Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apps For Healthy Kids — Where PC Meets PCs

Posted by timothy on from the what's-the-rda-on-sanctimony? dept.

theodp writes "Put the Grand Theft Auto, Halo, and Madden away, kids! Over at Apps for Healthy Kids, First Lady Michelle Obama has a whole new slate of games for you to play with! Voting on entries in the White House-backed game development competition has begun, and you'll find exciting titles like Balanced Meal (6 votes), Blubber Blaster (9 votes), Calorie Quest (10 votes), and Count Peas (7 votes) — and that's just for starters."

50 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Surely the healthiest option by Finallyjoined!!! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would be to not let "Kids" near a PC.

    --
    If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
    1. Re:Surely the healthiest option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While you're at it, be sure to slap books out of their hands.

      Anyhow, I'm just curious. Has anyone run the numbers on increasing kid-lard versus decreasing safe roaming distance around the home?

      (Disclaimers: I read books, and grew up in an city-sized 60s suburb that was entirely safe to let kids roam.)

    2. Re:Surely the healthiest option by BlkRb0t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not possible in the current scenario, PC's are everywhere and kids are going to see them and be curious about them. It's better that you teach them how to use it properly than making it a restriction. If you don't let them near one then they are going to seek it out from outside which maybe worse than what you intended to do.

    3. Re:Surely the healthiest option by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, when it comes to killing children's intrest I think the whitehouse is using much more effective techniques than your suggested violence. I mean these apps sound about as tasty as brussels' sprouts with brown rice.

      You can keep children away from books by forcing them to read moby dick just as easily. More effective than the death penalty they use in Iran, in my opinion.

    4. Re:Surely the healthiest option by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As far as road safety goes, where I am in the UK, it's far safer than it was in the 1960s. Quite the opposite of parents perception:
      http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1208

      It seems to me that one of the drivers of increased safety has been deliberate raising of the public's awareness. Increased awareness creates a perception of things getting worse, whilst actually causing things to get better.

      I would imagine research into child abduction, abuse and murder would also produce results contrary to expectation.

      I have no kids, but if I did, I'd give them as much freedom to roam as I had when I was a child. I certainly wouldn't be driving them everywhere.

    5. Re:Surely the healthiest option by dogsbreath · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hmmm, I grew up in the 50s and we roamed the neighborhood in relative safety, but there were also lots of parents around. Two income families were not the norm. My wife or I would take our kids (now teens) to the playground and we would be the only parents in the area.

      There have been a number of significant changes in the way people spend their time and how they interact in the last 50 years. Entertainment content has changed as well. It is simplistic (but fun!!) to blame one thing or another for obesity and violence.

      So here's my 2c: Up to grade 5 or 6, turn off the TV and limit computer time. Go outside and play with your kids. Talk WITH them for a significant part of every day, even if you have something more important to do.

      Especially limit exposure to shows/games that use a lot of sarcasm or display/infer violence. Your kid isn't going to be a serial killer because they play violent games but they do model what they see and if you want them to learn how to interact successfully with others then make sure they see / hear / live in way that is what you consider healthy.

    6. Re:Surely the healthiest option by nu1x · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Especially limit exposure to shows/games that use a lot of sarcasm or display/infer violence. Your kid isn't going to be a serial killer because they play violent games but they do model what they see and if you want them to learn how to interact successfully with others then make sure they see / hear / live in way that is what you consider healthy.

      Not really, regarding modeling. Many (most ?) kids are capable of differentiating between modeling the internal vs. the external world, as in, they can take all the sarcasm, blood and gore, and still understand the "abstraction" part behind it. I spent a lot of time around certain kids growing up, and while they were certainly above the norm intellectually, by the age of about 12, every abstract thing you throw at them they can take just dandy.

      What is much more dangerous, is not having the valve for gore and brutality - you may think it strange, but it is necessary. I've seen kids ruined by over-protective parents. In other words, I've noticed that true demons among kids are those who have not noticed pain and suffering in the world, and esp. those who have not felt pain and personal loss - not saying that you should traumatize your kids, far from it - what I am getting at is that kids need to go outside, for example, take a camping trip - and not experience comfort for once - but the mud, the hunger and hardship - these are the things that make kids appreciate it in others and become more helpful.

