New Book "Rethinking Thin"

It doesn't simply take space, it takes space while cushioning the impact.
You are minimizing the importance of that cushioning.

Roger Zoul wrote:
|
| I'm not one of them. But I do think thickness could be an issue with
| your helmet on your head making contact. It simple takes up space.
|

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'd still wear the helmet. Getting hit without one can be deadly.

Personally, I don't think
helmets are a big deal. If you get thrown off you bike at speed and hit
something hard head on, you likely a gonner regardless of a form hat.
Nonetheless, I always wear my helmet.

Helmets, though, *are* important.

The inside of one's head has somewhat the consistency of a bowl of
gelatin; it might get "shifted around" in an accident.

If in an accident bones break, chances are that they will heal and
be perfectly usable. But if the insides of the head get "broken",
healing is chancy and at best would be much much more difficult.

People on this list already talk about long-range "way of eating"
rather than just a "diet"; people ought to think about long-range
"being prepared" rather than just about "wearing a helmet".

mikus

"FOB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Roger Zoul wrote:
|
| I would not count on that...if you're putting force on the tub bottom
| and you slip on a wet soapy surface, then you could end up moving
| backwards quite fast as you lose balance to have your hard hit hard
| porcelain. Most people don't have stools and most kids certainly
| don't use them. Imagine blunt object and head. So your imagined
| protection is false.

I don't imagine protection, I just know that the physical forces are
different for a bathtub fall and a cycling accident at more than a slow
leisurely pace.

Different? Sure. But a bathtub with nearby walls is more likely to be
damaging to your head since there are at least 3 walls very close. And
you're only a slippery wet surface...Outside on a bike your head is
typically in the clear.

Quoted message said:

|
| So where is all of this protection when you have a head-to-head with
| an 18-wheeler moving at 70 mph?

Aside from the fact that this is highly unlikely to happen, divided
highways
and my habit of paying attention when I drive, there is an airbag, seat
belt, metal capsule...

Why is this about you? We're speaking in general. I don't think you ride a
bike, do you?

The fact of the matter is that relatively speaking, head-on-collisions are
very likely to happen with all of the cars on the highways.

Quoted message said:

|
|
| Sure. How many die from car accidents vs bicycle accidents?

Wrong question, how many die per mile travelled

or hour spent in the

Quoted message said:

activity.

Given that cars go much faster than bikes and that most people don't ride
bikes, and spend entirely too much time behind a wheel then they should be
getting exercise, this seems like an unfair question.

The only question that truly matters if whether or not people live or die
(or get hurt or not).

Still, here are some data for you that I got off a website
(http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm):

Fatalities Per Mile
Motor Vehicle Travel | Bicycle Travel
42,000 killed | 813 killed
2.56 trillion miles | 21 billion miles
..016 fatalities per million miles |.039 fatalities per million
miles
Data from Traffic Safety Facts 1997 and The Environmental Benefits of
Cycling and Walking

You can see that air bags, seatbelts, and metal cage is not significantly
improving the odds of drivers compared to cyclist with basically no
protection. If all of that isn't going to make a difference, I don't see
why a form hat will.

Quoted message said:

|
| If you really want to be safe, wear a helmet and have you kids do so
| as well when showering. 🙂
|
But then I couldn't wash my hair. Which is half the point of a shower.

You're so concerned about safely that you can fathom how likely it is for
you or your grandkid to to get hurt taking a bath?

"FOB" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

It doesn't simply take space, it takes space while cushioning the impact.
You are minimizing the importance of that cushioning.

No really. There isn't any significant cushioning going on to a head inside
a helmet that can withstand head-on impacts with solid, immovable objects.
It's just not going to happen. If you should happen to suffer a bump, then
you can't know if it would have occured in the first place if you didn't
have the helmet on. So, while you can "throw out" the fact that there is
some cushioning going on, you cannot ever say when it's going to make any
kind of difference in a real crash. Said cushioning might make some
difference in very minimal impact or if a person lands "just right" {this is
one reason I wear mine}. Moreso, you can never say after the fact that a
helmet made any positive difference whatsoever. How can you if you can't
test under actual conditions?

