Do Obese People Aggravate Global Warming?

"Researchers say obesity epidemic threatens environment, and an
additional 250 million tons of greenhouse gases may be released every
year to sustain an ever more obese population.The obesity experts
condemned the letter in Lancet."

"The letter, submitted by researchers from the United Kingdom,
implicates the rising tide of obesity in greater oil consumption, more
food production -- and, ultimately, in an increase in the release of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

"It is a significant contribution," said Phil Edwards, co-author of the
letter and senior statistician at the London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine in the United Kingdom.

"Eighteen percent more food energy is required in many populations where
there is a large prevalence of obesity," he said, citing a 460-calorie
increase in daily food intake for an obese individual. "There is a clear
impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions in order to grow that food."

Edwards and colleague Ian Roberts wrote in the letter that "more
transportation fuel energy will be used to transport the increased mass
of the obese population, which will increase even further if, as is
likely, the overweight people in response to their increased body mass
choose to walk less and drive more."

But more troubling, some said, was the stigma that could arise from the
suggestion that those who are obese pose a greater environmental burden
than their slimmer counterparts."

http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/res...ryarticle=5774

Skip Buffet <Skip@nospam.com> wrote:

> But more troubling, some said, was the stigma that could arise from the
> suggestion that those who are obese pose a greater environmental burden
> than their slimmer counterparts."

It's not specifically linked to obesity. The heavier you are the more
of an environmental burden you are, regardless of whether you're
heavier because you're fat, or because you're very muscular, or
because you're very tall. Bigger people eat more and cost more fuel to
move around.

I look forward to rational airline ticket pricing based on weighing
the passengers as well as their baggage.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

convicted friend Chris Malcolm wrote:
> Skip Buffet <Skip@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > But more troubling, some said, was the stigma that could arise from the
> > suggestion that those who are obese pose a greater environmental burden
> > than their slimmer counterparts."
>
> It's not specifically linked to obesity. The heavier you are the more
> of an environmental burden you are, regardless of whether you're
> heavier because you're fat, or because you're very muscular, or
> because you're very tall. Bigger people eat more and cost more fuel to
> move around.
>
> I look forward to rational airline ticket pricing based on weighing
> the passengers as well as their baggage.

It still remains much smarter to eat less, down to the right amount.

Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be euglycemic...

Marana tha

Prayerfully in the awesome name of LORD Jesus Christ,

Andrew <><
--
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...8812d72ab4e17?

Chris Malcolm wrote:

> It's not specifically linked to obesity. The heavier you are the more
> of an environmental burden you are, regardless of whether you're
> heavier because you're fat, or because you're very muscular, or
> because you're very tall. Bigger people eat more and cost more fuel to
> move around.

"Eighteen percent more food energy is required in many populations where
there is a large prevalence of obesity," he said, citing a 460-calorie
increase in daily food intake for an obese individual. "There is a clear
impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions in order to grow that food."

The study looked at the effect of obesity in the aggregate.

Let's make cycling safer!

Skip Buffet <Skip@nospam.com> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm wrote:

>> It's not specifically linked to obesity. The heavier you are the more
>> of an environmental burden you are, regardless of whether you're
>> heavier because you're fat, or because you're very muscular, or
>> because you're very tall. Bigger people eat more and cost more fuel to
>> move around.

> "Eighteen percent more food energy is required in many populations where
> there is a large prevalence of obesity," he said, citing a 460-calorie
> increase in daily food intake for an obese individual. "There is a clear
> impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions in order to grow that food."

> The study looked at the effect of obesity in the aggregate.

> Let's make cycling safer!

I didn't think cycling was dangerous. According to the statistics I've
seen it's no more dangerous than walking about in city streets, and a
lot safer than walking up and down stairs or taking a bath. My
personal experience seems to confirm that, in that I've had more
accidents on staircases than bicycles in my last fifty years of
cycling.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> Skip Buffet <Skip@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Let's make cycling safer!
>
> I didn't think cycling was dangerous. According to the statistics I've
> seen it's no more dangerous than walking about in city streets, and a

He didn't say it was dangerous, he just wants it safer.
And I agree.

