier, but as it turns out, they have an obesity
epidemic over there too.

I think the figures do look a little better than the USA figures. Maybe it
can all be explained away as being due to more Dutch driving cars or
something.

"This paper shows the trends in the prevalence of overweight (body mass
index [BMI] = 25 kg m2) and obesity (BMI = 30 kg m2) in the Netherlands.
Overweight (obesity) prevalence in adult males increased from 37% (4%) in
1981 to 51% (10%) in 2004, and in adult females from 30% (6%) in 1981 to 42%
(12%) in 2004, according to self-reported data. In boys and girls, obesity
prevalence doubled or even tripled from 1980 to 1997, and again from 1997 to
2002–2004 a two- or threefold increase was seen for almost all ages.
According to the most recent data, overweight (obesity) prevalence figures
range, depending on age, from 9.2% to 17.3% (2.5–4.3%) in boys, and from
14.6% to 24.6% (2.3–6.5%) in girls. There is a lack of data on the national
prevalence of overweight and obesity based on measured height and weight and
on prevalences in different subgroups of the population. Regular national
representative health examination surveys that measure height and weight are
needed to assess the prevalence of overweight and obesity and its
distribution over subgroups in the population, and to properly direct and
evaluate prevention activities."

[Greens]

"DougC" <dcimper@norcom2000.com> wrote in message
news:XbTLi.107$C23.9@newsfe05.lga...
> Greens wrote:
>> I had assumed that a country with many more cyclists would have less
>> obesity. Since there's a lot more bicycling going on in the Netherlands,
>> I figured they'd be a fine example of what bicycle culture was capable of
>> in making the population healthier, but as it turns out, they have an
>> obesity epidemic over there too.
>>
>
> Two points:
> -------
> First off: here's a fun trick: enter the name of any first-world country
> you want into Google and the phrase "obesity epidemic", and you'll get
> back a bunch of alarming results. There doesn't seem to be any respectable
> nation that's /not/ having an obesity epidemic.
> -------
> Secondly--the average Netherlands rider may ride frequently, but doesn't
> necessarily bicycle all that far.
>
> See here-
>> http://www.bicyclinglife.com/EffectiveAdvocacy/TheRoadsWeHave.htm
> Scroll down to the green two-column table, over half average less than 2.5
> km daily, only about 1.5 miles.
>
> Also this page-
> (if you scroll down to "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" dated Dec 4th
> 2006)
>> http://ruudvisser.wordpress.com/2006/12/
> notes that the average mileage is about 549 miles per year, or about 1.5
> miles per day. Even assuming only about one-third of everyone rides
> regularly, that's still only 4.5 miles per day. More than nothing but at a
> casual pace just not a lot really, in terms of calories burned.
>
> ---------
>
> This is also a good explanation as to "how Netherlanders can stand to
> bicycle so much" while riding heavy upright cruiser bikes and not wearing
> padded cycling shorts. The real trick is that they're not regularly riding
> very far--generally under 5 miles per trip.
> ~
>
>
>

I can only conclude that they've upped their daily caloric intake. They no
longer can burn it off with their short rides. They'll be forced to buy
padded shorts and better bikes so they can ride longer and burn more
calories.

Get my broker on the horn! I want 60,000 shares of Bakefiets right now! And
lets close the deal on those Ugandan lycra farms.

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Doug Cimper wrote:
>
> I tend to think that (in the USA) it has more to do with the prevalence
> of processed food--in particular, the "instant"/microwave no-effort sort
> of things....

If your normal work day consisted of 12+ hours of high stress, you would
most likely not want to spend a lot of time cooking.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[nmp]

DougC wrote:

> Secondly--the average Netherlands rider may ride frequently, but doesn't
> necessarily bicycle all that far.

Yes. And when we cycle, other than for sport, we do it mainly because it
requires even *less* physical effort than walking (the same short
distances).

[Dorfus Dippintush]

Greens wrote:
> I had assumed that a country with many more cyclists would have less
> obesity. Since there's a lot more bicycling going on in the Netherlands, I
> figured they'd be a fine example of what bicycle culture was capable of in
> making the population healthier, but as it turns out, they have an obesity
> epidemic over there too.
>
> I think the figures do look a little better than the USA figures. Maybe it
> can all be explained away as being due to more Dutch driving cars or
> something.
>
> "This paper shows the trends in the prevalence of overweight (body mass
> index [BMI] = 25 kg m2) and obesity (BMI = 30 kg m2) in the Netherlands.
> Overweight (obesity) prevalence in adult males increased from 37% (4%) in
> 1981 to 51% (10%) in 2004, and in adult females from 30% (6%) in 1981 to 42%
> (12%) in 2004, according to self-reported data. In boys and girls, obesity
> prevalence doubled or even tripled from 1980 to 1997, and again from 1997 to
> 2002–2004 a two- or threefold increase was seen for almost all ages.
> According to the most recent data, overweight (obesity) prevalence figures
> range, depending on age, from 9.2% to 17.3% (2.5–4.3%) in boys, and from
> 14.6% to 24.6% (2.3–6.5%) in girls. There is a lack of data on the national
> prevalence of overweight and obesity based on measured height and weight and
> on prevalences in different subgroups of the population. Regular national
> representative health examination surveys that measure height and weight are
> needed to assess the prevalence of overweight and obesity and its
> distribution over subgroups in the population, and to properly direct and
> evaluate prevention activities."
>
>
>


And I thought it was Mandatory Helmet Laws that caused obesity :P

Dorfus

[Lou Holtman]

Greens wrote:
> I had assumed that a country with many more cyclists would have less
> obesity. Since there's a lot more bicycling going on in the Netherlands, I
> figured they'd be a fine example of what bicycle culture was capable of in
> making the population healthier, but as it turns out, they have an obesity
> epidemic over there too.
>
> I think the figures do look a little better than the USA figures. Maybe it
> can all be explained away as being due to more Dutch driving cars or
> something.
>
> "This paper shows the trends in the prevalence of overweight (body mass
> index [BMI] = 25 kg m2) and obesity (BMI = 30 kg m2) in the Netherlands.
> Overweight (obesity) prevalence in adult males increased from 37% (4%) in
> 1981 to 51% (10%) in 2004, and in adult females from 30% (6%) in 1981 to 42%
> (12%) in 2004, according to self-reported data. In boys and girls, obesity
> prevalence doubled or even tripled from 1980 to 1997, and again from 1997 to
> 2002–2004 a two- or threefold increase was seen for almost all ages.
> According to the most recent data, overweight (obesity) prevalence figures
> range, depending on age, from 9.2% to 17.3% (2.5–4.3%) in boys, and from
> 14.6% to 24.6% (2.3–6.5%) in girls. There is a lack of data on the national
> prevalence of overweight and obesity based on measured height and weight and
> on prevalences in different subgroups of the population. Regular national
> representative health examination surveys that measure height and weight are
> needed to assess the prevalence of overweight and obesity and its
> distribution over subgroups in the population, and to properly direct and
> evaluate prevention activities."
>
>
>


Yes , we are catching up, but the people are overweight instead of
(very) fat.
A few weeks ago I watched a documentary about the Katrina disaster in
New Orleans and the thing that striked me the most was that 90% of the
people I saw there were very fat. I can only hope that the people in the
Netherlands come to their senses before that.

