Who watched

dylan5588 · November 3, 2014

Countryfile Sunday night (2/11/2014) Why oh Why does it take a scientific research program to come to the conclusion that being out in the countryside and fresh air is good for the mind body and soul?????

Wasnt it just delightful to see those children being allowed to have fun and get dirty playing in the woods? we live in a society that is obsessed with hygiene, no wonder kids have so many ailments and allergies, they dont get a chance to be exposed to germs and build up any immunity, as my mother used to say "a bit a dirt never hurt anyone"

Adrian

gbal · November 3, 2014

Well...I had a mother that would not have disagreed,especially if there were dogs involved....

But the "research" did not show that, ...the program showed the children,enjoying themselves...perhaps a bit mucky, and no-one should be against innocent enjoyment,..there was no evidence whatsoever of more resistance to allergies etc etc.

The "research"-no detail-claimed that being gently in touch with the countryside-a walk along the edge of a field was mentioned,but not a wallow in mud-was good for,among other things ,depression,( so simply cured,after all?): again no evidence,and I would have thought,completely unpredictable and surprisingly claimed it helped/cured 'diabetes';evidence zero. I wonder how rural dwelling diabetics felt about it?Or why rural churchyards have quite a representation of those who did not live to their mid thirties?And all those charity pictures of rural third world children with contaminated water are....misleading,presumably??

Delightful to see kids having fun?Yes.

Fresh air ,and gentle exercise in moderation,no bad thing? Already known.

Scientific research? No,not as presented.

gbal

dylan5588 · November 3, 2014

Well...I had a mother that would not have disagreed,especially if there were dogs involved....

But the "research" did not show that, ...the program showed the children,enjoying themselves...perhaps a bit mucky, and no-one should be against innocent enjoyment,..there was no evidence whatsoever of more resistance to allergies etc etc.

The "research"-no detail-claimed that being gently in touch with the countryside-a walk along the edge of a field was mentioned,but not a wallow in mud-was good for,among other things ,depression,( so simply cured,after all?): again no evidence,and I would have thought,completely unpredictable and surprisingly claimed it helped/cured 'diabetes';evidence zero. I wonder how rural dwelling diabetics felt about it?Or why rural churchyards have quite a representation of those who did not live to their mid thirties?And all those charity pictures of rural third world children with contaminated water are....misleading,presumably??

Delightful to see kids having fun?Yes.

Fresh air ,and gentle exercise in moderation,no bad thing? Already known.

Scientific research? No,not as presented.

gbal

I think the third world problem is on a completely different level to the subject i mentioned, but now you mentioned it, maybe it is in some ways proof of what i was trying to say, third world children drink the foul water that is available, and yes they get sick and often die as a result, imagine a western child suddenly given that same foul water, I don't somehow think it would cope as well, do you? They cope better because they are constantly exposed to the bugs, viruses etc the water contains.

All i was trying to say was, most people these days live a "sterile life" especially children, Antibiotics work on the principle of giving you a small dose of the thing you are being protected from and allowing your bodies immune system to do its work , living a sterile life takes the natural process away from us. I am not saying we should all eat a pound of S??T per day. just cut down on the amount of cleaners and chemicals we use on a daily basis, Let the kids go to a petting Zoo and not worry about washing their hands, yes they may get a bit of a tummy upset, but next time they go they probably wont!!!!!!!

Adrian

rodp · November 3, 2014

Got to be right !! As a kid I played in mud, climbed trees, tried eating various leaves etc. It's a great life for a kid. :rolleyes:

If I could get out of this hospital bed I've been in since the age of 5 I'd prove it :lol: :lol: :lol:

gbal · November 3, 2014

Adrian,I see no point really in speculation-the evidence is considerable on all levels-maybe hospitals etc have it alll wrong.As I said,my upbringing was by no means dettol dominated.Not the point:

The program,as presented was not research based-at the very least,there was no research presented.Some of the claims simply fly in the face of decades of serious research.

