Why do we ask? Well, a town in Australia just banned bottled water for environmental reasons--all that plastic waste, you know. But there are also those studies proving that, in most cases, tap water is every bit the bottle's equal, in taste as well as good-for-you-ness. Indeed, some brands simply transfer tap water to a container and, voila!, rake in profit.
So assuming you're not drawing water from some sulphurous well, is it stupid to spend good money on bottled water for daily consumption?
Results from last week, in which we asked if Americans are really as fat as those annual stories claim...
Stewart actually went around his office (didn't say which office, quite wisely) and quantified the: 6 chubby and 3 thin.
Meanwhile, JF says people turn to euphemisms--"big boned"--to explain
(or deny) weight issues. And most seemed to imply that we could stand
to lose a little heft, whether or not the reports were entirely
accurate. In the midst of one post, TLS even touched on one of our pet
peeves:
"Drivers will block parking lot lanes waiting for a space to open up
close to the store rather than park ten spaces farther. They could be
in the store already but no, let's wait ten minutes for a space to open
up so we don't have far to walk."
Right on, TLS. Kinda pisses us off, too.
Back to the question. Any so-called study relying on body mass index is
a waste of time and should be ignored, not only by editors, but also by
consumers. Such research merely compares height and weight to a chart
of acceptable averages, ignoring anomalies like muscle mass. If a
growing number of Americans were hitting the Bowflex machines on a
daily basis, BMI would see a jump in obesity levels. Studies that
physically measure waistlines and body fat, on the other hand...
Oh, but those rarely hit the papers.