Lou, 73 kg, 1.78 m
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

[jim beam]

Greens wrote:
> I had assumed that a country with many more cyclists would have less
> obesity. Since there's a lot more bicycling going on in the Netherlands, I
> figured they'd be a fine example of what bicycle culture was capable of in
> making the population healthier, but as it turns out, they have an obesity
> epidemic over there too.
>
> I think the figures do look a little better than the USA figures. Maybe it
> can all be explained away as being due to more Dutch driving cars or
> something.
>
> "This paper shows the trends in the prevalence of overweight (body mass
> index [BMI] = 25 kg m2) and obesity (BMI = 30 kg m2) in the Netherlands.
> Overweight (obesity) prevalence in adult males increased from 37% (4%) in
> 1981 to 51% (10%) in 2004, and in adult females from 30% (6%) in 1981 to 42%
> (12%) in 2004, according to self-reported data. In boys and girls, obesity
> prevalence doubled or even tripled from 1980 to 1997, and again from 1997 to
> 2002�2004 a two- or threefold increase was seen for almost all ages.
> According to the most recent data, overweight (obesity) prevalence figures
> range, depending on age, from 9.2% to 17.3% (2.5�4.3%) in boys, and from
> 14.6% to 24.6% (2.3�6.5%) in girls. There is a lack of data on the national
> prevalence of overweight and obesity based on measured height and weight and
> on prevalences in different subgroups of the population. Regular national
> representative health examination surveys that measure height and weight are
> needed to assess the prevalence of overweight and obesity and its
> distribution over subgroups in the population, and to properly direct and
> evaluate prevention activities."
>
>
>
r.b.m, not r.b.t.

[Bill Sornson]

Q: What's a euphemism for a fat ass?

[Colin B.]

Greens <prbj@adelphia.net> wrote:
> I had assumed that a country with many more cyclists would have less
> obesity. Since there's a lot more bicycling going on in the Netherlands, I
> figured they'd be a fine example of what bicycle culture was capable of in
> making the population healthier, but as it turns out, they have an obesity
> epidemic over there too.

I was visiting the Netherlands this summer, and found some interesting
things from the point of view of an outsider.

Talking about cycling habits in "The Netherlands" is almost meaningless.
Although Amsterdam is overrun with bikes, it seems to be more of a measure
of the total population rather than the amount of cycling done. As a result,
there were quite a few more overweight people there than anywhere else we
went--pretty much comparable to most other big European cities I've been
in. The rest of the southern areas were more or less covered with bikes,
roughly in inverse proportion to the population. (i.e. big cities had less
riding per capita, and more weight problems.) As you went farther north,
the bikes became more prevalent and overweight people diminished. I don't
think I saw a single person I would consider overweight (let alone obese)
in Friesland or Drenthe (except for people leaving the Assen TT race).

Colin

[Donga]

On Sep 30, 7:12 pm, Dorfus Dippintush
<Dorfus.Dippint...@kippinbot.com> wrote:
> Greens wrote:
> > I had assumed that a country with many more cyclists would have less
> > obesity. Since there's a lot more bicycling going on in the Netherlands, I
> > figured they'd be a fine example of what bicycle culture was capable of in
> > making the population healthier, but as it turns out, they have an obesity
> > epidemic over there too.
>
> > I think the figures do look a little better than the USA figures. Maybe it
> > can all be explained away as being due to more Dutch driving cars or
> > something.
>
> > "This paper shows the trends in the prevalence of overweight (body mass
> > index [BMI] = 25 kg m2) and obesity (BMI = 30 kg m2) in the Netherlands.
> > Overweight (obesity) prevalence in adult males increased from 37% (4%) in
> > 1981 to 51% (10%) in 2004, and in adult females from 30% (6%) in 1981 to 42%
> > (12%) in 2004, according to self-reported data. In boys and girls, obesity
> > prevalence doubled or even tripled from 1980 to 1997, and again from 1997 to
> > 2002-2004 a two- or threefold increase was seen for almost all ages.
> > According to the most recent data, overweight (obesity) prevalence figures
> > range, depending on age, from 9.2% to 17.3% (2.5-4.3%) in boys, and from
> > 14.6% to 24.6% (2.3-6.5%) in girls. There is a lack of data on the national
> > prevalence of overweight and obesity based on measured height and weight and
> > on prevalences in different subgroups of the population. Regular national
> > representative health examination surveys that measure height and weight are
> > needed to assess the prevalence of overweight and obesity and its
> > distribution over subgroups in the population, and to properly direct and
> > evaluate prevention activities."
>
> And I thought it was Mandatory Helmet Laws that caused obesity :P
>
> Dorfus

.... only if the helmet (along with everything else) comes with french
fries.

Donga

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <46ff8b61$1@news.nb.nu>,
Lou Holtman <lholremovethis@planet.nl> wrote:

> Greens wrote:
> > I had assumed that a country with many more cyclists would have less
> > obesity. Since there's a lot more bicycling going on in the Netherlands, I
> > figured they'd be a fine example of what bicycle culture was capable of in
> > making the population healthier, but as it turns out, they have an obesity
> > epidemic over there too.
> >
> > I think the figures do look a little better than the USA figures. Maybe it
> > can all be explained away as being due to more Dutch driving cars or
> > something.
> >
> > "This paper shows the trends in the prevalence of overweight (body mass
> > index [BMI] = 25 kg m2) and obesity (BMI = 30 kg m2) in the Netherlands.
> > Overweight (obesity) prevalence in adult males increased from 37% (4%) in
> > 1981 to 51% (10%) in 2004, and in adult females from 30% (6%) in 1981 to
> > 42%
> > (12%) in 2004, according to self-reported data. In boys and girls, obesity
> > prevalence doubled or even tripled from 1980 to 1997, and again from 1997
> > to
> > 2002*2004 a two- or threefold increase was seen for almost all ages.
> > According to the most recent data, overweight (obesity) prevalence figures
> > range, depending on age, from 9.2% to 17.3% (2.5*4.3%) in boys, and from
> > 14.6% to 24.6% (2.3*6.5%) in girls. There is a lack of data on the national
> > prevalence of overweight and obesity based on measured height and weight
> > and
> > on prevalences in different subgroups of the population. Regular national
> > representative health examination surveys that measure height and weight
> > are
> > needed to assess the prevalence of overweight and obesity and its
> > distribution over subgroups in the population, and to properly direct and
> > evaluate prevention activities."
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Yes , we are catching up, but the people are overweight instead of
> (very) fat.
> A few weeks ago I watched a documentary about the Katrina disaster in
> New Orleans and the thing that striked me the most was that 90% of the
> people I saw there were very fat. I can only hope that the people in the
> Netherlands come to their senses before that.
>
> Lou, 73 kg, 1.78 m

This is where Chalo should chime in to point out that BMI charts falter
with people much over 6' tall. Because of the nature of these things,
people like Shaquille O'Neal tend to register as obese (which is simply
wrong).

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149807,00.html

Note that the Dutch are both tall and growing. They may have put on a
few pounds, but it is probably not as bad as you would think.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[still me]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:41:19 +0200, Lou Holtman
<lholremovethis@planet.nl> wrote:

>
>Yes , we are catching up, but the people are overweight instead of
>(very) fat.

A BMI >30 is obesity according to the accepted definition. Only the
people in the 25-30 BMI category can meet the definition of
"overweight". The % rates cited by the OP are far higher than the
rates in the USA (actually by enough that I'd want to see additional
figures from an authoritative source).

>A few weeks ago I watched a documentary about the Katrina disaster in
>New Orleans and the thing that striked me the most was that 90% of the
>people I saw there were very fat. I can only hope that the people in the
>Netherlands come to their senses before that.

