Not much needed in a "Be Seen" light

On 11/4/2014 11:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/4/2014 9:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Hell, if _every_ American rode 100 extra miles next year,
the obesity rate wouldn't budge. It wouldn't come close to
making up for the tremendous drop in physical activity over
the past few decades. Can you remember people pushing
un-powered lawn mowers? Clipping hedges with big manual
clippers? Walking to the store to buy some groceries?
Lifting garage doors by using their muscles? Raking leaves
using an actual rake? Shoveling snow using an actual
shovel? Washing dishes by hand?


Really? I do all those except the lawnmower. I machete my little lawn.

Our lot is pretty large, 0.6 acres, so my push mower has a gasoline
engine; but I usually pay the teenager next door to push it. And I
confess, two years ago I bought an electric leaf blower. With a dozen
trees, manual raking was arduous.

But I do all the other tasks the old-fashioned way. Except that I don't
ever walk to a store. I ride the bike.

Self worth is from achievement and work, it's not an app.

That's crazy talk!


--
- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 11/4/2014 11:51 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/4/2014 9:36 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Hell, if _every_ American rode 100 extra miles next year,
the obesity rate wouldn't budge. It wouldn't come close to
making up for the tremendous drop in physical activity over
the past few decades. Can you remember people pushing
un-powered lawn mowers? Clipping hedges with big manual
clippers? Walking to the store to buy some groceries?
Lifting garage doors by using their muscles? Raking leaves
using an actual rake? Shoveling snow using an actual
shovel? Washing dishes by hand?


Really? I do all those except the lawnmower. I machete my little
lawn.

Our lot is pretty large, 0.6 acres, so my push mower has a gasoline
engine; but I usually pay the teenager next door to push it. And I
confess, two years ago I bought an electric leaf blower. With a dozen
trees, manual raking was arduous.

Small lawn here, but the Bermuda is impossible to get rid of and makes
push mowing a real pain. But do it anyway. As a bonus, it's pretty
much year 'round, so that makes up for a lack of a snow shovel.
Actually rained a half inch this Saturday, the first of the season.
Supposed to be back to 90 by Thursday. I do have an electric string
edger, but would toss it for a real manual edger if I could find a
quality one; pretty sure those haven't been manufactured for awhile
(not the crap at Home Depot).


--
Joe Riel

On 11/4/2014 12:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 7:36:30 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Can you
remember people pushing un-powered lawn mowers? Clipping hedges with
big manual clippers? Walking to the store to buy some groceries?
Lifting garage doors by using their muscles? Raking leaves using an
actual rake? Shoveling snow using an actual shovel? Washing dishes by
hand.

I don't think there has been a tremendous drop in physical activity over the past few
decades -- not if you look at how urban adults actually lived in the
'50s and '60s.
Most adults smoked like chimneys and drank like fish. Scotch and water
were drunk
in equal proportions around many homes. Fathers were handy, but the yard
work was
done by the kids. That's what kids were for. People drove big, heavy
cars and didn't
walk or ride bikes. We Californians did not shovel snow. Ward Clever sat
around in
a Cardigan and smoked a pipe, and he worked at a desk all week. Ward
was trim --
and good looking!

By my memories, there was a lot more physical work back then. In the
'50s, we lived on a small city lot; about 1960 we moved to a much larger
suburban lot. My dad pushed a reel-type mower on the small lot. On the
new lot, he (and we kids) put the entire lawn in by hand, shoveling
dirt, sifting out stones, seeding and weeding. It was a couple years
before he caved in and bought his first powered rotary mower. Dad was
also an avid gardener, but never owned a roto-tiller; he spaded and
forked his large gardens, and yes, we helped. We also helped care for
and harvest and preserve apples from six overgrown trees.

Dad never had a snow blower until he was in his '60s. He and we
shoveled snow by hand. We also went around the neighborhood offering to
shovel drives for a couple bucks. Screwdrivers and saws were entirely
manual, and nails were driven by a hammer, not a nail gun. That
included when we built our garage.

