Hey Greg - Can We post.
Thanks,
Sheila
Obese state workers in Alabama told to get fit or pay insurance fees
By Phillip Rawls ASSOCIATED PRESS
August 22, 2008
MONTGOMERY, Ala. – Alabama, pushed to second in national obesity rankings by deep-fried Southern favorites, is cracking down on state workers who are too fat.
The state has given its 37,527 employees a year to start getting fit – or they'll pay $25 a month for insurance that otherwise is free.
Alabama will be the first state to charge overweight state workers who don't work on slimming down. A few states reward employees who adopt healthy behaviors.
Alabama charges workers who smoke – and has seen some success in getting them to quit – but has turned its attention to a problem that plagues many in the Deep South: obesity.
The State Employees' Insurance Board approved a plan this week to charge state workers starting in 2010 if they don't go to free health screenings.
If the screenings turn up serious problems with blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose or obesity, employees will have a year to see a doctor at no cost, enroll in a wellness program, or take steps themselves to improve their health. If they show progress in a follow-up screening, they won't be charged. But if they don't, they must pay, starting in 2011.
“We are trying to get individuals to become more aware of their health,” said state worker Robert Wagstaff, who serves on the insurance board.
Not all state employees see it that way. “It's terrible,” said health department employee Chequla Motley. “Some people come into this world big.”
Computer technician Tim Colley already pays $24 a month for being a smoker and doesn't like the idea of another charge. “It's too Big Brotherish,” he said.
The board will apply the obesity charge to anyone with a body mass index of 35 or higher who isn't making progress. A person 5 feet 6 inches tall and weighing 220 pounds, for example, would have a BMI of 35.5. A BMI of 30 is considered the threshold for obesity.
The board hasn't determined how much progress a person would have to show and isn't certain how many people might be affected because everyone could avoid the charge by working to lose weight.
But that's unlikely: Government statistics show Alabamians have a big weight problem. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 30.3 percent of them are now obese, ranking the state behind only Mississippi.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080822/news_1n22obesity.html
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Drinking-Age Revolt Gains Converts In State (Connecticut)
If you want to read the article first http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-drinking0820.artaug20,0,7336823.story?page=1
Redrant: This initiative caught me by surprise. Smoking ban news is slow so I tried to read up on this. First off, my opinion/position on this which I have just formulated.
First off, I'd propose an 18 to 21 age alcohol for beer and wine under 6% alcohol with not distilled alcohol fortification. This is un update on the old 3.2 beer. The vast majority of beer is under 6% alcohol. Some specialty beers and wines have natural alcohol content up to 20% and we don't want an "arms race" here.
I would stay away from any distilled alcohol for 18 to 21 including things wine "coolers" that used distilled alcohol. In the black market of 18 to 20 drinking you aren't going to smuggle a case of beer into a dorm room. I've always considered distilled "hard" liquor to have a much much more of an effect than naturally fermented alcohol. I know of people who can drink regular beer or wine without problem but if they have something like a Jack Daniels cooler they tend to black out. The 18 to 20 drinkers aren't at that stage but the "bootleg" booze is typically the "hard stuff". It's a radical proposal but worth debating.
An interesting irony is that the 21 year old uniform drinking age started in the Orwellian year of 1984. The tool devised then was the withholding of federal funds if states did not pass laws like raising the drinking age to 21.
I've read quite a few articles on the Amethyst Initiative in the last few days. There were a lot of online polls with vague questions but these polls came up close to 50/50, much like the bar smoking polls.
Another factor is potential liability for colleges. You would need airport security level measures at dorms and other college facilities to try to stop "bootlegging". Besides the cost this would be very oppressive.
