FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Cost of people being overweight in UK now £98bn, study finds
Cost of people being overweight in UK now £98bn, study finds
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can this be true, each person, whether through direct or indirect taxation paying £1462 a year towards the cost of our overweight population Guardian article estimates this includes £63bn cost to people affected, £19bn cost to NHS and £15bn cost to society" I have no idea. But I do know this "In 2022–23, UK government spending was almost £1,200 billion, or around £17,000 per person. This was equivalent to around 45% of GDP." (Source : Institute For Fiscal Studies). So each person "costs" the UK government £17K. Who would have thought we are so expensive to keep running, eh ? It's blimming expensive this keeping citizens malarkey. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can this be true, each person, whether through direct or indirect taxation paying £1462 a year towards the cost of our overweight population Guardian article estimates this includes £63bn cost to people affected, £19bn cost to NHS and £15bn cost to society" I unsure how being overweight makes me cost anything to anyone.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can this be true, each person, whether through direct or indirect taxation paying £1462 a year towards the cost of our overweight population Guardian article estimates this includes £63bn cost to people affected, £19bn cost to NHS and £15bn cost to society I unsure how being overweight makes me cost anything to anyone. "Morbidity linked to people being overweight is a big drain on the NHS. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morbidity linked to people being overweight is a big drain on the NHS." That seems unlikely. Dead people don't tend to use the NHS very much. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can this be true, each person, whether through direct or indirect taxation paying £1462 a year towards the cost of our overweight population Guardian article estimates this includes £63bn cost to people affected, £19bn cost to NHS and £15bn cost to society" I don't know where you got the £1462 figure from, but the rest of it isn't true. It comes from a report published by The Tony Blair Foundation, which estimates that overweight people cost us £98bn per year. However a look at the report soon shows that more than half of that is the value of life lost. They've calculated the number of quality-adjusted life years lost, multiplied it by a monetary value for each life year, and come up with £56.6bn as the 'cost' to those individuals. It's not actual money that's being lost, or spent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. Fuel poverty is higher than ever and social services and affordable housing are being cut. You want to spread the tax burden? Tax the rich." How will punishing rich people make vegetables cheaper? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can this be true, each person, whether through direct or indirect taxation paying £1462 a year towards the cost of our overweight population Guardian article estimates this includes £63bn cost to people affected, £19bn cost to NHS and £15bn cost to society I unsure how being overweight makes me cost anything to anyone. "I'll assume the last figure is for those with obesity causing inability to work. The first figure is more puzzling. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morbidity linked to people being overweight is a big drain on the NHS. That seems unlikely. Dead people don't tend to use the NHS very much." 
You're actually thinking mortality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morbidity linked to people being overweight is a big drain on the NHS." "That seems unlikely. Dead people don't tend to use the NHS very much." "You're actually thinking mortality." No, I was thinking of morbidity, but I'd always thought it meant dying from a disease. Thanks for correcting me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear.... this old can of worms again. Ho effin ho. Let's get a few facts straight, shall we? Obesity is an eating disorder. Like anorexia or bulimia. It differs from other eating disorders as, among other things, it can be caused by a combination of factors: poverty, early childhood trauma, post-natal depression, genetics, a faulty metabolism, disability, addiction, mental health issues, and a garden variety of familial, societal and yes, even abuse by the very same doctors who are "trying to help you". It isn't an easy illness to overcome, any more than alcoholism, drug addiction or cancer. I've lost count how many times a doctor would look at me and BEFORE even bothering his hole to look at my full medical chart simply say "you have to lose weight" (d'uh, thanks, Doc, I'd no idea). Now, if we're going to use statistical analysis, I'd like to point out the following where the UK is concerned: The leading causes of death in the UK are the following: 1. Alzheimer's and dementia 2. Heart disease 3.Chronic respiratory diseases (asthma, sleep apnea) 4. Cerebrovascular disease (strokes, aneurysms) 5. Lung cancer 6. Influenza and pneumonia According to the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) latest release, the top 10 causes of death worldwide are: Ischaemic heart disease Stroke Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Lower respiratory infections Neonatal conditions Trachea, bronchus and lung cancers Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease Diarrhoeal diseases Diabetes Kidney diseases Heart disease is by far the world’s biggest killer, and it has also seen the biggest rise in deaths since 2000 and now accounts for around 8.9 million deaths each year. So.... before people start throwing potshots at fat people, consider the cost of the above, the flawed premise of the OPs statement and the real reason why life is so expensive in the UK. A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. Fuel poverty is higher than ever and social services and affordable housing are being cut. You want to spread the tax burden? Tax the rich. End of rant. " Obesity as an eating disorder is one small element. Correcting obesity will improve some of the disease rates you listed. Correcting obesity, as you rightly point out is so very difficult. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morbidity linked to people being overweight is a big drain on the NHS. That seems unlikely. Dead people don't tend to use the NHS very much. You're actually thinking mortality. No, I was thinking of morbidity, but I'd always thought it meant dying from a disease. Thanks for correcting me." Only if being born is classified as such  . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can this be true, each person, whether through direct or indirect taxation paying £1462 a year towards the cost of our overweight population Guardian article estimates this includes £63bn cost to people affected, £19bn cost to NHS and £15bn cost to society I unsure how being overweight makes me cost anything to anyone.
