cycling and ageing

[Audax67]

Not even my raincoat is beige.

[gbnz]

. None of them were much good at running.

Cugel

Having seen the obese, cigarette using, tyneside women the other day, that's not a surprise

When did 20+ stone become the norm. Is this the benefit class?

[Ray]

Not even my raincoat is beige.

I didn't realise people still wore raincoats

[Cugel]

. None of them were much good at running.

Cugel

Having seen the obese, cigarette using, tyneside women the other day, that's not a surprise

When did 20+ stone become the norm. Is this the benefit class?

The large ladies of yore in Tyneside (and, I understand, within other dens of the then working classes) were often muscular rather than fat. In the 50s and 60s there were very few fat people about - partly due to the long tail of rationing from WWII but mostly because people couldn't afford to eat so much, especially of the junk fuds. The habit and tradition was to cook stuff from basic ingredients.

These days the obese and significantly over-weight are legion. Various articles in New Scientist over the years indicate the culprit is largely junk-fud allied with enough money to buy it along with the advert-notion that ready "meals" are a wonderful convenience whilst cooking is for the upper middle class with large expensive kitchens and a cook book from some celebrity chef - not to mention an expensive bicycle which they ride obsessively.

But I digress.

The bully-wimmin of my yoof were that way as part of a long matriarchal tradition in places like Tyneside. Perhaps the tradition arose to counteract the other long tradition of wife-beating a la Andy Capp? A sort of self-defence; or perhaps a playing-out of the human inclination to form dominant-subservient relationships of every kind imaginable (and some not imaginable) unfettered by the considerations of our now more refined civil codes?

Mind, the refined civil codes are now on the wane; going down the slippery slope of the cultural sine curve into the trough phase. Wife beating never went away, of course. But I also noted a recent revelation concerning husband-beating. Humans! What's wrong with us? (Don't answer that'; it'll take far too long).

Cugel

[ANTONISH]

. None of them were much good at running.

Cugel

Having seen the obese, cigarette using, tyneside women the other day, that's not a surprise

When did 20+ stone become the norm. Is this the benefit class?

The large ladies of yore in Tyneside (and, I understand, within other dens of the then working classes) were often muscular rather than fat. In the 50s and 60s there were very few fat people about - partly due to the long tail of rationing from WWII but mostly because people couldn't afford to eat so much, especially of the junk fuds. The habit and tradition was to cook stuff from basic ingredients.

These days the obese and significantly over-weight are legion. Various articles in New Scientist over the years indicate the culprit is largely junk-fud allied with enough money to buy it along with the advert-notion that ready "meals" are a wonderful convenience whilst cooking is for the upper middle class with large expensive kitchens and a cook book from some celebrity chef - not to mention an expensive bicycle which they ride obsessively.

But I digress.

The bully-wimmin of my yoof were that way as part of a long matriarchal tradition in places like Tyneside. Perhaps the tradition arose to counteract the other long tradition of wife-beating a la Andy Capp? A sort of self-defence; or perhaps a playing-out of the human inclination to form dominant-subservient relationships of every kind imaginable (and some not imaginable) unfettered by the considerations of our now more refined civil codes?
Mind, the refined civil codes are now on the wane; going down the slippery slope of the cultural sine curve into the trough phase. Wife beating never went away, of course. But I also noted a recent revelation concerning husband-beating. Humans! What's wrong with us? (Don't answer that'; it'll take far too long).

Cugel

Yes but did these bully-wimmin's husbands wear beige clothing ?
Incidentally I can see plenty of obese persons locally in Kent - no need to travel to Tyneside.
Also sixty isn't elderly.

[Cugel]

Having seen the obese, cigarette using, tyneside women the other day, that's not a surprise

When did 20+ stone become the norm. Is this the benefit class?

The large ladies of yore in Tyneside (and, I understand, within other dens of the then working classes) were often muscular rather than fat. In the 50s and 60s there were very few fat people about - partly due to the long tail of rationing from WWII but mostly because people couldn't afford to eat so much, especially of the junk fuds. The habit and tradition was to cook stuff from basic ingredients.

