EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Does fitness matter where you live?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Does fitness matter where you live? - Page 7  

post #181 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

But then, how much does lifestyle of a family have to do with the view of genetics. 
For instance, if a farming family is seen as "genetically healthy", how much of that is really about the lifestyle of farming and the level of active work during the day and how much is genetics? 

Take a look at epigenetics. Think in terms of gene expression - a good way to illustrate this is switches. If a gene expresses one way with the switch off, and another way with the switch on, and the position of the switch is both heritable and influenced by behavior such as diet, then the behavior of your parents and your grandparents may have an effect on your epigenetics. In other words, how they ate could affect how eating affects you.
post #182 of 199

Going back to mass transit...

 

I just used some privately-funded, non-union mass transit this morning.  

 

I rode the Jackson Hole tram up the mountain and went skiing.  The skiing was most excellent!

 

Thank God for mass transit.

post #183 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


I'll take left wing intellectuals saving me from butter over right wing intellectuals saving me from criminals via unregulated weapons trade. I have personal choice in the former.

Guns = on biggrin.gif

Unregulated? Really? Maybe where you live..

post #184 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post

Going back to mass transit...

 

I just used some privately-funded, non-union mass transit this morning.  

 

I rode the Jackson Hole tram up the mountain and went skiing.  The skiing was most excellent!

 

Thank God for mass transit.

Bob, you are the man. Real men ski real snow. Mass tram transit.

Limited mass insanity in this thread.

 

On the other point, why be out of shape ever?

post #185 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by snokat View PostOn the other point, why be out of shape ever?

This is a pretty ironic thread now that I think about it. I imagine most people on the forum are in some way, shape, or form "fit".

post #186 of 199

FYI I already am getting a ton of great food thanks to an awesome gal...... I can not say I am have eliminated processed food but I have greatly diminished them.

 

FYI on related but REI did today set a return limit.

post #187 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

You're describing economically rational development done as an investment, and not done for socialist motives like trimming waistlines or forcing a sense of community, or killing cars.  In US terms, possibly Crystal City, VA would be an example.  I have no problem with that.  

 

In the US, though, as we have already seen in this thread, that's not generally what people are pushing.  Take high-speed rail in CA again.  It may not even be able to be high-speed in numerous sections because of track issues, but who really cares?  It may get a third of the riders projected, and cost now 5 times more than projected and growing, but who cares? 

 

As far as the index or "study" that started this thread, we've already established that they weren't actually measuring fitness.  My bet is that if high-speed rail does get pushed through in CA, that in a few years we'll see that same index make approving mention of a project that will have been a devastatingly bad investment, as having been good for the "health" of some city near it.  Now, economic distress is seldom actually good for health. 

 

Well this is actually a common problem in alot of "developing western countries" (by developing I mean developing there mass public transit systems).  Too many people who have no clue, have an opnion.  Ironically I suppose public transport is like skiing - if you dont know what you are looking at, it looks simple and think "I know what is going on there - hey I ski almost every weekend! OR I know what is going on there - I road the London UnderGround to work everyday for 3 years!".  Clueless.

 

Lots of great projects get derailed (pardon the pun) due to these well meaning, but ignorant people, and ultimatley become failures, or dont go ahead at all.

 

 

Highspeed rail is a bad idea for NA or Aus at this time. 

 

Step 1 - invest in inner city mass transit first.  Once that is up and running, city wide, in all major cities, with multi-mode (light rail and metro) then consider Step 2

Step 2 - Link the cities up with Highspeed rail.

 

This is how Asian and Euro countries did it.  High speed rail, may never make sense thou, outside of a few corridors in the US.  What people dont releasise thou, is that even if NA and Aus commit to investing in mass transit now - they are still 30 years away at least from even consdiering HSR.

post #188 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

 

 

This is how Asian and Euro countries did it.  High speed rail, may never make sense thou, outside of a few corridors in the US.  What people dont releasise thou, is that even if NA and Aus commit to investing in mass transit now - they are still 30 years away at least from even consdiering HSR.