I'll assume the last figure is for those with obesity causing inability to work.
The first figure is more puzzling."I'd have though health problems from obesity were obvious, and by extension the cost to the NHS. Diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, arthritis, stroke, some cancers ....... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps." A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps?" It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seeing the never ending queue at the Maccies drive through, and the massive proliferation of fast food delivery drivers, then I'm not surprised. We have become a lazy nation. " I would agree to some extent but would add that for some it will be a treat, for others it will be the sheer convenience due to work/life balance.. I still do  when I see ads for such service but it's yet another example of corporate controls and management of the consumer..
IMHO we shouldn't have stopped teaching home economics/cookery in school.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. " Agreed. Various factors: 1. Lack of cooking skills. 2. Tastebuds and serotonin groomed to crave junk food hits of sugar, salt and fat. 3. Laziness. As per detailed post earlier, there are without doubt some people for whom Obesity is a disease and it really isn’t their fault. But there are increasing numbers of lazy convenience junkies who could make life adjustments. Many of the health conditions listed above are made considerably worse by being fat (or being fat is the catalyst in the first place). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Seeing the never ending queue at the Maccies drive through, and the massive proliferation of fast food delivery drivers, then I'm not surprised. We have become a lazy nation. " In the Canary Islands, resorts hire bicycles and scooters to the Germans and Skandis but mobility scooters to the Brits. sad but true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can this be true, each person, whether through direct or indirect taxation paying £1462 a year towards the cost of our overweight population Guardian article estimates this includes £63bn cost to people affected, £19bn cost to NHS and £15bn cost to society I unsure how being overweight makes me cost anything to anyone.
I'll assume the last figure is for those with obesity causing inability to work.
The first figure is more puzzling.
I'd have though health problems from obesity were obvious, and by extension the cost to the NHS. Diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, arthritis, stroke, some cancers ......."The first figure from the guardian list. Since I did my dissertation on obesity I can assure you I understand the NHS costs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. " But it's not cheaper than processed foods. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods." I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You’re talking bollocks… alway a fucking excuse … " Reply and quote so you're addressing the correct person. Also, there are better ways to express yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods. I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. " We'll have to agree to disagree. But veg is only one element of your diet. A cheap microwave meal that purports to have the nutritional requirements is cheaper than buying your macro nutrients separately if cooking for one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can this be true, each person, whether through direct or indirect taxation paying £1462 a year towards the cost of our overweight population Guardian article estimates this includes £63bn cost to people affected, £19bn cost to NHS and £15bn cost to society I unsure how being overweight makes me cost anything to anyone.
I'll assume the last figure is for those with obesity causing inability to work.
The first figure is more puzzling.
I'd have though health problems from obesity were obvious, and by extension the cost to the NHS. Diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, arthritis, stroke, some cancers .......
The first figure from the guardian list.
Since I did my dissertation on obesity I can assure you I understand the NHS costs."Fair enough. What did your dissertation conclude on the subject of obesity then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods. I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. We'll have to agree to disagree. But veg is only one element of your diet. A cheap microwave meal that purports to have the nutritional requirements is cheaper than buying your macro nutrients separately if cooking for one." Agree to disagree. I batch cook for absolute peanuts that I can later microwave. It’s very simple. I appreciate however that it is not that simple though with eating habits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods. I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. We'll have to agree to disagree. But veg is only one element of your diet. A cheap microwave meal that purports to have the nutritional requirements is cheaper than buying your macro nutrients separately if cooking for one." Rubbish, the aforementioned veg box will, depending on the exact contents, make about 10 portions of tasty balanced meals with the addition of some other cheap ingredients such as chickpeas, chopped tomatoes, lentils, maybe a small amount of meat or fish, herbs and spices. Slow cooker so uses little power. Less than 50p a portion is easy to achieve. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can this be true, each person, whether through direct or indirect taxation paying £1462 a year towards the cost of our overweight population Guardian article estimates this includes £63bn cost to people affected, £19bn cost to NHS and £15bn cost to society I unsure how being overweight makes me cost anything to anyone.
I'll assume the last figure is for those with obesity causing inability to work.