      Also, boys (maybe I am coming off as sexist here, whatever) tend to naturally seek out sources of pain in real life while playing. But it is healthy - broad spectrum of experience defines us as persons.

      Not sheltering them or making them "model" some behaviour on rote level, but rather, leading them to understand root causes and relationships of this world, is a better approach.

      World-proof your kids.

      --
      I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
    7. Re:Surely the healthiest option by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Surely the healthiest option Would be to not let "Kids" near a PC.

      1) Please stop putting the first part of your sentence in the subject line without replicating it in your comment. It's bad form in any medium.

      2) Yes, surely it will be healthy to keep children ignorant of computers so they can grow up disadvantaged unlike an acquaintance's two year old who is plugging and unplugging USB devices (and not just for fun, but when necessary) and is able to start and use programs. What a brilliant idea in education you have stumbled upon!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Surely the healthiest option by Chowderbags · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Talk WITH them for a significant part of every day, even if you have something more important to do.

      They're your kids. Raising them is the most important thing you have to do.

    9. Re:Surely the healthiest option by Stormwatch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That rise was all because of the nonsensical "war on (some) drugs".

      --
      Circumcision is child abuse.
    10. Re:Surely the healthiest option by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd like add a bit to your last paragraph. I suggest people proactively expose children to people who are problem solving in a polite and respectful way. They need to be exposed to people actually trying to find win-win situations, as opposed to win-lose situation. They definitely need to avoid the lose-lose situations. I think that most people don't really know how to get the win-win situation or how to really co-operate in a collaborative way. It's not just a matter or attitude either.

      --
      testing out my trending skills
    11. Re:Surely the healthiest option by dogsbreath · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Spot on, Eugene. Absolutely right.

      You don't have to make up artificial situations: just make sure you carry the right attitude and philosophy in all your dealings. Kids watch what you do and learn from it. They don't have to be force fed healthy behaviour; they need to live in a healthy atmosphere.

      Cheers

    12. Re:Surely the healthiest option by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even though I wasn't around in the 50's, the world that my parents describe growing up in was a much safer place.

      I was around in the '50s (born in 1952), and I assure you the world is far safer today. Take automobiles -- the cars back then had drum brakes, rather than antilock disk brakes. There were no seat belts, let alone air bags. The autos' dashes were steel, the cars had no crumple zones.

      There were no bicycle helmets; a kid that lived around the block from me died froim a head injury after wrecking his bicycle.

      The media is to blame, making it LOOK like it was safer. From the newspapers you'd think there's a child molester on every street corner waiting for some unwary parent to tke his/her eyes of the child, but the fact is most molestations are from family members, friends, or clergy. It's just that they were hushed up back then; a family around the block from me in the late 50s/early 60s had two children that were molested by their own fathers.

      The same goes for child abductions. In this case there are more, but again, the reason is that there were few divorces compared to today. Most abductions are the child's own parent who loses custody kidnapping the kid; there is virtually no chance of your child being abducted by a stranger.

      There were criminals, but society didn't just give them a slap on the wrist when they were found.

      Absolute bullshit. Penalties have gotten more and more harsh as time has gone by. There were no "three strikes laws" or sex offender registries back then.

      As you have pointed out, there was always somebody there who knew who should and should not be around.

      Nope. Incorrect, wrong. We'd get on our bicycles and be gone all day. A dozen of us would play baseball in the vacant field all afternoon without being bothered or hassled by a single adult, and IMO it was good for us.

      Another factor that I think is important and have seen take a sharp decline even in my lifetime is the general morality.

      What appears to be a decline in morality is actually a decline in hypocracy. Now as then, most people were good, honest folks, but there have always been thieves, adulterors, and the like. The difference is that the antisocial thieves who ran corporations were a bit more discrete in their antisocial theivery. Now they revel in it and rub our noses in it, and it's seen as normal.

      These days, I would be more concerned of the other children and the influences of society than the actual criminals.

      That hasn't changed a bit. There were always bad parents with bad kids, although with most kids now being raised by babysitters and in child care centers, there are more bad kids, because they're not getting the love they need.

