20 million Brits physically inactive claims British Heart Foundation survey

brooksby wrote:

guyrwood wrote:

... Britons prefer sitting on the couch stuffing their faces in front of X-Factor to getting off their lardy arses and doing some exercise. ...

I'm not sure that it is quite that simple

Example: I'm married with two children - I work during the week, standard office hours, and my wife works at the weekends (craft fairs, sometimes one day, sometimes both).  I cycle to work, so maybe fifteen to twenty miles per day (depending on whether I take the "scenic route").  But if I didn't cycle to work, I really couldn't fit any genuine exercise into any part of my weekdays or my weekends.

That's just an excuse. Most countries in the OECD work more hours than the UK, yet few are as fat.

Jackson wrote:

brooksby wrote:

guyrwood wrote:

... Britons prefer sitting on the couch stuffing their faces in front of X-Factor to getting off their lardy arses and doing some exercise. ...

I'm not sure that it is quite that simple

Example: I'm married with two children - I work during the week, standard office hours, and my wife works at the weekends (craft fairs, sometimes one day, sometimes both).  I cycle to work, so maybe fifteen to twenty miles per day (depending on whether I take the "scenic route").  But if I didn't cycle to work, I really couldn't fit any genuine exercise into any part of my weekdays or my weekends.

That's just an excuse. Most countries in the OECD work more hours than the UK, yet few are as fat.

 

"An excuse"? Really? I get up, bathe, cycle to work, work, cycle home, spend an hour or so socialising with my kids, cook myself an evening meal because everyone else ate an hour ago, spend another hour socialising with my wife, then go to bed: then, repeat.

Please do explain how not having time or money is just me making excuses.

brooksby wrote:

"An excuse"? Really? I get up, bathe, cycle to work, work, cycle home, spend an hour or so socialising with my kids, cook myself an evening meal because everyone else ate an hour ago, spend another hour socialising with my wife, then go to bed: then, repeat.

Please do explain how not having time or money is just me making excuses.

What's the problem? You said you ride to work. I'm talking about the inactive.

Jackson wrote:

brooksby wrote:

guyrwood wrote:

... Britons prefer sitting on the couch stuffing their faces in front of X-Factor to getting off their lardy arses and doing some exercise. ...

I'm not sure that it is quite that simple

Example: I'm married with two children - I work during the week, standard office hours, and my wife works at the weekends (craft fairs, sometimes one day, sometimes both).  I cycle to work, so maybe fifteen to twenty miles per day (depending on whether I take the "scenic route").  But if I didn't cycle to work, I really couldn't fit any genuine exercise into any part of my weekdays or my weekends.

That's just an excuse. Most countries in the OECD work more hours than the UK, yet few are as fat.

 

I really don't have any strong view either-way about this particular argument, but I honestly don't think those figures make your case. There are so many complications - e.g. the nature of the work (how many of those Icelandic working hours occur on board fishing trawlers doing calorie-burning labour?). How are the working hours distributed among the population? How much time is spent commuting? What's the typical diet?

Interesting though that Mexicans top the table for hours spent at work, and they are also at the top of the obesity tables as well. Hungary and Ireland are also up there with us in the obesity stakes and the long-hours stakes.

So I'm not sure that table doesn't, contrary to your implication, in fact suggest there _is_ a link between long-working hours and obesity. It would take some statistical analysis to say, though, and you'd have to consider diet and the nature of the jobs people do.

Edit - just noticed that NZ and the US are also fatter than us and work longer hours than us.

And in any case the table is rendered meaningless if it excludes the unemployed (wiki doesn't say). Which would mean countries with high unemployment (like Spain) will appear as having higher hours than countries with lower unemployment but high levels of part-time employment (like the UK). Most sources say full time workers in the UK work longer hours than anywhere in Europe - but of course we have lots of part-time workers these days.

The evidence is that those who work long hours in sedentary jobs have much worse cardio-vascular health than those who don't (thinking of taxi-drivers and lorry-drivers, here).

Attempting to 'educate' people to get more exercise, or trying to shame them into doing it, is not going to work (it also risks giving the false impression that all ill-health is somehow self-inflicted, when a significant proportion of ailments just happen to people 'for unknown reasons').

What is needed are structural changes to change the context in which people make decisions about exercise. Making active travel much more attractive is a big part of that, probably even more so in countries where workers work long hours.

Jackson wrote:

brooksby wrote:

guyrwood wrote:

... Britons prefer sitting on the couch stuffing their faces in front of X-Factor to getting off their lardy arses and doing some exercise. ...

I'm not sure that it is quite that simple

Example: I'm married with two children - I work during the week, standard office hours, and my wife works at the weekends (craft fairs, sometimes one day, sometimes both).  I cycle to work, so maybe fifteen to twenty miles per day (depending on whether I take the "scenic route").  But if I didn't cycle to work, I really couldn't fit any genuine exercise into any part of my weekdays or my weekends.

That's just an excuse. Most countries in the OECD work more hours than the UK, yet few are as fat.

 

I am in a similar situation to brooksby and I can tell you that it's not an excuse and if I hadn't changed jobs to a commutable distance by bike (not an option for many) I still wouldn't have the time to exercise most days.
It's insensitive and judgemental statements like yours that put people off even trying! How about showing a little understanding and empathy?

ClubSmed wrote:

Jackson wrote:

brooksby wrote:

guyrwood wrote:

... Britons prefer sitting on the couch stuffing their faces in front of X-Factor to getting off their lardy arses and doing some exercise. ...

I'm not sure that it is quite that simple

Example: I'm married with two children - I work during the week, standard office hours, and my wife works at the weekends (craft fairs, sometimes one day, sometimes both).  I cycle to work, so maybe fifteen to twenty miles per day (depending on whether I take the "scenic route").  But if I didn't cycle to work, I really couldn't fit any genuine exercise into any part of my weekdays or my weekends.

That's just an excuse. Most countries in the OECD work more hours than the UK, yet few are as fat.

 

I am in a similar situation to brooksby and I can tell you that it's not an excuse and if I hadn't changed jobs to a commutable distance by bike (not an option for many) I still wouldn't have the time to exercise most days.
It's insensitive and judgemental statements like yours that put people off even trying! How about showing a little understanding and empathy?

It isn't an excuse - it's the culture - but I get Jackson's point...

Very few people have the leisure time to make up the necessary amounts of exercise - and if they do, it's a phase (how many gym bunnies or club racers do you know who've dropped or seriously reduced their hobby once they've got married or had kids?).

There's a post up there about the weather. While it'd be nice if we had Californian weather, there is also a post with a link to an article about the Netherlands. Virtually the same weather. But a very different culture...

So what came first? Their refusal to base travel and urban planning around the car, or an 'obsession' with exercise? (clue: in the 50s and 60s, their planners and citizens seemed to be heading down the same route to moton slavery as us).

This isn't something you can 'nudge' - it needs a big change to get people out on bikes. The Dutch had Stop de Kindermoord; we get our knickers in a knot about terrorists killing the same numbers of people as wasps and bees (5 per year), yet see 100+ cyclists dying per year as road collateral.

Infrastructure, outside London, takes an age, and is generally shit. I think some sort of strict liability, while a blunt instrument, is the single biggest, quickest way for the UK to redress the balance in favour of active travel.

tl;dr: strict liability, please.