Beyond all that work, it seems to me that recreation was more active.
Touch football (in the street, telephone pole to telephone pole) was an
almost daily activity for the neighborhood teens, and Dad sometimes
played "steady quarterback." Family gatherings involved softball or
wiffle ball, badminton and volleyball and sometimes swimming. Adults
made sure that kids of all ages were somehow included. Indoors in the
winter, we played table tennis several times a week for years and years,
at an activity level that left me and everyone else dripping.

And my brothers and I had the second largest paper route for the metro
area newspaper. Delivered by bike, of course, unless the snow was too
deep and we had to walk.

It's possible that we were unusually active - above average, so to
speak. But the family next door to us now has two teenage boys. Nice,
kids, but they are nowhere near as active as we were. And you can tell
that by looking at them.


Kidding aside, the obesity issue is complicated, particularly with kids.
My personal belief is that in adults, it is a function of diet, stress
and to a lesser extent exercise.

I do suspect that diet is a bigger influence. Exercise of almost any
type just doesn't consume that many calories, and food can pump calories
back in very easily. From
http://www.bicycling.com/training-nu...mighty-calorie
:

"Cyclists notoriously overestimate how many calories they're burning,"
says Leslie Bonci, MPH, RD, director of sports nutrition at University
of Pittsburgh Medical Center. "If you eat an energy bar and drink a
sports drink on a moderate ride, you've effectively cancelled out any
calorie burn."

IIRC, there's evidence that regular exercise boosts your basal metabolic
rate, at least partly because muscle burns more energy than fat; so
there may be benefits to exercise beyond the simplest calorie counts.
But I think that if a person wants to lose weight, eating less (i.e.
portion control) is the place to start.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 11/4/2014 1:33 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
sms wrote:
On 11/4/2014 12:43 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:

snip

Yeah and everybody knows.

The obesity epidemic is the worst in the low-income, low-education,
Republican-controlled areas. So NOT everyone knows or understands. And
there's an effort to keep it that way.

They should know it by now don't you think. You should think people know
that smoking is bad for your health even the so called low income low
education people and still I see young people start smoking. How stupid can
you be? There is no excuse.

The problem is that those that are stupid end up costing the non-stupid
people a lot of money. The stupid people are also less likely to have
health insurance and end up receiving charity care. So charging money up
front in the form of cigarette taxes or sugar taxes does make some sense
because the higher prices seem to be the only thing that causes
behavioral changes. But where does it end? Do we tax fatty foods or high
cholesterol foods too? Especially after we subsidize the production of
these foods? Meat and dairy production are heavily subsidized in the
U.S. as is HFCS production.

On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:15:46 +1100, James
wrote:

On 04/11/14 23:04, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 19:23:54 +1100, James
wrote:

On 03/11/14 22:29, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:12:12 +1100, James
wrote:

On 03/11/14 14:47, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, November 2, 2014 1:17:00 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 03/11/14 02:13, Joerg wrote:

A friend of mine is an expert dirt biker and mountain biker who
has absolutely no problem going through hundreds of miles of
uninhabited and very gnarly offroad areas. Meaning zero cell
coverage if you screw up.

sarcasm

How extremely brave. Your friend must have enormous balls.
Everyone should be on their knees in your friends presence.

/sarcasm

Do people really have trouble letting go of the umbilical cord?

So, what's the deal with riding in the outback? Do you use a
satellite phone or call for help on a digeridoo?

Kidding aside, I do get concerned skiing out of bounds -- so I don't
do it alone.
http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamasc...limber_po.html
According to the world's most reliable source, Wikipedia, cell phone
use has cut the number of deaths/rescues on Mt. Hood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_H...bing_accidents.

If Joerg's buddy crashes in the middle of nowhere, he can't update
his Facebook status to " I'm fu****" -- but he can do some selfies as
he bleeds out.