      Another big factor is that spanking is now seen as abuse. Today's spoiled brats could use a few good swats.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
  2. Re:Somebody tell 4chan! by neumayr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm sure they've already got their own plans..
    But honestly, there is no real danger. What kid would voluntarily play games with such titles, games designed not for fun, but for indoctrination?

    --
    Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
  3. Just feed them less by nten · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The whole "get out and play" thing is backwards according to this study:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100707212127.htm

    Its results would indicate that simply feeding children less will make them less fat regardless of activity level. The lower weight makes them more active. This is consistent with how I finally got the weight of and kept it off (calorie counting while sitting in front of a monitor all day), and its really quite intuitive.

    May I be the first to say.... Thermodynamics *works* bitches!

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
    1. Re:Just feed them less by AigariusDebian · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is a certain problem with 'get out and play' if your outside is a ghetto ridden with gangs, drug dealers and gun violence. Better to stay inside then.

    2. Re:Just feed them less by somersault · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, eat less* to lose weight.

      Being lighter makes you feel good on its own as basic things like getting out of a chair and climbing stairs become easier - but getting some form of regular exercise (even just going for a 30 minute walk every couple of days) will make you feel even better.

      I don't think there's anything wrong with gyms as long as you're not using them as an excuse to eat crap. I actually started going to the gym because I wanted to put on weight after losing 20lbs through trying various methods of eating and regular walking. I now eat a low GI diet, not just for weight control but because it helps keep my mood stable when I'm not going through sugar rushes and crashes all the time.

      *eat less shit anyways - you can keep eating the same volume if you just eat less calorific foods. sugar+fat in the same meal is bound to pile on the pounds.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:Just feed them less by FourthAge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Backwards? But it isn't just about the exercise. It's also about social skills. Keep them "safely" indoors all day and, well, you know what happens... you'll have met kids like this in forums and online games. They are not pleasant to be with; they are rude, selfish people, and it's because they are poorly socialised. Some of them are technically adults - they are the saddest examples. We can get used to ignoring the flames, the trolls and the gamer rage on the Internet, but imagine how such people cope in the real world. "Not very well" is the answer.

      --
      The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
    4. Re:Just feed them less by fluffy99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it can be as simple as weigh change = calories in - calories burned. The complications are that the type of foods and eating habits make a difference and that cutting back on calories alone can't affect significant weight loss. A starvation diet going below 1200 calories a day with zero exercise (which usually backfire, btw) can only drop 1 lb of weigh a week. The best best is diet improvment and getting mild to moderate exercise.

      Besides, there is more to health than simply weigh. Percent fat and cardio health are just as important. Dieting your way to a skinny body doesn't imply that you have either. You might just be an out of shape, weak hearted thin person. That 200-lb guy that runs ironman will probably outlive you.

      I agree on the commercialization of weight loss. Too many diet products on the shelves when the answer is get off the f-ing couch, do a bit of exercise, and stop buying crap food that puts on lbs like Doritos, Taco Bell, McDonalds.

    5. Re:Just feed them less by fluffy99 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Diets" don't work. In particular crash diets that just send your body into starvation/storage mode leaving with zero energy. Increase the quality of your food (no pre-prepared food and stop eating out) and pay attention to the calorie totals. Eating less more often and earlier in the day helps too. The magic ingredient is to start getting some exercise to increase your metabolism and burn more calories. If you're well over 200lbs, you can burn up to 200 calories fast walking a mile. Don't expect huge changes in weight. A slow steady and _lasting_ improvement takes time.

    6. Re:Just feed them less by plastbox · · Score: 2, Informative

      As Gary Taubes, author of "Good Calories, Bad Calories" says, workout out makes you hungry. Everyone has heard about "Working up an appetite" but for some strange reason forgets it when they talk about exercise. If you just eat based on hunger, working out will do nothing to lower your weight. It will of course help cardiovascular health, and weight lifting helps keep your metabolism and good hormones up, your stress hormones down, helps your mental health and staves off the debilitating weakness of ageing.

      As Mr. Taubes says in the book, it's not all about the calories though. A huge part of the problem these days is the massive consumption of carbohydrates. Carbohydrates raise blood sugar, which raises insulin levels, which promotes fat storage, inhibits release of energy from fat tissue and promotes inflammation, associated with next to all our "western diseases" like heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, fibromyalgia and so on. If you eat bread/pasta/rice/etc. 5 times a day because many small, supposedly healthy meals will help you loose weight, your insulin levels will be chronically high and it will be exceedingly hard to burn off any fat.

