U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-23-2009, 04:52 PM
 
604 posts, read 1,051,585 times
Reputation: 217

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Prove it.


. Numerous publications have shown that reduced physical activity significantly and unequivocally increases an individual’s risk for developing conditions such as type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and obesity. The data are so convincing that the Center for Disease Control lists physical inactivity as a potential cause for a number of chronic diseases.

Reduced physical activity and the retired athlete: a dangerous combination? -- Witkowski and Spangenburg 42 (12): 952 -- British Journal of Sports Medicine

Note that "reduced physical activity" refers not to non-athletes, who continue pretty much the same level of physical activity throughout their working life, but people who make a significant reduction in their activity. Which would include a great majority of people who prepare their bodies for sport as teens or young adults, and then reduce their activity.
So you're saying that most athletes are just plain fatter than non-athletes.
Ummmm, no.
Studies show that fat kids become fat adults. And fat kids were NOT athletes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-23-2009, 05:20 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,653,762 times
Reputation: 35885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbledeez View Post
So you're saying that most athletes are just plain fatter than non-athletes.
Ummmm, no.
Studies show that fat kids become fat adults. And fat kids were NOT athletes.
No, I didn't say that at all. Read it again.

Fat kids will be fat adults, which I didn't bother to say.
Thin kids might be fat adults., which I didn't bother to say.
I said thin athletic kids are more likely than thin non-athlete kids to be fat adults, because in training they develop high-calorie eating habits. And have other medical and developmental issues that can shorten their lifespan.

In black font, so how could you miss it? Does purple make it more true? Good, I'll try that sometime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 06:35 PM
 
604 posts, read 1,051,585 times
Reputation: 217
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
No, I didn't say that at all. Read it again.

Fat kids will be fat adults, which I didn't bother to say.
Thin kids might be fat adults., which I didn't bother to say.
I said thin athletic kids are more likely than thin non-athlete kids to be fat adults, because in training they develop high-calorie eating habits. And have other medical and developmental issues that can shorten their lifespan.

In black font, so how could you miss it? Does purple make it more true? Good, I'll try that sometime.
Yes, that's what I thought you said.....so I put your words in bold so you wouldn't miss it. You're saying that athletic kids are fatter than non-athletic kids as adults. Well and of course you used skinny non-atletes as your comparison. Either way, it's just not true. No matter what color you use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 06:49 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,653,762 times
Reputation: 35885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbledeez View Post
Yes, that's what I thought you said.....so I put your words in bold so you wouldn't miss it. You're saying that athletic kids are fatter than non-athletic kids as adults. Well and of course you used skinny non-atletes as your comparison. Either way, it's just not true. No matter what color you use.

In my comparison, I compared thin kids with thin kids. using a different contrastive factor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 06:58 PM
 
604 posts, read 1,051,585 times
Reputation: 217
[quote=jtur88;8485848]
In my comparison, I compared thin kids with thin kids. using a different contrastive factor.[/quote]

...with that contrastive factor being athletes/non-athletes.....are these non-athletes physically active?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-23-2009, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,653,762 times
Reputation: 35885
[quote=Dbledeez;8485994]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
In my comparison, I compared thin kids with thin kids. using a different contrastive factor.[/quote]

...with that contrastive factor being athletes/non-athletes.....are these non-athletes physically active?
Maybe. But they did not commit themselves fo continuing competitive sport and require themselves to meet training guidelines over a prolonged period of time to meet competitive training minimums.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2009, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
33,969 posts, read 32,424,502 times
Reputation: 49930
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone View Post
I am with you except for the soccer comment, are you saying soccer is just for *******?
No, I'm saying mothers (and there are an awful lot of single moms out there compared to decades ago) put kids in soccer because they think their kids won't get hurt playing soccer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2009, 11:41 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
33,969 posts, read 32,424,502 times
Reputation: 49930
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
LauraC-
I, even with extreme myopia, was fairly good at dodge ball. Under our rules if you were hit you went to the other side. You could block a ball with the ball in your hand and not be hit. I could, sometimes, avoid being hit at all and would then keep all of the balls (no pun intended) on my side of the line. Then no one could hit me because they ran out of ammo. Then I would just walk off. I realize now that I was not competitive but contemptuous.

I did very well at the sports the required strength and agility but not good eyesight (dodge ball excepted). I was pretty good at gymnastics and wrestling. I definitely disliked group showers.

I think the schools should teach the techniques and the importance of physical fitness but do not need to stress competitiveness except to point out that the game, what ever it is, has been already rigged, so play if you like, but do not expect to win. These are the real lessons to be learned from high school sports.

BTW – I do not consider myself a Wuss.
If the schools don't teach you to be competitive and your parents are treating you like a little flower that needs to be protected from physical, emotional and mental tough circumstances, how the heck are you going to be competitive when you get older. I'm guessing these are also the same people who would never fight for what they believe in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2009, 12:23 PM
 
3,704 posts, read 4,146,998 times
Reputation: 2231
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Make a list of the 100 greatest, most important, most influential men in the history of the world. How many of them do you think would have made their high school team in any sport? Choosing up sides for a playground game, how many of you would choose Shakespeare, Einstein and Franklin first?
A lot of Kings, Presidents, and other leaders were very much into sports and physical. Both good and bad. Hitler was quite the healthnut too.

Oh, and Teddy Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon were all into sports. Nevermind military leaders...

Athough, I do agree that many scientists and philosophers would have been or were picked last for dodgeball.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2009, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,653,762 times
Reputation: 35885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni View Post
A lot of Kings, Presidents, and other leaders were very much into sports and physical. Both good and bad. Hitler was quite the healthnut too.

Oh, and Teddy Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and Richard Nixon were all into sports. Nevermind military leaders...

Athough, I do agree that many scientists and philosophers would have been or were picked last for dodgeball.
You just named 10% of the presidents, which is not impressive. Remember that the "sport of kings" is watching people ride horses, while clutching a parimutuel ticket in your hands.

Putin is an example you should have mentioned. But still, any list of great people would be very lucky to have 5-10% on it who would have been at any time in their life considered athletes of any note.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top