Helmets are within the domain of fearmongering. Oh, be safe - wear your
helmet. It seems like the right thing to do.

Quoted message said:

Roger Zoul wrote:
|
| I'm not one of them. But I do think thickness could be an issue with
| your helmet on your head making contact. It simple takes up space.
|

Roger Zoul wrote:
|
| Why is this about you? We're speaking in general. I don't think you
| ride a bike, do you?

Not anymore. Don't you assess risk in terms of your own exposure?

|
| The fact of the matter is that relatively speaking,
| head-on-collisions are very likely to happen with all of the cars on
| the highways.
|
Most highways are divided highways, headons very unlikely.

| Given that cars go much faster than bikes and that most people don't
| ride bikes, and spend entirely too much time behind a wheel then they
| should be getting exercise, this seems like an unfair question.
|
| The only question that truly matters if whether or not people live or
| die (or get hurt or not).
|
| Still, here are some data for you that I got off a website
| (http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm):
|
| Fatalities Per Mile
| Motor Vehicle Travel | Bicycle Travel
| 42,000 killed | 813 killed
| 2.56 trillion miles | 21 billion
| miles .016 fatalities per million miles |.039 fatalities
| per million miles
| Data from Traffic Safety Facts 1997 and The Environmental Benefits of
| Cycling and Walking
|
| You can see that air bags, seatbelts, and metal cage is not
| significantly improving the odds of drivers compared to cyclist with
| basically no protection. If all of that isn't going to make a
| difference, I don't see why a form hat will.
|
|

|
| You're so concerned about safely that you can fathom how likely it is
| for you or your grandkid to to get hurt taking a bath?

I'm not so concerned about safety, this was just a discussion over whether
it is wise to wear a helmet while biking. I mentioned that I am certain my
daughter was saved from death or mental impairment by a helmet and you
started this whole rambling argument. As for my grandchildren, they are the
responsibility of their parents, I don't interfere.

"FOB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Roger Zoul wrote:
|
| Why is this about you? We're speaking in general. I don't think you
| ride a bike, do you?

Not anymore. Don't you assess risk in terms of your own exposure?

No.

Quoted message said:

|
| The fact of the matter is that relatively speaking,
| head-on-collisions are very likely to happen with all of the cars on
| the highways.
|
Most highways are divided highways, headons very unlikely.

Still, 18-wheelers are on plenty of roads that aren't divided. I see them
all the time. And headons are not unlikely, period. Anytime there is two
lane traffic, headons are possible.

Quoted message said:

| Given that cars go much faster than bikes and that most people don't
| ride bikes, and spend entirely too much time behind a wheel then they
| should be getting exercise, this seems like an unfair question.
|
| The only question that truly matters if whether or not people live or
| die (or get hurt or not).
|
| Still, here are some data for you that I got off a website
| (http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm):
|
| Fatalities Per Mile
| Motor Vehicle Travel | Bicycle Travel
| 42,000 killed | 813 killed
| 2.56 trillion miles | 21 billion
| miles .016 fatalities per million miles |.039 fatalities
| per million miles
| Data from Traffic Safety Facts 1997 and The Environmental Benefits of
| Cycling and Walking
|
| You can see that air bags, seatbelts, and metal cage is not
| significantly improving the odds of drivers compared to cyclist with
| basically no protection. If all of that isn't going to make a
| difference, I don't see why a form hat will.
|
|

|
| You're so concerned about safely that you can fathom how likely it is
| for you or your grandkid to to get hurt taking a bath?

I'm not so concerned about safety, this was just a discussion over whether
it is wise to wear a helmet while biking. I mentioned that I am certain
my
daughter was saved from death or mental impairment by a helmet and you
started this whole rambling argument.

It takes two to tango, honey. And you made a comment about a hotshot
professional rider who got killed without having a helmet and thus,
apparently, he is stupid. Of course, you didn't explain any details of why
he's stupid other than that he didn't have a helmet on. I guess that's the
only reason he died.