Added to that there is an "entertainment gap" for 18 to 20 year olds. This lead to things like Raves and a breeding ground for compulsive gambling and (ironically) smoking. Indian/Native American casinos tend to have a age of 18 and you can smoke there. I see Mystik Lake shuttle buses on Lake Street all the time. Greg Lang
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-drinking0820.artaug20,0,7336823.story?page=1
courant.com/news/politics/hc-drinking0820.artaug20,0,7336823.story
Courant.com
Drinking-Age Revolt Gains Converts In State
August 20, 2008
James F. Jones Jr., who is in his fifth year as president of Trinity College, knows he is incurring the wrath of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and probably more than a few parents, by suggesting that the drinking age be lowered. But, frankly, he doesn't really care.He's that fed up with the consequences of what he calls "the clandestine culture" of underage drinking among college students. It's a culture, Jones and other college administrators say, that has led to some very dangerous, and often tragic, behavior."Who in the world is going to stand up against Mothers Against Drunk Driving? It would be like standing up against motherhood and apple pie," Jones said. "But [the current drinking age] is counterproductive because it simply fosters this counterculture of binge drinking, which is epidemic at colleges."Jones is one of six college presidents from Connecticut who have joined the Amethyst Initiative, roughly 100 university administrators calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18.The movement, started by John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont, has been gathering supporters across the United States for about a year. In addition to Trinity, Connecticut schools that have joined are the University of Hartford, St. Joseph College, Fairfield University, the University of New Haven and Mitchell College in New London.Binge drinking has been a tragic problem at college campuses across the United States, including Connecticut. One of the best known incidents occurred at Quinnipiac University in Hamden in 2001, when junior Matt Oliveri died of alcohol poisoning after a night of binge drinking.Jones, like some of the other Connecticut administrators who have signed on to the movement, has emotional, practical and philosophical reasons for wanting the issue debated again, 23 years after the drinking age was raised to 21 in Connecticut.First, the practical."The fact that kids can't drink until they're 21 legally simply forces them to do it clandestinely, and when they do, you get irresponsible behavior in the residence halls," Jones said. "You get younger students getting older students to go to the liquor store for them, and you get the binge drinking in the dorm rooms."Jones also has trouble with the disconnect in the message the government is sending 18year-olds, who can vote, serve on a jury, sign a contract and serve in the military -- but not drink."If we're going to send someone to fight in Iraq, I don't understand why that is an adult prerogative but buying a beer legally is not," Jones said, adding that students don't believe the drinking age limit should apply to them, in part, because of this disconnect.J. Lee Peters, vice president for student affairs at the University of Hartford, agreed and said the scope of underage binge drinking problem is enormous."I have hundreds of students, and I know every other college administrator has the same thing, who are sitting in their rooms throwing down multiple drinks so they can pre-load [their bodies with alcohol] before going out," Peters said. "It's a recipe for disaster."Peters said he saw firsthand what happens when the illegality issue is removed from drinking when he helped lead a semester at sea in 2004 with 440 college students from around the country.Once the ship left shore and entered international waters, Peters said, there was no drinking age, which meant that the 18- to 22-year-old students on board could socialize -- and drink -- openly with the faculty on the trip. Because of that openness, Peters said, he and staff members could monitor what was happening, and there were fewer incidents of drunken behavior."Before I went on that trip, I wasn't a big fan of this [idea]," Peters said. "I thought it was kind of a cop-out, to try to change the law rather than work within the law. But I learned you have much more influence on a student by dealing with their behavior and not [focusing on] whether they broke the law."The MADD ViewOfficials with both the national and state offices of MADD would say that lowering the drinking age is a cop-out, however, and will lead to more fatal car accidents. They also maintain that studies have clearly shown raising the drinking age has reduced drunken-driving deaths nationally -- a claim backed up by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others.In fact, according to a federal study of fatal drunken-driving accidents from 1982 to 1998, Connecticut saw a decline of about 85 percent in accidents involving drivers age 16-20."We're opening up the floodgates here," said Janice Heggie Margolis, executive director of the Connecticut chapter of MADD.Margolis said that while the higher age limit has helped decrease the number of fatal accidents, she and other MADD officials are concerned that people have become complacent recently. She cited a national study showing Connecticut experienced an 11 percent increase in fatal drunkendriving accidents in 2006."We know that we must continue to decrease access and availability of alcohol to young adults, and if we drop the 21-year-old drinking age, that's going to make it that much easier for young people to get alcohol," Margolis said.College administrators, though, say that students are continually finding new ways to obtain alcohol illegally and that the law simply isn't stopping them."There's an entire fake-ID industry," Jones said.State Rep. Michael Lawlor agreed.Lawlor, an East Haven Democrat who serves as both the chairman of the legislature's powerful judiciary committee and as an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of New Haven, said students are "very resourceful" when it comes to getting around the drinking age law."You can get a fake driver's license for $60. They look very real and all the kids have them," Lawlor said.He said he can't envision the state lowering its drinking age without a corresponding move by the federal government, though. That's because of the 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which imposes a 10 percent penalty on a state's federal highway grant if it lowers the drinking age below 21.But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, he said. "It's worth talking about," Lawlor said. "If in fact you can pass a law to stop the behavior, then it's a good idea to pass the law. But if you pass the law and it makes [the situation] worse, which is arguably what is happening, then you need to rethink it." That's where Pamela Trotman Reid, president of St. Joseph College, comes down.Reid said a public discussion about the issue, and a closer, more informed look at the data, are imperative because the problem of underage drinking is so acute.She said she's not convinced that raising the drinking age is the only factor contributing to a decrease in drunken-driving fatalities, and wonders if increased education, stiffer legal consequences and the introduction of the concept of designated drivers have played equal parts.And, like Jones, Reid wants the issue reopened because she has seen firsthand the tragic consequences when students shut themselves up in their rooms to drink, where no one can monitor them."When I was at the University of Michigan, a female student fell out of her dorm window after a night of binge drinking and died," Reid said. "No one wants to be in that position, to have to face parents and tell them their child has died."Senior Information Specialist Cristina Bachetti contributed to this report.Contact Elizabeth Hamilton at ehamilton@courant.com.
Redrant: This initiative caught me by surprise. Smoking ban news is slow so I tried to read up on this. First off, my opinion/position on this which I have just formulated.
First off, I'd propose an 18 to 21 age alcohol for beer and wine under 6% alcohol with not distilled alcohol fortification. This is un update on the old 3.2 beer. The vast majority of beer is under 6% alcohol. Some specialty beers and wines have natural alcohol content up to 20% and we don't want an "arms race" here.
