This week on our Facebook page (which if you don’t “like,” maybe you ought to–we share lots of fun stuff there, mostly it’s me posting but some times Tracy, Catherine, and Nat chime in too) I caused a bit of upset when I shared an ad for a kids’ treadmill with a short note saying that I thought this was a terribly sad idea. I wrote, “A treadmill for kids? Can’t they run and play outside? This makes me sad.”

“Bit of upset” is an understatement when it comes to describing our readers’ reactions. I think it was the most controversial thing I’ve ever posted with my feminism called into question.  I was called classist and ableist, elitist and pretentious.

I think I forgot the cardinal rule of being a parent. Never, ever, ever criticize the choices other parents make. I confess I’d kind of forgotten how much shame and blame parents get for their choices. My youngest kids are in their late teens and I tend to forget how judgmental people can be, including me, apparently.

And I was also reminded that social media commentary isn’t like academic life. I get a lot of criticism of my ideas, as a professor, but there’s relatively little name calling.

But thanks for calling me to task. Yes, I was ableist for not considering that not all children can run outside. Yes, I was classist for not remembering that not all families like in neighbourhoods like mine. I’m sorry. I posted quickly, without thinking, and got it wrong. It’s a complicated issue.

Readers reminded me that there are all sorts of reasons parents might choose a treadmill as a way of making sure a kid gets enough movement in their day. Some kids might have disabilities and walking on a treadmill might be better and more supportive than walking outside. Some families live in neighbourhoods where it’s not safe for children to play outside. Some parents think it’s too cold to play outside in Canadian winter and that like adults, kids might prefer to run on the treadmill while watching TV to running outside in the snow. All excellent reasons. Well, except maybe the winter thing. Unless you live in Winnipeg. Otherwise, get a snowsuit and toughen up. Generally, speaking children love playing outside in the cold and the snow.

I’ve mentioned some of the reasons for the kiddie treadmill. What about the reasons against?

Savita, a Fit is a Feminist Issue guest blogger, wrote:  “This treadmill is a terrible idea, for several reasons. First, it is not a medical device, and so insurance will not pay for it. Second, if you live in an unsafe neighbourhood, it’s because you can’t afford a safer neighbourhood. How will a $100 child’s treadmill address the problem? Third, children need unstructured play for their neuromuscular systems and brains to develop. Fourth, weather is no excuse for children not to play outside. Children love running around in the rain, splashing in puddles, and can spend hours playing in the snow. It’s only we adults that find the weather bothersome. Fifth, kids are kids and the novelty of the treadmill will wear off after a few days. And finally….who here equates “treadmill” with “fun”? People call it the “dread mill” for a reason! I won’t judge the people who buy it; my judgement is reserved for the toy company that markets this thing as a “fun and fitness” tool. If you want “fun and fitness”, how about a soccer ball or a hula hoop or a skipping rope?”

Someone else noted, in my defense, that likely what made me sad was the thought that the treadmill could easily be used to make kids (girls especially) be forced into diet and exercise to fit societal thin standards far too young.

Truth be told, my thoughts were more like Savita’s. I’m concerned about the play deficit in our children’s lives, the lack of time spent outdoors in the wild. I’ve argued over at Impact Ethics that we shouldn’t think of debates about kids and physical activity just in terms of exercise. We should think about play and daily movement too.

Some people worry that kids are growing up without “physical literacy.” This includes skills such as balance and range of movement. Think of them as the building blocks of physical competence on which other skills are built. If you don’t acquire some of these skills in your childhood, you’re set up for a lifetime of inactive living. Dean Kriellaars is one of the leading experts in a movement called physical literacy. “A child that has low physical literacy skills has low confidence to perform any activity,” he said. “They have a very limited number of movements they can do well. And all of those bundled together blocks them from participating in any physical activity.” http://www.physicalliteracy.ca/node/48

Many children today lack basic balance skills, for example. When you fall you become less confident and more fearful and thus begins a vicious cycle of inactivity which starts with teachers and parents branding certain children “clumsy.” If you grow up without the basic skills needed to be active, it’s harder yet again to start as an adult.

I’m not sure treadmills help with this.

