Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Physical Inactivity Worldwide Gender breakdown

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Physical Inactivity Worldwide Gender breakdown



    Daily chart: A map of sloth | The Economist
    Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
    Starting Weight: 294 pounds
    Current Weight: 235 pounds
    Goal Weight: 195 pounds

  • #2
    So the more industrialized (or post-industrial) people are, the less active they are. No surprise there.

    Furthermore, women in all types of societies tend, on the whole, to be somewhat more active than men. Again, one could probably have guessed that.

    But there are a few exceptions when it comes to sex (or "gender" as the Economist calls it). By the looks Brazilian women are less active than Brazilian men. Maybe with that nice climate they're all lying on the beach. :-)

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Lewis View Post
      Furthermore, women in all types of societies tend, on the whole, to be somewhat more active than men. Again, one could probably have guessed that.

      But there are a few exceptions when it comes to sex (or "gender" as the Economist calls it). By the looks Brazilian women are less active than Brazilian men. Maybe with that nice climate they're all lying on the beach. :-)
      Wait, what? Looks to me like they're pretty much more sedentary in all countries except a select few like Russia and the Philippines.

      lol@Japan
      My chocolatey Primal journey

      Unusual food recipes (plus chocolate) blog

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by sakura_girl View Post
        Wait, what? Looks to me like they're pretty much more sedentary in all countries except a select few like Russia and the Philippines.

        lol@Japan
        Oh, OK.

        The abstract says:

        Inactivity rises with age, is higher in women than in men, and is increased in high-income countries.
        Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects : The Lancet

        So you'd be right.

        It looked the other way round to me. We've got that big "less than 19% inactive" patch right across Russia and points East. And Canadian, Mexican, and Australian women all seem to be more active than their male compatriots (30 - 39.9% as opposed to 40 - 49.9%). Evidently, not true overall.


        I notice that the Economist says rather hopefully, "Surprisingly, America does not live up to its sluggish reputation," whereas the Abstract to the paper notes, "Worldwide, 311% ... of adults are physically inactive, with proportions ranging from 170% ... in southeast Asia to about 43% in the Americas ..."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Lewis View Post
          It looked the other way round to me. We've got that big "less than 19% inactive" patch right across Russia and points East. And Canadian, Mexican, and Australian women all seem to be more active than their male compatriots (30 - 39.9% as opposed to 40 - 49.9%). Evidently, not true overall.
          Canada, Australia, and Mexico look the same color to me for both sexes. Perhaps it is the lighting where the US and the Philippeans screw up the color so it looks darker?
          My chocolatey Primal journey

          Unusual food recipes (plus chocolate) blog

          Comment


          • #6
            Perhaps it depends on the color-balance of one's monitor.

            For me Canada and Mexico look much pinker on the chart for women than the U.S. does, whereas the color for the whole of North America appears uniformly red on the male chart.

            The precise color I see is a bit affected by the angle of the screen and how high or low on the screen comes. You know what flatscreens are like (although the Lancet obviously doesn't and is still living in the age of paper or it wouldn't have chosen those colors!).

            I defintely see a difference in shade between Canada/Mexico and the U.S. on the lower map, though.

            Comment


            • #7
              Yeah, but they are not quite as red as the other 40%'s on the map. Small issue, but just sayin' >_<

              But yeah, I would also question where the data comes from and how biased it is. For example, now that I think of it, Japan would make sense as a >50% if the majority of the population is really old, and if old people don't get as much exercise. So was the sample size an accurate depiction of the population as a whole?

              I was also surprised to see so much of Africa sedentary. Does anybody know why the data came out like that?
              My chocolatey Primal journey

              Unusual food recipes (plus chocolate) blog

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by sakura_girl View Post
                ... I would also question where the data comes from and how biased it is.
                That's the big question, of course.

                I'm not giving the Lancet my details just to look at the full paper, though.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Lewis View Post
                  I'm not giving the Lancet my details just to look at the full paper, though.
                  Amen to that.
                  My chocolatey Primal journey

                  Unusual food recipes (plus chocolate) blog

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Indonesia, Russia, and Finland are the only countries where women are less inactive than men. There's a handful where men and women range similarly, but overall, Lewis, most countries show less female activity. I'm not sure how you can try to gauge the red/pink, wince it covers range and red and pink are noticably different.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      That's a lot of lazy bitches. Except in Russia. They seem to have it figured out LOL

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        inactivity does not mean slothfulness. women in industrialized nations are far more likely to have inactive desk jobs than men are (just as one example). Since inactivity is defined as "less than 30 minutes of moderate-intensity activity five times a week," having too little free time might also contribute. As an example, a woman might be too caught up working her desk job and then coming home to care for children to exercise, while her husband gets to workout at the gym or play ultimate frisbee. Or it might be the case that women are sitting on their asses watching Oprah. Just saying that we have no clue simply based on that definition.
                        my primal journal:
                        http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...Primal-Journal

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          you stop defending women!
                          beautiful
                          yeah you are

                          Baby if you time travel back far enough you can avoid that work because the dust won't be there. You're too pretty to be working that hard.
                          lol

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Since the trend seems to follow most countries, regardless of development, I doubt it's the higher sedentary workload of developed nations alone that causes the disparity.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              My basic point is that this is too loose of a definition to draw the conclusion that women are slothful based on their reported rates of activity. There are other logical explanations for the inactivity differences than the one implied (that women are slothful). The world over, childcare generally falls to women. Childcare requires attention all day and all night requiring the person to be in physical contact with, or very close range to little people. This precludes most activities defined as "moderate exercise." Meanwhile, exercise is typically a leisure activity (if "first world" nations) OR manual labor (in "third world" nations).

                              So let's group alternative explanations by industrialization of the society:
                              ->post industrialized nations: women are far more likely to work desk jobs. once home, the bulk of the housework and childcare usually falls to the mother/wife, especially if her kids are babies, so she has less time for this leisure activity that we call "exercise."
                              -> industrialized nations: women are more likely to work in the garment industries and other non-manual labor occupations. once they return home, they are far more likely to be responsible for childcare, housework, and cooking.
                              ->non-industrialized nations: women are more likely to be responsible for cooking, tending the home, watching the children, caring for the garden and small livestock.

                              Another way of looking at it is by examining the typical female occupations and duties, and then categorizing those responsibilities by exercise levels. I think you'll find that the vast majority of responsibilities of women are less "active" and more of the "slow movement" variety of exercise.

                              but maybe you're right. women are just lazy bitches. it's in their nature, what was i thinking muddling the issue with logic?
                              Last edited by Saoirse; 07-21-2012, 09:05 AM.
                              my primal journal:
                              http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...Primal-Journal

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X