I would stay away from any distilled alcohol for 18 to 21 including things wine "coolers" that used distilled alcohol. In the black market of 18 to 20 drinking you aren't going to smuggle a case of beer into a dorm room. I've always considered distilled "hard" liquor to have a much much more of an effect than naturally fermented alcohol. I know of people who can drink regular beer or wine without problem but if they have something like a Jack Daniels cooler they tend to black out. The 18 to 20 drinkers aren't at that stage but the "bootleg" booze is typically the "hard stuff". It's a radical proposal but worth debating.
An interesting irony is that the 21 year old uniform drinking age started in the Orwellian year of 1984. The tool devised then was the withholding of federal funds if states did not pass laws like raising the drinking age to 21.
I've read quite a few articles on the Amethyst Initiative in the last few days. There were a lot of online polls with vague questions but these polls came up close to 50/50, much like the bar smoking polls.
Another factor is potential liability for colleges. You would need airport security level measures at dorms and other college facilities to try to stop "bootlegging". Besides the cost this would be very oppressive.
Added to that there is an "entertainment gap" for 18 to 20 year olds. This lead to things like Raves and a breeding ground for compulsive gambling and (ironically) smoking. Indian/Native American casinos tend to have a age of 18 and you can smoke there. I see Mystik Lake shuttle buses on Lake Street all the time. Greg Lang
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-drinking0820.artaug20,0,7336823.story?page=1
courant.com/news/politics/hc-drinking0820.artaug20,0,7336823.story
Courant.com
Drinking-Age Revolt Gains Converts In State
August 20, 2008
James F. Jones Jr., who is in his fifth year as president of Trinity College, knows he is incurring the wrath of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and probably more than a few parents, by suggesting that the drinking age be lowered. But, frankly, he doesn't really care.He's that fed up with the consequences of what he calls "the clandestine culture" of underage drinking among college students. It's a culture, Jones and other college administrators say, that has led to some very dangerous, and often tragic, behavior."Who in the world is going to stand up against Mothers Against Drunk Driving? It would be like standing up against motherhood and apple pie," Jones said. "But [the current drinking age] is counterproductive because it simply fosters this counterculture of binge drinking, which is epidemic at colleges."Jones is one of six college presidents from Connecticut who have joined the Amethyst Initiative, roughly 100 university administrators calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18.The movement, started by John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont, has been gathering supporters across the United States for about a year. In addition to Trinity, Connecticut schools that have joined are the University of Hartford, St. Joseph College, Fairfield University, the University of New Haven and Mitchell College in New London.Binge drinking has been a tragic problem at college campuses across the United States, including Connecticut. One of the best known incidents occurred at Quinnipiac University in Hamden in 2001, when junior Matt Oliveri died of alcohol poisoning after a night of binge drinking.Jones, like some of the other Connecticut administrators who have signed on to the movement, has emotional, practical and philosophical reasons for wanting the issue debated again, 23 years after the drinking age was raised to 21 in Connecticut.First, the practical."The fact that kids can't drink until they're 21 legally simply forces them to do it clandestinely, and when they do, you get irresponsible behavior in the residence halls," Jones said. "You get younger students getting older students to go to the liquor store for them, and you get the binge drinking in the dorm rooms."Jones also has trouble with the disconnect in the message the government is sending 18year-olds, who can vote, serve on a jury, sign a contract and serve in the military -- but not drink."If we're going to send someone to fight in Iraq, I don't understand why that is an adult prerogative but buying a beer legally is not," Jones said, adding that students don't believe the drinking age limit should apply to them, in part, because of this disconnect.J. Lee Peters, vice president for student affairs at the University of Hartford, agreed and said the scope of underage binge drinking problem is enormous."I have hundreds of students, and I know every other college administrator has the same thing, who are sitting in their rooms throwing down multiple drinks so they can pre-load [their bodies with alcohol] before going out," Peters said. "It's a recipe for disaster."Peters said he saw firsthand what happens when the illegality issue is removed from drinking when he helped lead a semester at sea in 2004 with 440 college students from around the country.Once the ship left shore and entered international waters, Peters said, there was no drinking age, which meant that the 18- to 22-year-old students on board could socialize -- and drink -- openly with the faculty on the trip. Because of that openness, Peters said, he and staff members could monitor what was happening, and there were fewer incidents of drunken behavior."Before I went on that trip, I wasn't a big fan of this [idea]," Peters said. "I thought it was kind of a cop-out, to try to change the law rather than work within the law. But I learned you have much more influence on a student by dealing with their behavior and not [focusing on] whether they broke the law."The MADD ViewOfficials with both the national and state offices of MADD would say that lowering the drinking age is a cop-out, however, and will lead to more fatal car accidents. They also maintain that studies have clearly shown raising the drinking age has reduced drunken-driving deaths nationally -- a claim backed up by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others.In fact, according to a federal study of fatal drunken-driving accidents from 1982 to 1998, Connecticut saw a decline of about 85 percent in accidents involving drivers age 16-20."We're opening up the floodgates here," said Janice Heggie Margolis, executive director of the Connecticut chapter of MADD.Margolis said that while the higher age limit has helped decrease the number of fatal accidents, she and other MADD officials are concerned that people have become complacent recently. She cited