    7. Re:Just feed them less by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would say they go hand in hand. Kids just need to be outdoors more, playing with other kids -- rather than spending that time eating. Just cutting the snacks out of their diet would make a huge difference, and an easy way to do that is to just not have them stay indoors all day, with snacks readily available.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  4. When I was a kid... by gravos · · Score: 3, Funny

    When I was a kid I was writing my own apps. Now get off my lawn!

    --
    This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
  5. Re:The only vote I'll cast by MRe_nl · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anonymous Coward's frustrations with his dysfunctional family were complicated by abuse of amphetamines and health issues including headaches that he reported in one of his final notes as "tremendous."
    A glioblastoma, which is a highly cancerous brain tumor, was discovered during autopsy that experts on the "Cowards Commission" claimed may have conceivably played a role in causing his actions. He was also affected by a court martial as a United States Marine, failings as a student at the University of Texas, ambitious personal expectations and psychotic features he expressed in his slashdot post.

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  6. Physical games by Timmmm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What they should reaally do, is physical games. I.e. like Wii Fit, but not really boring. E.g. something like whack-a-mole, but with boxing instead of a hammer!

    1. Re:Physical games by 6Yankee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bring back Prop Cycle! That thing got me to exercise!

    2. Re:Physical games by metrometro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > What they should really do, is physical games.

      Check out HopeLab, which is a hardware & software shop doing pretty much that, as a public benefit.

      They started with clinical trials of software that was anecdotally doing cool things for cancer patients (Chemo Warrior, or something like that, that roleplayed nuking cancer by taking meds. Results: kids took their meds on schedule.)

      From what I've seen of them (I saw their CEO present once) are committed to a) making the games attractive to kids by doing really good behavioral observation and dialogue and b) doing real clinical trials to evaluate results. Their latest effort is a suit with accelerometers that logs activity then downloads it, earning points, rewards, unlocking levels, etc. They aren't making much noise yet, but they're pretty far along with the hardware (one of their testers took it surfing). I believe the goal is a commercially successful product, perhaps in partnership with another platform.

      http://www.hopelab.org/innovative-solutions/gditty/

      Also, they say the name will change before launch.

  7. Simpsons... by Robotron23 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ah this topic reminds me of when Bart Simpson gets bought, by Marge, a golf game named "Lee Carvallo's Putting Challenge" instead of the hip and happening "Bonestorm" which is a Mortal Kombat style beat em' up that all the kids play.

    1. Re:Simpsons... by mqduck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The whole concept of “being manly and fighting is bad” smells of the matriarchal sexism that is so fashionable nowadays.

      I'd say it's your idea of "being manly" that's sexist. Saying that fighting is bad is neither sexist, nor is it going with the mainstream; our culture fucking loves violence.

      --
      Property is theft.
  8. Keep it up! by pieisgood · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No seriously, good job. You're sure to reel in the fatties with titles like "blubber blaster". I'm sure the most popular game is going to be something like "Lardass Limbo" and "Stop eating so much fatty". With titles like that, I'm sure the kids will start playing them by the droves. /sarcasm

    Do they think kids are that stupid?

    --
    Eat sleep die
    1. Re:Keep it up! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do they think kids are that stupid?

      Yes they do.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Keep it up! by Grygus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And why shouldn't they? Look what the parents have been putting up with from their politicians for the last ten years.

    3. Re:Keep it up! by AnonymousClown · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They're not marketing them to the kids: they're marketing them to the parents. The parents will buy "Blubber Blaster" and "encourage" their kids to use it. Of course, it'll probably stay on the shelf but the parents will feel good that they "did" something - kind of like the folks who buy the exercise equipment, use it once or twice, and give up.

      In the meantime, the parents still buy the kids Coke, potato chips, crap from fast food joints (if it has a takeout window, it's crap), and they watch their parents sit in front of the TV all night.

      I saw this guy buy his little pudgeball one of those 20oz Cokes the other day. She was 8 years old and already a fatty.

