A weighty issue

[JMohegan]

The problem with the discussion in this thread is that people took personally what began as a discussion of a macro-level issue. This seems to happen a lot in such discussions. The OP was about concerns regarding large numbers of people and not about individuals. The OP was based on well-executed statistical analysis and not on anecdotal evidence. And yet people get the panties in a twist, often using their own life story's anecdotal evidence to refute the OP.

It's a shame, really, when otherwise generally reasonable and intelligent people fall prey to the lure of fighting large-scale statistical analysis with anecdotes and personal outrage.

All true.

However, when the solutions offered relate to improving the awareness, personal choices, will power, and commitment of individuals, it's not that hard to understand why those who are heavy would take the conversation personally.

Comparing the macro situation now to the macro situation 50 years ago, I find it highly unlikely that humans, on average, have become more uneducated, prone to making bad decisions, or disinterested in their own personal health than they were back in the day. Similarly, I find it unlikely that humans, on average, have become more prone to overeating for emotional reasons, more likely to have medical issues rendering exercise impossible, and so on.

In short - people are people, same as they've always been. So why are more people getting fat?

The obvious answer appears in Keroin's statement from the WHO:

"Global increases in overweight and obesity are attributable to a number of factors including:

* a global shift in diet towards increased intake of energy-dense foods that are high in fat and sugars but low in vitamins, minerals and other micronutrients; and
* a trend towards decreased physical activity due to the increasingly sedentary nature of many forms of work, changing modes of transportation, and increasing urbanization."


In other words, the real causes of the problem are systemic. From which one can infer that the most helpful solutions would be systemic as well.

Why doesn't your wife's place of employment offer a gym, showers, and time out for each employee to exercise during the day? If obesity is a major cause of increased health expenditures, lost productivity, and so on - why isn't that a priority for your wife's employer, and all of the other American employers above a certain size?

 

[the captians wench]

All true.

However, when the solutions offered relate to improving the awareness, personal choices, will power, and commitment of individuals, it's not that hard to understand why those who are heavy would take the conversation personally.

Comparing the macro situation now to the macro situation 50 years ago, I find it highly unlikely that humans, on average, have become more uneducated, prone to making bad decisions, or disinterested in their own personal health than they were back in the day. Similarly, I find it unlikely that humans, on average, have become more prone to overeating for emotional reasons, more likely to have medical issues rendering exercise impossible, and so on.

In short - people are people, same as they've always been. So why are more people getting fat?

The obvious answer appears in Keroin's statement from the WHO:

"Global increases in overweight and obesity are attributable to a number of factors including:

* a global shift in diet towards increased intake of energy-dense foods that are high in fat and sugars but low in vitamins, minerals and other micronutrients; and
* a trend towards decreased physical activity due to the increasingly sedentary nature of many forms of work, changing modes of transportation, and increasing urbanization."


In other words, the real causes of the problem are systemic. From which one can infer that the most helpful solutions would be systemic as well.

Why doesn't your wife's place of employment offer a gym, showers, and time out for each employee to exercise during the day? If obesity is a major cause of increased health expenditures, lost productivity, and so on - why isn't that a priority for your wife's employer, and all of the other American employers above a certain size?

When my mom's former employer found out that they could save money on health care if their employees lost wieght they decided to start doing a group exersice break twice a day.

It was actually lead by the president of the company. Really cool.

 

[JMohegan]

When my mom's former employer found out that they could save money on health care if their employees lost wieght they decided to start doing a group exersice break twice a day.

It was actually lead by the president of the company. Really cool.

Extremely cool!

And a lot more realistic than urging employees to wake up at 4:45 every day.

 

[nh23]

Extremely cool!

And a lot more realistic than urging employees to wake up at 4:45 every day.

It would be awesome if more employers offered things like that. It would really help people like me. We have several gyms locally. I can't afford any of them. I've checked. If employers offered some kind of discount at local gyms that would help a lot too.

