[]
"Dogwalking beats dieting, study says"

Researchers at the University of Missouri-Columbia have
found that people who go on regular walks with a dog
could lose more weight than they would with many of the
big diet plans, because the activity forces them to get
exercise.

http://www.cbcunlocked.com/artman/pu...icle_604.shtml
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Over half of all US Treasury debt is now held by overseas owners

(Melinda Shore) said in rec.pets.dogs.behavior:

"Dogwalking beats dieting, study says"

Someone tell me where I can get research money to prove the
obvious.

--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

"Rocky" wrote in message
...
(Melinda Shore) said in rec.pets.dogs.behavior:

"Dogwalking beats dieting, study says"

Someone tell me where I can get research money to prove the
obvious.

Clearly the next reasonable steps in the research will be to study arthritis
sufferers and those recovering from heart attacks. I'm willing to suggest
that a study will show that both of these groups of people also benefit from
dogwalking.

Unfortunately, the research money is going less and less for pure science.
No one would finance Einstein anymore. In order to get a grant, you need to
be pretty certain what your research is going to prove before you write the
proposal.

~~Judy

In article ,
Judy wrote:
Unfortunately, the research money is going less and less for pure science.
No one would finance Einstein anymore. In order to get a grant, you need to
be pretty certain what your research is going to prove before you write the
proposal.

That's broadly true (and I think has dire implications for
the US's future economic growth), but in fairness the
article doesn't say whether or not the study received
external funding and, if so, whether it was $10,000 or
$1,000,000. Also, I expect it's useful to quantify the
tradeoff between diet and exercise, especially given the
popularity of weird fad diets and the plethora of snake oil
diet aids currently on the market.

The obesity epidemic in the US, aside from what it's doing
to people's lives, is just plain costing a lot of money in
healthcare expenses. And this morning's papers had the
results of yet another study that found that while at any
point in time a minority of Americans will be overweight,
over the run of their individual lives a majority of
Americans will become overweight, due almost entirely to
lifestyle factors.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=1182666

So, let's say that an obese individual spends $2000/year
more on medical expenses over a period of 15 years than he
would if he were closer to an "ideal" weight. That's
$30,000. If the study cost $100,000 and leads to just 4
people getting more exercise walking their dog (not to
mention their dog getting more exercise and staying
healthier), the costs are in some sense recovered, or at
least spent more productively. Applied research has its
uses, too.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Over half of all US Treasury debt is now held by overseas owners

Judy wrote:
In order to get a grant, you need to
be pretty certain what your research is going to prove before you write the
proposal.

Ooh, I have the perfect proposal, then.

Hypothesis: Dog walkers who eat sensibly lose more weight than people
who either just walk their dogs, or eat sensibly.

Suja

"Suja" wrote in message
news:RRy0f.3756$U%5.1657@lakeread05...
Judy wrote:
In order to get a grant, you need to
be pretty certain what your research is going to prove before you write
the
proposal.

Ooh, I have the perfect proposal, then.

Hypothesis: Dog walkers who eat sensibly lose more weight than people
who either just walk their dogs, or eat sensibly.

That's a good start. But that leaves you with mainly NIH or HHMI money.
The big grant is if you can get a drug manufacturer to support your
reserach. Or a big disease research group.

I suggest that you include an additional factor - perhaps dog walkers who
eat sensibly AND eat oatmeal and take a multi-vitamin versus the other two
groups. That gets you the vitamin manufacturer AND the heart associations.

What I find works the best is if I walk the dogs INSTEAD of eating -
sensibly or otherwise. But clearly the only research money for that would
have to come from New Balance or perhaps Poland Spring. Although I am open
to other brands if someone wants to make an offer.

~~Judy

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...
Also, I expect it's useful to quantify the
tradeoff between diet and exercise, especially given the
popularity of weird fad diets and the plethora of snake oil
diet aids currently on the market.

Yes, it's nice to know that something that costs nothing works better than
the latest fad diet.