That area is one of the higher rate areas in the USA. However, the
trends are frightening in both countries (and many others):
1991 - 2003 - http://www.obesityinamerica.org/trends.html
2006 http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/maps/

[M-gineering]

Lou Holtman wrote:
> Greens wrote:
>> I had assumed that a country with many more cyclists would have less
>> obesity. Since there's a lot more bicycling going on in the
>> Netherlands, I figured they'd be a fine example of what bicycle
>> culture was capable of in making the population healthier, but as it
>> turns out, they have an obesity epidemic over there too.
>>
>> I think the figures do look a little better than the USA figures.
>> Maybe it can all be explained away as being due to more Dutch driving
>> cars or something.
>>
>> "This paper shows the trends in the prevalence of overweight (body
>> mass index [BMI] = 25 kg m2) and obesity (BMI = 30 kg m2) in the
>> Netherlands. Overweight (obesity) prevalence in adult males increased
>> from 37% (4%) in 1981 to 51% (10%) in 2004, and in adult females from
>> 30% (6%) in 1981 to 42% (12%) in 2004, according to self-reported
>> data. In boys and girls, obesity prevalence doubled or even tripled
>> from 1980 to 1997, and again from 1997 to 2002–2004 a two- or
>> threefold increase was seen for almost all ages. According to the most
>> recent data, overweight (obesity) prevalence figures range, depending
>> on age, from 9.2% to 17.3% (2.5–4.3%) in boys, and from 14.6% to 24.6%
>> (2.3–6.5%) in girls. There is a lack of data on the national
>> prevalence of overweight and obesity based on measured height and
>> weight and on prevalences in different subgroups of the population.
>> Regular national representative health examination surveys that
>> measure height and weight are needed to assess the prevalence of
>> overweight and obesity and its distribution over subgroups in the
>> population, and to properly direct and evaluate prevention activities."
>>
>>
>
>
> Yes , we are catching up, but the people are overweight instead of
> (very) fat.
> A few weeks ago I watched a documentary about the Katrina disaster in
> New Orleans and the thing that striked me the most was that 90% of the
> people I saw there were very fat. I can only hope that the people in the
> Netherlands come to their senses before that.
>
> Lou, 73 kg, 1.78 m

I still get cultureshock when putting foot on US soil. McD. has a lot of
catching up to do over here ;)
/Marten
(65-1.86)

[still me]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:59:50 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:


>>
>r.b.m, not r.b.t.


Actually r.b.soc since you want to be anal about it.

But watch this!:
Do they have to build their bikes stronger in the Netherlands now? Are
they seeing a lot of carbon fiber failures due to heavier loads ?

(See, there you go, not only did I bring it back on topic, I turned it
into yet another thread you can drag into oblivion via your usual MO.)

[Lou Holtman]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

>
> This is where Chalo should chime in to point out that BMI charts falter
> with people much over 6' tall. Because of the nature of these things,
> people like Shaquille O'Neal tend to register as obese (which is simply
> wrong).
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149807,00.html
>
> Note that the Dutch are both tall and growing. They may have put on a
> few pounds, but it is probably not as bad as you would think.
>

Sure, But Chalo's weight very quit a bit. Is he growing or shrinking? ;-)
I don't care about BMI numbers, but when I look at people I think I can
tell when they are overweight.

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

[rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com]

On Sep 30, 1:02 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:

> This is where Chalo should chime in to point out that BMI charts falter
> with people much over 6' tall. Because of the nature of these things,
> people like Shaquille O'Neal tend to register as obese (which is simply
> wrong).

http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/rbr/nba-tdf-bmi.png

> Note that the Dutch are both tall and growing.

Dutch adult males have the highest average height in the world.

[Greens]

"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9fvvf3t4d8q8sgfnf35uhbmf87dglbcam0@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:41:19 +0200, Lou Holtman
> <lholremovethis@planet.nl> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes , we are catching up, but the people are overweight instead of
>>(very) fat.
>
> A BMI >30 is obesity according to the accepted definition. Only the
> people in the 25-30 BMI category can meet the definition of
> "overweight". The % rates cited by the OP are far higher than the
> rates in the USA (actually by enough that I'd want to see additional
> figures from an authoritative source).
>
>>A few weeks ago I watched a documentary about the Katrina disaster in
>>New Orleans and the thing that striked me the most was that 90% of the
>>people I saw there were very fat. I can only hope that the people in the
>>Netherlands come to their senses before that.
>
> That area is one of the higher rate areas in the USA. However, the
> trends are frightening in both countries (and many others):
> 1991 - 2003 - http://www.obesityinamerica.org/trends.html
> 2006 http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/trend/maps/
>
>

Yea. It's the trend that's worrisome. Those dutch weren't that much shorter
20 years ago. They're starting to pack on the weight and they already
bicycle a lot more than americans and most of the world.

Some have interpolated that trend in America means that the majority will be
officially obese by 2015, but if you extend that out to 2100, you could
probably guess the average american will be 500 pounds. At some point it's
gotta level off or our civilization is going to collapse. I wonder if
they've worked out just when that collapse will take place.

Let's see. If the average american is 280 pounds at the age of 20, will they
still want to mate and produce offspring? At what point will vehicles become
even larger to accomodate huge people? Will people live short lives gaining
huge amounts til they seize up at 30 years old? That probably means college
won't be desireable. Won't live long enough to make it worth it. When will
the health care system collapse?

[M-gineering]

still me wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:59:50 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>
>> r.b.m, not r.b.t.
>
>
> Actually r.b.soc since you want to be anal about it.
>
> But watch this!:
> Do they have to build their bikes stronger in the Netherlands now? Are
> they seeing a lot of carbon fiber failures due to heavier loads ?
>
> (See, there you go, not only did I bring it back on topic, I turned it
> into yet another thread you can drag into oblivion via your usual MO.)
>

Biggest difference is taller frames mostly, frames for heavyweights are
more a German speciality
/Marten

[Chalo]

Lou Holtman wrote:
>
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >
> > This is where Chalo should chime in to point out that BMI charts falter
> > with people much over 6' tall. Because of the nature of these things,
> > people like Shaquille O'Neal tend to register as obese (which is simply
> > wrong).
> >
> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149807,00.html
> >
> > Note that the Dutch are both tall and growing. They may have put on a
> > few pounds, but it is probably not as bad as you would think.
>
> Sure, But Chalo's weight very quit a bit. Is he growing or shrinking? ;-)

At the moment, I'm shrinking. Down 60 lbs. over the last year without
any particular effort or major change in diet or exercise.

> I don't care about BMI numbers, but when I look at people I think I can
> tell when they are overweight.

When I was 20 years old, riding hard for 300 miles a week, with a
heart rate aroud 50bpm and leg cramps flipping me out of my bed at
night, and wearing pants something like 18 inches smaller at the waist
than I do now, I measured 6'9" and weighed 240 lbs. That's
"overweight" according to BMI. I have a pretty educational picture of
myself in those days, but no convenient way to scan it.

Carl Fogel has a picture of me more than 100 pounds heavier than my
merely "overweight" 20-year-old self:
http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/tallride5.jpg

The picture is me at a weight very close to my present 345 lbs., which
works out to a BMI of about 37.9. That's "severely obese" (BMI 35-40)
or "morbidly obese" (100+ lbs over "ideal") depending on who you ask.
To me, it's just evidence of the basic mathematical flaw in BMI, which
is that body weight scales as height cubed, but BMI uses height
squared.

I find it amusing but not surprising that the Fox News article spots
the problem of professional basketball players being categorized as
"overweight" or "obese" but fails to identify the very simple
mathematical flaw with BMI. What baffles me more is that physicians
with proven mathematical ability still uphold BMI as a valid
concept.

