U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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 05-27-2014, 03:46 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,002 posts, read 102,592,596 times
Reputation: 33059

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
It's apparently from a 1987 pamphlet put out by ACOG. I can't cite it directly, best I can do is this:

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

And Nei is right, it isn't contradictory in the least. I mean, for one it's pretty well known that FAS is pretty variable fetus to fetus. For whatever reason that is, it is. No safe level and one drink per day causing no demonstrable harm really aren't contradictory.

Take psuedoephedrine, it's class c, which means there's no demonstrated risk in pregnant women. None the less, it's not recommended for pregnant women and falls into the risk/benefit determination on a case-by-case basis.

Or take caffeine. For a long time the recommendation was no caffeine whatsoever. It wasn't that moderate amounts of caffeine were really though to be dangerous. It was more just being cautious while awaiting science that demonstrated whether or not it was safe.
The hell they aren't! That's seven drinks a week! That's way more than none. Babies have been born with FAS with mothers drinking at that level. Your 27 year old link has been superseded, and was outdated even then. That's not what OBs were telling women. I was pregnant that year with my second.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 05-27-2014 at 03:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2014, 03:53 PM
 
1,110 posts, read 908,861 times
Reputation: 1201
There probably is a connection between obesity and driving, but not enough to blame the entire obesity epidemic on driving. The problem is that the anti-car crowd is trying to use this connection to definitely prove that cars are bad and suburban living is detrimental to your health. I regularly go to the gym, and every time I'm there I see several other people working out. I am sure that most of those people drove their cars to the gym. As I drive around I see people jogging. It is a very suburban environment with terrible public transit and is heavily car-oriented, yet I see several people in great shape and working hard to keep themselves healthy.

Your living situation does not determine your health. Too many anti-car posters are trying to prove that urban living will make you healthier. It doesn't matter where you live, but your mindset has to be that you will exercise regularly and eat properly. You can drive a car to the gym or ride a bike around the block, it doesn't matter. This is a psychological issue, not geographical.

Also, I think the correlation is being stated backwards. It isn't that "driving causes obesity," but "Obese people tend to drive more." They are less likely to walk due to their physical condition. The driving isn't causing them to be obese, they are already in bad shape and need the car in order to get around. People who want to be in shape will work to stay in shape, whether they drive a car or walk to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2014, 03:54 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,002 posts, read 102,592,596 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
When I commuted via transit, walking to the bus, the office from the bus stop and lunch was about 3 miles on a typical day, but some days were of course a lot more. But it was a mile from the commuter bus station to my office, and I walked that of course 2x a day.

That didn't include the incidental walking during the day (around the office or at home)



The goal isn't to "reduce obesity" but to increase activity. Some people will always struggle with "getting to a societal acceptable weight" but people at any size, who are more active, on a day to day basis, are healthier than their inactive peers. And we have engineered the activity out of our days and environment. This manifests itself differently in every person, for some it is extra weight, others a shorter lifespan or heart issues and for others it means more stress.

Instead of focusing on "making the fat people skinny." The goal should be, getting everyone, no matter what their size/weight/BMI to adopt healthy habits: staying active and eating well.
Well, the goal is to reduce obesity, but I agree with the bolds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2014, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,062 posts, read 16,078,369 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The hell they aren't! That's seven drinks a week! That's way more than none. Babies have been born with FAS with mothers drinking at that level. Your 27 year old link has been superseded, and was outdated even then. That's not what OBs were telling women. I was pregnant that year with my second.
Okay. They aren't but whatever.

Seven drinks one day and none for six does cause demonstrated harm. The metabolic rate of alcohol is quite high, so obviously one drink per day and seven drinks once per week in short succession are very different scenarios, which is why at least some of the 40 years of FAS research says there's no demonstrable harm from one drink per day, not seven drinks per week regardless of timing of said seven drinks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2014, 04:01 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,002 posts, read 102,592,596 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Okay. They aren't but whatever.

Seven drinks one day and none for six does cause demonstrated harm. The metabolic rate of alcohol is quite high, so obviously one drink per day and seven drinks once per week in short succession are very different scenarios, which is why at least some of the 40 years of FAS research says there's no demonstrable harm from one drink per day, not seven drinks per week regardless of timing of said seven drinks.
Allow me to point out that your link is NOT from ACOG, it does not even mention ACOG. Please tell me what your expertise is in this issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2014, 04:09 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,168 posts, read 29,665,044 times
Reputation: 26656
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Well, the goal is to reduce obesity, but I agree with the bolds.
The problem is, when the goal is to "reduce obesity" it becomes ok to use any means necessary. Then you have people cutting out key food groups, eating cabbage soup 24/7 and all sorts of unsustainable stuff all in the aims of "not being fat." Vs. having a goal of actually being healthier. Those two things are really different.

