-
-
Replying to @dnunan79 @ProfEmilyOster
But the problem isn't how to get more people to run. The point here is that people who run do a zillion healthy things. It's the zillion healthy things, not the running, that matters.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @TamarHaspel @ProfEmilyOster
This is my supper wide lense way of saying getting more people to run means putting in place all the other things you mention. And it’s not the zillion other healthy things per se - it’s the opportunity to do a zillion other healthy things.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dnunan79 @ProfEmilyOster
Can't go there with you my friend. Almost everybody has the opportunity to do the healthy things (mostly move and eat reasonably) but most choose not to.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TamarHaspel @ProfEmilyOster
Interesting take. I’d say social determinants dictate much of those opportunities and take away much choice.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @dnunan79 @ProfEmilyOster
Some determinants take away some choice, but I don't think there are many that really pan out when people study them. EG bring a supermarket into a food desert and nothing changes. Which determinants do you think drive choices?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TamarHaspel @ProfEmilyOster
Poverty, housing, jobs, access to care etc = less likely to be have means to be healthy/healthier
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @dnunan79 @ProfEmilyOster
Poverty makes absolutely everything harder. Which is why I hate the "you have to cook at home" trope. But as you go up the socioeconomic scale, the choices people make don't change much (on diet & exercise), which is an indication that it's not the primary driver.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @TamarHaspel @ProfEmilyOster
Agreed. I’d add as you go up the socioeconomic scale the problem of ill health isn’t so big as it is lower down. It might not be the primary driver for noncommunicable disease in higher SES - but that’s not the group where the bulk of the problems lie.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dnunan79 @ProfEmilyOster
The top third does better than the bottom 2/3. (30% obesity vs. 40% for both middle and bottom, eg). But because the middle third does about the same as the bottom third, it's hard to blame poverty. Could be different for other outcomes, of cousre.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Depends how you slice it (and sometimes by place and time). Most recent evidence in Australia indicates a pretty strong socioeconomic gradientpic.twitter.com/ZJRpHovegy
-
-
when the top quintile is 62% and the bottom is 72%, there's obviously a lot more going on than SES
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
True, but I don't think the effect of SES is entirely negligible either
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.