a national study showing Connecticut experienced an 11 percent increase in fatal drunkendriving accidents in 2006."We know that we must continue to decrease access and availability of alcohol to young adults, and if we drop the 21-year-old drinking age, that's going to make it that much easier for young people to get alcohol," Margolis said.College administrators, though, say that students are continually finding new ways to obtain alcohol illegally and that the law simply isn't stopping them."There's an entire fake-ID industry," Jones said.State Rep. Michael Lawlor agreed.Lawlor, an East Haven Democrat who serves as both the chairman of the legislature's powerful judiciary committee and as an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of New Haven, said students are "very resourceful" when it comes to getting around the drinking age law."You can get a fake driver's license for $60. They look very real and all the kids have them," Lawlor said.He said he can't envision the state lowering its drinking age without a corresponding move by the federal government, though. That's because of the 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which imposes a 10 percent penalty on a state's federal highway grant if it lowers the drinking age below 21.But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, he said. "It's worth talking about," Lawlor said. "If in fact you can pass a law to stop the behavior, then it's a good idea to pass the law. But if you pass the law and it makes [the situation] worse, which is arguably what is happening, then you need to rethink it." That's where Pamela Trotman Reid, president of St. Joseph College, comes down.Reid said a public discussion about the issue, and a closer, more informed look at the data, are imperative because the problem of underage drinking is so acute.She said she's not convinced that raising the drinking age is the only factor contributing to a decrease in drunken-driving fatalities, and wonders if increased education, stiffer legal consequences and the introduction of the concept of designated drivers have played equal parts.And, like Jones, Reid wants the issue reopened because she has seen firsthand the tragic consequences when students shut themselves up in their rooms to drink, where no one can monitor them."When I was at the University of Michigan, a female student fell out of her dorm window after a night of binge drinking and died," Reid said. "No one wants to be in that position, to have to face parents and tell them their child has died."Senior Information Specialist Cristina Bachetti contributed to this report.Contact Elizabeth Hamilton at ehamilton@courant.com.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The drinking age / Can't we even debate it?
Redrant: I have mixed feelings about lowering the legal age to 18 but the prohibitionist nanny culture is definitely creating a backlash, especially since the prohibitionist see a victory as a springboard to further restrictions. As an example the bar closest to my house is The Rail Station http://www.railstationbarandgrill.com The state smoking ban shut down their smoking caboose. Drinks were not allowed in there, the staff (who made no complaints of secondhand smoke) were "protected" and monitoring was done via camera. There was good signage for the smoking caboose http://www.railstationbarandgrill.com/caboose/index.htm Thus the real goal was to try to make it as difficult as possible for smokers. The same tactic is used by many environmentalists who seem to welcome very high fuel costs despite the devastating affect it has on the "working people" they claim to care about. Greg Lang
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/146/story/234595.html
The drinking age / Can't we even debate it?
Published: Thursday, August 21, 2008
No wonder many people are afraid to open their mouths and challenge conventional wisdom.
Presidents of about 100 of the nation's best-known universities are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 in an effort to curb dangerous binge drinking on campuses. The group, dubbed the Amethyst Initiative, stops short of asking for a change in the law but wants to open up a debate on the issue.
The response? Mothers Against Drunk Driving is urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on: "It's very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses," said MADD's national president.
Rowan University President Donald Farish voiced similar sentiments: "I'm disappointed to see college presidents throw in the towel on this issue. On the other hand, I'm happy to see students who drink go to their colleges" and not Rowan, he said.
Please. Can't we even debate this subject? Has it come to the point where people can't even question certain accepted, politically correct beliefs?
');
//-->
It may be true that 18-year-olds aren't mature enough to handle alcohol. And there are many factors to consider when setting the drinking age beside binge drinking - such as the effect on drunken-driving fatalities, for example.
But it's also true that binge drinking on campuses has reached dangerous levels. A recent Associated Press analysis of federal records found that 157 college-age people drank themselves to death from 1999 to 2005. And there are some who believe, right or wrong, that the 21-year-old drinking age exacerbates binge drinking, pushing it into hiding and enhancing the attraction of a forbidden activity. "If you treat students like children, they're going to act like children," said one senior at Duke University.
The fact is, the debate about whether the 21-year-old drinking age is appropriate has been going on quietly for some time. These college presidents are simply bringing the issue into the public arena.
"I'm not sure where the dialogue will lead, but it's an important topic to American families and it deserves a straightforward dialogue," said William Troutt, president of Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn.
We agree. Critics can make some convincing and rational points. But we wish they wouldn't vilify the messengers while adjusting their own halos.
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/146/story/234595.html
The drinking age / Can't we even debate it?
Published: Thursday, August 21, 2008
No wonder many people are afraid to open their mouths and challenge conventional wisdom.
Presidents of about 100 of the nation's best-known universities are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 in an effort to curb dangerous binge drinking on campuses. The group, dubbed the Amethyst Initiative, stops short of asking for a change in the law but wants to open up a debate on the issue.
