CoasterBuzz Podcast #192 posted

Posted Monday, September 27, 2010 12:15 AM | Contributed by Jeff

Jeff, Mike and Carrie review this week's news in the amusement industry.

  • The Fall Affair at Holiday World is in the books for 2010, with about 130 people attending.
  • Mike did the water park, and loves the way the size handles the crowds.
  • Holiday World and Splashin' Safari announces new stuff for next year. [Ed. note: We forgot to mention the new family slides! -J]
  • The crew talks about the joys of road tripping. And rental cars.
  • Six Flags keeps adding Paramount Parks folk to its lineup. Cedar Fair loses.
  • Universal modifies Harry Potter and the Forbidden Journey to accommodate larger people, and it's part of a trend around Orlando. Jeff gets on a pretty long rant about eating right and not being so damn lazy when it comes to convenience. Carrie makes the case that there's big cultural change that has to happen.
  • SeaWorld Orlando makes some temporary changes to minimize risk to trainers.
  • Owner of Geauga Lake's Big Dipper continues to make an ass out of himself with attention whoring and threats to tear down the ride.
  • Six Flags Great Adventure announces Chang, er, Green Lantern. It's new to them!
  • Busch Gardens Williamsburg and Tampa tease new stuff.
  • Luna Park at Coney Island has crazy good year. What's next?
  • Cedar Point's Mean Streak catches fire, but it's not serious, much to the dismay of enthusiasts everywhere.
  • New restaurants open at Epcot, Jeff says he'd like to get down there for the food and wine festival one of these years.
  • BooBuzz returns to Cedar Point on Friday, October 15.
  • You can get the latest headlines on CoasterBuzz from the Twitter. Follow us @coasterbuzz. You can also like us on Facebook.
  • CoasterBuzz Club is $25 per year. You can join or renew today. Enjoy CoasterBuzz with no ads.

Link: CoasterBuzz Podcast

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4:02 PM
Jeff's avatar

Carrie M. said:
Suggesting that making baby steps to lifestyle change gets you nowhere is just silly. Of course every little bit matters. Doing something is better than doing nothing.

I know this is completely in the realm of opinion now, but I don't know any people that it works for. Commitment is hard, and partial commitment yields little results. I could be totally wrong, but that's my experience, and that's the experience of most people I know who've tried to lose weight. YMMV and what not.

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog - Silly Nonsense

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4:14 PM
Tekwardo's avatar

If something is high in calories and high in fat, it's a poor choice. It's not like tots are better for you some days and not other days. If I have them, I've set myself back by that many calories for the day or week, which is counterproductive if I'm trying to lose weight.

It really isn't that black and white. You're coming at it from the angle that you're personally trying to lose weight, so for you personally, then whatever,a nd I agree that if you're trying to lose weight you should manage your diet. But simply eating something that isn't healthy isn't a poor choice.

I could be in great shape and decide that I'm going to eat some tater tots. Or ice cream. Or a McDouble. Or whatever kind of junkfood I want. That isn't a 'poor choice', a 'poor decision', or anything of the sort. I could be working towards being in better health, but that doesn't mean that an occasional bite of junkfood is overall a poor choice.

We discussed eating for pleasure and eating for health in that other thread. There is nothing wrong with having something with little or no healthful value in moderation at all. And I didn't say that moderation meant switching between junk foods, that in and of itself would not be moderation, but poor eating habits.

So I don't agree that someone that, along with eating healthy and taking care of themselves, someone who decides to have tater tots for lunch even just one time is a poor decision every time. It's not just about 'Well, it isn't going to kill you doing it one time', it's more than that. In the overall scheme of things, if I'm healthy and I eat right, me downing some tater tots doesn't absolutely equal me making a bad choice.

Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 4:19 PM

Suggesting that making baby steps to lifestyle change gets you nowhere is just silly. Of course every little bit matters. Doing something is better than doing nothing.

Indeed, going a little bit more slowly can often be *better* in terms of compliance.

My 30-year old self could handle it when I would just, out of the blue, start running again after months (or even years) of sitting on my backside. I'd start out shorter distances, and a slower pace, but I could do it. My 40-year-old self can't---I've had two "false starts" in the past year where I tried to pick back up with a modest running program, and couldn't stick with it for more than a week or two before I gave up.