Chalo

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:39:22 -0700, M-gineering
<ikmotgeenspam@m-gineering.nl> wrote:

>Lou Holtman wrote:
>> Greens wrote:
>>> I had assumed that a country with many more cyclists would have less
>>> obesity. Since there's a lot more bicycling going on in the
>>> Netherlands, I figured they'd be a fine example of what bicycle
>>> culture was capable of in making the population healthier, but as it
>>> turns out, they have an obesity epidemic over there too.
>>>
>>> I think the figures do look a little better than the USA figures.
>>> Maybe it can all be explained away as being due to more Dutch driving
>>> cars or something.
>>>
>>> "This paper shows the trends in the prevalence of overweight (body
>>> mass index [BMI] = 25 kg m2) and obesity (BMI = 30 kg m2) in the
>>> Netherlands. Overweight (obesity) prevalence in adult males increased
>>> from 37% (4%) in 1981 to 51% (10%) in 2004, and in adult females from
>>> 30% (6%) in 1981 to 42% (12%) in 2004, according to self-reported
>>> data. In boys and girls, obesity prevalence doubled or even tripled
>>> from 1980 to 1997, and again from 1997 to 2002–2004 a two- or
>>> threefold increase was seen for almost all ages. According to the most
>>> recent data, overweight (obesity) prevalence figures range, depending
>>> on age, from 9.2% to 17.3% (2.5–4.3%) in boys, and from 14.6% to 24.6%
>>> (2.3–6.5%) in girls. There is a lack of data on the national
>>> prevalence of overweight and obesity based on measured height and
>>> weight and on prevalences in different subgroups of the population.
>>> Regular national representative health examination surveys that
>>> measure height and weight are needed to assess the prevalence of
>>> overweight and obesity and its distribution over subgroups in the
>>> population, and to properly direct and evaluate prevention activities."
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes , we are catching up, but the people are overweight instead of
>> (very) fat.
>> A few weeks ago I watched a documentary about the Katrina disaster in
>> New Orleans and the thing that striked me the most was that 90% of the
>> people I saw there were very fat. I can only hope that the people in the
>> Netherlands come to their senses before that.
>>
>> Lou, 73 kg, 1.78 m
>
>I still get cultureshock when putting foot on US soil. McD. has a lot of
>catching up to do over here ;)
>/Marten
>(65-1.86)

Dear Marten,


http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/fcgi-bin/db2www/fullSize.mac/fullSize?selLang=English&dlViewId=V670L522JEYB4AJS&size=big&selCateg=picture&dlCategId=N8E549RHHGU%2B230X8P&comeFrom=simil
or
http://tinyurl.com/2c4k2p

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[vey]

M-gineering wrote:

> I still get cultureshock when putting foot on US soil. McD. has a lot of
> catching up to do over here ;)
> /Marten
> (65-1.86)

This is the voice of experience speaking:

If the Netherlands wants to keep the weight of it's citizens down, the
best thing they can do is keep the standard of living up. Little money =
poor diet. If you have little money, $4 spent at McD to fill you up
looks better than $5-6 spent at the grocery store to do the same thing
even if the food is better from the store. Plus McD takes less time.

But if your central bank lets the the average citizen's standard of
living fall, the way it has fallen in the US over the last 40 years,
then you will see weight gains as citizens grab for the potatoes,
noodles and other cheap carbs to fill them up.

[Grolsch]

"vey" <junker@ericvey.com> wrote in message
news:fdpg8a$tfa$1@news.datemas.de...
> M-gineering wrote:
>
>> I still get cultureshock when putting foot on US soil. McD. has a lot of
>> catching up to do over here ;)
>> /Marten
>> (65-1.86)
>
> This is the voice of experience speaking:
>
> If the Netherlands wants to keep the weight of it's citizens down, the
> best thing they can do is keep the standard of living up. Little money =
> poor diet. If you have little money, $4 spent at McD to fill you up looks
> better than $5-6 spent at the grocery store to do the same thing even if
> the food is better from the store. Plus McD takes less time.
>
> But if your central bank lets the the average citizen's standard of living
> fall, the way it has fallen in the US over the last 40 years, then you
> will see weight gains as citizens grab for the potatoes, noodles and other
> cheap carbs to fill them up.

I knew it was somebodies fault

HJW, (70-1.74)

[Donga]

On Oct 1, 10:53 am, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:

> If the Netherlands wants to keep the weight of it's citizens down, the
> best thing they can do is keep the standard of living up. Little money =
> poor diet.

Sorry vey, but from what I've seen in the US, your wealthier folk seem
to like to eat big too, and it shows.

Donga

[Michael Press]

In article <fdpg8a$tfa$1@news.datemas.de>,
vey <junker@ericvey.com> wrote:

> M-gineering wrote:
>
> > I still get cultureshock when putting foot on US soil. McD. has a lot of
> > catching up to do over here ;)
> > /Marten
> > (65-1.86)
>
> This is the voice of experience speaking:
>
> If the Netherlands wants to keep the weight of it's citizens down, the
> best thing they can do is keep the standard of living up. Little money =
> poor diet. If you have little money, $4 spent at McD to fill you up
> looks better than $5-6 spent at the grocery store to do the same thing
> even if the food is better from the store. Plus McD takes less time.
>
> But if your central bank lets the the average citizen's standard of
> living fall, the way it has fallen in the US over the last 40 years,
> then you will see weight gains as citizens grab for the potatoes,
> noodles and other cheap carbs to fill them up.

Yes, except that potatoes are very healthy.

--
Michael Press

[A Muzi]

>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>> This is where Chalo should chime in to point out that BMI charts falter
>>> with people much over 6' tall. Because of the nature of these things,
>>> people like Shaquille O'Neal tend to register as obese (which is simply
>>> wrong).
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149807,00.html
>>> Note that the Dutch are both tall and growing. They may have put on a
>>> few pounds, but it is probably not as bad as you would think.

> Lou Holtman wrote:
>> Sure, But Chalo's weight very quit a bit. Is he growing or shrinking? ;-)

Chalo wrote:
> At the moment, I'm shrinking. Down 60 lbs. over the last year without
> any particular effort or major change in diet or exercise.

> Lou Holtman wrote:
>> I don't care about BMI numbers, but when I look at people I think I can
>> tell when they are overweight.

Chalo wrote:
> When I was 20 years old, riding hard for 300 miles a week, with a
> heart rate aroud 50bpm and leg cramps flipping me out of my bed at
> night, and wearing pants something like 18 inches smaller at the waist
> than I do now, I measured 6'9" and weighed 240 lbs. That's
> "overweight" according to BMI. I have a pretty educational picture of
> myself in those days, but no convenient way to scan it.
>
> Carl Fogel has a picture of me more than 100 pounds heavier than my
> merely "overweight" 20-year-old self:
> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/tallride5.jpg
>
> The picture is me at a weight very close to my present 345 lbs., which
> works out to a BMI of about 37.9. That's "severely obese" (BMI 35-40)
> or "morbidly obese" (100+ lbs over "ideal") depending on who you ask.
> To me, it's just evidence of the basic mathematical flaw in BMI, which
> is that body weight scales as height cubed, but BMI uses height
> squared.
>
> I find it amusing but not surprising that the Fox News article spots
> the problem of professional basketball players being categorized as
> "overweight" or "obese" but fails to identify the very simple
> mathematical flaw with BMI. What baffles me more is that physicians
> with proven mathematical ability still uphold BMI as a valid
> concept.