These days the obese and significantly over-weight are legion. Various articles in New Scientist over the years indicate the culprit is largely junk-fud allied with enough money to buy it along with the advert-notion that ready "meals" are a wonderful convenience whilst cooking is for the upper middle class with large expensive kitchens and a cook book from some celebrity chef - not to mention an expensive bicycle which they ride obsessively.

But I digress.

The bully-wimmin of my yoof were that way as part of a long matriarchal tradition in places like Tyneside. Perhaps the tradition arose to counteract the other long tradition of wife-beating a la Andy Capp? A sort of self-defence; or perhaps a playing-out of the human inclination to form dominant-subservient relationships of every kind imaginable (and some not imaginable) unfettered by the considerations of our now more refined civil codes?
Mind, the refined civil codes are now on the wane; going down the slippery slope of the cultural sine curve into the trough phase. Wife beating never went away, of course. But I also noted a recent revelation concerning husband-beating. Humans! What's wrong with us? (Don't answer that'; it'll take far too long).

Cugel

Yes but did these bully-wimmin's husbands wear beige clothing ?
Incidentally I can see plenty of obese persons locally in Kent - no need to travel to Tyneside.
Also sixty isn't elderly.

One could not tell if the wee scurrying husbands of bully-wimmin wore beige or any other colour as in them days all Geordies seemed to be dressed in clothes that appeared to be various shades of coal. The soot was omnipresent, as there were many mines and everyone somehow managed to acquire cheap coal. Also, the wee blokes did not want to be easily noticed as their bully-wife would find them something unpleasant to do.

These days there are obsese and overweight people everywhere, of every age including quite young children. It really is an epedemic. I recently found a website on which are presented all the school group photos from my yoof. One might spot one slightly fat lad in a hundred, all through the late 50s to the late 60s (the period for which there are photos). I recall a fat adult being very unusual; and often from the middle classes. We had two fat teachers out of maybe twenty at the Grammar School, for example.

Cugel

[bigjim]

I ride in Mallorca every year. In the winter months the hotels in Mallorca are populated by Spanish pensioners taking advantage of the free holiday provided by the government. Hence there are swathes of them strolling on the front. They are universally wearing the same beige outfits. I can't ever remember them having any different style. The women also wear beige slacks and men's flat shoes. The women are always in groups chattering away while their husbands in their beige flat caps walk head down a few paces behind.
They seem to embrace old age. The ladies are usually very overweight. I see them at meal times piling white bread on plates and devouring the buffet.
Such a shame when these ladies used to be the gorgeous long dark haired, mini skirted, slim girls riding around on the back of mopeds, delighting my youthful and lustful teenage self.
Where did it all go wrong.

[Cugel]

.....
Such a shame when these ladies used to be the gorgeous long dark haired, mini skirted, slim girls riding around on the back of mopeds, delighting my youthful and lustful teenage self.
Where did it all go wrong.

In the shops, where junkfud was sold like the Special Stuff of Royston Vasey. If only the effect was just a nosebleed!

Some nasty stuff has always been available - grog & tabs, for example. The Victorians were possibly the worst adulteraters of foodstuffs, adding gawd-knows-what to staples such as bread, as well as selling all sorts of highly dangerous substances as "cures" or medicine.

In times of scarcity, populations often grow more healthy, assuming there is enough nutrition to get the vits and mins as well as the calories. In wartime, the population is often far healthier in terms of things like heart disease and diabetes, despite the rationing (or rather, because of it).

Since WWII there's been this vast increase in consumer-stuff, supposedly because it increases the standard of living, measured as how much you can consume but in no other way. In practice the manufacturers and purveyors have been allowed to sell an ever-increasing amoung of basically harmful substances. Anything to make a profit, which is regarded by government (all & sundry, really) as a wonderful freedom. Even mind-stuff of a toxic nature is now sold with the blessing and encouragement of government - gambling, nasty "entertainments" and much else that degrades the cultural and moral fabric of the nation along with their physical health. Motor cars are perhaps one of the worst toixic, highly-addictive profit-makers.

Every now and then there's a bit of stage hand-wringing by some minister, along with gestures about curbing the advertising "to the children". Ha! Why are the sugary junk fuds not banned altogether? And the cars. Every scientist, doctor and their dogs know junk-fud is the cause of the current obesity and diabetes epedemic. They also know how much damage cars do, in so many ways.

