ok. I give up. What is this post about, exactly? It has something to do with the corrupting influence of money in amateur sports, right? *cough*, *cough*. But what does diabetes have to do with that, exactly? posted by casu marzu at 1:37 PM on February 10, 2005
Inactivity is a risk factor for diabetes.
I think what mce is trying to say is that increased emphasis on pro sports over amateur leads to a much greater gap in activity levels between lay people and athletes, which in turn makes for a less healthy population. posted by sid at 1:59 PM on February 10, 2005
And he's putting his point in the context of recent Canadian athletic funding debacles. posted by sid at 1:59 PM on February 10, 2005
Ah yes - I probably could have been a little clearer. Sid's got most of it all right though I might also mention that 1) participation increases with exposure, 2)facilities costs (when they exist) are prohibitive and 3)this stuff isn't new but someone willing to spend some serious political capital to make a difference surely would be. posted by mce at 2:38 PM on February 10, 2005
"doh" meaning MeTa just to be clear. posted by MLIS at 3:44 PM on February 10, 2005
bad sport: "most of all I hate the people who think it should be taught in schools as the only way of ensuring children lead a healthy lifestyle ... if they've got that much energy why aren't they hoeing their garden or doing something useful?" posted by raygirvan at 6:37 AM on February 11, 2005
"doh" meaning MeTa just to be clear.
Uh, never mind, sorry about that delmoi I did not see "metatalk". posted by MLIS at 10:18 AM on February 11, 2005
Sure, I'll bite. posted by breezeway at 1:16 PM on February 11, 2005
ok. I give up. What is this post about, exactly? It has something to do with the corrupting influence of money in amateur sports, right? *cough*, *cough*. But what does diabetes have to do with that, exactly?
posted by casu marzu at 1:37 PM on February 10, 2005