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

  9. Re:Somebody tell 4chan! by neumayr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My judgement isn't based on the title alone, rather the whole context in which they're produced.
    Comparing a US gov't project to something Nintendo pulled off doesn't work very well..

    --
    Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
  10. Re:What the hell???!!! by neumayr · · Score: 2, Informative

    Even Hitler knew this.

    Yes well, so did a great many people before him.

    Not the same thing obviously

    So why bother bringing it up? Wasn't there some kind of law against that?

    --
    Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
  11. Re:What the hell???!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey, give peas a chance!

  12. Oxymoron inside by nu1x · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why oh why would healthy kids require games such as blubber blaster ?

    They should be called apps for big boned, sensitive kids.

    And now what ? You're trying to blast their blubber away ? Seems like recipe for insecurity ... :/

    Better to create a game called "Life Challenged" wherein the object is to increase the worth of society by stopping being an oxygen thief - and there's only one way to do that. Achievement points for creative solutions ! :P

    --
    I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
  13. Or instead... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On the one hand, we can continue to encourage kids to play video games and be antisocial, and hope that games with anti-fast-food themes will out-compete games like Halo. On the other hand, we can encourage kids to not play video games, and spend their time outdoors socializing and engaging in physical activity with each other, and hope that such activity will out-compete video games. Gee, which plan is going to be more effective (not that either one will be enormously effective)?

    Of course, if we devote as much effort to telling kids that hang out with each other and play outdoors as we do to telling them that there is something wrong with enjoying the effects of drugs, we will hurt the profits of the corporations that produce video games. Since "the business of the United States is business," any plan that involves hurting corporate profits is a plan that will never actually happen.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  14. You're right. Mod is ignoramous. by AnonymousClown · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Modded "Flamebait" eh?

    Well, rest assured that you're right and at least I know it.

    My wife is in medical and it's a HUGE problem among kids because they're not getting enough exercise and the biggest culprits are video games and lack of greenspace for kids to run around - suburban American life is making kids fat. She asks the kids what they do all day: sit in school, go home and do home work and then sit and play video games - all of them have that story.

    And being fat at such a young age leads to horrible health consequences later on: diabetes and all the issues with that, heart disease, high blood pressure and all the issue with that, etc....

    Our health costs are just going to continue to balloon because of this and we're, of course, going to blame the insurance companies, big pharma, and everyone else but ourselves.

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    1. Re:You're right. Mod is ignoramous. by Eevee · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...and lack of greenspace for kids to run around - suburban American life is...

      Umm, isn't suburbia the place with all those lawns? There's a lot more (and bigger) backyards to run around in when you're out in the suburbs compared to the city. It's not the lack of space, it's the rampant paranoia that the precious darlings can't be left to their own. <getoffmylawn>When I was a kid, we'd disappear after school--we'd all meet at somebody's backyard and play without parental control. I could bike around the neighborhood on my own; wander up to the playground, maybe play a pickup game of kickball; even go to a local shop and spend my meager allowance.</getoffmylawn> It's today's fear culture that's keeping kids indoors.

    2. Re:You're right. Mod is ignoramous. by xaxa · · Score: 2, Informative

      I live in an inner city area with lots of blocks of flats, surrounded by grass and with various small parks and playgrounds.

      The young children play outside all the time. Dusk is very late in summer in the UK, I expect I'll still hear a few children playing outside at 9-10pm.

      But, I don't see many teenagers outside. They're obviously not being kept inside. I expect they're either sitting in the corner of a park somewhere, or at someone's house playing computer games and watching TV.

      My parents were early adopters of the "you may not leave the house" thing, so I only have a vague idea of what most 14 year olds were doing 10 years ago, when I was 14. They had a big garden, but it was boring "playing" there with only my sister for company.

    3. Re:You're right. Mod is ignoramous. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      it was boring "playing" there with only my sister for company.

      I know a very enjoyable thing you and your sister can do, just don't let your parents catch you doing it...

  15. Winning Concept by crow_t_robot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you want to make a game to encourage kids to be healthy, make a really shitty game like the orginal E.T. for Atari. Kids will play it for about 2 minutes before turning it off and going outside to make a tree-house.
    In my opinion, making a good game and encouraging physical fitness and healthy eating are mutually-exclusive activities. I can tell when I have bought a really good game by the amount of time I have been stuck in the house glued to the game and all the garbage food I eat while playing it because I'm too busy to get up and prepare a healthy meal.

