![]() |
exhalations |
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Exercising to fight childhood obesity
Most of the efforts to reduce childhood obesity have focused on reducing calorie intake. A new study indicates that increasing exercise is a better solution: VIGOROUS PHYSICAL ACTIVITY VS CUTTING ENERGY INTAKE In a recent letter to the Physical Activity and Public Health On-Line Network, Professor Bernard Gutin, of the University of North Carolina wrote, "Recent evidence suggests that efforts to prevent child obesity are more likely to succeed if they emphasize vigorous physical activity rather than restriction of energy intake. The key principles are: (1) studies of physical activity interventions should use as an outcome measure some index of fatness rather than weight; (2) restriction of energy intake is contrary to the biologic needs of growing children; and (3) vigorous exercise is more effective than moderate physical activity. "Because of the time delay between the emergence of new evidence and its actual application, it will take years before we see publications of studies based on these ideas. In the meanwhile, I would be interested in hearing from people who are formulating or implementing interventions that focus on vigorous physical activity rather than restriction of energy intake." Contact: *See "Child Obesity Can Be Reduced With Vigorous Activity Rather Than Restriction of Energy Intake," Obesity (2008) 16 10, 2193D2196. Labels: childhood obesity (0) comments Sunday, August 16, 2009
Dogfish Head Alehouse in Greenbriar
![]() ![]() Labels: dogfish head, greenbriar (0) comments Tuesday, August 11, 2009
(0) comments Monday, August 03, 2009
Kottke's 50 essential films post
Kottke's post on Roger Ebert's comments on the top 10 of The Spectator's top 50 list. Labels: top 50 films (0) comments
Cash for clunkers is a bad idea
Initially it sounded good; get older, more polluting and less fuel efficient cars off the road and replace them with more fuel efficient cars. However, there is a downside. Here are a few of the points made by Discovering Urbanism's post C.A.R.S. will hurt the environment: 1. There will be more cars on the road. 2. Shifts in driving behavior compensate for fuel efficiency gains. 3. Manufacturing new cars adds more embodied energy. 4. Alternative modes of transportation will be discouraged. 5. The opportunity cost of $3 Billion means good programs are not happening. The $2 Billion that was authorized yesterday by Congress for the extension of C.A.R.S is being taken from money allocated in last year's stimulus bill for renewable energy programs. By instituting the C.A.R.S program, the federal government is opting to not institute programs that may actually reduce carbon output. Labels: cash for clunkers (0) comments |