 

[nh23]

All true.

However, when the solutions offered relate to improving the awareness, personal choices, will power, and commitment of individuals, it's not that hard to understand why those who are heavy would take the conversation personally.

Yes, yes yes! Not to mention even if you are making better choices it's like it has no relevance because you're still fat. I've completely changed my family's diet. I'm putting what time I can into exercise. It's not enough though. I need to get my ass out of bed at 4am and walk everyday.

 

[Harmony_1985]

Thats why I said as long as it does not affect yor health. I totaly agree with you, it is a big problem in the UK too, because our National health service is allready badly over stretched.(no pun intented)

But yet the NHS want to PAY the obese to lose weight!!!!!

And so fucking what. If they are happy being fat, yay for them. They accept their bodies and don't have the bullshit esteem issues the rest of it do.

Some people are perfectly content being ignorant or stupid, not much we can do to change that either. Perhaps just rid the world of anyone with an IQ under 120.

Exactly. If you're happy, who gives a toss?

End of the day, I know I'm never going to be the weight the WHO state I should be, but so long as I'm happy with where I get to, what does it matter?

 

[CutieMouse]

But yet the NHS want to PAY the obese to lose weight!!!!!

Exactly. If you're happy, who gives a toss?

End of the day, I know I'm never going to be the weight the WHO state I should be, but so long as I'm happy with where I get to, what does it matter?

So if you develop type II diabetes linked to obesity, or have a heart attack linked to obesity, or any other long term medical condition linked to obesity - does that mean you're willing to foot the entire bill on your own and turn down NHS assistance?

 

[nh23]

So if you develop type II diabetes linked to obesity, or have a heart attack linked to obesity, or any other long term medical condition linked to obesity - does that mean you're willing to foot the entire bill on your own and turn down NHS assistance?

This doesn't pertain to me because I foot my own bills. I have no health insurance.

However my Mom who is 110 pounds, yet eats out all the time, does have health insurance. They foot the bill for all of her heart monitoring, and her cholesterol medications.

 

[Harmony_1985]

So if you develop type II diabetes linked to obesity, or have a heart attack linked to obesity, or any other long term medical condition linked to obesity - does that mean you're willing to foot the entire bill on your own and turn down NHS assistance?

I do see your point, but the NHS is over stretched, and despite a cash incentive, you won't be sucessful in losing weight and keeping it off if you're not in the right place for it mentally.

 

[the captians wench]

It would be awesome if more employers offered things like that. It would really help people like me. We have several gyms locally. I can't afford any of them. I've checked. If employers offered some kind of discount at local gyms that would help a lot too.

Mcyd's is partnered with two gyms in the area to offer a discount for employees. Most employees, however, still can not afford it.

They will also cover the cost of a dietician, I think for one visit but I'm not positive, it might be more.

Most employees do not take advantage of this though, or anything their "gold card" offers. I hear it all of the time when ever I use mine. "Oh we don't get many of these in here". Shame really. I saved $5 at my last trip to Claire's.

 

[CutieMouse]

This doesn't pertain to me because I foot my own bills. I have no health insurance.

However my Mom who is 110 pounds, yet eats out all the time, does have health insurance. They foot the bill for all of her heart monitoring, and her cholesterol medications.

I'm thinking of this in terms of nationalized care, and I'm torn. I would love for everyone to have basic medical needs covered at an affordable rate. It's the humane thing to do, we would be a stronger and healthier nation for putting people in a place where they can take care of things preventatively, it would actually be cheaper in the long term (because of preventative health care), etc.

However, just as I twitch over women having children to increase their welfare checks [less common than it used to be, I know], I twitch over covering the costs associated with preventable diseases caused by obesity. Cold, I know, but I do.

I would be perfectly happy to have my tax dollars go towards a national fitness membership where people have access to gyms, yoga studios, nutritionists, etc.