It's probably more dangerous in the USA than in Scotland.
Many people here seem to make their driving an ego thing
and resent anyone not conforming.

Many other people have a visual impairment that makes them
unable to see anything not having four wheels and an exhaust pipe.

http://3rvs.com/joomla/Latest/Ride-of-Silence.html
http://www.rideofsilence.org/

--
Wes Groleau

Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ?

Wes Groleau wrote in message ...
>Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> Skip Buffet <Skip@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Let's make cycling safer!
>>
>> I didn't think cycling was dangerous. According to the statistics
I've
>> seen it's no more dangerous than walking about in city streets, and
a
>
>He didn't say it was dangerous, he just wants it safer.
>And I agree.
>
>It's probably more dangerous in the USA than in Scotland.
>Many people here seem to make their driving an ego thing
>and resent anyone not conforming.


And lots of those bike riders resent anyone who's driving and do what
they can to interfere with the process, which causes many a dangerous
situation too. It works both ways.

Cheri

"Wes Groleau" <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote in message
news:KRDZj.47$3j.11@trnddc05...
> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> Skip Buffet <Skip@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Let's make cycling safer!
>>
>> I didn't think cycling was dangerous. According to the statistics I've
>> seen it's no more dangerous than walking about in city streets, and a
>
> He didn't say it was dangerous, he just wants it safer.
> And I agree.
>
> It's probably more dangerous in the USA than in Scotland.
> Many people here seem to make their driving an ego thing
> and resent anyone not conforming.
>

Now if the cyclists around here would just stop trying to run down the
pedestrians -- on the *sidewalk*! -- as well as on some popular multi-use
trails in the area. Or at least do better calling-out "passing or running
you down!"; rarely, one actually uses a bell.

They seem to have the attitude that "we're virtuously not driving, so we
rule the universe." They're not always looking where they're going & don't
always remember that there are people going in *both* directions -- they're
just intent on getting by/through the ones in front of them they ignore
people coming the other way. Sometimes they're in packs, which can be
frightening if your choices are to dive in the bushes, a ditch, or the
canal. I've had a few close calls but so far no collisions.
bj
(I'm the one on foot....)

On Fri, 23 May 2008 11:40:33 -0700, "Cheri"
<gserviceatinreachdotcom> wrote:

>>It's probably more dangerous in the USA than in Scotland.
>>Many people here seem to make their driving an ego thing
>>and resent anyone not conforming.
>
>
>And lots of those bike riders resent anyone who's driving and do what
>they can to interfere with the process, which causes many a dangerous
>situation too. It works both ways.
>
>Cheri

Yep. There is idiocy on both sides. We had a recent nasty
accident here where several riders were injured when a group
of about 100 were out in peak-hour traffic on a highway. The
driver should not have lost his cool and rammed his brakes
on in front of them after an incident but it could be argued
that common-sense would have led the riders to choose a
different time and place for a mass ride. And no, they
weren't riding home from work.

Here is an intersting comment on cycling to work in Sydney.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a...765054817.html


Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
--
d&e, metformin 1500mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com

http://loraltravel.blogspot.com
Latest: Bangkok

convicted neighbor Alan S wrote:
> friend "Cheri" <gserviceatinreachdotcom> wrote:
>
> >>It's probably more dangerous in the USA than in Scotland.
> >>Many people here seem to make their driving an ego thing
> >>and resent anyone not conforming.
> >
> >And lots of those bike riders resent anyone who's driving and do what
> >they can to interfere with the process, which causes many a dangerous
> >situation too. It works both ways.
> >
> >Cheri
>
> Yep. There is idiocy on both sides. We had a recent nasty
> accident here where several riders were injured when a group
> of about 100 were out in peak-hour traffic on a highway. The
> driver should not have lost his cool and rammed his brakes
> on in front of them after an incident but it could be argued
> that common-sense would have led the riders to choose a
> different time and place for a mass ride. And no, they
> weren't riding home from work.
>
> Here is an intersting comment on cycling to work in Sydney.
> http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/a...765054817.html

"Love each other as I have loved you." -- LORD Jesus Christ

Amen.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...fd908b7bd5e0cb

Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be euglycemic...

