Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambridgite
I call bullshit on that article. Community design doesn't create fat kids. Laziness on the kid's behalf, poor diet, and lax parenting creates fat kids. I have lived in suburbia all my life and it is true that most destinations require a car and you don't burn calories walking place to place. But formal play is very doable. My little brother and I have always participated organized sports, in the suburbs. In the suburbs, you can also drive to the grocery store and buy healthy food. The most fattening aspect of community design is the lack of neighborhood parks in most new subdivisions. Developers don't want to pay for them and neither do cash-strapped municipalities. Back to the point, this article is using suburbia as a scapegoat to the obesity epidemic, which can easily be controlled by the driven individual.
|
1) Active kids requiring parents to drive em everywhere is a major reason while low income families are worst effected, which is such a duh. Your boot strap theory makes little sense unless you were driving yourself to practice. Dependency on helicopter parents is a plague of suburbs.
2) Formal play pound for pound isn't near as good for you. Going for that after work exercise actually messes with your metabolism and your sleep. Your best off exercising mid day. There is a bit more of a science to it, but I aint that guy.
3) Driven individual nonsense is a joke, even a driven person experiences the stresses of a tougher environment. Which is the beauty of statistics.
4) lol lazy people, really is a narcissistic phrase. What most people call laziness is most often a stress regulation method for most folks living in a city. Work avoidance is a very important internal mechanism for managing stress for virtually everyone.
Anyways I dig the premise of the thread.
Prev
Linear Mode