I do see your point, but the NHS is over stretched, and despite a cash incentive, you won't be sucessful in losing weight and keeping it off if you're not in the right place for it mentally.

My point wasn't that NHS should pay people to lose weight, because it won't really work long term. My point was that if one is going to have an attitude of

Exactly. If you're happy, who gives a toss?

End of the day, I know I'm never going to be the weight the WHO state I should be, but so long as I'm happy with where I get to, what does it matter?

My attitude leans more towards "awesome - happy for you, but realize you'll have to sleep in the bed you've made."

 

[BiBunny]

This doesn't pertain to me because I foot my own bills. I have no health insurance.

Wait, what? I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you. I was too busy eating Ding-Dongs and mouth-breathing.

Ok, y'all do realize that if poor folks had health insurance, we'd possibly be less likely to be fat, right? Also, if you're gonna fund drug addicts, alcoholics, and smokers, what's the difference? Maybe we shouldn't let people who engage in high-risk activities, like downhill skiing or jumping out of airplanes have insurance, either. Sure, there are fewer of those types of people than fat people, but if you're going to draw the line arbitrarily, then you have to understand that it'll move around arbitrarily later, too.

Obesity is not just an epidemic in humans. It's actually becoming one in domesticated animals. Metabolic disorders abound in horses. Things people never heard of 20 years ago. Sure, it's partly related to diet and exercise, but I think we're breeding for these things, too. And that doesn't just apply to horses, either.

 

[ZRT]

I'm thinking of this in terms of nationalized care, and I'm torn. I would love for everyone to have basic medical needs covered at an affordable rate. It's the humane thing to do, we would be a stronger and healthier nation for putting people in a place where they can take care of things preventatively, it would actually be cheaper in the long term (because of preventative health care), etc.

However, just as I twitch over women having children to increase their welfare checks [less common than it used to be, I know], I twitch over covering the costs associated with preventable diseases caused by obesity. Cold, I know, but I do.

I would be perfectly happy to have my tax dollars go towards a national fitness membership where people have access to gyms, yoga studios, nutritionists, etc.



My point wasn't that NHS should pay people to lose weight, because it won't really work long term. My point was that if one is going to have an attitude of



My attitude leans more towards "awesome - happy for you, but realize you'll have to sleep in the bed you've made."

This sums up neatly my qualms about universal health care- it leads toward justifications of all sorts of intrusions into our lives on the basis of how we're now fiscally responsible for everybody's well-being.

Well, that's one of my major qualms anyway.

 

[intothewoods]

See, the way you said it there comes off a lot nicer. The way you kept posting was coming off in a manner that you find yourself superior because you're thin. It also really looks like you think most people are fat because of laziness or over eating. It's just not true.

Not to mention I read the thread AA linked and you were a total asshole in it too.

To be fair, he's often an asshole.

That's good but it would be nice if you could everyday. Even if it means getting up earlier. I've done the every other day thing and it's too easy to skip days here and there. Shit happens.

Now I do it everyday. Days I lift. Days when I might walk 9 holes of golf. I still do my 50 minute walk.

The main thing about eating is not to eat anything after 6pm. Wake up hungry and have a good breakfast.

With a very similar schedule (reports to work for 7:30 a.m. and puts in 13-hour days four out of five every week), my wife gets up every day at 4:45 to make sure she has time for exercise. She and her sister have nearly identical body frames and genetic tendency toward being round. Both are 5' 4" in height. The sister weighs in at 325 and the wifely one is complaining about having edged up to 146. And that alarm clock at 4:45 goes off every day, even the ones where she was at her desk until 1 a.m. the night before.

Just saying that it's often a matter of priorities and being willing to stick to them to accomplish what you want in life.

Seriously, you two can eat a dick. Sorry, but I have ONE kid and a very demanding job and I'm exhausted all the time. I do make time to walk and work out, barely, but I also am not a single parent with a barely involved dad and young kids. Money helps. Having time helps. Having help helps.

