Sunday, May 14, 2006
Early life in big yards key to health
From The Advertiser (Adelaide, South Australia) comes this report by Kara Phillips, dated 02-May-2006.
Thanks to Wendell Cox of Demographia and The Public Purpose for alerting me to this. Here are the first several paragraphs:
SOUTH Australian children with big backyards are less likely to be overweight and inactive than those with small courtyards, a study has found.
Preliminary data from the Flinders University Achieving a Healthy Home Environment study, which surveyed the homes and lifestyles of 280 southern suburbs families, found the size and set-up of homes contributed largely to how fit and healthy young children were.
Researchers looked at more than 75 physical and nutritional variables in each family home over the past year.
"We found the bigger the backyard, the more active the kids," said Flinders Medical Centre consultant pediatrician Dr Nicola Spurrier, who headed the study that will continue until next year.
"But we also found the amount of play equipment and play areas in a back yard had a big impact too."
The study also found 20 per cent of the children surveyed did not do 60 minutes of moderate activity each day and just 35 per cent watched less than the recommended two hours of TV.
[click the heading above for the rest of the story]
Thanks to Wendell Cox of Demographia and The Public Purpose for alerting me to this. Here are the first several paragraphs:
SOUTH Australian children with big backyards are less likely to be overweight and inactive than those with small courtyards, a study has found.
Preliminary data from the Flinders University Achieving a Healthy Home Environment study, which surveyed the homes and lifestyles of 280 southern suburbs families, found the size and set-up of homes contributed largely to how fit and healthy young children were.
Researchers looked at more than 75 physical and nutritional variables in each family home over the past year.
"We found the bigger the backyard, the more active the kids," said Flinders Medical Centre consultant pediatrician Dr Nicola Spurrier, who headed the study that will continue until next year.
"But we also found the amount of play equipment and play areas in a back yard had a big impact too."
The study also found 20 per cent of the children surveyed did not do 60 minutes of moderate activity each day and just 35 per cent watched less than the recommended two hours of TV.
[click the heading above for the rest of the story]
Comments:
I guess worst of all possible worlds is a small lot suburb where you can't walk safely anywhere. Your kids will become minature couch and SUV potatoes, I suppose.
I doubt this "finding" does anything to undermine the validity of "walkable" neighborhoods. If one doesn't have a large backyard but the kids can walk to most destinations such as school, then the value of large yards is probably only valid compared to auto-oriented suburbs with small yards and unwalkable overall.
The evidence from the remaining kids who live in San Francisco and other high density cities with small yards but very high walkability, and who aren't welfare cases eating cheap but fattening foods, would prove very interesting. Did the Aussie researchers look at walkable areas? I suspect not.
I doubt this "finding" does anything to undermine the validity of "walkable" neighborhoods. If one doesn't have a large backyard but the kids can walk to most destinations such as school, then the value of large yards is probably only valid compared to auto-oriented suburbs with small yards and unwalkable overall.
The evidence from the remaining kids who live in San Francisco and other high density cities with small yards but very high walkability, and who aren't welfare cases eating cheap but fattening foods, would prove very interesting. Did the Aussie researchers look at walkable areas? I suspect not.
What a bunch of Barbara Streisand...
"I guess" . . . "I suppose" . . . "I doubt" . . . "If one doesn't" . . . "is probably only valid" . . . "would prove interesting" . . . "I suspect not" . . .
In other words you have only your non-objective opinion filled with non-specific qualifiers.
The other statements are equally vapid. . .
"SUV potatoes" (What in Hades does this mean? Do we also have Hybrid potatoes? What is the functional, operative difference between the two?) . . . "validity of 'walkable' neighborhoods" (a theory in search of a "validation" it has never been able to find.) . . . "unwalkable overall" (name one suburban area that is "unwalkable overall." Where is it that one simply cannot walk if one wants to?"
And then there is this gem . . . "who aren't welfare cases eating cheap but fattening foods." Interesting bias revealed there.
This reminds me of the time a senator said, "Everyone who owns a computer, raise your hands. Now if you own an Apple drop your hands. Now if you are using any other type of computer other than a PC lower your hands." At this point about 3/4 of the room still has its hands raised. The senator then says, "If you use Windows then lower your hands." And two people lower their hands. The senator then says, "That ladies and gentlemen is a monopoly!"
If you only select for data that supports your assertion then you will find it, but it won't be objective, or accurate. What if the majority of people in "walkable neighborhoods" are on welfare and/or eat fattening foods?
If you assume that sub-urbanites are couch and SUV potatoes, eat cheap but fattening foods, and don't get any exercise racing around their huge backyards then you are going to arrive at your biased conclusion, which is what you wanted to arrive at in the first place.