I have tried to explain to you that you have no way to be certain that your
daughter life was affected in any way by the helmet, but you will not even
consider the point. Hence, you have blinders on concerning the issue. No
wonder the discussion rambled. You aren't accepting any external input.

"Mikus Grinbergs" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I'd still wear the helmet. Getting hit without one can be deadly.

Personally, I don't think
helmets are a big deal. If you get thrown off you bike at speed and hit
something hard head on, you likely a gonner regardless of a form hat.
Nonetheless, I always wear my helmet.

Helmets, though, *are* important.

The inside of one's head has somewhat the consistency of a bowl of
gelatin; it might get "shifted around" in an accident.

A helmet won't stop the brain from getting thrown to one side of the head.

Quoted message said:

If in an accident bones break, chances are that they will heal and
be perfectly usable. But if the insides of the head get "broken",
healing is chancy and at best would be much much more difficult.

There is a chance, I do believe, that a helmet might make a difference in
some kind of crash. That can't be denied. That's why I wear mine. I think
it's worth the slight inconvenience of today's helmets. They are quite
comfortable and keep the sun off your head if you're bald.

Quoted message said:

People on this list already talk about long-range "way of eating"
rather than just a "diet"; people ought to think about long-range
"being prepared" rather than just about "wearing a helmet".

mikus

Roger Zoul wrote:
|
| Still, 18-wheelers are on plenty of roads that aren't divided. I see
| them all the time. And headons are not unlikely, period. Anytime
| there is two lane traffic, headons are possible.

I guess we just don't have many of those around here.
|
| It takes two to tango, honey. And you made a comment about a hotshot
| professional rider who got killed without having a helmet and thus,
| apparently, he is stupid. Of course, you didn't explain any details
| of why he's stupid other than that he didn't have a helmet on. I
| guess that's the only reason he died.

I said my children who are avid cyclers thought said he was stupid.
|
| I have tried to explain to you that you have no way to be certain
| that your daughter life was affected in any way by the helmet, but
| you will not even consider the point. Hence, you have blinders on
| concerning the issue. No wonder the discussion rambled. You aren't
| accepting any external input.

Well, looking at the helmet's damage and imagining that happening to her
head instead sort of leads to the logical conclusion that she would have
been considerably more messed up without it. I don't see how you can better
assess the probabilities when you have had no observation of the helmet or
her post accident condition.

"FOB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Roger Zoul wrote:
|

Quoted message said:

|
| It takes two to tango, honey. And you made a comment about a hotshot
| professional rider who got killed without having a helmet and thus,
| apparently, he is stupid. Of course, you didn't explain any details
| of why he's stupid other than that he didn't have a helmet on. I
| guess that's the only reason he died.

I said my children who are avid cyclers thought said he was stupid.

Ok, you did say that. I'm wrong.

Quoted message said:

|
| I have tried to explain to you that you have no way to be certain
| that your daughter life was affected in any way by the helmet, but
| you will not even consider the point. Hence, you have blinders on
| concerning the issue. No wonder the discussion rambled. You aren't
| accepting any external input.

Well, looking at the helmet's damage and imagining that happening to her
head instead sort of leads to the logical conclusion that she would have
been considerably more messed up without it. I don't see how you can
better
assess the probabilities when you have had no observation of the helmet or
her post accident condition.

I attempted to make no "better" assessment of any probabilities or even an
assessment. I did, however, note that you can't make any. It's entirely an
emotional assessment on your part.

Emotional? That's absurd. I know enough about the laws of physics to know
that a scrape that dug deep into a hard helmet would do nasty damage to soft
flesh, emotion has nothing to do with that. And it is also factual to say
that a padded helmet reduced the effects of a blow to the brain. Maybe it
wouldn't have killed or disabled her, but it really doesn't take all that
much of a blow to do so. It did knock her out as it was.

Roger Zoul wrote:
|
| I attempted to make no "better" assessment of any probabilities or
| even an assessment. I did, however, note that you can't make any.
| It's entirely an emotional assessment on your part.