The response? Mothers Against Drunk Driving is urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on: "It's very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses," said MADD's national president.
Rowan University President Donald Farish voiced similar sentiments: "I'm disappointed to see college presidents throw in the towel on this issue. On the other hand, I'm happy to see students who drink go to their colleges" and not Rowan, he said.
Please. Can't we even debate this subject? Has it come to the point where people can't even question certain accepted, politically correct beliefs?
');
//-->
It may be true that 18-year-olds aren't mature enough to handle alcohol. And there are many factors to consider when setting the drinking age beside binge drinking - such as the effect on drunken-driving fatalities, for example.
But it's also true that binge drinking on campuses has reached dangerous levels. A recent Associated Press analysis of federal records found that 157 college-age people drank themselves to death from 1999 to 2005. And there are some who believe, right or wrong, that the 21-year-old drinking age exacerbates binge drinking, pushing it into hiding and enhancing the attraction of a forbidden activity. "If you treat students like children, they're going to act like children," said one senior at Duke University.
The fact is, the debate about whether the 21-year-old drinking age is appropriate has been going on quietly for some time. These college presidents are simply bringing the issue into the public arena.
"I'm not sure where the dialogue will lead, but it's an important topic to American families and it deserves a straightforward dialogue," said William Troutt, president of Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn.
We agree. Critics can make some convincing and rational points. But we wish they wouldn't vilify the messengers while adjusting their own halos.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
NY Times: Better to Be Fat and Fit Than Skinny and Unfit
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/health/19well.html?_r=1&ref=health&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
August 19, 2008
Well
Better to Be Fat and Fit Than Skinny and Unfit
By TARA PARKER-POPE
Often, a visit to the doctor’s office starts with a weigh-in. But is a person’s weight really a reliable indicator of overall health?
Increasingly, medical research is showing that it isn’t. Despite concerns about an obesity epidemic, there is growing evidence that our obsession about weight as a primary measure of health may be misguided.
Last week a report in The Archives of Internal Medicine compared weight and cardiovascular risk factors among a representative sample of more than 5,400 adults. The data suggest that half of overweight people and one-third of obese people are “metabolically healthy.” That means that despite their excess pounds, many overweight and obese adults have healthy levels of “good” cholesterol, blood pressure, blood glucose and other risks for heart disease.
At the same time, about one out of four slim people — those who fall into the “healthy” weight range — actually have at least two cardiovascular risk factors typically associated with obesity, the study showed.
To be sure, being overweight or obese is linked with numerous health problems, and even in the most recent research, obese people were more likely to have two or more cardiovascular risk factors than slim people. But researchers say it is the proportion of overweight and obese people who are metabolically healthy that is so surprising.
“We use ‘overweight’ almost indiscriminately sometimes,” said MaryFran Sowers, a co-author of the study and professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan. “But there is lots of individual variation within that, and we need to be cognizant of that as we think about what our health messages should be.”
The data follow a report last fall from researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute showing that overweight people appear to have longer life expectancies than so-called normal weight adults.
But many people resist the notion that people who are overweight or obese can be healthy. Several prominent health researchers have criticized the findings from the C.D.C. researchers as misleading, noting that mortality statistics don’t reflect the poor quality of life and suffering obesity can cause. And on the Internet, various blog posters, including readers of the Times’s Well blog, have argued that the data are deceptive, masking the fact that far more overweight and obese people are at higher cardiovascular risk than thin people.
Part of the problem may be our skewed perception of what it means to be overweight. Typically, a person is judged to be of normal weight based on body mass index, or B.M.I., which measures weight relative to height. A normal B.M.I. ranges from 18.5 to 25. Once B.M.I. reaches 25, a person is viewed as overweight. Thirty or higher is considered obese.
“People get confused by the words and the mental image they get,” said Katherine Flegal, senior research scientist at the C.D.C.’s National Center for Health Statistics. “People may think, ‘How could it be that a person who is so huge wouldn’t have health problems?’ But people with B.M.I.’s of 25 are pretty unremarkable.”
Several studies from researchers at the Cooper Institute in Dallas have shown that fitness — determined by how a person performs on a treadmill — is a far better indicator of health than body mass index. In several studies, the researchers have shown that people who are fat but can still keep up on treadmill tests have much lower heart risk than people who are slim and unfit.
In December, a study in The Journal of the American Medical Association looked at death rates among 2,600 adults 60 and older over 12 years. Notably, death rates among the overweight, those with a B.M.I. of 25 to 30, were slightly lower than in normal weight adults. Death rates were highest among those with a B.M.I. of 35 or more.
But the most striking finding was that fitness level, regardless of body mass index, was the strongest predictor of mortality risk. Those with the lowest level of fitness, as measured on treadmill tests, were four times as likely to die during the 12-year study than those with the highest level of fitness. Even those who had just a minimal level of fitness had half the risk of dying compared with those who were least fit.
During the test, the treadmill moved at a brisk walking pace as the grade increased each minute. In the study, it didn’t take much to qualify as fit. For men, it meant staying on the treadmill at least 8 minutes; for women, 5.5 minutes. The people who fell below those levels, whether fat or thin, were at highest risk.