Marana tha

Prayerfully in the awesome name of LORD Jesus Christ,

Andrew <><
--
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...8812d72ab4e17?

bj wrote:

> They seem to have the attitude that "we're virtuously not driving, so we
> rule the universe." They're not always looking where they're going & don't
> always remember that there are people going in *both* directions -- they're
> just intent on getting by/through the ones in front of them they ignore
> people coming the other way. Sometimes they're in packs, which can be
> frightening if your choices are to dive in the bushes, a ditch, or the
> canal. I've had a few close calls but so far no collisions.
> bj
> (I'm the one on foot....)

All these complaints argue for better separation between autos and
bikes. With these blasted behemoths on US roads, the TITANS, the
ESCALADES, the ARMADAS, there's little incentive for a bike rider to do
much street travel, especially when these overstuffed vehicles are on
the road and parked on both sides, too.

As for the piggy bike riders passing pedestrians on the sidewalk...they
should be calling out "ON YOUR LEFT" but they're too lazy. A bell would
help, but that's not cool for the cool piggies.

On Thu, 22 May 2008 10:04:59 -0500, Skip Buffet <Skip@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Chris Malcolm wrote:
>
>> It's not specifically linked to obesity. The heavier you are the more
>> of an environmental burden you are, regardless of whether you're
>> heavier because you're fat, or because you're very muscular, or
>> because you're very tall. Bigger people eat more and cost more fuel to
>> move around.
>
>"Eighteen percent more food energy is required in many populations where
>there is a large prevalence of obesity," he said, citing a 460-calorie
>increase in daily food intake for an obese individual. "There is a clear
>impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions in order to grow that food."
>
>The study looked at the effect of obesity in the aggregate.
>
>Let's make cycling safer!

I suspect a similar study would show that athletes and others
indulging in high-energy activities also contribute to global warming.
Obviously we should all become couch-potatoes on minimal diets. Is
that stupid, or what?

--

Chris

T2 DX'd 2002, D&E, HbA1c 5.7,BMI 21
Lipids:Tot 4.2 HDL 1.4 LDL 2.5 Tri 0.6

E-mail: christopher[dot]hogg[at]virgin[dot]net

Chris Hogg wrote:
> <Skip@nospam.com> wrote:
> > convicted friend Chris Malcolm wrote:
> >
> >> It's not specifically linked to obesity. The heavier you are the more
> >> of an environmental burden you are, regardless of whether you're
> >> heavier because you're fat, or because you're very muscular, or
> >> because you're very tall. Bigger people eat more and cost more fuel to
> >> move around.
> >
> >"Eighteen percent more food energy is required in many populations where
> >there is a large prevalence of obesity," he said, citing a 460-calorie
> >increase in daily food intake for an obese individual. "There is a clear
> >impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions in order to grow that food."
> >
> >The study looked at the effect of obesity in the aggregate.
> >
> >Let's make cycling safer!
>
> I suspect a similar study would show that athletes and others
> indulging in high-energy activities also contribute to global warming.
> Obviously we should all become couch-potatoes on minimal diets. Is
> that stupid, or what?

Those who are eating the right amount and are doing the right things
are not needlessly contributing to global warming.

Truth is simple.

May you and other dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a
blessedly wonderful 2008th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus
Christ as the Son of Man ...

.... by being hungrier:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...1e617d10bd689?

Hunger is wonderful ! ! !

It's how we know what GOD desires, which is all that is good.

Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve
paid for with their and our immortal lives.

"Blessed are you who hunger NOW...

.... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)

Amen.

Here is a Spirit-guided exegesis of Luke 6:21 given in hopes of
promoting much greater understanding:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...aa8f8a4d41360?

Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be euglycemic...

Marana tha

Prayerfully in the awesome name of LORD Jesus Christ,

Andrew <><
--
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...8812d72ab4e17?

"bj" <bjones44@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:71FZj.84$3j.70@trnddc05...
>
> Sometimes they're in packs, which can be
> frightening if your choices are to dive in the bushes, a ditch, or the
> canal. I've had a few close calls but so far no collisions.
> bj
> (I'm the one on foot....)
>
>
It's hard to dive anywhere when you're doubled over laughing,
uncontrollably, at grown men in skin tight clown suits -

John