Slashdot Mirror
Eat Right, Earn an iPod
TheMster writes "The BBC is reporting on the UK government's latest policy to tackle obesity - through offering iPods and XBoxes to pupils. The lucky lads and lasses of 29 Glasgow secondary schools will be part of the pioneering scheme, which utilises the newly introduced swipe-card canteens to create a system of the 'better you eat, the bigger the treat'."
At least they won't turn as fat as quickly.
Say the school cuts out a 200 calorie pepsi out of the diet, and saves another 300 calories by baking the chicken instead of frying it, and offering a salad instead of fries. That is 500 calories, a pound of fat a week.
Toss in some vigerous PE classes, and that will burn another pound of fat a week.
Under those conditions, the kid could eat a big mac and suck down a milkshake, and he will still have a chance of not balloning to 300 pounds.
Plus, if the school encourages extra curricular activites, anything, the kid will have more of a chance to burn calories. Join track or basketball or even band. March around for an hour, or stand up for an hour. It is better than sitting in front of a TV with a bag of Freto's and a six pack of Old Style.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Being a Glaswegien myself and having read all about this in our local press I think it's a truly brilliant idea. For those of you who are unaware of the reasons behind this, Glasgow and most of the west of Scotland is commonly called the "sick man of Europe" due to the high amount of fatty and junk foods we consume. By junk food I'm not talking about McDonalds, BK and their ilk but in fact such delicacies as deep fried Mars Bars and friend pakora suppers.
This scheme is designed to encourage Glasgow's school children to start eating healthier and to raise the average life expectancy of Glaswegiens which is currently the worst in the UK at 72.9 years, compared to the highest of 82.4 years.
In short, you might not like your taxes going towards incentives for Glasgow's kids to eat healthier but then again I'm sure many other citizens don't like their taxes going towards services that you use and they have no use for. Guess it's a two-way street, hmm?
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
"why should the government have to use the possibility of an iPod in order for them to eat healthy, or, better yet, why should the government even be involved in health issues such as obesity"
Because they have the power to do something.
That's what separates liberals and liberatarians. Liberals believe that the government has a responsibility to serve the public, and that it should do so by funding programs that are effective.
Things like standardized healthcare, public roads, public schools, police services, fire departments, and many other government services are both necessary and effective ways of increasing the standard of living.
We're not hearless bastards. We shouldn't act like it for some foolish ideological belief in what government "should" do.
Next time you turn on the lights, you can be damned glad that the government bothered to subsidize the deployment of the power grid that makes them work. The next time you want to drive to the store, you can be damned glad that the government bothered to build roads. And the next time you get in an accident, you can be damned glad that the government will ensure that you get the healthcare that you need.
Unless, of course, you live in the United States. In which case, I hope you have good health insurance.
No, the original poster didn't use it to sound 'lighter' than 112lbs, the stone has been the colloquial way of talking about a person's weight in Britain probably for centuries.
Doctors in Britain (or anyone formally weighing you) will use kilograms, but in convesation, no one talks about kilos or lbs for people's weights, it's always stones. (Bloody hell, look at that fat bastard, he must weigh at least 25 stone! But him over there is so skinny he can only weigh 8 stone soaking wet)
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
In this particular case, if I had a choice, my taxpayer dollars should go toward the replacement of the school's unhealthy food items with healthy food. No bribes necessary; the kids would eat better. Besides, there are plenty of healthy foods; one can snack on fruits instead of chocolate candy bars, for example.
This is already happening - in no small part due to a campaign by a celebrity chef, Jamie Oliver who basically started revamping some school's menus as an experiment.
The biggest problem he encountered is the kids are used to their unhealthy foods, and won't even try the healthy options - they just bring in snacks and junk food. Incentives are one way to get them to switch.
As for the Government getting involved; the nation's health has a direct impact on productivity. In the UK, we also have a nationalised health care scheme, the NHS, because we rather like the idea of everybody getting healthcare, not just the wealthy. Obesity is shaping up to be one of the biggest killers with heart disease. Healthier kids means healthier adults. Healthier adults mean better quality of life, and longer life, and less expense for the NHS.
The purpose of government is to improve the life of a country's citizens, and the health of those citizens is a big chunk of it. It's certainly no worse than farming the issue out to corporations to make profit on.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.