I got nervous about parents doling out TV and snacks only after children “earned” them by running in place.

But I should have considered the wide range of reasons parents might want a treadmill for their kids.

I also found out this week that neither treadmills for kids nor the debates about them are new. Here’s this from 2008, Mini Treadmills: Anti-Obesity Tool or Death of Playtime?

Parents and toy companies say the child-size equipment can get kids moving and teach a healthy habit. But exercise and child psychiatry experts say at the wrong age, for the wrong reasons, child exercise equipment may do more harm than good.

And Cranky Fitness considers both sides of the issue here.

We all know Oprah is a mega-businesswoman above all else, right? She builds an empire on being everyone’s girlfriend, who we can just sit down and gab with, be real, you know? I know! I like her in some ways, or at least I like her carefully cultivated persona. I respect her and think she’s done lots of good.

But let’s not delude ourselves into thinking it’s not all about making money in the end. So why, oh why, did I feel so incredibly disappointed when she jumped on board the Weight Watchers train? She’s not just their latest celebrity spokesperson. No, being the savvy businesswoman she is, Oprah bought a 10% stake in the company late last year.

When Oprah gets behind something, it soars. Oprah’s book club picks had an enormous influence on the publishing industry for awhile:

The book club repeatedly made history. Winfrey got stores to order more than 500,000 copies of a book — not knowing its title, only that it was her next selection. Morrison, who was chosen four times, got a bigger sales boost from Winfrey than from winning the Nobel Prize for Literature.

In other words, what Oprah thinks carries weight. And what Oprah thinks about weight carries weight. Am I the only one who was disappointed, therefore, when Oprah decided to go for Weight Watchers? Am I the only one who wished she’d settled into self-acceptance? Am I the only one who wanted her to espouse body positivity and the idea of health at every size?

Of course she’s promoting Weight Watchers — she stands to make a ton of money. The stock she bought for $43,000,000 last fall is worth about $100,000,000 today. But this whole thing has let me down on several levels.

First of all, it’s that familiar thing of setting yourself up to fail. It’s hard to watch someone do this in such a public way. I don’t know Oprah (despite that she likes to make us all think we do), but I do know that she’s struggled publicly with her weight for decades. And I was kind of happy when I thought she’d settled into acceptance. She seemed to me to be focusing much more on “wellness” than weight loss, with things like her Super Soul Sundays and her connection with people like Ekhart Tolle, Marianne Williamson, and Deepak Choprah. (though–sigh!–she’s now joined with Chopra on a meditation challenge geared towards shedding “extra weight”)

But now she’s gone back to the weight loss theme, with her latest effusive video clip about how much she loves bread and how she’s losing weight on Weight Watchers and eating bread every day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSOtcyK3hF8

And more than that, she reflects out loud about how she joined WW because inside every overweight woman is “the woman she knows she can be.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNU-pvyhQd4

This gem prompted author Cassie St. Onge to give up trying to lose weight for once and for all. Because..

Oprah is one of the most accomplished, admired, able people in the world. She has an Oscar to keep all her Emmy Awards company. She creates magic for other people and herself on the regular. So if Oprah can’t do permanent lifelong weight loss, maybe it can’t be done. Oprah is also crazy rich. If Oprah can’t buy permanent lifelong weight loss, maybe it can’t be bought. And that sucks.

But it is also incredibly freeing if you, like me, have thought about your weight so many times throughout every day of your life that it becomes as maddening and distracting as if you’d stowed a beating telltale heart beneath your floorboards.

So let’s pause on this for a moment. Oprah, multi-billionaire Oprah with endless resources at her disposal, has not successfully maintained weight loss. She can hire a private chef and a coach, but so far she hasn’t been able to buy permanent weight loss.

And let’s go back for a minute to this thing about “the woman she knows she can be.” Oprah, this is where I felt really let down. Because I would have thought that of all people, you would know that there are more important things. Oh my goodness, I know so many women who think that if they could have just stopped obsessing about food and weight for long enough they would have achieved so much more in their lives, been willing to take more risks, had the energy to do more worthwhile things!