The results were adjusted to control for age, smoking and underlying heart problems and still showed that fitness, not weight, was most important in predicting mortality risk.
Stephen Blair, a co-author of the study and a professor at the Arnold School of Public Health at the University of South Carolina, said the lesson he took from the study was that instead of focusing only on weight loss, doctors should be talking to all patients about the value of physical activity, regardless of body size.
“Why is it such a stretch of the imagination,” he said, “to consider that someone overweight or obese might actually be healthy and fit?”
well@nytimes.com
August 19, 2008
Well
Better to Be Fat and Fit Than Skinny and Unfit
By TARA PARKER-POPE
Often, a visit to the doctor’s office starts with a weigh-in. But is a person’s weight really a reliable indicator of overall health?
Increasingly, medical research is showing that it isn’t. Despite concerns about an obesity epidemic, there is growing evidence that our obsession about weight as a primary measure of health may be misguided.
Last week a report in The Archives of Internal Medicine compared weight and cardiovascular risk factors among a representative sample of more than 5,400 adults. The data suggest that half of overweight people and one-third of obese people are “metabolically healthy.” That means that despite their excess pounds, many overweight and obese adults have healthy levels of “good” cholesterol, blood pressure, blood glucose and other risks for heart disease.
At the same time, about one out of four slim people — those who fall into the “healthy” weight range — actually have at least two cardiovascular risk factors typically associated with obesity, the study showed.
To be sure, being overweight or obese is linked with numerous health problems, and even in the most recent research, obese people were more likely to have two or more cardiovascular risk factors than slim people. But researchers say it is the proportion of overweight and obese people who are metabolically healthy that is so surprising.
“We use ‘overweight’ almost indiscriminately sometimes,” said MaryFran Sowers, a co-author of the study and professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan. “But there is lots of individual variation within that, and we need to be cognizant of that as we think about what our health messages should be.”
The data follow a report last fall from researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute showing that overweight people appear to have longer life expectancies than so-called normal weight adults.
But many people resist the notion that people who are overweight or obese can be healthy. Several prominent health researchers have criticized the findings from the C.D.C. researchers as misleading, noting that mortality statistics don’t reflect the poor quality of life and suffering obesity can cause. And on the Internet, various blog posters, including readers of the Times’s Well blog, have argued that the data are deceptive, masking the fact that far more overweight and obese people are at higher cardiovascular risk than thin people.
Part of the problem may be our skewed perception of what it means to be overweight. Typically, a person is judged to be of normal weight based on body mass index, or B.M.I., which measures weight relative to height. A normal B.M.I. ranges from 18.5 to 25. Once B.M.I. reaches 25, a person is viewed as overweight. Thirty or higher is considered obese.
“People get confused by the words and the mental image they get,” said Katherine Flegal, senior research scientist at the C.D.C.’s National Center for Health Statistics. “People may think, ‘How could it be that a person who is so huge wouldn’t have health problems?’ But people with B.M.I.’s of 25 are pretty unremarkable.”
Several studies from researchers at the Cooper Institute in Dallas have shown that fitness — determined by how a person performs on a treadmill — is a far better indicator of health than body mass index. In several studies, the researchers have shown that people who are fat but can still keep up on treadmill tests have much lower heart risk than people who are slim and unfit.
In December, a study in The Journal of the American Medical Association looked at death rates among 2,600 adults 60 and older over 12 years. Notably, death rates among the overweight, those with a B.M.I. of 25 to 30, were slightly lower than in normal weight adults. Death rates were highest among those with a B.M.I. of 35 or more.
But the most striking finding was that fitness level, regardless of body mass index, was the strongest predictor of mortality risk. Those with the lowest level of fitness, as measured on treadmill tests, were four times as likely to die during the 12-year study than those with the highest level of fitness. Even those who had just a minimal level of fitness had half the risk of dying compared with those who were least fit.
During the test, the treadmill moved at a brisk walking pace as the grade increased each minute. In the study, it didn’t take much to qualify as fit. For men, it meant staying on the treadmill at least 8 minutes; for women, 5.5 minutes. The people who fell below those levels, whether fat or thin, were at highest risk.
The results were adjusted to control for age, smoking and underlying heart problems and still showed that fitness, not weight, was most important in predicting mortality risk.
Stephen Blair, a co-author of the study and a professor at the Arnold School of Public Health at the University of South Carolina, said the lesson he took from the study was that instead of focusing only on weight loss, doctors should be talking to all patients about the value of physical activity, regardless of body size.
“Why is it such a stretch of the imagination,” he said, “to consider that someone overweight or obese might actually be healthy and fit?”
well@nytimes.com
Monday, August 18, 2008
Houston, TX No Smoking Ban In West U Bar (Note Single, Not Plural)
http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2008/08/smoking_ban_houston_west_u.php
No Smoking Ban In West U Bar (Note Single, Not Plural)
Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:20:25 PM
With the passing of Houston’s smoking ban last year, smokers in the Village area were driven to a single sanctuary, a bar that harkens back to a simpler time when frat boys were frat boys and everyone’s hair smelled like cigarettes after a good night out. Location is everything at Marquis II, a windowless watering hole near Bissonnet and Kirby that sits just inside the West University city limits.