 

[midwestyankee]

A

Why doesn't your wife's place of employment offer a gym, showers, and time out for each employee to exercise during the day? If obesity is a major cause of increased health expenditures, lost productivity, and so on - why isn't that a priority for your wife's employer, and all of the other American employers above a certain size?

Actually, her employer does make its indoor workout facilities available to both students and faculty - but only before and after school. However, there is no time during the course of the ordinary workday for anyone to work out - and there would be a monstrous hue and cry from taxpayers if teachers were allowed the luxury of working out during the school day.

Seriously, you two can eat a dick. Sorry, but I have ONE kid and a very demanding job and I'm exhausted all the time. I do make time to walk and work out, barely, but I also am not a single parent with a barely involved dad and young kids. Money helps. Having time helps. Having help helps.

The one advantage that my wife has presently is that our youngest is nearing 18 and does not require the degree of care that your little one does. However, she started this workout routine before we had children and has maintained it religiously for 35 years through nursing three infants and getting up for weekend soccer and softball games and then through staying up until the dating ones got home late at night.

But it's her choice and I often think that she's off her nut. I raise her example only because it's one person who has managed to keep to a good regime of exercise despite a demanding schedule as a working woman and a mother.

Thanks, but I'll leave the dick eating for others.

 

[JMohegan]

Actually, her employer does make its indoor workout facilities available to both students and faculty - but only before and after school. However, there is no time during the course of the ordinary workday for anyone to work out - and there would be a monstrous hue and cry from taxpayers if teachers were allowed the luxury of working out during the school day.

Damn, man! The teachers' unions in Chicago must totally suck, if their members are routinely expected to put in 13 hour non-stop days.

This is a good example of the overall problem, though. Time spent movin' around should be considered as necessary a part of a person's day as time spent eating meals. And we, as a society, need to either accept that fact and adjust our facilities and employee expectations accordingly, or accept the negative consequences in terms of economics and overall health.

Exercise is not a "luxury." It's a necessity. That's how we need to start thinking.

Your wife wakes up at 4:45 am every day, exercises and then heads off to work, from which she gets off that night at 8:30? When the hell does she have time for contributing to household chores, family conversation, or sex? Hats off to her commitment to 146 vs. 325, but that's just not a reasonable or sustainable schedule for society overall.

 

[Netzach]

ETA I work swing shift. So I work dayshift through the week, and midnights on the weekends. So that schedule changes a bit on the weekends.

OMG, let's not even get into how much of a health and metabolic fuck this is and how many people are living it. Not only nurses and MD's and security guards, but every third schmuck collecting an insufficient salary.

If we set the wayback machine on this thread to Netzie's first post, it talks about changing labor patterns and expectations and being able to set priorities around them.

MW, if I got up at 4:45 from now on, unless my new bedtime became 9 pm, I'd be dead soon. I'd drive into a median or pass out in an alley or catch h1n1 or something. Your wife's schedule would curtail my life, and I have no doubts about this.

I'm one of those people who just has to have sleep. A lot of people can do two consecutive all-nighters, and I can't. I start seeing things. I get sick, seriously sick, like real live flu or a CD flare, if I spend a while shaving my sleep down to 6 hours a day.

Am I resentful that T can be fit, actualized, and rocking on 6 hours sleep as his norm? Am I pissed that M *can* pull two all nighters without losing the next week of his life from the physical fallout - yes. Fuck, every time I go to sleep I've always felt like something's happening and I'm missing it.

People take this shit personally because you're seeing your own personal biology, history, and individual genetic and biological fingerprint being held up to someone else's and measured in a contextual vacuum. If I just do what your wife does, I won't be more fit, I'll be significantly more sick.

I haven't maintained my goal weight at all, but I haven't thrown up my hands either. I have good days and bad days like most people doing anything.

