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'."
Hmm, what happens when kids buy healthy food from the cafeteria, but also eat unhealthy snacks from home?
This comment was thought up very late at night and does not necessarily reflect my views at a more reasonable hour.
but I would think this scheme would be exploited mercilessly by kids who simply brought their candy bars in from home, ordered the "good" food and threw half of it away.
If I can figure out that kind of scheme, a kid surely can.
D
So they can eat right, and then sit on their asses when they get their new Xbox. That's not self-defeating at all.
Now if it was an XBox wired so it only got power from an exercise bike...that'd be genius!
The cake is a pie
With a system based on incentive, the kids are going to have to buy certain foods in order to earn a nice toy. This can a child's eating habits on the basis of one or two meals a day, but that does nothing to preven them from filling up on junk at other times. Many overweight people who diet fail for this reason: they eat healthy foods IN ADDITION to extra junk on the side.
Eating healthy has lots of incentives that aren't obvious. People have a hard time realizing some key benefits of eating right, such as better health, more energy, and a thinner body, which is why these incentives tend not to work.
Substituting those for something like an iPod or XBox could give kids more drive, but only to earn the prize; the real benefits may only come as side effects, if at all.
We can only hope that such a program will help kids to develop a taste for healthy foods. I know from personal experience that eating something you find unappealing enough times will not only build tolerance, but actually lead to preference if done enough.
"The BBC is reporting on the UK government's latest policy to tackle obesity - through offering iPods and XBoxes to pupils."
XBoxes? To tackle obesity? What else? A new TV set? Why not offer bikes and musical instruments instead of XBoxes and iPods? This is the most stupid idea I have ever heard.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
How about eliminating unhealthy foods from schools? Sure, the kids can get it elsewhere but why spend a load of money (taxpayers money) on a scheme that has so many obvious holes it's unlikely to DO anything?
Silly rabbit
I hope they don't give out iPod photo for eating only grains and vegetables, because then many children will eat diet unhealthy for them just to get a shiny toy. Low carb diet is over-hyped, but it sure worked for some people. And if you are an athlete or have an iron deficiency, you don't want to skip red meat. I would never be in reasonable shape or have a good energy level if I followed the stupid food pyramid. Better to reward exercise and knowledge of health issues rather than specific food.
Is there a DDR game for XBox? If so, that'll tackle the fat! They should make it a bundle!
The rise of obesity is a societal issue and it is best dealt with by society, not government.
When society fails, what happens then?
Libertarians never seem to think any farther ahead then the CEO looking to see whether axing the research department this quarter will give enough of a boost on the financial report to dump his stock next quarter and run.
Government exists because society is not self-sustaining.
Okay this is misleading. The idea is NOT to make them lose weight, it's to get them to EAT BETTER. The idea is this way kids will at least try fruit and other healthy options and hopefully stick with it. Most news channels covering it today had kids saying they liked fruit and would stick with it.
So this isn't "go on a diet you fat fucks" it's "try this, it's nice".
I like muppets.
This is Glasgow. The parts of it they are talking about are the most deprived regions in Scotland and probably rank amongst the most deprived regions outside the Third World. Light beer won't work as the dobbers are already on 15% "tonic wine" and have impregnated someone by the time they're sixteen.
This is just the first step. Giving kids status symbols for not being fat-guzzling, booze-swilling louts will do more for the crime figures and life expectancy than any amount of "zero tolerance".
1) Just get rid of all junk food in school canteens.
2) Only deal with food distributors that embrace healthy eating.
3) Get rid of soft drink vending machines - period. (replace with water & fruit juice)
You said: " But back to fat kids. Why do they get fat? Is PE so value-less that the bright kids no longer want to take it. Is PE a time when 50 kids sit around for 10 minutes waiting for the teacher to set up the game, play for 15 minutes, then get 10 minues to go back and change?"
I say:
Kids hate PE for a number of reasons, but many kids in PE are teased and bullied to death and thats why they want out of Phys-Ed in the first place. You got to keep the culture of fucked up and dominant asshole kids in the first place from from picking on those and shunning those less athletically inclined then they are.
So let me get this straight:
You had a shot with the system, and you said screw it.