And for the unfamiliar, here’s a quick list of things West U doesn’t have: more than one bar, cops that won’t pull you over at night if you’re black or driving a shitty car, and a smoking ban that extends past restaurants.
And it looks like things are going to say that way. The West University Examiner reported the City Council was considering revising its smoking ordinance to include bars, but City Manager Michael Ross tells Hair Balls that at Monday’s meeting it became clear no one really cares if patrons of Marquis II light up.
“Council did discuss it, and there was no interest in changing the ordinance. There is no further ban being considered that would affect bars,” Ross said.
(This may make the Marquis II the last bar inside the Loop to allow smoking, but we can't be sure.)
Marquis II’s bar manager, who goes only by Al, was present at the meeting and says keeping the smokers inside is in everyone’s best interest.
“We would have had to make a smoking area for our patrons. We have neighbors right up next to us in the back – I was more concerned with their privacy. I’d have my customers outside, so it would have been noisy till 2 a.m.,” he says.
Al attributes healthy business on Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays to the bar’s unique situation. (Two-dollar Long Island iced teas get all the credit for Tuesday’s crowds.)
“The bar business has pretty much seen a decline,” he says. “Once they took the smoking away, people pretty much only go out on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays now. They’ll head to Midtown, they’ll head to the Heights, the new bars. But we’ve been able to maintain a steady week, which I’ll take.”
So to any self-righteous pink-lungers in the Village scene: Take that faux-cough to the next town over, and let the smokers enjoy this rare break.
-- Blake Whitaker
No Smoking Ban In West U Bar (Note Single, Not Plural)
Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:20:25 PM
With the passing of Houston’s smoking ban last year, smokers in the Village area were driven to a single sanctuary, a bar that harkens back to a simpler time when frat boys were frat boys and everyone’s hair smelled like cigarettes after a good night out. Location is everything at Marquis II, a windowless watering hole near Bissonnet and Kirby that sits just inside the West University city limits.
And for the unfamiliar, here’s a quick list of things West U doesn’t have: more than one bar, cops that won’t pull you over at night if you’re black or driving a shitty car, and a smoking ban that extends past restaurants.
And it looks like things are going to say that way. The West University Examiner reported the City Council was considering revising its smoking ordinance to include bars, but City Manager Michael Ross tells Hair Balls that at Monday’s meeting it became clear no one really cares if patrons of Marquis II light up.
“Council did discuss it, and there was no interest in changing the ordinance. There is no further ban being considered that would affect bars,” Ross said.
(This may make the Marquis II the last bar inside the Loop to allow smoking, but we can't be sure.)
Marquis II’s bar manager, who goes only by Al, was present at the meeting and says keeping the smokers inside is in everyone’s best interest.
“We would have had to make a smoking area for our patrons. We have neighbors right up next to us in the back – I was more concerned with their privacy. I’d have my customers outside, so it would have been noisy till 2 a.m.,” he says.
Al attributes healthy business on Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays to the bar’s unique situation. (Two-dollar Long Island iced teas get all the credit for Tuesday’s crowds.)
“The bar business has pretty much seen a decline,” he says. “Once they took the smoking away, people pretty much only go out on Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays now. They’ll head to Midtown, they’ll head to the Heights, the new bars. But we’ve been able to maintain a steady week, which I’ll take.”
So to any self-righteous pink-lungers in the Village scene: Take that faux-cough to the next town over, and let the smokers enjoy this rare break.
-- Blake Whitaker
Jim Tiseth Cheater Slick Memorial Benefit
Greg- Could you post this flyer on your website. Cheater passed away...he was a member of the 4-on-the-floor band that volunteered their time and played for free at the "Bullseye's" fundraiser that Robert had to raise money for the attorney fees for "theater night".
http://presslord.com/cheat.pdf
Jim Tiseth
Cheater SlickMemorialBenefit
Jim Tiseth
Cheater Slick Memorial Benefit
Sunday, Aug. 24th 2:00pm-Close
at Minnesota Music Cafe
499 Payne Ave.
St. Paul MN
651 776-4699
http://www.minnesotamusiccafe.com/
Entertainment By;
Rocking Hollywoods
4 on the Floor
Chain Lightning
Cheater Slick Band reunion
Party Army Free Fallin
Pearl
Show
Me Yours reunion
Knights of Rock-n-Roll
Send donations to:
Cheater Memorial Fund
c/o Northview Bank
8132 Co. Hwy 61
Willow River Mn 55795
http://presslord.com/cheat.pdf
Jim Tiseth
Cheater SlickMemorialBenefit
Jim Tiseth
Cheater Slick Memorial Benefit
Sunday, Aug. 24th 2:00pm-Close
at Minnesota Music Cafe
499 Payne Ave.
St. Paul MN
651 776-4699
http://www.minnesotamusiccafe.com/
Entertainment By;
Rocking Hollywoods
4 on the Floor
Chain Lightning
Cheater Slick Band reunion
Party Army Free Fallin
Pearl
Show
Me Yours reunion
Knights of Rock-n-Roll
Send donations to:
Cheater Memorial Fund
c/o Northview Bank
8132 Co. Hwy 61
Willow River Mn 55795
Can We Post: That slippery slope......the fat people are next!