Yes, and the world is filed with similar. "8 glasses of water daily". In
bikes (taking this back on topic), "Block view of front hub with stem"
or "fistful of seatpost showing", "frame size equals soft helmet size"
and on and on.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Donga]

On Oct 1, 11:38 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Lou Holtman wrote:
>
> > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
> > > This is where Chalo should chime in to point out that BMI charts falter
> > > with people much over 6' tall. Because of the nature of these things,
> > > people like Shaquille O'Neal tend to register as obese (which is simply
> > > wrong).
>
> > >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149807,00.html
>
> > > Note that the Dutch are both tall and growing. They may have put on a
> > > few pounds, but it is probably not as bad as you would think.
>
> > Sure, But Chalo's weight very quit a bit. Is he growing or shrinking? ;-)
>
> At the moment, I'm shrinking. Down 60 lbs. over the last year without
> any particular effort or major change in diet or exercise.
>
> > I don't care about BMI numbers, but when I look at people I think I can
> > tell when they are overweight.
>
> When I was 20 years old, riding hard for 300 miles a week, with a
> heart rate aroud 50bpm and leg cramps flipping me out of my bed at
> night, and wearing pants something like 18 inches smaller at the waist
> than I do now, I measured 6'9" and weighed 240 lbs. That's
> "overweight" according to BMI. I have a pretty educational picture of
> myself in those days, but no convenient way to scan it.
>
> Carl Fogel has a picture of me more than 100 pounds heavier than my
> merely "overweight" 20-year-old self:http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/tallride5.jpg
>
> The picture is me at a weight very close to my present 345 lbs., which
> works out to a BMI of about 37.9. That's "severely obese" (BMI 35-40)
> or "morbidly obese" (100+ lbs over "ideal") depending on who you ask.
> To me, it's just evidence of the basic mathematical flaw in BMI, which
> is that body weight scales as height cubed, but BMI uses height
> squared.
>
> I find it amusing but not surprising that the Fox News article spots
> the problem of professional basketball players being categorized as
> "overweight" or "obese" but fails to identify the very simple
> mathematical flaw with BMI. What baffles me more is that physicians
> with proven mathematical ability still uphold BMI as a valid
> concept.
>
> Chalo

It's not the BMI that's flawed, but its interpretation. The BMI is
derived from the measurements of a large sample of "a" population.
Mathematically (statistically) that's valid enough. The problem is
when it is interpreted or applied uncritically, as you indicate.
Scientists have been known to note that physicians know a lot of
science, but aren't scientists.

[bjw@mambo.ucolick.org]

On Sep 30, 6:38 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote:

> When I was 20 years old, riding hard for 300 miles a week, with a
> heart rate aroud 50bpm and leg cramps flipping me out of my bed at
> night, and wearing pants something like 18 inches smaller at the waist
> than I do now, I measured 6'9" and weighed 240 lbs. That's
> "overweight" according to BMI. I have a pretty educational picture of
> myself in those days, but no convenient way to scan it.
>
> Carl Fogel has a picture of me more than 100 pounds heavier than my
> merely "overweight" 20-year-old self:
> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/tallride5.jpg
>
> The picture is me at a weight very close to my present 345 lbs., which
> works out to a BMI of about 37.9. That's "severely obese" (BMI 35-40)
> or "morbidly obese" (100+ lbs over "ideal") depending on who you ask.
> To me, it's just evidence of the basic mathematical flaw in BMI, which
> is that body weight scales as height cubed, but BMI uses height
> squared.
>
> I find it amusing but not surprising that the Fox News article spots
> the problem of professional basketball players being categorized as
> "overweight" or "obese" but fails to identify the very simple
> mathematical flaw with BMI. What baffles me more is that physicians
> with proven mathematical ability still uphold BMI as a valid
> concept.

Actually, I don't believe that weight scales quite as
height cubed. The reason for this appears to be that
taller people _on average_ don't scale in diameter as fast
as in height (also true for shorter people). BMI is not
completely pulled out of a hat. The reason people use it
is because it appears to correlate well with more
sophisticated measures of body fat that are difficult
to do without special training or equipment - calipers,
total immersion, etc.

However, there's always a danger when one computes these
kind of correlations. Suppose you grab 200 people off
the street and measure their body fat and BMI. Only a
small number of them are going to be really short or
really tall, or very fit athletes (of any height).
Thus, when you derive the mean correlation, it may not
apply to the short, tall, or athletic people. In fact,
it is generally said (but buried in a footnote) that
BMI is an indicator for _sedentary_ people, which doesn't
include Shaq or NFL linemen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/bmi/adult_BMI/about_adult_BMI.htm

The Dutch I know are mostly really damn tall. They
also don't seem very chunky on average, though I haven't
been there to check. Maybe all that cheese and oliebollen
are having an effect. BTW, an interesting thing about
the enormous Dutch average height is that it is largely
a postwar phenomenon, and is thought to be associated
with prosperity and good health. Oddly, although most
of the Western European countries have increased in
avg height since WWII, the USA hasn't, even among well-off
people, and nobody is entirely sure why (though it
probably has something to do with diet or healthcare).

Ben

[Peter Cole]

Chalo wrote:

> When I was 20 years old, riding hard for 300 miles a week, with a
> heart rate aroud 50bpm and leg cramps flipping me out of my bed at
> night, and wearing pants something like 18 inches smaller at the waist
> than I do now, I measured 6'9" and weighed 240 lbs. That's
> "overweight" according to BMI. I have a pretty educational picture of
> myself in those days, but no convenient way to scan it.
>
> Carl Fogel has a picture of me more than 100 pounds heavier than my
> merely "overweight" 20-year-old self:
> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/tallride5.jpg
>
> The picture is me at a weight very close to my present 345 lbs., which
> works out to a BMI of about 37.9. That's "severely obese" (BMI 35-40)
> or "morbidly obese" (100+ lbs over "ideal") depending on who you ask.
> To me, it's just evidence of the basic mathematical flaw in BMI, which
> is that body weight scales as height cubed, but BMI uses height
> squared.
>
> I find it amusing but not surprising that the Fox News article spots
> the problem of professional basketball players being categorized as
> "overweight" or "obese" but fails to identify the very simple
> mathematical flaw with BMI. What baffles me more is that physicians
> with proven mathematical ability still uphold BMI as a valid
> concept.
>
> Chalo
>

Me at 6'10/235 (borderline overweight according to BMI):
http://home.comcast.net/%7Epeter_cole/Blue_Hills/images/pa030007.jpg

I was actually down to a "normal" (20) BMI once, I looked very gaunt to
most people.

[Andrew Price]

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 01:38:49 -0000, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com>
wrote:

[---]

>When I was 20 years old, riding hard for 300 miles a week, with a
>heart rate aroud 50bpm and leg cramps flipping me out of my bed at
>night

I hate it when that happens - and I've never worked out whether it's
due to training, over-training or just neglecting proper fluid/salt
intake.

[Derk]

Greens wrote:

> I can only conclude that they've upped their daily caloric intake. They no
> longer can burn it off with their short rides. They'll be forced to buy
> padded shorts and better bikes so they can ride longer and burn more
> calories.
The reason that more children are getting obese (here) is simple: they watch
tv and/or are sitting in front of their (game)computers in stead of playing
outside. They are being stuffed with food that's easy to prepare by their
parents, who don't have the time any more to prepare a healthy meal and buy
readily prepared (microwave) junk that contains lots of fats and calories.
Furthermore they buy jinkfood at school or on their way to school and throw
wrappers/packages in nature while cycling back home, whilst sms'ing a very
unimportant message to a friend who's probably cycling in the group in
front of them.

BTW: I don't see many really obese people here. I can think of 1 person in
my street who would qualify.