It's a struggle and a job. I'm fucking chronically ill, in debt, and trying to get out of it, and self employed. That I bother to work on it is good enough for me.

 

[CutieMouse]

OMG, let's not even get into how much of a health and metabolic fuck this is and how many people are living it. Not only nurses and MD's and security guards, but every third schmuck collecting an insufficient salary.

If we set the wayback machine on this thread to Netzie's first post, it talks about changing labor patterns and expectations and being able to set priorities around them.

MW, if I got up at 4:45 from now on, unless my new bedtime became 9 pm, I'd be dead soon. I'd drive into a median or pass out in an alley or catch h1n1 or something.

I'm one of those people who just has to have sleep. A lot of people can do two consecutive all-nighters, and I can't. I start seeing things. I get sick, seriously sick, like real live flu or a CD flare, if I spend a while shaving my sleep down to 6 hours a day.

Am I resentful that T can be fit, actualized, and rocking on 6 hours sleep as his norm? Am I pissed that M *can* pull two all nighters without losing the next week of his life from the physical fallout - yes. Fuck, every time I go to sleep I've always felt like something's happening and I'm missing it.

[hijack]

Yes.

I had my performance review last week, and the only semi-negative thing they could come up with was they can tell when I've not gotten enough sleep the night before, because I'm more scattered than usual. And they're right - less than 7-8 hours too many nights in a row and my multi-tasking/reasoning skills go to hell, but dammit there's so much stuff to do and things to learn and experiences to have. Sometimes I wish I was like some of the men I've known who can run the world on 3 hours a night.

[/hijack]

 

[Netzach]

This is a good example of the overall problem, though. Time spent movin' around should be considered as necessary a part of a person's day as time spent eating meals. And we, as a society, need to either accept that fact and adjust our facilities and employee expectations accordingly, or accept the negative consequences in terms of economics and overall health.

Exercise is not a "luxury." It's a necessity. That's how we need to start thinking.

Fucking Amen. This was my point back on page 1 somewhere *cries* but better said.

If our employers do not want to go bankrupt on premiums, the company gym and showers are not a joke. And the time to use them isn't just for management. And when we work through lunch and food is ordered, it does not come from grease R us. The company potlucks are not 700 desserts and meat.

Self control is admirable, but the amount of energy planning and effort required doesn't work for most people. If it was working, we wouldn't have this issue. Something is getting in the way of self-care that wasn't before.

Whether it *should* or not. No one *should* be having sex outside of marriage according to some people, and they offer evidence of their own chastity as proof that anyone can do it.


That works.


Works real well.


So we can berate them, write them off, and be pissed if they die expensively and blame them and point to our own success that may have no practical resonance with them, or we can find out about their lives and what's a reasonable expectation.

We can make it accessible to people to do things that are good for them. Accessible and God Forbid, fun.

Or we can keep paying bitching and vilifying everyone.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Damn, man! The teachers' unions in Chicago must totally suck, if their members are routinely expected to put in 13 hour non-stop days.

Prospective teachers in Florida are told during their college careers that they can expect:

• to need to work at least 60-70 hours a week to do the job right;
• to be required to be at school an hour before the kids get there (7:00 for a 7:25 start) every day;
• to be required to be at school at least 30 minutes after the kids leave (2:45 - 3:00) every day;
• to be required to be at school at least 90 minutes after kids leave, once a month for mass faculty meetings, 60 minutes after kids leave, twice a month for departmental meetings;
• to spend three to five hours correcting, grading and recording work done by their students at least three nights out of every five;
• to spend three to five hours preparing lesson plans at least once a week;
• to take at least one graduate-level college course at least three years out of each five-year certification period, in order to meet continuing education requirements;
• and to need to have a spouse who makes at least 25% more than they do, if they don't want to have to have a second job just to pay their bills.

That's what they're told. The reality is worse.