Further, some of the places I go fishing could be deadly. It would be
easy to slip and be knocked unconscious. The river stones are large and
slippery, and the bush is right to the river bank, so you have to wade
to fish. The water is also only a few degrees warmer than ice, and has
a strong current where the river narrows. The banks have deadly snakes
and spiders, and there's plenty of biting insects that some could have
an allergic reaction to. Sunburn gives you skin cancer. Fishing is
DANGEROUS, with or without a phone!

http://goo.gl/maps/O6sSS

And "up north" they have alligators and out in the ocean you've got
sharks.



Crocodiles in FNQ and NT. Alligators are like lovable kittens by
comparison.

I always get mixed up between the two. Alligators have short noses and
crocodiles long noses, except that some crocodiles have shorter
noses...


Salt water crocs have a slightly shorter and more broad nose than fresh
water crocs - and fresh water crocs are no where near as dangerous, in
fact I believe relatively harmless.


Must be that Australian crocs are a bit shy as:

The Nile crocodile has a somewhat deserved reputation as a vicious
man-eater. The proximity of much of its habitat to people means
run-ins are frequent. And its virtually indiscriminate diet means a
villager washing clothes by a riverbank might look just as tasty as a
migrating wildebeest. Firm numbers are sketchy, but estimates are that
up to 200 people may die each year in the jaws of a Nile croc.

This freshwater croc got eaten by a snake...

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/quee...303-33xz8.html

My brother in-law goes fishing at that lake.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 09:11:02 -0500, Duane
wrote:

On 11/4/2014 7:01 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 23:20:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/3/2014 7:53 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, November 3, 2014 8:45:48 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

With most of this "safety" equipment, it seems there's a continuum, from
"Well, it might possibly help a little" at one end, to "Use of this
equipment is mandatory!"

Weirdly, every time someone acts on the "why not use it?" idea, it
microscopically moves us toward the "It's mandatory!" situation.

Yes, it has to pass through other stages, like "You really should" and
"If you don't, you're not being very smart" and "It's his own fault
because that dummy rode without it!" But the tendency is there.

This applies to helmets, of course, which are far along that journey.
But we're also seeing it in regard to wearing bright colors every time
you're on a bike; to Scharf's daytime strobes; to riding in bike lanes
as opposed to ordinary streets; and now to riding with cell phones. I
know one guy who is pretty militant about promoting eyeglass mirrors,
and there have been a few guys who have promoted carrying guns whenever
a person rides bikes.

It's not that bad out there!

So, what you're saying is that we should NOT use reasonably available safety
equipment that has been proven effective because that equipment may become
required? O.K. I'm in!

I'm not saying you should do anything. Do what you want. I'm just
commenting on the mechanism by which the definition of "safe behavior"
escalates.

And no, the phenomenon is certainly not limited to bicycling. Kids'
playgrounds have gotten safer and safer - so I know a community which is
spending big bucks to rip out playground equipment that was just fine
ten years ago. And should that playground have a tree that kids might
climb? No! Cut it down!

Does a guy's 8-year-old car have ten airbags and electronic stability
control? Of course not. Could that same car be sold now? Of course
not; it's not "safe" enough.

Does our home have a smoke detector? Sure, it always has. Does it have
one on every floor? Well, since we had some remodeling work done a few
years ago, yes - because just one detector was no longer safe enough.
Do we have one in every room? Not yet; but in ten years, we may be
called irresponsible not to have a smoke detector in every room.

We went kayaking last week, putting in at the state line. Since we
paddled west, and the water was dead flat, and I could probably stand up
if I somehow tipped, I tucked my PFD behind my seat. Had I paddled east
instead, I could have been fined for such dangerous behavior. And in a
few years, it probably won't matter which direction I paddle.

I'm hardly the first person to comment on this phenomenon. There are
others who realize we live in a safety-schizophrenic society. We
glorify extreme sports, we love watching high-impact football, we allow
200 mph motorcycles to be sold to teenagers. Yet we're taking down
playground swings, our cars' interiors need to be completely inflatable,
and you'd BETTER not ride your bike without a helmet, a neon jersey,
blinking strobes all around, disc brakes, an air horn, a cell phone, and
perhaps an automatic weapon.

You are right, although someone will probably dispute your comments.