 

It's my impression Japan did it differently and national pride/applied technology/nation building (not unlike our own original push to build RR's in the 19th century) was a huge part of the push to develop ideas that were first kicked around in the 1930's if I recall... up and running for the '64 Olympics, not bad!. The line to Niigata? Who was prime minister in the planning phases, and where was he from? smile.gif Beyond the Tokyo-Nagoya-Kyoto-Osaka- Hiroshima corridor, most of Japan's high speed rail seems to be more of 'built it, and they will come'. 

post #189 of 199

Man this is some funny stuff. You guys are getting wrapped around the axle about a study in the U.S.A. Today, seriously? One of the worst excuses for a newspaper on the planet? God, it must be summer. 

 

I live in an area where people are very fit. During summer it is easy to pick out the people from out of the area, as they are the over weight ones. 

post #190 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post

 

 

Step 1 - invest in inner city mass transit first.  Once that is up and running, city wide, in all major cities, with multi-mode (light rail and metro) then consider Step 2

Step 2 - Link the cities up with Highspeed rail.

 

This is how Asian and Euro countries did it.  High speed rail, may never make sense thou, outside of a few corridors in the US.  What people dont releasise thou, is that even if NA and Aus commit to investing in mass transit now - they are still 30 years away at least from even consdiering HSR.

 

Look at history. This is how the US did it until the auto industry illegally decimated it. Why did they do it. So you didn't have the option of fast and efficient mass transit. You had to buy a car. You had to buy tires. You had to buy gas. Now, we have to redo it. Right-wing plutocracy and American Exceptionalism at its finest. Can we get Sarah to wink a few times and squawk drill-baby-drill? Its not a question of if it will get redone, its when. Since big business basically owns our govt., getting it done is going to be a long, hard fight. You sure bet can be the opponents will not just fight it, they will try to sabotage it with poor design.

post #191 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ske-Bum View Post

Man this is some funny stuff. You guys are getting wrapped around the axle about a study in the U.S.A. Today, seriously? One of the worst excuses for a newspaper on the planet? God, it must be summer. 

 

I live in an area where people are very fit. During summer it is easy to pick out the people from out of the area, as they are the over weight ones. 

Woah, that reminded me of this time myself and a couple buddies were out off roading, and one of the jeeps in the group literally had their exhaust wrap around the axle... Not a fun time!

 

post #192 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ske-Bum View Post

Man this is some funny stuff. You guys are getting wrapped around the axle about a study in the U.S.A. Today, seriously? One of the worst excuses for a newspaper on the planet? God, it must be summer. 

 

I live in an area where people are very fit. During summer it is easy to pick out the people from out of the area, as they are the over weight ones. 


Just a nit:  the study wasn't produced by USA Today.  They cited it from elsewhere.  And there's at least a couple of other studies saying the same thing, i.e., that MN and other places that "everybody knows" just can't get high marks in fitness and health, do.  sibhusky posted links to a couple.  I posted a link to one cited by an insurance company as useful in their business, which ought to say something about its perceived accuracy and (lack of) bias, back in post #55.

 

Apparently, anecdotal judgements based on how many people you see on the street that you think look "fit" are pretty unreliable, BTW.  That same study (the one the insurance company likes, not the one cited in USA Today) ranks Colorado well below MN.

 

The number of people hanging on to either preconceptions or outright prejudice in this thread is pretty depressing.  LOOK AT THE DATA!  If you want to argue about that (for example, there's a very good argument that any ranking based on weighting multiple criteria is bogus), fine.   But for f4ck's sake, please quit saying "of course" it's the way you think it ought to be, or "everybody I see in Oshkosh is skinny, so it's a very fit area," or any similar nonsense.

 

Define your terms, cite your data.  Then we've got something to discuss.  Or not, as the case may be:  maybe it's just more fun to keep shouting...

post #193 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowObstacle View Post


Just a nit:  the study wasn't produced by USA Today.  They cited it from elsewhere. ...

 

Define your terms, cite your data.  ...