If you know that much, then you also have to acknowledge that there might
not have been any damage at all had she not been wearing the thick helmet.
There might not have been a blow to the brain to reduce the effect of. It
all depends on many factors that none can predict or account for and I'm
doubtful anyone bothered to study the situation afterward. Since you can't
even acknowledge this, then one is left to believe that you're just caught
up in some emotional issue regarding the event. It's understandable, though,
as it was your kid involved.

"FOB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Emotional? That's absurd. I know enough about the laws of physics to
know
that a scrape that dug deep into a hard helmet would do nasty damage to
soft
flesh, emotion has nothing to do with that. And it is also factual to say
that a padded helmet reduced the effects of a blow to the brain. Maybe it
wouldn't have killed or disabled her, but it really doesn't take all that
much of a blow to do so. It did knock her out as it was.

Roger Zoul wrote:
|
| I attempted to make no "better" assessment of any probabilities or
| even an assessment. I did, however, note that you can't make any.
| It's entirely an emotional assessment on your part.

You are the one who is imagining things. She was thrown off her bicycle at
a pretty good clip, can't give you mph as I don't know how fast cycles go,
but she broke her shoulder and was knocked out. How the lack of a helmet
could have helped is way beyond my imagination.

Roger Zoul wrote:
| If you know that much, then you also have to acknowledge that there
| might not have been any damage at all had she not been wearing the
| thick helmet. There might not have been a blow to the brain to reduce
| the effect of. It all depends on many factors that none can predict
| or account for and I'm doubtful anyone bothered to study the
| situation afterward. Since you can't even acknowledge this, then one
| is left to believe that you're just caught up in some emotional issue
| regarding the event. It's understandable, though, as it was your kid
| involved.
|

Jim said:

Rethinking Thin: The New Science of Weight Loss - and the Myth and
Realities of Dieting

Gina Kolata

At Amazon.com
Tiny URLhttp://tinyurl.com/yszvrl
Long URLhttp://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Thin-Science-Loss-Realities/dp/03741...

From Publishers Weekly
Starred Review.

New York Times reporter Kolata may be the best writer around covering
the science of health. Here she offers an eye-opening book that
questions all our received wisdom about why we get fat and the health
hazards of those extra pounds. In chapters equally entertaining and
dismaying, Kolata (Flu) traces the history of dieting fads back to the
19th century; discusses our changing ideas about the ideal body (thinner
and thinner); and, most importantly, explains how genetic and
biochemical understanding has (at least among researchers) replaced the
view of obesity as a lack of self-control.

Most dramatic is Kolata's recounting of Jeff Friedman's groundbreaking
search at Rockefeller University for the "satiety factor," a hormone he
called leptin that tells our brains when we're full.

The science alternates with moving chapters in which Kolata follows a
group of people in a weight-loss study who are trying desperately to get
thin-a quest that, as Kolata makes increasingly clear is sadly futile.

In her final-and perhaps most surprising-chapter, Kolata blasts those in
the obesity industry-such as Jenny Craig and academic obesity research
centers-who are invested in promoting the idea that overweight is
unhealthy and diet and exercise are effective despite a raft of evidence
to the contrary. This book will change your thinking about weight,
whether you struggle with it or not. (May)

===================================================================

I have read the first few chapters and learned a lot.

Among other things.....
* "Eat less, Exercise More" is an ancient saying that hasn't worked for
well over a thousand years.

* Banting and his "Letter on Corpulence" had massive detractors at the
time. The medical community said there was no basis whatsoever for the
working of the diet, and individulals penned poison pen letters against
the giving up of those classic tasty carbohydrate foods.

* Until recently, there has been very little scientific research on the
mechanics or chemistry of weight loss.

* Whenever there is anything that is (temporarily) successful/popular,
there is a renewed effort to replace it with something new, and this has
gone on for about a century.

It may be of interest to a few here.

Jim

It's a Leptin book. Adequately disguised but I stopped reading when I
got to that part.

Everytime I see a book like this I think, all I have to do is come up
with 232 pages of stuff about being fat and a title that includes the
words "weight loss" and "science".

c
or! I could change my name to Kimkins...