I know people that will not let their boys play American football - it
is too dangerous. They ferry the kids back and forth to school - Oh it
is a long way to the school, (about a mile). Going to the beach is
o.k.... but don't go in the water, it is dangerous!

It seems rather pitiful, in a way. Here are people that are FAT, their
kids are FAT, and they are down to the fast food shop scoffing more
calories. Their main exercise used to be switching stations on the TV
but now they have a "hands-free" and they only exercise their thumb.

Obesity rates in the U.S. are, I believe, the highest in the world.
Two out of three Americans (I think USians) are obese, obesity has

Maybe you're confusing obesity with overweight?

From that never erring source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity..._United_States

In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported
higher numbers once more, counting 35.7% of American adults as obese,
and 17% of American children.

Still pretty dismal, especially for the kids.

Yup... I made an error (gulp)

led to over 120,000 preventable deaths each year in the United States
(Bicycles only lead to about 700) An obese person in America is likely
to incur $1,497 more in medical expenses annually. Approximately $190
billion is spent in added medical expenses per year within the United
States due to obesity.

Obesity is currently the largest single cause for the discharge of
uniformed personnel. In 2005, 9 million adults of ages 17 to 24, or
27%, were too overweight to be considered for service in the military.
According to a 2012 research on young servicemen's autopsies revealed
a large case of coronary disease problems occurring in large numbers
to younger individuals who due to obesity had high cholesterol and
blood pressure, which was prior to this commonly known in elderly
folks.


But for God's sake, never ride a bicycle without putting on your
helmet, it's too dangerous.


I hope that the point of this long diatribe was not another Danger!
Danger! AHZ thing...

Nope. I just tend to throw in a comment about helmets due to the long
and varied discussion about them. I'll probably start throwing in
comments about bike lights next.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 11/4/2014 12:11 PM, jbeattie wrote:

I do suspect that diet is a bigger influence. Exercise of almost any
type just doesn't consume that many calories, and food can pump
calories back in very easily. From
http://www.bicycling.com/training-nu...mighty-calorie

I'm not entirely convinced. I ride much less than before. I increased
my mileage over the summer by about 30 miles a week, and ended up losing
about 8 pounds, which was not desired. To counteract that, for the last
six weeks I've reduced cycling to practically nothing (30 miles a week),
increased caloric intake to 2500 kcal/day, and have only now gained back
about five pounds. Of course, my situation is different than the norm
(vegetarian, short-bowel, so can only tolerate low fat and little
sugar). Getting to 2500 kcal/day requires constant eating.

If the Garmin's calorie meter is at all relevant (I suspect not), my
normal Saturday ride consumes about half my total caloric input for
the day, and it is much shorter than when I rode with a club.

"Cyclists notoriously overestimate how many calories they're burning,"
says Leslie Bonci, MPH, RD, director of sports nutrition at University
of Pittsburgh Medical Center. "If you eat an energy bar and drink a
sports drink on a moderate ride, you've effectively cancelled out any
calorie burn."

IIRC, there's evidence that regular exercise boosts your basal
metabolic rate, at least partly because muscle burns more energy than
fat; so there may be benefits to exercise beyond the simplest calorie
counts. But I think that if a person wants to lose weight, eating less
(i.e. portion control) is the place to start.

--
Joe Riel

On 11/4/2014 7:44 PM, Joe Riel wrote:
I increased
my mileage over the summer by about 30 miles a week, and ended up losing
about 8 pounds, which was not desired.

Wow. Can I have those negative 8 pounds?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 05/11/14 11:31, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 05 Nov 2014 08:15:46 +1100, James
wrote:

On 04/11/14 23:04, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 19:23:54 +1100, James
wrote:

On 03/11/14 22:29, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 16:12:12 +1100, James
wrote:

On 03/11/14 14:47, jbeattie wrote:
On Sunday, November 2, 2014 1:17:00 PM UTC-8, James wrote:
On 03/11/14 02:13, Joerg wrote:

A friend of mine is an expert dirt biker and mountain biker who
has absolutely no problem going through hundreds of miles of
uninhabited and very gnarly offroad areas. Meaning zero cell
coverage if you screw up.

sarcasm

How extremely brave. Your friend must have enormous balls.
Everyone should be on their knees in your friends presence.