You *think* you are smart, yet you don't want to learn.
So why are you complaing? You never even gave it much of a chance.
Just remember, a lazy bastard who has a +160IQ is still a lazy bastard who will never amount to anything.
Sig
As someone who was abused as a child by a father who consistantly thought I was not giving my all, I can tell you that anyone in any public school who strikes my child with anything on any part of their body for any reason other than he got violent first, will have the distinct pleasure of me doing it back to them in front of a large group of students.
That attitude belongs in the dark ages. If a person doesn't want to give their all, they shouldn't have to. Society exists for the freedom of its people, not vice versa.
You might be shocked when I say this, but I actually have no problem with basic health care, public roads (other than they can use some repair, widening, and better planning), public schools (even though it is long overdue for a dramatic reform), police and fire protection, and some other government services. That's when "state's rights" and the idea of state/county/city government steps in. When we Libertarians speak of "big government," we speak of the federal government providing every service under the sun. If we had a Libertarian-controlled congress and presidency, some of the federal programs will be removed, but the states will decide whether to fill in the void with state/county/city government programs or not. (Now, a Libertarian as a state governor would take a different approach since s/he can't cut any federal programs, but can start making the state adopt some of the society-related Libertarian issues; the economic aspects of Libertarianism are more geared toward the federal government, even though state governments can use a bit of financial conservatism these days).
You stated that the government should be involved in health issues because "they have the power to do something." However, power can always corrupt. For example, we don't mind the government requiring public schools to only give out healthy foods for meals. Their schools = their rules. However, I have a problem when the government tries to act like my parents. For example, I would be upset if the government told me that I can only have so much food per day, and that it was against the law to eat more than the legal limit of "junk food" per day. All of these restrictions on my liberties because they claim that "stopping you from eating 'too much' would result in saving lives like yours."
I personally believe that the government should just let people be free, and stay out of people's private lives. If I want to eat so much that I'm 600 pounds and close to death, well then, the government should let me. I just don't expect the government to pay for my medical bills, and I expect to be fully responsible for my own actions. That's why I'm a Libertarian.
In the case of this iPod for eating right thing, I still believe that since the government controls the schools, the government should change the schools' meals to healthy choices. They don't need to attach iPods and XBoxes in order to convince people to pass on chocolate bars and switch to fruit; rather, the schools should stop serving junk food and start serving healthy meals. In fact, as I think about it, this argument isn't about libertarianism vs. [insert other political ideology here]; that's irrelevant now. This is about attaching incentives in order to get kids to eat healthy foods versus the school just offering only healthy foods in the first place.
Thanks for making me think.
Something to keep in mind is that *if* this program works, the cost of the iPod/XBox will easily be offset by the health benefits. And I'm not talking about the "Yay, people are healthier!" type of health benefits. I'm talking about the "Yay, people are healthier and thus my insurance costs are lower and the government has to spend less of my tax money on keeping our overweight population alive" type of health benefits. I agree that schools should provide healthier foods, but that won't always be enough. An active incentive like this program would have certainly gotten me to eat healthier as a kid. Forcing me to eat healthy food would probably just have resulted in me eating unhealthy food later on. However, making it *my choice* to eat healthy teaches me something that I can continue to do throughout life. Of course, multiple approaches to the problem is probably the best way to go.
Government exists to manage society, without government society would collapse. Of course you are probably in the US where you don't actually give a damn about the others in society, hence the lack of a national health care system, who cares if 10,000 people a year die due to lack of insurance, so long as that damn government is kept out of our lives and doesn't provide cover for everyone, 10k people is a small price to pay.
the point of the story is you are a complete psychopath who needs serious help, spitting on him? threatening to burn his house down? This is the problem with society that leads to the bullying in the first place, headcases like you. he bullied you, fine beat the shite out of him once, but the spitting and threats? sounds like you need to use your money on psychiatrists and prozac.
This is true. Back in my middle school days, almost everyone hated P.E. Except for those who were already in sports like basketball and whatever. This is why we need to think up funner ways to exercise than just making the kids run around the track or college style wrestle until they fall over. I mean, is it that hard to see that the kids aren't having any fun?
Sometimes I comment just to hear myself typing.