But there goes Oprah, redirecting our attention back to the one thing that supposedly will make all the difference: weight loss! Seriously, I’m with Cassie on this. If Oprah, with all of her accomplishments, isn’t who she wants to be yet but will be when she loses weight, what does that say about what really matters to who we are?

It’s a sad comment. So incredibly sad.

And what’s more sad still is that Oprah is poised to send a whole whack of women back to the drawing board, creating false hope for lasting weight loss. Such is the power of her Midas touch.

And that ad about the bread.

I don’t know. This ad just made me feel irritated because for goodness sake, we’re grown women. Can’t we just love bread without having to make a big statement about it? I mean really? This kind of relates back to my post the other day about not wanting to talk to people about weight loss anymore. And to that whole thing about “eat the damn cupcake.“

Just to be clear: Oprah’s taking another kick at the can doesn’t change the stats about success rates. Maintaining weight loss is a huge challenge, much more challenging than losing weight in the first place.

I don’t wish ill on Oprah or anyone who tries Weight Watchers because of Oprah. But I can’t help being disappointed. It’s great that she can eat bread and lose weight, for now. Everyone who loses weight on WW can do that. It’s true. But it requires tough choices, deprivation, mental focus, and a lifelong commitment that statistics show is difficult to make. That doesn’t take into account either the potential for metabolic damage and the lack of nutritional guidance for extremely active people.

I would have thought Oprah herself would have been a great example of how we can achieve greatness, influence, and respect at any weight.

Not achieving lasting weight loss is not about failure or about the inability to release “the woman you know you could be.” I hope that the woman most of us know we can be, or better, we already are, doesn’t depend on achieving and maintaining a certain goal weight. Or on “managing” our bread consumption.

The idea of managing bread consumption within the Weight Watchers “points” approach to food has already been the subject of a spoof. I’m not entirely sure what I think of the spoof, but (1) she does an amazing Oprah-voice and (2) the “plot” suggests that the “managing” approach isn’t going to be sustainable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrqytXawWZU

I’ve been thinking lots lately about outdoor bike riding. I know you’re not shocked. It’s just a month before outdoor rides appear on my training program.

I don’t exactly feel ready though. I’m not in Florida for spring break riding my bike there since my partner Jeff just had surgery and the plan had been to bike together. Instead, he’s home recovering and getting better but we’re not riding our bikes.

However, I am taking advantage of the winter weather now the snow has finally arrived. I’m cross country skiing (Monday), riding the trainer (Tuesday), and fat biking (this Saturday and again with my bike rally team at the end of the month). I might even sneak in some more ice skating.

Now there is just a little bit of winter left, I can even smile about it and enjoy the snow.

Here’s Sarah and me at Circle R Ranch.

We’re being told to expect a warm spring.

While Londoners continue to dig themselves out from the biggest blast of winter so far in 2016, there’s good news ahead.

Spring 2016 could be one of the warmest on record for Ontario, and Canada as a whole, according to AccuWeather.

London has been treated to a warmer than usual winter so far, all thanks to El Nino. The weather pattern will continue to exert its influence this spring with warmer-than-usual springtime weather.

AccuWeather says spring 2016 has the chance to rank in the top 10 warmest on record for Canada,

In the meantime, I’m enjoying the snow.

Maybe I’ll see you at the Fat Biking demo this Saturday.

Come play in the snow on bikes! It’s a lot of fun.

Do you feel annoyed or relieved when you read about how many calories household chores burn? When I read stuff like “These household chores burn the most calories” I feel irked. The article says:

Getting stuck into the vacuuming or hanging out loads of washing may not be the most appealing of pastimes, but a new study has found that doing household chores can burn more than 2,000 calories a week.

Scrubbing the bathroom tiles, doing laundry, washing dishes and vacuuming the house can be the equivalent of a workout at the gym depending, of course, on how thoroughly you’re cleaning.

Okay. So the premise is that cleaning the house is (or can be) equivalent–in terms of the workout value and calories burned–to working out at the gym. Let’s deconstruct that a little bit to show why it annoys me.

1.Since going to the gym is a nice time out from a busy life of commitments and obligations, the possibility that doing housework is actually equivalent to going to the gym is pretty near zero to me.  I get a lot more out of going to the gym than a calorie burn and strength training. I get a mini-vacation from the things that I have to do. Housework doesn’t really do that for me.