/sarcasm

Do people really have trouble letting go of the umbilical cord?

So, what's the deal with riding in the outback? Do you use a
satellite phone or call for help on a digeridoo?

Kidding aside, I do get concerned skiing out of bounds -- so I don't
do it alone.
http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamasc...limber_po.html
According to the world's most reliable source, Wikipedia, cell phone
use has cut the number of deaths/rescues on Mt. Hood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_H...bing_accidents.

If Joerg's buddy crashes in the middle of nowhere, he can't update
his Facebook status to " I'm fu****" -- but he can do some selfies as
he bleeds out.


Further, some of the places I go fishing could be deadly. It would be
easy to slip and be knocked unconscious. The river stones are large and
slippery, and the bush is right to the river bank, so you have to wade
to fish. The water is also only a few degrees warmer than ice, and has
a strong current where the river narrows. The banks have deadly snakes
and spiders, and there's plenty of biting insects that some could have
an allergic reaction to. Sunburn gives you skin cancer. Fishing is
DANGEROUS, with or without a phone!

http://goo.gl/maps/O6sSS

And "up north" they have alligators and out in the ocean you've got
sharks.



Crocodiles in FNQ and NT. Alligators are like lovable kittens by
comparison.

I always get mixed up between the two. Alligators have short noses and
crocodiles long noses, except that some crocodiles have shorter
noses...


Salt water crocs have a slightly shorter and more broad nose than fresh
water crocs - and fresh water crocs are no where near as dangerous, in
fact I believe relatively harmless.


Must be that Australian crocs are a bit shy as:

The Nile crocodile has a somewhat deserved reputation as a vicious
man-eater. The proximity of much of its habitat to people means
run-ins are frequent. And its virtually indiscriminate diet means a
villager washing clothes by a riverbank might look just as tasty as a
migrating wildebeest. Firm numbers are sketchy, but estimates are that
up to 200 people may die each year in the jaws of a Nile croc.


We wash clothes in a machine...

http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/northe...-1227028542104

--
JS

On Tue, 4 Nov 2014 06:50:47 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 4, 2014 6:11:04 AM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
On 11/4/2014 7:01 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2014 23:20:07 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/3/2014 7:53 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, November 3, 2014 8:45:48 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:

With most of this "safety" equipment, it seems there's a continuum, from
"Well, it might possibly help a little" at one end, to "Use of this
equipment is mandatory!"

Weirdly, every time someone acts on the "why not use it?" idea, it
microscopically moves us toward the "It's mandatory!" situation.

Yes, it has to pass through other stages, like "You really should" and
"If you don't, you're not being very smart" and "It's his own fault
because that dummy rode without it!" But the tendency is there.

This applies to helmets, of course, which are far along that journey.
But we're also seeing it in regard to wearing bright colors every time
you're on a bike; to Scharf's daytime strobes; to riding in bike lanes
as opposed to ordinary streets; and now to riding with cell phones. I
know one guy who is pretty militant about promoting eyeglass mirrors,
and there have been a few guys who have promoted carrying guns whenever
a person rides bikes.

It's not that bad out there!

So, what you're saying is that we should NOT use reasonably available safety
equipment that has been proven effective because that equipment may become
required? O.K. I'm in!

I'm not saying you should do anything. Do what you want. I'm just
commenting on the mechanism by which the definition of "safe behavior"
escalates.

And no, the phenomenon is certainly not limited to bicycling. Kids'
playgrounds have gotten safer and safer - so I know a community which is
spending big bucks to rip out playground equipment that was just fine
ten years ago. And should that playground have a tree that kids might
climb? No! Cut it down!

Does a guy's 8-year-old car have ten airbags and electronic stability
control? Of course not. Could that same car be sold now? Of course
not; it's not "safe" enough.