Derk

[vey]

Donga wrote:
> On Oct 1, 10:53 am, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>
>> If the Netherlands wants to keep the weight of it's citizens down, the
>> best thing they can do is keep the standard of living up. Little money =
>> poor diet.
>
> Sorry vey, but from what I've seen in the US, your wealthier folk seem
> to like to eat big too, and it shows.
>
> Donga
>

Maybe you weren't looking at people as wealthy as you thought.
The wealthy ones buy memberships at the spa and "work" off their sins.
One of the things they do there is called "spinning" so they don't have
to rub shoulders with the great unwashed masses (and autos).

[A Muzi]

> vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>> If the Netherlands wants to keep the weight of it's citizens down, the
>> best thing they can do is keep the standard of living up. Little money =
>> poor diet.

Donga wrote:
> Sorry vey, but from what I've seen in the US, your wealthier folk seem
> to like to eat big too, and it shows.

I can't recall who quipped, "In America the poor are fat and the rich
are thin. Is this great country or what?".
Report in Friday's paper that Indian film and fashion skews to a new
slimmer version of feminine beauty.
Trends fluctuate, sometimes differently from extrapolated 'trend lines'.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Chalo]

b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > I find it amusing but not surprising that the Fox News article spots
> > the problem of professional basketball players being categorized as
> > "overweight" or "obese" but fails to identify the very simple
> > mathematical flaw with BMI. What baffles me more is that physicians
> > with proven mathematical ability still uphold BMI as a valid
> > concept.
>
> Actually, I don't believe that weight scales quite as
> height cubed. The reason for this appears to be that
> taller people _on average_ don't scale in diameter as fast
> as in height (also true for shorter people).

On average perhaps. But when discussing matters of health, there is
no average; there is only the particular circumstance of the
individual in question. BMI is the grossest and faultiest sort of
generalization, but its impact on how much your health insurance
costs, or whether you can even get life insurance, is an individual
effect. And you don't get the benefit of the doubt for being a
statistical outlier to whom the index's statistical correlations don't
even apply.

Disregarding outliers, the fact is that two men of exactly the same
proportions and body composition, one of whom is 5'8" and the other of
whom is 6'2", get substantially different BMI numbers. When that
makes a difference, it almost always works against the taller man.
It's bull****.

If it were just the stuff of women's magazines and quack diet books,
then it would be no big deal. But throw insurance companies in the
mix, and this bogus index could make the difference between whether or
not a man can provide for his family if he meets an untimely death for
unrelated reasons. For important things, only a geometrically
accurate index, or actuarial tables that compare tall people to other
tall people, should apply.

Chalo

[Greens]

"Derk" <nobody@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:47009405$0$242$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Greens wrote:
>
>> I can only conclude that they've upped their daily caloric intake. They
>> no
>> longer can burn it off with their short rides. They'll be forced to buy
>> padded shorts and better bikes so they can ride longer and burn more
>> calories.
> The reason that more children are getting obese (here) is simple: they
> watch
> tv and/or are sitting in front of their (game)computers in stead of
> playing
> outside. They are being stuffed with food that's easy to prepare by their
> parents, who don't have the time any more to prepare a healthy meal and
> buy
> readily prepared (microwave) junk that contains lots of fats and calories.
> Furthermore they buy jinkfood at school or on their way to school and
> throw
> wrappers/packages in nature while cycling back home, whilst sms'ing a very
> unimportant message to a friend who's probably cycling in the group in
> front of them.
>
> BTW: I don't see many really obese people here. I can think of 1 person in
> my street who would qualify.
>
> Derk

Ha. I remember sitting in front of the tv when I was a kid. My mother, if
she was home, would yell at me to go outside and play. Cartoons were
tremendously entertaining to me at the time. Outside was taken for granted.
Often it was cold and boring. Other kids were sometimes nasty. The lure of
the womb like tv room was strong. You've got your tasty snacks, warmth, and
nobody pushing you around. Complicating things is the fact that the minute
you start putting on a few pounds, the other kids and adults step up the
harassment. Reality becomes too much.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 07:15:49 -0000, Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com>
wrote:

>b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
>>
>> Chalo wrote:
>> >
>> > I find it amusing but not surprising that the Fox News article spots
>> > the problem of professional basketball players being categorized as
>> > "overweight" or "obese" but fails to identify the very simple
>> > mathematical flaw with BMI. What baffles me more is that physicians
>> > with proven mathematical ability still uphold BMI as a valid
>> > concept.
>>
>> Actually, I don't believe that weight scales quite as
>> height cubed. The reason for this appears to be that
>> taller people _on average_ don't scale in diameter as fast
>> as in height (also true for shorter people).
>
>On average perhaps. But when discussing matters of health, there is
>no average; there is only the particular circumstance of the
>individual in question. BMI is the grossest and faultiest sort of
>generalization, but its impact on how much your health insurance
>costs, or whether you can even get life insurance, is an individual
>effect. And you don't get the benefit of the doubt for being a
>statistical outlier to whom the index's statistical correlations don't
>even apply.
>
>Disregarding outliers, the fact is that two men of exactly the same
>proportions and body composition, one of whom is 5'8" and the other of
>whom is 6'2", get substantially different BMI numbers. When that
>makes a difference, it almost always works against the taller man.
>It's bull****.
>
>If it were just the stuff of women's magazines and quack diet books,
>then it would be no big deal. But throw insurance companies in the
>mix, and this bogus index could make the difference between whether or
>not a man can provide for his family if he meets an untimely death for
>unrelated reasons. For important things, only a geometrically
>accurate index, or actuarial tables that compare tall people to other
>tall people, should apply.
>
>Chalo

Dear Chalo,

Okay, you asked for the bad news (and a really awful pun):

"How high can we go? 'The Norwegians did a study 20 years ago on
height, weight, and longevity and found that mortality rates as a
function of height were U shaped. People who are very, very tall die
at much higher rates,' Steckel said."

http://www.oberlin.edu/alummag/oamcurrent/oam_may99/tall.html

As the WSJ's James Taranto loves to point out, the death rate is the
same for all of us (100%). But "much younger" lost out to the
irresistible "higher rates" pun.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Chalo]

Carl Fogel wrote:
>
> Okay, you asked for the bad news (and a really awful pun):
>
> "How high can we go? 'The Norwegians did a study 20 years ago on
> height, weight, and longevity and found that mortality rates as a
> function of height were U shaped. People who are very, very tall die
> at much higher rates,' Steckel said."
>
> http://www.oberlin.edu/alummag/oamcurrent/oam_may99/tall.html

It must be from walking into doorways, stooping over low countertops,
flying coach class in origami fashion, and keeping the grumpy little
goblins at bay. All that can wear a guy out.

Chalo

[Hobbes@spnb&s.com]

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 01:26:12 -0600, carlfogel@comcast.net wrote:

>Dear Chalo,
>
>Okay, you asked for the bad news (and a really awful pun):
>
>"How high can we go? 'The Norwegians did a study 20 years ago on
>height, weight, and longevity and found that mortality rates as a
>function of height were U shaped. People who are very, very tall die
>at much higher rates,' Steckel said."

More than 100%?

[Donga]

On Oct 1, 9:57 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
> Donga wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 10:53 am, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>
> >> If the Netherlands wants to keep the weight of it's citizens down, the
> >> best thing they can do is keep the standard of living up. Little money =
> >> poor diet.
>
> > Sorry vey, but from what I've seen in the US, your wealthier folk seem
> > to like to eat big too, and it shows.
>
> > Donga
>
> Maybe you weren't looking at people as wealthy as you thought.
> The wealthy ones buy memberships at the spa and "work" off their sins.
> One of the things they do there is called "spinning" so they don't have
> to rub shoulders with the great unwashed masses (and autos).