But healthy people living without these "conveniences" don't generate so much profit, I suppose. Meanwhile the taxpayers are subsiding the profits of the junk fud makers & purveyors as the NHS and Benefits system creak under the demands from the addicts.

Cugel

[bigjim]

Motor cars are perhaps one of the worst toixic, highly-addictive profit-makers.

I read a comment once by the hated J Clarkson, I think he is quite a good writer actually. He said there is no money in car manufacturing and if one was to go into business it was the last thing one would do. I think he is probably correct and most of the money is made on the add-ons like servicing, spare parts, finance etc.
I would imagine the government makes more out of cars than the manufacturers when you consider all the taxes on purchase, fuel, Insurance, parts, servicing and so on. Hence their often hidden promotion of ever more vehicle to clog and pollute our once lovely byways.

[Yvonned]

Agree with astonish that’s 60 isn’t elderly. I’m approaching 70 and my Doc says I’m not counted as elderly until my body starts to break down. She urges us to keep cycling, walking and weights work to keep ‘elderly’ at bay as long as we can.

[Sweep]

Agree with astonish that’s 60 isn’t elderly. I’m approaching 70 and my Doc says I’m not counted as elderly until my body starts to break down.

Love that sensible blunt doc of yours.

[ANTONISH]

Agree with astonish that’s 60 isn’t elderly. I’m approaching 70 and my Doc says I’m not counted as elderly until my body starts to break down.

Love that sensible blunt doc of yours.

I'm astonished to find someone agreeing with me.
Actually I'm 77 and I started going to a gym last year. Quite enjoy lifting weights (can only lift about half what I could sixty years ago) etc and gives me some exercise when there is ice or high winds.
There is other stuff like treadmills and rowing machines but I can't endure more than a few minutes on a Wattbike - there seems something unnatural about a static bike.
Of course there are other ways than going to the gym but I think a bit of load bearing exercise is essential - to delay the inevitable decline.

[oldmanonabike]

Every now and then there's a bit of stage hand-wringing by some minister, along with gestures about curbing the advertising "to the children". Ha! Why are the sugary junk fuds not banned altogether? And the cars. Every scientist, doctor and their dogs know junk-fud is the cause of the current obesity and diabetes epedemic. They also know how much damage cars do, in so many ways.

But healthy people living without these "conveniences" don't generate so much profit, I suppose. Meanwhile the taxpayers are subsiding the profits of the junk fud makers & purveyors as the NHS and Benefits system creak under the demands from the addicts.

Cugel

Every doctor and his dog knows there are two types of diabetes Type one is Not caused by junk food or gluttony if you can't get that fact right it casts doubt on the validity of your post.

[Cugel]

Every doctor and his dog knows there are two types of diabetes Type one is Not caused by junk food or gluttony if you can't get that fact right it casts doubt on the validity of your post.

Well ....

Correlation is not causation. And in attempting to find particular causative factors in a hugely complex thing like a human, in a hugely complex thing like a culture, with thousands of factors (such as dietary habits) involved, is no easy task.

However, at various junctures, correlation does slide towards a frequency where it looks suspiciously like causation - especially when many of the other factors are similar in cases showing the differentiations one is interested in. (Obesity and the related kind of diabetes, in this case).

There are no doubt many factors involved in the increased numbers of the population becoming diabetic, obese and/or indicating several other deleterious states. But enough research and study has been done to show a causative effect between high consumption of foods high in refined sugars with obesity and diabetes (of the relevant type you mention).

Here we enter the realm of the cultural mechanisms for truth-testing. I get my opinion largely from reading articles in New Scientist, not by performing my own experiments on either children or rats. I have a degree of trust in New Scientist and the science they report as reliable .... as opposed to the articles in many newspapers sourced from the PR agents of various commercial giants purveying what I have come to believe to be the dangerous fud (and drank).

My trust may be misplaced but in forming it I refer to many other cultural institutions and traditions with reputations that I accept.

What do you do? Who do you believe?

Cugel

[oldmanonabike]

I believe that there are two types of diabetes and it is wrong not to differentiate between them. By grouping them together you make people think all diabetecs have caused their own problems this is not so. The causes you give are associated with type 2 not type one