The whole argument is pathetically transparent.
"I guess" . . . "I suppose" . . . "I doubt" . . . "If one doesn't" . . . "is probably only valid" . . . "would prove interesting" . . . "I suspect not" . . .
In other words you have only your non-objective opinion filled with non-specific qualifiers.
The other statements are equally vapid. . .
"SUV potatoes" (What in Hades does this mean? Do we also have Hybrid potatoes? What is the functional, operative difference between the two?) . . . "validity of 'walkable' neighborhoods" (a theory in search of a "validation" it has never been able to find.) . . . "unwalkable overall" (name one suburban area that is "unwalkable overall." Where is it that one simply cannot walk if one wants to?"
And then there is this gem . . . "who aren't welfare cases eating cheap but fattening foods." Interesting bias revealed there.
This reminds me of the time a senator said, "Everyone who owns a computer, raise your hands. Now if you own an Apple drop your hands. Now if you are using any other type of computer other than a PC lower your hands." At this point about 3/4 of the room still has its hands raised. The senator then says, "If you use Windows then lower your hands." And two people lower their hands. The senator then says, "That ladies and gentlemen is a monopoly!"
If you only select for data that supports your assertion then you will find it, but it won't be objective, or accurate. What if the majority of people in "walkable neighborhoods" are on welfare and/or eat fattening foods?
If you assume that sub-urbanites are couch and SUV potatoes, eat cheap but fattening foods, and don't get any exercise racing around their huge backyards then you are going to arrive at your biased conclusion, which is what you wanted to arrive at in the first place.
The whole argument is pathetically transparent.
"What if the majority of people in "walkable neighborhoods" are on welfare and/or eat fattening foods?"
You mean like the Sunset or Marina in San Francisco?? Sure, there might be a lot of fat people on welfare in certain walkable neighborhoods, but the "welfare culture" its, habits, and attitudes trump that particular neighborhood characteristic. You obviously aren't familiar with much of South suburban Sacramento, which is [now] traditional "cul de sacs and single family houses", but is also has degenerated into a poverty-stricken ghetto over the last three decades. Whether a "Walkable" or "non-walkable" neighborhood is primarily occupied by hoodrats, etc. is often just an accident of geography.
You are obviously an idiot, Anonymous #2.
My qualifiers are based on the fact that I actually bothered to contact the researcher; she pointed out that the reporter inferred much more in the article than could be supported by the research so far. She didn't think the results could be extrapolated much beyond the sort of people and families she's researching.
Of course this sort of HUGE caveat about yet to be completed research DIDN'T deter ideological hacks like Peter Gordon to proclaim the dubious "facts" at Planetizen (And Gordon should know better; he claims to be an objective academic...HA!) and most of those posting on this blog to run with it to prove their pro-auto, pro-sprawl agenda.
Overall, you and your tired worn-out ideas, are on the run right now from BETTER IDEAS--as illustrated by the rear guard nature of the current AEI magazine ("Attack of the Snobs" can't do better than mindless name-calling, I guess...), which several years ago, had an issue PRAISING New Urbanism because they thought the idea supported "conservative" values.
Anon E. Mouse No. 1
Post a Comment
You mean like the Sunset or Marina in San Francisco?? Sure, there might be a lot of fat people on welfare in certain walkable neighborhoods, but the "welfare culture" its, habits, and attitudes trump that particular neighborhood characteristic. You obviously aren't familiar with much of South suburban Sacramento, which is [now] traditional "cul de sacs and single family houses", but is also has degenerated into a poverty-stricken ghetto over the last three decades. Whether a "Walkable" or "non-walkable" neighborhood is primarily occupied by hoodrats, etc. is often just an accident of geography.
You are obviously an idiot, Anonymous #2.
My qualifiers are based on the fact that I actually bothered to contact the researcher; she pointed out that the reporter inferred much more in the article than could be supported by the research so far. She didn't think the results could be extrapolated much beyond the sort of people and families she's researching.
Of course this sort of HUGE caveat about yet to be completed research DIDN'T deter ideological hacks like Peter Gordon to proclaim the dubious "facts" at Planetizen (And Gordon should know better; he claims to be an objective academic...HA!) and most of those posting on this blog to run with it to prove their pro-auto, pro-sprawl agenda.
Overall, you and your tired worn-out ideas, are on the run right now from BETTER IDEAS--as illustrated by the rear guard nature of the current AEI magazine ("Attack of the Snobs" can't do better than mindless name-calling, I guess...), which several years ago, had an issue PRAISING New Urbanism because they thought the idea supported "conservative" values.
Anon E. Mouse No. 1