The obesity epidemic in the US, aside from what it's doing
to people's lives, is just plain costing a lot of money in
healthcare expenses. And this morning's papers had the
results of yet another study that found that while at any
point in time a minority of Americans will be overweight,
over the run of their individual lives a majority of
Americans will become overweight, due almost entirely to
lifestyle factors.

It's sending some ripples down through places that you might not think of at
first. They say it may be one of the factors in the Lake George tour boat
accident. Occupancy limits were set based on an average weight of 150
pounds per person. As the airlines have already done, this may have to be
adjusted in the near future.

If the study cost $100,000 and leads to just 4
people getting more exercise walking their dog (not to
mention their dog getting more exercise and staying
healthier), the costs are in some sense recovered, or at
least spent more productively. Applied research has its
uses, too.

Very true. And as you point out, the real benefits may not be the
immediate, direct ones. I'm for almost anything that brings down my health
insurance premium.

The difficulty of course is in the balance. X amount of dollars and so much
we don't know. Applied research is somewhat clearer on the possible
benefits - financial included. Pure science is much more difficult to
qualify and quantify. When DD writes a grant proposal, she always has to
keep in mind that while her research isn't directly medical that the grant
money is most likely if she can at least hold out the future possibility of
a medical advance. Or you can push one of the current hot buttons - some
relativity to chemical or biological warfare perhaps.

~~Judy

In article ,
Judy wrote:
They say it may be one of the factors in the Lake George tour boat
accident.

Huh. I've been wondering how the boat capsized so quickly,
and that one didn't even occur to me.

Occupancy limits were set based on an average weight of 150
pounds per person. As the airlines have already done, this may have to be
adjusted in the near future.

Yeah, now if the airlines would only adjust seat width, that
would be excellent. Here's a classic economic moral hazard
problem: my company has a really strict frugality policy,
which means that you have to accept the cheapest fares even
if it means changing planes 3 times to get across the US.
However, people who are either over 6'5" tall or who can get
a note from their doctor saying that they're morbidly obese
can fly first class domestically and business class
overseas. There's not much you can do about your height but
there are frequent travellers who won't lose weight because
they don't want to have to fly steerage. Having gone
through periods in my life where I was travelling nearly
constantly (not with this company, fortunately) I can
appreciate how they feel, but refusing to improve your
health because of it seems kind of extreme to me.

Applied research is somewhat clearer on the possible
benefits - financial included.

I think that the distinction you're drawing isn't fully
appreciated by people who argue against public funding of
scientific research. I work in a research job (to the
extent that my employer does research) and I have to provide
revenue justification for the work I do, which I really
hate. I had a manager when I was fresh out of graduate
school who used to say that if you don't make mistakes
you're probably not doing anything, which I think is
absolutely true. I think most research isn't going to be
particularly fruitful, but there's not a reliable way to
tell ahead of time which is going to be which (although the
people who studied the weight loss of dog walkers
vs. non-dog walkers could almost certainly guess how things
would turn out [and we're making fun of them for that]).
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

The total national debt is now $7,932,709,661,723.50.

"Melinda Shore" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Judy wrote:
They say it may be one of the factors in the Lake George tour boat
accident.

Huh. I've been wondering how the boat capsized so quickly,
and that one didn't even occur to me.

The suggestion is that while it had a legal load by number of persons (minus
the required second crew member) that it was still very possibly overloaded.
(Along with half a dozen other things that all came together at that
instant.)

I had a manager when I was fresh out of graduate
school who used to say that if you don't make mistakes
you're probably not doing anything, which I think is
absolutely true.

And you certainly aren't doing anything new or innovative.

The lecture my daughter gave her freshman chemistry students on their very
first day included the necessity of being fearless. Not careless. Not
uninformed. But that the whole point of research is that you don't
absolutely know what you are going to find. It's always a risk. You may
have a well-substantiated theory and educated expectations but if you know
what is going to happen, then it's not research. At best it's proofing. Or
cooking. And in scientific research, even an unexpected result can be
interesting.

Our dogs' breeder - who was also a chemist - used to tell her students that
they were allowed to try anything - as long as they cleared it with her
first. Explosions can create major clean-up problems in a chem lab.

~~Judy