2. The article makes it sound as if we’re facing a choice: do the housework or go to the gym. Maybe some of us are busy enough that we actually are. But the thing is, most of us need to do the housework anyway. It’s not as if I can just stop cleaning my bath tub. So those calories burned through housework are part of our daily activities — not extra. That means that if we start “counting” the stuff we do anyway, we’re not going to achieve any extra results. This is because of the body’s amazing adaptive capacity. Once something becomes part of the routine, we need to do more of it for it to continue challenging our body. If you think I’m going to do more housework so I can burn more calories, you are mistaken.

3. I hate the idea of encouraging women (because, face it, that’s the target audience) to find more reasons to fulfill traditional gender roles by seeing the personal benefit in scrubbing the floors.  Catherine blogged about a similar report here. And Sam talked about it awhile back, here. Sam said then that we should be encouraging everyone, not just women, to feel more energetic about housework because it’s good for us.  I lean more towards Catherine’s recommendation:

So I say: step away from the vacuum cleaner, march past the cluttered desk, and avert your eyes while passing the laundry room—at least for long enough to get out there for a walk, run, swim, ride, yoga class, unicycle lesson, game of catch with your dog. The mess will keep until you get back home.

Her point: take care of yourself and then think about the housework.

4. Yes, yes, it’s good go acknowledge that the little things can “count.” What’s good about it is that it can encourage us to incorporate activity into our lives in ways we no longer do. In her post about housework, Sam talks about a study that shows we’re so in love with our modern conveniences that we’re just not all that active anymore. We hire people to do our housework so that we can (according to the study) spend more time watching TV. But if we broaden our view of what counts, it may be that washing our own windows and shoveling our own snow can boost our activity level in ways that should and do count. That’s all fine, but I still think that there is something suspicious about encouraging people to give up leisure activities in favor of household chores.

5. How do you measure progress? One thing that’s decidedly different about the gym or a run or what have you as opposed to housework is that you can measure progress. I can run faster and farther today than I could three years ago. I can see strength gains as I lift heavier or do more reps in the weight room. Beating carpets and pulling weeds might keep me moving and active, but it doesn’t support the same measurable and consistent improvements in strength, endurance, and cardio health as more structured activities that challenge us in ways designed to make us work harder.

I realize it’s complicated. I’ve skipped the gym in favor of shoveling snow before, and I feel super confident that I worked harder moving the snow than I would have that day at the gym. It also felt good to be outside getting some fresh air. But the idea that our household chores can just sub in for running, swimming, cycling, yoga, working out with weights, going to dance class, etc. just doesn’t seem fair to me because those things can add so much to our lives. To say that housework is “equivalent” is to immensely undervalue the worth of taking time specifically for leisure activities.

Winter started off slowly here. Remember my Boxing Day bike ride? Or my 5 degree bike ride with Nat? Those days are gone. Winter was late to the party this year but it seems to have arrived with a bang.

This weekend: Extreme cold warning issued for London area; wind chills below -30 expected

So no biking for me.

Even dog walking is a bit of a challenge. The sidewalks are snowy and the snow banks are getting high.

Tracy commented recently that I pay attention to pedestrian safety. I didn’t used to even think about it but since moving to London I’ve had two acquaintances killed by drivers while they were out walking, one person I knew from church and another I rode with regularly at the velodrome. Both ongoing acquaintances, both fit healthy women in midlife, dead because they were hit by drivers.

Knowing this makes me a well-prepared dog walker. Usually I wear reflective running gear and brightly coloured clothes but my winter stuff tends to be dark.

Luckily my son got a job with a snow shoveling company. The post came with a super warm, workplace safety approved, high visibility coat. Toasty! (This article details the stages of Canadian cold. I’m at least at Level 6, not caring what I look like.)

So I’m warm and extra visible. Tracy’s recent post got me thinking about the distinction between fear and anxiety. It’s true I take precautions when I’m out walking, and cycling, but once out there I relax and enjoy myself.

How about you? Do you feel safe out walking and running? What steps do you take to stay safe?