This time, I'm doing to the "couch to 5K" program---it starts out alternating run/walk (in the Jeff Galloway style) and moves up to longer and longer periods of jogging until you can reliably run a 5K. I'm on week seven of nine, and unlike my prior two attempts, feel great. No aches, no pains, awesome. And, as much as it sucks to face it, at 41, it's clear that taking "some time off" from exercise has much deeper consequences than it did at 31, or even 36. But, it would have been even worse at 46. No time like the present!

But, I think what Jeff is trying to point out is that it's too easy to be healthy "part time", but not actually make any progress even though you think you are.

Weight Watchers is a good example---the idea is that you get so many points per day, an extra set of bonus points per week to use as you like, and you can "earn" more points with physical activity. Everything you eat costs you points, based on calories consumed. High fat foods cost extra per calorie, high fiber foods cost less.

To do WW, you have to count *everything*. You can't spend some days "off point" and still expect things to work. My wife knows folks who put their weigh-in day on Thursday so they can "splurge" on the weekend (not counting anything) and try to get back "on point" during the week---and these people are surprised that they don't lose any weight, even though "they're on WW." No, they're not.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 5:01 PM
rollergator's avatar

Brian Noble said:
Sprinkle some Old Bay on those puppies, and you've got some good eatin' that is relatively healthy (ignoring the added sodium from the Old Bay).

Old Bay seasoning = yummmmm. One of the few things I miss about MD is the "crab chips"...I try to make do with Old Bay popcorn - but it's not the same.

You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 6:32 PM

Is it even proper to call them "fries" if they are baked?

And can we get all the food joints to please disclose when their fries are coated? Personally, I think coated fries are *nasty*. Just dump the potato slices into really hot oil, cook them crisp, add a little salt, and serve piping hot. If you can't do that, then I'm having another side.

(Fries to avoid: Hardee's/Carl's Jr; Burger King, and, sadly, Steak 'N Shake)

I'm with Lord Gonchar on the sandwich issue. I can't even bring myself to order one of Arbys' wonderful-looking sandwiches because I don't want a cold lunchmeat sandwich. I want a hot meal, and it's hard to do that well in an office that is not designed for food preparation.

Oh, and munching lettuce isn't really good for you except to the degree that it keeps you from munching on something else. Common lettuce has *no* nutritional value whatsoever. Y'know, if it weren't for the lettuce I might eat salads once in a while...

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

    /X\        _      *** Respect rides. They do not respect you. ***
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /X\__ _ _ _____

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 6:52 PM
ApolloAndy's avatar

I'm actually totally with Jeff on this one.

The problem with "half assing" a life style change is that it's almost never half assing. It's usually closer to 10% assing and pretty quickly 1% or less assing.

Especially with things like weight loss there's really no room for even a little splurging. Just like to the quitting smoker there probably isn't much room for a little puff and for the person trying to get out of debt there isn't room for a little impulse buy. The point isn't really the effect of the item itself. The point is the psychological effect of allowing splurging to even enter the picture (and how much harder it becomes to not splurge more and more frequently).

Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 8:46 PM

Is it even proper to call them "fries" if they are baked?

Hence the derision quotes.

However, the Alexia "fries" are surprisingly good. Give 'em a try. You might like them.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010 10:00 PM
Jeff's avatar

Tekwardo said:
There is nothing wrong with having something with little or no healthful value in moderation at all.

I didn't suggest there was... in a general sense. I thought I qualified it as "if you're trying to lose weight."

ApolloAndy said:
The problem with "half assing" a life style change is that it's almost never half assing. It's usually closer to 10% assing and pretty quickly 1% or less assing.

This is pretty much the quote of the year. 10% assing, indeed! But it really does get to the core of what I was talking about. The spectrum of effective dieting in practice, that is, caloric and fat intake with exercise, tends to be very bell curved. I wish I could attribute that with a concrete link, but you'll have to take my word for it that I read it somewhere credible. :) It certainly reflects my experience.

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog - Silly Nonsense


You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2022, POP World Media, LLC