.... and they stave off the hunger with coke too ... oh crap I've been
watching too much TV! ;-)

[vey]

Donga wrote:
> On Oct 1, 9:57 pm, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>> Donga wrote:
>>> On Oct 1, 10:53 am, vey <jun...@ericvey.com> wrote:
>>>> If the Netherlands wants to keep the weight of it's citizens down, the
>>>> best thing they can do is keep the standard of living up. Little money =
>>>> poor diet.
>>> Sorry vey, but from what I've seen in the US, your wealthier folk seem
>>> to like to eat big too, and it shows.
>>> Donga
>> Maybe you weren't looking at people as wealthy as you thought.
>> The wealthy ones buy memberships at the spa and "work" off their sins.
>> One of the things they do there is called "spinning" so they don't have
>> to rub shoulders with the great unwashed masses (and autos).
>
> ... and they stave off the hunger with coke too ... oh crap I've been
> watching too much TV! ;-)
>

Diet Coke, natch. Remarkable that you should mention TV, though. The
spas are equipped with TV's, which is there to relieve the boredom of
"spinning" in place. Personally, I can't think of anything as boring as
riding and exercise bicycle and a TV wouldn't make it any better, but
hey, for what those places charge, a cheap TV would expected.

These fitness centers are all over the place now. No bike racks outside,
but a big parking lot, which is packed.

[Derk]

vey wrote:
> Personally, I can't think of anything as boring as
> riding and exercise bicycle and a TV wouldn't make it any better,
Same here. I can't ride even 5 minutes on my Tackx trainer. I prefer to
cycle through rain, though I also hate that. A guy in my cycling group,
(who climbed Mt Ventoux 7 times in 1 day btw), told me he never cycles
outside during winter. I just couldn't believe it.

> These fitness centers are all over the place now. No bike racks outside,
> but a big parking lot, which is packed.
I noticed that too. They say they need to exercise and then take the car to
go to a fitness centre and drink a few energy drinks after working
out. .....

Derk

[Jambo]

"Derk" <nobody@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:47010dd9$0$227$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> vey wrote:
>> These fitness centers are all over the place now. No bike racks outside,
>> but a big parking lot, which is packed.
> I noticed that too. They say they need to exercise and then take the car
> to
> go to a fitness centre and drink a few energy drinks after working
> out. .....

Well, it's hard for many people to ride a bike to their gyms, since these
places serve large locales. It's part of the point of gyms, anyway, that
you do the exercising inside. Don't be too hard on the car drivers, it's
better to take the car to the gym and exercise than to stay at home and be a
couch potato.

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Derk who? wrote:
> vey wrote:
>> Personally, I can't think of anything as boring as
>> riding and exercise bicycle and a TV wouldn't make it any better,
> Same here. I can't ride even 5 minutes on my Tackx trainer. I prefer to
> cycle through rain, though I also hate that. A guy in my cycling group,
> (who climbed Mt Ventoux 7 times in 1 day btw), told me he never cycles
> outside during winter. I just couldn't believe it.
>
>> These fitness centers are all over the place now. No bike racks outside,
>> but a big parking lot, which is packed.
> I noticed that too. They say they need to exercise and then take the car to
> go to a fitness centre and drink a few energy drinks after working
> out. .....

I though "fitness centers" were primarily an alternative to bars [1] for
meeting people (of the appropriate gender).

[1] No smoke, less noise, and no drunks.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Donga]

On Oct 2, 2:02 am, "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote:
> "Derk" <nob...@invalid.org> wrote in message
>
> news:47010dd9$0$227$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> > vey wrote:
> >> These fitness centers are all over the place now. No bike racks outside,
> >> but a big parking lot, which is packed.
> > I noticed that too. They say they need to exercise and then take the car
> > to
> > go to a fitness centre and drink a few energy drinks after working
> > out. .....
>
> Well, it's hard for many people to ride a bike to their gyms, since these
> places serve large locales. It's part of the point of gyms, anyway, that
> you do the exercising inside. Don't be too hard on the car drivers, it's
> better to take the car to the gym and exercise than to stay at home and be a
> couch potato.

Nice try, but no cigar. They are a bunch of lazy, inconsiderate, gas-
guzzling, carbon-dumping poseurs. They could sweat off their fat ass
by walking/running or riding to the gym, then never even have to walk
in the door, let alone cough up the membership. Don't make excuses for
them ... "hard"? Boo hoo, toughen up.

[vey]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
>
>> When I was 20 years old, riding hard for 300 miles a week, with a
>> heart rate aroud 50bpm and leg cramps flipping me out of my bed at
>> night, and wearing pants something like 18 inches smaller at the waist
>> than I do now, I measured 6'9" and weighed 240 lbs. That's
>> "overweight" according to BMI. I have a pretty educational picture of
>> myself in those days, but no convenient way to scan it.
>>
>> Carl Fogel has a picture of me more than 100 pounds heavier than my
>> merely "overweight" 20-year-old self:
>> http://home.comcast.net/~carlfogel/download/tallride5.jpg
>>
>> The picture is me at a weight very close to my present 345 lbs., which
>> works out to a BMI of about 37.9. That's "severely obese" (BMI 35-40)
>> or "morbidly obese" (100+ lbs over "ideal") depending on who you ask.
>> To me, it's just evidence of the basic mathematical flaw in BMI, which
>> is that body weight scales as height cubed, but BMI uses height
>> squared.
>>
>> I find it amusing but not surprising that the Fox News article spots
>> the problem of professional basketball players being categorized as
>> "overweight" or "obese" but fails to identify the very simple
>> mathematical flaw with BMI. What baffles me more is that physicians
>> with proven mathematical ability still uphold BMI as a valid
>> concept.
>>
>> Chalo
>>
>
> Me at 6'10/235 (borderline overweight according to BMI):
> http://home.comcast.net/%7Epeter_cole/Blue_Hills/images/pa030007.jpg
>
> I was actually down to a "normal" (20) BMI once, I looked very gaunt to
> most people.

I remember some Body Mass Stupidity in I think 1990. I was 6'4" and
weighed 160 when I was told that I was borderline obese. All they did
was compare my pencil thin neck measurement to my waist of 32" and
looked at a chart. Weight had nothing to do with it.

This pronouncement had consequences since I was in the u.s. naval
reserves at the time. All sorts of evil things come your way if they tag
you with that label. Especially if you are like me and hate exercising.
They don't kick you out, they just make your life miserable.

I protested when they told me this and they said regs are regs and we
just follow them. I don't think me asking, "What are you crazy? Do I
look overweight to you!?" helped my case.

A few weeks later, I found the measuring people's boss, an HC Chief and
casually asked him if I looked a bit overweight. He took care of it for me.

[Bill Sornson]

Peter Cole wrote:

> Me at 6'10/235 (borderline overweight according to BMI):
> http://home.comcast.net/%7Epeter_cole/Blue_Hills/images/pa030007.jpg

Who were you burying in that field?!?

Bill "X-files is on (somewhere)" S.

[Peter Cole]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> Me at 6'10/235 (borderline overweight according to BMI):
>> http://home.comcast.net/%7Epeter_cole/Blue_Hills/images/pa030007.jpg
>
> Who were you burying in that field?!?
>
> Bill "X-files is on (somewhere)" S.
>
>

That's the picnic wagon.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <1191270227.501786.186920@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups. com>,
Chalo <chalo.colina@gmail.com> wrote:

> Carl Fogel wrote:
> >
> > Okay, you asked for the bad news (and a really awful pun):
> >
> > "How high can we go? 'The Norwegians did a study 20 years ago on
> > height, weight, and longevity and found that mortality rates as a
> > function of height were U shaped. People who are very, very tall die
> > at much higher rates,' Steckel said."
> >
> > http://www.oberlin.edu/alummag/oamcurrent/oam_may99/tall.html
>
> It must be from walking into doorways, stooping over low countertops,
> flying coach class in origami fashion, and keeping the grumpy little
> goblins at bay. All that can wear a guy out.
>
> Chalo

Hee hee! I suspect that accidental death is not an unmeasureable
component of the problems of the tall and short, but more likely is that
many tall and short people are suffering from a disease (of which height
may be only one effect).