  16. How about have good food in school. Not low cost h by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How about having good food in school. Not low cost high fat stuff? also give the kids time to eat so they use the full 30 min lunch standing in line to just have 10 min or less to eat it. NO MORE recess time shared with launch. Make it it's own time.

  17. Re:How about have good food in school. Not low cos by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about having good food in school. Not low cost high fat stuff? also give the kids time to eat so they use the full 30 min lunch standing in line to just have 10 min or less to eat it. NO MORE recess time shared with launch. Make it it's own time.

    Yes, this. Also, have a class that teaches kids how to cook. A lot of kids move into adult life not knowing how to prepare any food more complicated than macaroni & cheese, so it's no wonder they go to McDonald's when they're tired of their diet of mac&cheese, ramen noodles and ordering pizza.

    30 minutes is enough time to eat if you brought your lunch from home. Otherwise, it's insane.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
  18. Re:What the hell???!!! by westlake · · Score: 2, Informative

    Now the government wants to start influencing our kids at the gaming level? Eeeewwwwwww! How creepy is that?

    About as creepy as The Oregon Trail.
    1971. Still in print after 39 years. The Oregon Trail

  19. Re:1) by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

    No, it's accepted in this particular medium.

    No, it isn't. You only think it is because you have poor netiquette.

    2) A "Kid" is a young goat & should definitely be kept away from a PC.

    "Your honor, we all agree that my client ran this lady down with an Impala. But I believe that I can show that it was actually a quadruped, one Aepyceros melampus." Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. Go back to first grade with these masterful debating tactics.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  20. Re:How about have good food in school. Not low cos by xaxa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How easy is it to get decent "ready meals" (in American: TV dinners?) in the US? I think Britain is pretty much a world leader in this (there's nowhere near as much variety or quality meals available in the rest of Europe, but it's a while since I was in the US).

    Here ready meals are available from less than £1 to over £5 per portion, with a wide variety of dishes (perhaps 80 options in a small inner-city supermarket, large supermarkets have hundreds). It's not so difficult to avoid anything unhealthy, and mostly the nutrition info is prominently shown on the front. The ones costing £3 or more tend to be better than what I can cook from scratch for myself in a reasonable time (e.g. this.)

    (Some of this stuff is ridiculous. Can't people microwave a potato any more?!)

    Supermarket pizza is still cheaper though, and plenty of young people can't cook very well.

    Lunchtime at school is one hour (I think that's a legal requirement...), and every school I've seen staggers when various classes are allowed to go and queue.

  21. Re:Wrong chain of causality by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "(weight loss) = (calories in) - (calories exercised)"

    This is even simpler to dispel by any sane halfway intelligent human. Every human on the planet either has an anus, or some medically constructed equivalent. The calorie counter group loves to throw out the laws of thermodynamics. Well, clearly they don't understand it, because as long as you have a functioning anus, it is physically impossible for their calculation to be accurate.

  22. Re:What the hell???!!! by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, to be fair, the government (as well as the medical and insurance industries) are batshit insane when it comes to defining "fat", "overweight", and "obese".

    At 5'11" the insurance, medical and government accepted standard, the BMI, says that I would not be "normal" weight until I reached 178 pounds. Just yesterday I was hydrostatically weighed. My lean body mass was 164 pounds. That means that at 8% body fat, I would be considered "overweight" or "fat". This is with virtually no exercise. I build muscle REALLY fast. If I worked out with any kind of weight training for 3 or 4 months, I could easily break the 178 pounds that defines me as "fat" in lean body mass. The BMI would also call my weight "normal" at 133 pounds. The government, medical, and insurance industries declare that not only should I reach 0% body fat (which will kill you by the way), but that to be "normal", I should start deciding what body parts I want amputated. Maybe an arm and a leg would do it. I have to be careful not to choose both legs though, because then I would be "fat" again.

    Just to put it in perspective, this is what the government, medical and insurance industries call "obese".

    So, is the OP crazy for wanting the government out of the weight loss game, or are the people supporting them?