It also allows people to ignore crappy habits in people who are not obese (but at risk for all sorts of heart, cholesterol and diabetes issues).

Getting rid of crappy habits goes pretty far in solving a lot of problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2014, 04:10 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,062 posts, read 16,078,369 times
Reputation: 12636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Allow me to point out that your link is NOT from ACOG, it does not even mention ACOG. Please tell me what your expertise is in this issue.
Actually it does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2014, 04:18 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,002 posts, read 102,592,596 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Actually it does.
No, it doesn't. This is the website: www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/FetalAlcoholSyndrome.html#.U4UOSyjySAV]Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

That is not ACOG. Meanwhile, you might read this:

**The latest challenge is coming from women pushing back against public health notices like the Surgeon General’s Advisory “There is no known safe amount of alcohol to drink while pregnant”. Apparently we, the medical profession, have taken all the fun out of pregnancy. Surely this public health message is too conservative, too overly protective. After all-how much damage could a single drink a day possibly do? . . . She (Oster) asked me “What proportion of children born with FAS were exposed to only 1 drink per day?” I think she expected me to say a drink per day cannot cause FAS. But my answer was “1 out of every 14 children we have diagnosed with full blown FAS over the past 20 years had a reported exposure of just 1 drink per day”.**
https://depts.washington.edu/fasdpn/...tley-oster.pdf

The U of Washington, not Potsdam State, is the leading authority on FAS. I would, in fact, suggest you read the whole pdf

Tell me again what your expertise is on this issue?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2014, 04:48 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,062 posts, read 16,078,369 times
Reputation: 12636
Actually, I went back and checked to see if someone had changed my link since I posted it. And guess what? They hadn't. It still does.

UK thinks a drink once or twice a week is fine, US stance is no safe level. There's a huge difference between an exposure level of 1 drink per day (social drinker having six drinks on one day a week) and a drink per day. I don't think anyone disputes that binge drinking (five drinks or more in a day) is bad even if it is under a one drink per day exposure level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2014, 04:55 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,002 posts, read 102,592,596 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Actually, I went back and checked to see if someone had changed my link since I posted it. And guess what? They hadn't. It still does.

UK thinks a drink once or twice a week is fine, US stance is no safe level. There's a huge difference between an exposure level of 1 drink per day (social drinker having six drinks on one day a week) and a drink per day. I don't think anyone disputes that binge drinking (five drinks or more in a day) is bad even if it is under a one drink per day exposure level.
I'm not sure what your link does. Are you accusing me of lying? My computer says that FAS article comes from potsdam state.

This thread is going to get closed if we continue on about drinking during pregnancy much longer. I should have known this would be a loaded topic, like the smoking threads that get going on P&OC. I've learned to avoid them; the smokers have all the answers. I should have known the drinkers would too.

UK does NOT think a drink once or twice a week is fine. UK says (from my link upthread) "The U.K. Department of Health (2007) advises that "pregnant women or women trying to conceive should avoid drinking alcohol. If they do choose to drink, to minimise the risk to the baby, they should not drink more than 1 to 2 units of alcohol once or twice a week and should not get drunk." [12]

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in its 2006 guide, Alcohol and Pregnancy: Information for You [13], states, "The safest approach in pregnancy is to choose not to drink at all. Small amounts of alcohol during pregnancy (not more than 1 to 2 units, not more than once or twice a week) have not been shown to be harmful."

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in its clinical guideline Antenatal Care: Routine Care for the Healthy Pregnant Woman (2008), "“Pregnant women and women planning a pregnancy should be advised to avoid drinking alcohol in the first 3 months of pregnancy if possible because it may be associated with an increased risk of miscarriage. If women choose to drink alcohol during pregnancy they should be advised to drink no more than 1 to 2 U.K. units once or twice a week." [14]
"

Choosing to drink is going against medical advice. And a UK unit is much smaller than a US drink, almost half the size (8g vs 14g). And I hasten to point out that 1 to two small drinks a week is NOT drinking every day!

Here's what Denmark, a hard drinking country, says: "The Danish National Board of Health recommends that women do not drink alcohol during pregnancy. "No exact limit is known for how little a pregnant woman can drink without harming her unborn baby. The recommendation is therefore for pregnant women not to drink any alcohol at all." [4]" No qualifiers.

In the US, the Surgeon General has said women should abstain from drinking during pregnancy since 1981.
http://fasdcenter.samhsa.gov/educati.../changes1.aspx

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 05-27-2014 at 05:06 PM..
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 > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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