On top of those factors, the very tall, as you know, often stress their
bodies more. More weight, longer levers, more blood needs to be pushed
greater distances by the heart, etc.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

[Jambo]

"Donga" <idomybestworkonabike@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191282228.219330.97480@y42g2000hsy.googlegro ups.com...
> On Oct 2, 2:02 am, "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote:
>> Well, it's hard for many people to ride a bike to their gyms, since these
>> places serve large locales. It's part of the point of gyms, anyway, that
>> you do the exercising inside. Don't be too hard on the car drivers, it's
>> better to take the car to the gym and exercise than to stay at home and
>> be a
>> couch potato.
>
> Nice try, but no cigar. They are a bunch of lazy, inconsiderate, gas-
> guzzling, carbon-dumping poseurs. They could sweat off their fat ass
> by walking/running or riding to the gym, then never even have to walk
> in the door, let alone cough up the membership. Don't make excuses for
> them ... "hard"? Boo hoo, toughen up.

Seems to me someone has an axe to grind...

[vey]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Derk who? wrote:
>> vey wrote:

>
> I though "fitness centers" were primarily an alternative to bars [1] for
> meeting people (of the appropriate gender).
>
> [1] No smoke, less noise, and no drunks.
>

Not so much anymore. Now they advertise separation of the sexes as a
selling point and ban skimpy clothing. I'm told that the clothing on the
models in their advertising wouldn't be allowed in the club.

[vey]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Doug Cimper wrote:
>>
>> I tend to think that (in the USA) it has more to do with the
>> prevalence of processed food--in particular, the "instant"/microwave
>> no-effort sort of things....
>
> If your normal work day consisted of 12+ hours of high stress, you would
> most likely not want to spend a lot of time cooking.
>

Which is why Rachel Ray's 30 minute meals show is so popular.

[A Muzi]

> Doug Cimper wrote:
>> I tend to think that (in the USA) it has more to do with the
>> prevalence of processed food--in particular, the "instant"/microwave
>> no-effort sort of things....

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> If your normal work day consisted of 12+ hours of high stress, you would
> most likely not want to spend a lot of time cooking.

sorta personality dependent isn't it? I dated an ER/IC nurse who just
loved time in the kitchen. Personally, a half hour with a book seems
more compelling than a half hour of prep/cleanup. YMMV, no wrong answers.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Andy Morris]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>
> If your normal work day consisted of 12+ hours of high stress, you would
> most likely not want to spend a lot of time cooking.
>

A lot of people would say the same about cycling.

I quite enjoy cooking, once I get off my arse and get started, a bit
like riding the bike.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtjinkasDotfreeserve.co.uk

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Andrew Muzi mused:
>> Doug Cimper wrote:
>>> I tend to think that (in the USA) it has more to do with the
>>> prevalence of processed food--in particular, the "instant"/microwave
>>> no-effort sort of things....
>
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> If your normal work day consisted of 12+ hours of high stress, you
>> would most likely not want to spend a lot of time cooking.
>
> sorta personality dependent isn't it? I dated an ER/IC nurse who just
> loved time in the kitchen. Personally, a half hour with a book seems
> more compelling than a half hour of prep/cleanup. YMMV, no wrong answers.

Cooking would cut into my cycling Usenet group time. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Donga]

On Oct 2, 11:46 am, "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote:
> "Donga" <idomybestworkonab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1191282228.219330.97480@y42g2000hsy.googlegro ups.com...
>
> > On Oct 2, 2:02 am, "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote:
> >> Well, it's hard for many people to ride a bike to their gyms, since these
> >> places serve large locales. It's part of the point of gyms, anyway, that
> >> you do the exercising inside. Don't be too hard on the car drivers, it's
> >> better to take the car to the gym and exercise than to stay at home and
> >> be a
> >> couch potato.
>
> > Nice try, but no cigar. They are a bunch of lazy, inconsiderate, gas-
> > guzzling, carbon-dumping poseurs. They could sweat off their fat ass
> > by walking/running or riding to the gym, then never even have to walk
> > in the door, let alone cough up the membership. Don't make excuses for
> > them ... "hard"? Boo hoo, toughen up.
>
> Seems to me someone has an axe to grind...

You could say that. Not only the fact that these people in their
usually overlarge cars make my cycling dangerous, but also that peak
oil and climate change are with us and they carry on willy nilly,
gulping and burping. Why would anyone make excuses for them? Seems to
me it is past time for people to act responsibly.

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Donga who? wrote:
> ...
> You could say that. Not only the fact that these people in their
> usually overlarge cars make my cycling dangerous, but also that peak
> oil and climate change are with us and they carry on willy nilly,
> gulping and burping. Why would anyone make excuses for them? Seems to
> me it is past time for people to act responsibly.

HEY! I am rooting for hominid self-extinction. LET'S DRILL AND BURN THAT
OIL!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Donga]

On Oct 2, 12:44 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
> Donga who? wrote:
> > ...
> > You could say that. Not only the fact that these people in their
> > usually overlarge cars make my cycling dangerous, but also that peak
> > oil and climate change are with us and they carry on willy nilly,
> > gulping and burping. Why would anyone make excuses for them? Seems to
> > me it is past time for people to act responsibly.
>
> HEY! I am rooting for hominid self-extinction. LET'S DRILL AND BURN THAT
> OIL!

Hehe, with that attitude, who needs gyms? Just eat yourself into lipid
oblivion! :-)

[vey]

nmp wrote:
> DougC wrote:
>
>> Secondly--the average Netherlands rider may ride frequently, but doesn't
>> necessarily bicycle all that far.
>
> Yes. And when we cycle, other than for sport, we do it mainly because it
> requires even *less* physical effort than walking (the same short
> distances).

Isn't that why we use a mechanical device like a bicycle? To gain a
mechanical advantage and expend less energy than by doing it the harder
way? That's what I thought, anyway.

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Eric Vey wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Derk who? wrote:
>>> Eric Vey wrote:
>
>>
>> I though "fitness centers" were primarily an alternative to bars [1]
>> for meeting people (of the appropriate gender).
>>
>> [1] No smoke, less noise, and no drunks.
>>
>
> Not so much anymore. Now they advertise separation of the sexes as a
> selling point and ban skimpy clothing.

What is the point of going then?

> I'm told that the clothing on the
> models in their advertising wouldn't be allowed in the club.

Blair P. Houghton will not being going to gym much then:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/43ec84642c2b9f84?dmode=source>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
A Real Cyclist [TM] keeps at least one bicycle in the bedroom.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[nmp]

vey wrote:

> nmp wrote:
>> DougC wrote:
>>
>>> Secondly--the average Netherlands rider may ride frequently, but
>>> doesn't necessarily bicycle all that far.
>>
>> Yes. And when we cycle, other than for sport, we do it mainly because
>> it requires even *less* physical effort than walking (the same short
>> distances).
>
> Isn't that why we use a mechanical device like a bicycle? To gain a
> mechanical advantage and expend less energy than by doing it the harder
> way? That's what I thought, anyway.

Yes, taking the bike is the lazy option.