WA schools full of food 'junkies'
Article from: PerthNow
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24153041-2761,00.html
Paul Lampathakis, eduacation reporter
August 09, 2008 05:00pm
CHILDREN are defying a junk-food ban in school canteens by smuggling in fattening snacks and selling them to classmates.Frustrated teachers reveal they are powerless to stop many children who bring unhealthy treats from home in their bags. ``I've even seen them selling chocolates to their classmates at school. It's almost like they're dealing drugs,'' said a teacher from a prominent Perth southern suburbs public school. Education Minister Mark McGowan conceded he could not halt the junk-food flood, even though the Government stopped it from being sold in canteens last year. ``What students bring to school in their lunchboxes is not covered by the canteen policy,'' he said. ``And we can't police what foods children bring to school. If teachers notice a particular child selling junk food on the side, I encourage them to alert the school principal. ``We as a Government can only do so much. It is important parents keep a close eye on their child or children to make sure they are doing the right thing.'' Obesity was a serious issue, which was why the Carpenter Government required all public school canteens or food services to have healthy menus, Mr McGowan said. A healthy canteen menu, combined with the required two hours of exercise a week for Years One to 10, were great initiatives. ``But parents also need to come on board in the fight against obesity. This is not the sole responsibility of the Government,'' he said. Rob Fry, president of peak parent group the WA Council of State School Organisations, said parents should realise they were ``killing their kids'' with bad food. They should pack healthy lunches, or pre-pay for canteen meals, so children had no cash for junk. WA State School Teachers Union general secretary David Kelly said teachers could contact parents if they were concerned about certain students. But parents and schools had to work together to address obesity. The southern suburbs teacher said: ``When they banned junk food from canteens it came back into school with a vengeance. They just started bringing their own from home, like chips and chocolates. ``I'd love to be able to confiscate it. But we're not allowed to take food off kids because they can just say `mum gave me this for lunch'.'' Another southern suburbs teacher said: ``Most teachers I know are all for the ban. But there's no use having a ban if you can't stop them from bringing it to school. ``Some kids are selling it to their mates, which would be funny if our kids weren't so fat. ``But you can't really say anything to your students these days. They swear at us in the classroom and get away with it, so this would be hard to stop.'' Another teacher said healthy canteen food had great potential to help children who weren't getting good food at home and it was a pity the situation had deteriorated to this. Canteens have a ``traffic light'' system banning ``red'' items such as soft drinks, confectionery, deep-fried foods, chips, chocolate coated ice-creams and cakes.
Article from: PerthNow
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24153041-2761,00.html
Paul Lampathakis, eduacation reporter
August 09, 2008 05:00pm
CHILDREN are defying a junk-food ban in school canteens by smuggling in fattening snacks and selling them to classmates.Frustrated teachers reveal they are powerless to stop many children who bring unhealthy treats from home in their bags. ``I've even seen them selling chocolates to their classmates at school. It's almost like they're dealing drugs,'' said a teacher from a prominent Perth southern suburbs public school. Education Minister Mark McGowan conceded he could not halt the junk-food flood, even though the Government stopped it from being sold in canteens last year. ``What students bring to school in their lunchboxes is not covered by the canteen policy,'' he said. ``And we can't police what foods children bring to school. If teachers notice a particular child selling junk food on the side, I encourage them to alert the school principal. ``We as a Government can only do so much. It is important parents keep a close eye on their child or children to make sure they are doing the right thing.'' Obesity was a serious issue, which was why the Carpenter Government required all public school canteens or food services to have healthy menus, Mr McGowan said. A healthy canteen menu, combined with the required two hours of exercise a week for Years One to 10, were great initiatives. ``But parents also need to come on board in the fight against obesity. This is not the sole responsibility of the Government,'' he said. Rob Fry, president of peak parent group the WA Council of State School Organisations, said parents should realise they were ``killing their kids'' with bad food. They should pack healthy lunches, or pre-pay for canteen meals, so children had no cash for junk. WA State School Teachers Union general secretary David Kelly said teachers could contact parents if they were concerned about certain students. But parents and schools had to work together to address obesity. The southern suburbs teacher said: ``When they banned junk food from canteens it came back into school with a vengeance. They just started bringing their own from home, like chips and chocolates. ``I'd love to be able to confiscate it. But we're not allowed to take food off kids because they can just say `mum gave me this for lunch'.'' Another southern suburbs teacher said: ``Most teachers I know are all for the ban. But there's no use having a ban if you can't stop them from bringing it to school. ``Some kids are selling it to their mates, which would be funny if our kids weren't so fat. ``But you can't really say anything to your students these days. They swear at us in the classroom and get away with it, so this would be hard to stop.'' Another teacher said healthy canteen food had great potential to help children who weren't getting good food at home and it was a pity the situation had deteriorated to this. Canteens have a ``traffic light'' system banning ``red'' items such as soft drinks, confectionery, deep-fried foods, chips, chocolate coated ice-creams and cakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)