We have already established, multiple times, that the study in question wasn't measuring fitness.  By their express words, they were looking for things like baseball diamonds and dog runs as their "data:"

 

""What Minneapolis has done brilliantly is put their resources where residents can use them effectively to maintain a high level of physical activity," says Walt Thompson, chairman of the advisory board who created the index and a professor of exercise physiology at Georgia State University in Atlanta.

Minneapolis does better than other cities when it comes to the number of baseball diamonds, playgrounds, golf courses and dog parks, he says. [emphasis added]"

 

I'm sure MSP has some kick-ass dog parks.  But, I actually took my dog to a dog run this am...because I was feeling LAZY and didn't want to wake up early enough for a run or bike.  It may come as a surprise to the people who created the index in question, but it takes at most 200m of walking to get to most dog runs -- so the owners don't have to walk far -- and then the ritual is for the owners to either stand and talk in small groups, or to sit by themselves.  The humans don't get much more exercise than they do sitting on their couch.  There may be one or two people who play fetch with their dog, but that's it.  To be more blunt, dog run regulars also tend to be heavier than the average person, and heavier than other types of dog people. 

 

Now, in places where fitness is more a way of life for the average person, people do among other things tend to take their dogs hiking, biking and skiing fairly regularly.  Some mountain towns can be amusing and, even for me who has a dog, even irritating in terms of how indulgent they are of pets.  For purposes of the index in question, though, being a community where people regularly actually walk or hike or ski with their dogs -- and that does not invest heavily in dog runs as a result-- would dock your community's fitness ranking. 

 

For people looking to maintain a fit lifestyle, dogs actually are an interesting thing, in that depending on breed/type dogs can either hamper it or encourage it.  But, that is a real-world issue, and not an issue that intellectuals counting dog...parks...need to be concerned with.

post #194 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

It is most definitely relevant.  We have a study scoring some very odd cities as the best in the US for fitness, and citing those cities' spending on infrastructure -- public transit, baseball fields, dog parks -- as somehow meaning that those cities have high fitness.  We are being told by posters including you that if more cities invest more heavily in things like public transport, that somehow this will improve fitness.  This is against a backdrop of that public transport almost always being a disastrous investment, and a long list of these types of central planning failures across a variety of subjects, including earlier fitness initiatives such as the one here in the US urging people to eat more carbs in the 1970s.  It is also against a backdrop of no one looking in any rigorous way at how wasting billions of dollars on public transit -- or hundreds of millions on more dog parks -- is somehow going to cause a higher level of fitness.

 

You now seem to be asserting that areas with no current need for more public transit should spend huge amounts of dough on more, anyway ...  the idea seems to be, Build it, and they will come (even if there's no need for this infrastructure, now).  But, you want to also force buildings closer together, too, and do other things that can be lumped as favorite lefty projects.  I get that there simply is a huge left-wing commitment to getting public transport built, and a high level of antagonism towards people being able to drive their own cars.  Again, a very good reason to look very carefully when these types of things get sold as somehow boosting fitness.

 

It would have been a different thing if, rather than simply looking for infrastructure that sounds cool in lefty circles, the authors of this study had actually found truly fit towns and then studied, in-depth, what allows residents of those areas to stay active while also pursuing well-rounded lives.  Park City and Boulder have some differences between them, for instance, and yet both are very fit populations.  But, that type of thing isn't too glamorous, and there are no large infrastructure projects at the end of that rainbow, nor any massive population relocations of the type that some lefties seem to want to get  (voluntarily, or less than voluntarily) after all this new public transport they are urging gets built.

 

Ok, we need to clear up a few things. First, all I've ever said is that some cities would probably benefit if they rethink their urban planning. I've never called for a communist-style central planning of any aspect of life from the federal government. I've never said that anyone should be forced to build certain things, move certain things, or destroy certain things. I've never said that people shouldn't be allowed to use their cars. Those are all things that you imagine I believe, not ideas that I have ever expressed. In other words, you're having an argument with your imagination rather than with me.