Does our home have a smoke detector? Sure, it always has. Does it have
one on every floor? Well, since we had some remodeling work done a few
years ago, yes - because just one detector was no longer safe enough.
Do we have one in every room? Not yet; but in ten years, we may be
called irresponsible not to have a smoke detector in every room.

We went kayaking last week, putting in at the state line. Since we
paddled west, and the water was dead flat, and I could probably stand up
if I somehow tipped, I tucked my PFD behind my seat. Had I paddled east
instead, I could have been fined for such dangerous behavior. And in a
few years, it probably won't matter which direction I paddle.

I'm hardly the first person to comment on this phenomenon. There are
others who realize we live in a safety-schizophrenic society. We
glorify extreme sports, we love watching high-impact football, we allow
200 mph motorcycles to be sold to teenagers. Yet we're taking down
playground swings, our cars' interiors need to be completely inflatable,
and you'd BETTER not ride your bike without a helmet, a neon jersey,
blinking strobes all around, disc brakes, an air horn, a cell phone, and
perhaps an automatic weapon.

You are right, although someone will probably dispute your comments.

I know people that will not let their boys play American football - it
is too dangerous. They ferry the kids back and forth to school - Oh it
is a long way to the school, (about a mile). Going to the beach is
o.k.... but don't go in the water, it is dangerous!

It seems rather pitiful, in a way. Here are people that are FAT, their
kids are FAT, and they are down to the fast food shop scoffing more
calories. Their main exercise used to be switching stations on the TV
but now they have a "hands-free" and they only exercise their thumb.

Obesity rates in the U.S. are, I believe, the highest in the world.
Two out of three Americans (I think USians) are obese, obesity has

Maybe you're confusing obesity with overweight?

From that never erring source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity..._United_States

In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported
higher numbers once more, counting 35.7% of American adults as obese,
and 17% of American children.

Still pretty dismal, especially for the kids.

led to over 120,000 preventable deaths each year in the United States
(Bicycles only lead to about 700) An obese person in America is likely
to incur $1,497 more in medical expenses annually. Approximately $190
billion is spent in added medical expenses per year within the United
States due to obesity.

Obesity is currently the largest single cause for the discharge of
uniformed personnel. In 2005, 9 million adults of ages 17 to 24, or
27%, were too overweight to be considered for service in the military.
According to a 2012 research on young servicemen's autopsies revealed
a large case of coronary disease problems occurring in large numbers
to younger individuals who due to obesity had high cholesterol and
blood pressure, which was prior to this commonly known in elderly
folks.


But for God's sake, never ride a bicycle without putting on your
helmet, it's too dangerous.


I hope that the point of this long diatribe was not another Danger!
Danger! AHZ thing...

A lot more kids rode bikes when I was young -- at least until they hit 16 and got a license. This was because parents refused to be chauffeurs, a task that now defines parenthood. But adults virtually never rode -- except on vacations at resorts. Professionals didn't commute by bike. They smoked and drank and did he whole Mad Men thing. The reason they weren't obese is because they didn't eat a lot of processed food. Nobody went to a gym. "Jogging" didn't gain popularity until the 1970s and diets were for women -- along with goofy weight loss schemes like those belt and cam weight loss machines and dexedrine.

I think there is a higher U.S. adult cycling rate now than ever -- but obesity is up, too. Go figure. Maybe its more complicated that one might think.

-- Jay Beattie.

The whole life style was different.

For example, I walked to school from the first grade all the way
through high school, in fact there was a school ruling that students
couldn't drive to school. Not a dictatorial ruling... there just
wasn't any place to park :-)
Unless it was raining, or snowing, my father usually walked to work
and as did most other people.

There weren't any "fast food" shops and "going out for supper" was a
once a week affair, maybe once a month, if that.

It was normal to do more physical activity. If you mowed the lawn it
was with a push lawn mower, people shoveled their driveway when it
snowed, and so on.

I suspect that people ate a more healthy diet, and probably more fresh
vegetables.

My grandfather, for example, probably weighed the same the whole of
his adult life. And he ate at least 5 meals a day. But of course he
got up at 05:00 to do the chores and worked until it got dark in the
evening...
--
Cheers,

John B.