And the reward? Just from my own experience:

• Each of the first six years I taught, a garbage collector in the city of Tampa made more money from his basic hourly rate than I did from my annual salary. The seventh year, it was approximately equal; years eight through eleven, I had a slight advantage, but only because of the third item in this list.
• Every year I taught, I spent approximately 10% of my net paycheck to buy supplies for my students and my classroom.
• In order to supplement my teaching salary, I coached or assistant coached two sports (soccer assistant {$250}, tennis head coach {$940}), sponsored the school newspaper (approximately 15 hours a week extra for the munificent sum of $940 a year (at the end; in the beginning, it was only $780), and the last three years I taught was assistant school business manager (the guy who administrates the sale of tickets to all school athletic events all year long, requiring that at least one of the two of us had to be at the school for every athletic event that charged for admission (football, basketball, wrestling, volleyball, track meets plus any district or higher-level tournament hosted by the school - that covers the entire school year, plus overlaps).
• Every year I taught, the number and complexity of useless forms collecting useless statistics that had to be filled out and turned in increased by an estimated 10%.

Yank is underemphasizing the hours she puts in, and the sacrifices she makes to continue in her chosen career. I could only take 11 years of it. I stand in awe of those like her who have made a career of it.

 

[Netzach]

That's good but it would be nice if you could everyday. Even if it means getting up earlier. I've done the every other day thing and it's too easy to skip days here and there. Shit happens.

Now I do it everyday. Days I lift. Days when I might walk 9 holes of golf. I still do my 50 minute walk.

The main thing about eating is not to eat anything after 6pm. Wake up hungry and have a good breakfast.

Actually, have like, 2 bites of something before bed. Not a full on midnight snack, but a handful of pecans or a glass of lowfat milik or a half a banana. I was given this schedule:

breakfast
+2 hrs am snack
+ 2 hrs lunch
+ 2 hrs aft. snack
LIGHT dinner
before bed small snack

 

[Netzach]

I would be perfectly happy to have my tax dollars go towards a national fitness membership where people have access to gyms, yoga studios, nutritionists, etc.

That's going to really help me out when I'm on a drip with 100mg's of IV prednisone and wondering how I'm going to pay for the whole joy ride over the next 5 years.

I'll take a tax hike of a couple of hundred bucks if it covers me, the relationship junkie who's been beaten up by her 20th abusive boyfriend because her decisions are so good, and the meth head down the street, and Ms. 500 pounds.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

i was watching the Science channel last week and heard a few interesting things concerning time perception. i'm mentioning them in passing rather than answering direct quotes simply because many have hit the subjects in tangent.

As a species, our meal times have drastically changed in less than a century. We formerly ate a major meal upon rising, between 1/4 and 1/3 of our daily caloric intake at the midday meal, and a small evening meal. We've all heard the nugget "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day." Turns out the general population's diurnal clock has a metabolic chaser. It's called break fast for a reason. Namely, your body has been doing low level maintenance while you're asleep and expects a fuel tank fill-up to face a fully conscious engine. The body does its best work at processing food for that first meal, and actually has no freakin' clue what to do with a large meal before bedtime.

For some of us, the digestive tract, liver, and kidneys do what they should do, and push excess out the other end. For the majority of us, the feast or famine signal gets a little whacked and thinks, "hell, never know when we might get a meal like this again. Better pack away some of this extra for the lean (pun intended) times." For the remainder, the system says screw it. It's here, we'll find a use for it all. i'm going to skip the processing of the "you're full stud/ette. It's time to move to your next activity." That signal has its own quirks too many to mention.

As someone who has twisted more ankles than i can recall on O'darkthirty runs, the next tidbit really pissed me off. The absolute worst time to exercise is the four hours that follow awakening from sleep. Blood pressure is at its highest for the 24 hours in most humans during that period regardless of lifestyle. Interestingly enough, that's the time your brain is at its best in focusing on the nitpicky details of a single task and/or multitasking the washer is overflowing, the baby needs a diaper change, the dog needs a walk, and your work@home conference call starts in 15 minutes. The best time for exercise is from the seven hour post awakening to eleven hour mark. The body burns calories more efficiently during that period than at any other time of your 24 hour day. i would have thought that flew in the face of an 1800 local testosterone ebb, but that may just mark the end of best physical activity.