That is my point-this was not scientific research,and to accept it as such is a blight on the very real research that has,and is ,being done on serious threats to human well being.

I have no need to argue against the idea that a romp in the country is OK for kids (I would hope they have been immunised by current best medical science-which is research based).

I have no argument with the idea that a short voluntary stroll in the countryside can be beneficial-indeed I have such myself daily.Generally,its mildly uplifting,in a way that a wait for an urban bus never was.

But that is not 'scientific research'.

Nor would I have any hope whatsoever that it would cure diabetes,with which I am quite intimately familiar,and have researched academically,in children.

I have also been involved with proper,well conducted ,academic ,scientific research that found that lonely people with pets,especially dogs,were less likely to develop mild depression-not though,because they walked their dogs etc in the countryside,primarily:the same findings emerged for elderly ladies with regular hairdressers-whom they definitely did not take for walkies.The effective ingredient in both these sets of people at risk,was that they had regular companionship,an opportunity to just talk to a listener,who responded-and was uncritical. ( I think that ,in it's minor way extends usefully the 'man's best friend" idea.)

(This was pre bull/rottweiler days-that is quite a different scenario-needing some proper research).

The good old days,may have offered some different pleasures in lives,but in terms of disease these lives are best characterised as being short.

good health!

gbal

dylan5588 · November 3, 2014

Adrian,I see no point really in speculation-the evidence is considerable on all levels-maybe hospitals etc have it alll wrong.As I said,my upbringing was by no means dettol dominated.Not the point:

The program,as presented was not research based-at the very least,there was no research presented.Some of the claims simply fly in the face of decades of serious research.

That is my point-this was not scientific research,and to accept it as such is a blight on the very real research that has,and is ,being done on serious threats to human well being.

I have no need to argue against the idea that a romp in the country is OK for kids (I would hope they have been immunised by current best medical science-which is research based).

I have no argument with the idea that a short voluntary stroll in the countryside can be beneficial-indeed I have such myself daily.Generally,its mildly uplifting,in a way that a wait for an urban bus never was.

But that is not 'scientific research'.

Nor would I have any hope whatsoever that it would cure diabetes,with which I am quite intimately familiar,and have researched academically,in children.

I have also been involved with proper,well conducted ,academic ,scientific research that found that lonely people with pets,especially dogs,were less likely to develop mild depression-not though,because they walked their dogs etc in the countryside,primarily:the same findings emerged for elderly ladies with regular hairdressers-whom they definitely did not take for walkies.The effective ingredient in both these sets of people at risk,was that they had regular companionship,an opportunity to just talk to a listener,who responded-and was uncritical. ( I think that ,in it's minor way extends usefully the 'man's best friend" idea.)

(This was pre bull/rottweiler days-that is quite a different scenario-needing some proper research).

The good old days,may have offered some different pleasures in lives,but in terms of disease these lives are best characterised as being short.

good health!

gbal

I am not going to get into this any further, I think you know what i am trying to say. No disrespect to you Gbal, but i honestly think things sometimes get "over thought" And lets face it, the research that comes out this month, will be proved wrong in another research study at some point, "red meat is good for you" "red meat is bad for you", Don't get me wrong, where would we be without research? just saying some things don't need researching, instinct, and common sense tells us what is good and what is not, even if we don't realise it.

Oh and by the way, you didn't need to go to the trouble of researching the "petting dog" thing all you had to do was ask the dog owners on here if their pets Gave them a sense of well being, calmed them when they were stressed, and cheered them up when they were sad. Maybe i am a cynic but it seem to me like whenever "research" is mentioned there seems to be a lot of £ note signs that get mentioned alongside it.

Regards a very healthy, dog owning and happy Adrian.

As a footnote, maybe the hospitals and doctors have got it wrong, over the years dishing out too many antibiotics, telling us all to keep squeeky clean which weakens our bodies natural defences and allowing bugs to become resistant? Food for thought? But wait, that food may be bad for us......Quick we need a researcher!!!!!!!!