 

Secondly, I have already provided a link to a study showing the effect of active transport (walking, biking, public transit, etc.) on physical health. Also, I have seen with my own eyes the differences between cities with a very low density and poor public transport and those with a high density and good public trasport. That's because I have lived in and visited many of both in North America and in Europe. I know what it's like to drive everywhere, and I know what it's like to live without a car. I've seen the effects of both on myself and on the people that I've known. So, these are not romantic ideas that I have come up with on my own. Instead, they are conclusions that I've come to because of real world experience.

 

Moreover, it's nice that you keep using Park City and Boulder as examples of fit cities. I've been to both, and they're both lovely. But here's the thing you need to understand: there are 7 billion people on the planet, 300 million of whom live in the US, and we can't all live in lovely little towns in the mountains. What Park City and Boulder show us is that being a rich white person who lives in a small town in the mountains and has a lot of free time and disposible income to spend on outdoor activities is good for your health. That's great to know, but it doesn't really help the other 299 million people in the US.

post #195 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralVortex View Post

Those are all things that you imagine I believe, not ideas that I have ever expressed. In other words, you're having an argument with your imagination rather than with me.

A succinct summary of the Fox News marketing strategy.
post #196 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowObstacle View Post


Just a nit:  the study wasn't produced by USA Today.  They cited it from elsewhere. ...

 

Define your terms, cite your data.  ...

We have already established, multiple times, that the study in question wasn't measuring fitness.  By their express words, they were looking for things like baseball diamonds and dog runs as their "data:"

By their express words, in the report, they were looking at those things in addition to others.  Like activity level.  But let's agree to disagree about that study.   What about the others?  There have been pointers in this thread to at least three alternatives, probably more, all coming to pretty much the same conclusions.  You have yet to address, or even acknowledge, any of those.

 

Whereas the best you've come up with is "I saw fat people in MN and DC, therefore they can't be places where people are fit."  Oh, and "because dog parks are mentioned as a positive in a report, the whole thing is part of a socialist plot."  Please.  What is this, the 1950's?

 

If you like, go ahead and tell me I'm putting words in your mouth.  I'll go back and dig out the words from your previous posts.  Actually, I take that back:  anybody that still thinks your arguments have a shred of credibility at this point is invited to do that for themselves.  Until and unless you cite some actual DATA, rather than your personal impressions, I'm done spending time on this.

post #197 of 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by CerebralVortex View Post...

 

The point I'm trying to make is that, if you are thinking about city planning it would be a good idea to design areas to be more pedestrian oriented. That means putting buildings closer together, making car-free zones, and so on. If you continue to build giant, spread-out cities, you'll continue to produce giant, spread-out people. Obviously, you can't wipe out entire cities and rebuild them in one fell swoop. But, you can work on it little by little....

LMFAO. 

 

As far as rich white people,

Quote:

Originally Posted by CerebralVortex View Post

 What Park City and Boulder show us is that being a rich white person who lives in a small town in the mountains and has a lot of free time and disposible income to spend on outdoor activities is good for your health. ...

 

what makes you think that everyone in Boulder or Park City is either rich or white?  Pretty sure you can play soccer with Mexicans in Jackson if you want, and actually one of the fastest learning curves I've ever seen on snow was from a Brazilian, who went from zero on-snow experience to being a solid local in about a season and a half.  Being rich or being white has nothing to do with being able to go for a ski, or roller ski, or being able to go for a jog with your dog or for a hike in the hills. 

 

What Park City and Boulder show is that communities that find ways for people to regularly take part in actual physical exercise -- not going to dog runs -- while still doing the things you need to live a balanced life tend to have high average levels of fitness. 

post #198 of 199
Here you go Kook, or since you're always L your FA off, maybe we just call you KookyA? From that bastion of left wing communist nutdome, Atlanta:

http://dirt.asla.org/2013/06/04/with-the-beltline-atlanta-wants-to-become-a-new-city/

Blood pressure meds in reach?
post #199 of 199
Thread Starter 

As OP, regretfully, I am closing this thread. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
This thread is locked  
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Does fitness matter where you live?