The last tidbit concerns light perception and is a very loose tangent to the present discussion. Your eyes truly are the window to your soul and everything else in your respective meat sack. Your 24 hour clock makes adjustments to include your perception of 24 hours (22&1/2 to 25) and tweaks the remainder of your bodily functions as required to fit the cycle based on the amount of light that hits your retina. You can extend or shorten your "day" by allowing more/less light into your head. Oddly, in the absence of light, your internal clock flips a different circuit and marks time in strict fashion. i can't remember the scientist that spent months underground to prove it, but vaguely recall the experiment took place in the 60s.

 

[Netzach]

i was watching the Science channel last week and heard a few interesting things concerning time perception. i'm mentioning them in passing rather than answering direct quotes simply because many have hit the subjects in tangent.

As a species, our meal times have drastically changed in less than a century. We formerly ate a major meal upon rising, between 1/4 and 1/3 of our daily caloric intake at the midday meal, and a small evening meal. We've all heard the nugget "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day." Turns out the general population's diurnal clock has a metabolic chaser. It's called break fast for a reason. Namely, your body has been doing low level maintenance while you're asleep and expects a fuel tank fill-up to face a fully conscious engine. The body does its best work at processing food for that first meal, and actually has no freakin' clue what to do with a large meal before bedtime.

For some of us, the digestive tract, liver, and kidneys do what they should do, and push excess out the other end. For the majority of us, the feast or famine signal gets a little whacked and thinks, "hell, never know when we might get a meal like this again. Better pack away some of this extra for the lean (pun intended) times." For the remainder, the system says screw it. It's here, we'll find a use for it all. i'm going to skip the processing of the "you're full stud/ette. It's time to move to your next activity." That signal has its own quirks too many to mention.

As someone who has twisted more ankles than i can recall on O'darkthirty runs, the next tidbit really pissed me off. The absolute worst time to exercise is the four hours that follow awakening from sleep. Blood pressure is at its highest for the 24 hours in most humans during that period regardless of lifestyle. Interestingly enough, that's the time your brain is at its best in focusing on the nitpicky details of a single task and/or multitasking the washer is overflowing, the baby needs a diaper change, the dog needs a walk, and your work@home conference call starts in 15 minutes. The best time for exercise is from the seven hour post awakening to eleven hour mark. The body burns calories more efficiently during that period than at any other time of your 24 hour day. i would have thought that flew in the face of an 1800 local testosterone ebb, but that may just mark the end of best physical activity.

The last tidbit concerns light perception and is a very loose tangent to the present discussion. Your eyes truly are the window to your soul and everything else in your respective meat sack. Your 24 hour clock makes adjustments to include your perception of 24 hours (22&1/2 to 25) and tweaks the remainder of your bodily functions as required to fit the cycle based on the amount of light that hits your retina. You can extend or shorten your "day" by allowing more/less light into your head. Oddly, in the absence of light, your internal clock flips a different circuit and marks time in strict fashion. i can't remember the scientist that spent months underground to prove it, but vaguely recall the experiment took place in the 60s.

Totally freaking fascinating stuff.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Totally freaking fascinating stuff.

It's not exactly germane to the discussion, but one scientist took the light data and applied it to Alzheimer's patients and other chronically ill elderly. Seems that auto clock tends to break down over time, or gets a little looser in its interpretation. However, when the same test group was exposed to larger amounts of light during the day rather than cooping them up in low light rooms, cognitive measurements jumped amongst the group 11-20something percent. i'm recalling this in a dark room so my memory is obviously shot to hell in response.