The first figure is more puzzling.
I'd have though health problems from obesity were obvious, and by extension the cost to the NHS. Diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol, arthritis, stroke, some cancers .......
The first figure from the guardian list.
Since I did my dissertation on obesity I can assure you I understand the NHS costs.
Fair enough. What did your dissertation conclude on the subject of obesity then?"Multifactorial. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A genuine question, possibly for Amelie who obviously is interested in this subject and might have an insight: There’s fat and fat, I particularly notice it when we return to the UK, here in the South of France the weather encourages one to go out more and keep fit, and fresh fruit and especially vegetables are cheap and always available in a local market or shop (meat, on the other hand, is either very expensive or, like UK supermarket rubbish, pumped up with water and chemicals). Of course you come across the odd beer-belly or, as suggested, people who are naturally plump. But in the UK I see more and more younger women who are not so much fat as misshapen. Not the traditional English “pear-shape”, but the lower half of their bodies twice the size of their uppers. My own daughters have tended towards it, and as far as I can make out (the exact details I DON’T go into!), this has coincided with a change to their method of contraception: evidently a permanent medication which even reduces or eliminates menstruation. Just a thought, but perhaps the side effects of drugs and medicines play an important rôle?" Genetics predispose how and where fat is accumulated. I recall an article stating those with greater fat below waist level are healthier than those who accumulate it all over. Genetics play an important part in maximum adipose accumulation I discussed. That's not to say our lifestyles haven't had any input or genetic evolution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods. I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. We'll have to agree to disagree. But veg is only one element of your diet. A cheap microwave meal that purports to have the nutritional requirements is cheaper than buying your macro nutrients separately if cooking for one. Rubbish, the aforementioned veg box will, depending on the exact contents, make about 10 portions of tasty balanced meals with the addition of some other cheap ingredients such as chickpeas, chopped tomatoes, lentils, maybe a small amount of meat or fish, herbs and spices. Slow cooker so uses little power. Less than 50p a portion is easy to achieve." So rude just because my experience doesn't match yours! And the additions... Cheap is relative to disposable income. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A genuine question, possibly for Amelie who obviously is interested in this subject and might have an insight: There’s fat and fat, I particularly notice it when we return to the UK, here in the South of France the weather encourages one to go out more and keep fit, and fresh fruit and especially vegetables are cheap and always available in a local market or shop (meat, on the other hand, is either very expensive or, like UK supermarket rubbish, pumped up with water and chemicals). Of course you come across the odd beer-belly or, as suggested, people who are naturally plump. But in the UK I see more and more younger women who are not so much fat as misshapen. Not the traditional English “pear-shape”, but the lower half of their bodies twice the size of their uppers. My own daughters have tended towards it, and as far as I can make out (the exact details I DON’T go into!), this has coincided with a change to their method of contraception: evidently a permanent medication which even reduces or eliminates menstruation. Just a thought, but perhaps the side effects of drugs and medicines play an important rôle? Genetics predispose how and where fat is accumulated. I recall an article stating those with greater fat below waist level are healthier than those who accumulate it all over. Genetics play an important part in maximum adipose accumulation I discussed. That's not to say our lifestyles haven't had any input or genetic evolution." Not sure I buy this argument. We have similar genetics to Denmark and Netherlands where it's unusual to see obese people, particularly women. Having lived and worked there it seems to me people take more care and pride in their bodies. If you look at UK and US where obesity is prevalent, it's largely down to overeating large quantities of low quality food. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A genuine question, possibly for Amelie who obviously is interested in this subject and might have an insight: There’s fat and fat, I particularly notice it when we return to the UK, here in the South of France the weather encourages one to go out more and keep fit, and fresh fruit and especially vegetables are cheap and always available in a local market or shop (meat, on the other hand, is either very expensive or, like UK supermarket rubbish, pumped up with water and chemicals). Of course you come across the odd beer-belly or, as suggested, people who are naturally plump. But in the UK I see more and more younger women who are not so much fat as misshapen. Not the traditional English “pear-shape”, but the lower half of their bodies twice the size of their uppers. My own daughters have tended towards it, and as far as I can make out (the exact details I DON’T go into!), this has coincided with a change to their method of contraception: evidently a permanent medication which even reduces or eliminates menstruation. Just a thought, but perhaps the side effects of drugs and medicines play an important rôle? Genetics predispose how and where fat is accumulated. I recall an article stating those with greater fat below waist level are healthier than those who accumulate it all over. Genetics play an important part in maximum adipose accumulation I discussed. That's not to say our lifestyles haven't had any input or genetic evolution. Not sure I buy this argument. We have similar genetics to Denmark and Netherlands where it's unusual to see obese people, particularly women. Having lived and worked there it seems to me people take more care and pride in their bodies. If you look at UK and US where obesity is prevalent, it's largely down to overeating large quantities of low quality food." You didn't want to comprehend what I stated? I did NOT state genetics is the cause of obesity but WHERE fat is accumulated. The other paragraph was a nod in the direction of genetic expression. Since I don't know enough about what triggers a gene to be on/off I left it at "genetic evolution". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods. I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. We'll have to agree to disagree. But veg is only one element of your diet. A cheap microwave meal that purports to have the nutritional requirements is cheaper than buying your macro nutrients separately if cooking for one. Rubbish, the aforementioned veg box will, depending on the exact contents, make about 10 portions of tasty balanced meals with the addition of some other cheap ingredients such as chickpeas, chopped tomatoes, lentils, maybe a small amount of meat or fish, herbs and spices. Slow cooker so uses little power. Less than 50p a portion is easy to achieve. So rude just because my experience doesn't match yours! And the additions... Cheap is relative to disposable income." Not intended to be rude at all, just a statement of fact. In terms of the additions, they are included in the 50p a portion budget. A tin of tomatoes is 38p in Lidl, chickpeas and lentils are cheaper. That leaves budget for herbs, a stock cube and maybe a tiny bit of meat or fish for flavour. If you have more budget then you could add more to the food, but it isn't really necessary. We don't take any real notice of the price of ready meals as we never buy them but I suspect they are more than 50p. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A genuine question, possibly for Amelie who obviously is interested in this subject and might have an insight: There’s fat and fat, I particularly notice it when we return to the UK, here in the South of France the weather encourages one to go out more and keep fit, and fresh fruit and especially vegetables are cheap and always available in a local market or shop (meat, on the other hand, is either very expensive or, like UK supermarket rubbish, pumped up with water and chemicals). Of course you come across the odd beer-belly or, as suggested, people who are naturally plump. But in the UK I see more and more younger women who are not so much fat as misshapen. Not the traditional English “pear-shape”, but the lower half of their bodies twice the size of their uppers. My own daughters have tended towards it, and as far as I can make out (the exact details I DON’T go into!), this has coincided with a change to their method of contraception: evidently a permanent medication which even reduces or eliminates menstruation. Just a thought, but perhaps the side effects of drugs and medicines play an important rôle? Genetics predispose how and where fat is accumulated. I recall an article stating those with greater fat below waist level are healthier than those who accumulate it all over. Genetics play an important part in maximum adipose accumulation I discussed. That's not to say our lifestyles haven't had any input or genetic evolution. Not sure I buy this argument. We have similar genetics to Denmark and Netherlands where it's unusual to see obese people, particularly women. Having lived and worked there it seems to me people take more care and pride in their bodies. If you look at UK and US where obesity is prevalent, it's largely down to overeating large quantities of low quality food. You didn't want to comprehend what I stated? I did NOT state genetics is the cause of obesity but WHERE fat is accumulated. The other paragraph was a nod in the direction of genetic expression. Since I don't know enough about what triggers a gene to be on/off I left it at "genetic evolution". " Well yes, but in turn, fat accumulation is what leads to obesity, so there is an implied link to genetics, no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods. I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. We'll have to agree to disagree. But veg is only one element of your diet. A cheap microwave meal that purports to have the nutritional requirements is cheaper than buying your macro nutrients separately if cooking for one. Rubbish, the aforementioned veg box will, depending on the exact contents, make about 10 portions of tasty balanced meals with the addition of some other cheap ingredients such as chickpeas, chopped tomatoes, lentils, maybe a small amount of meat or fish, herbs and spices. Slow cooker so uses little power. Less than 50p a portion is easy to achieve. So rude just because my experience doesn't match yours! And the additions... Cheap is relative to disposable income. Not intended to be rude at all, just a statement of fact. In terms of the additions, they are included in the 50p a portion budget. A tin of tomatoes is 38p in Lidl, chickpeas and lentils are cheaper. That leaves budget for herbs, a stock cube and maybe a tiny bit of meat or fish for flavour. If you have more budget then you could add more to the food, but it isn't really necessary. We don't take any real notice of the price of ready meals as we never buy them but I suspect they are more than 50p." Personally, being part-time disabled, buying, preparing and cooking anything other than something extremely basic or microwave meals, is beyond me. But hopefully that info will help someone out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A genuine question, possibly for Amelie who obviously is interested in this subject and might have an insight: There’s fat and fat, I particularly notice it when we return to the UK, here in the South of France the weather encourages one to go out more and keep fit, and fresh fruit and especially vegetables are cheap and always available in a local market or shop (meat, on the other hand, is either very expensive or, like UK supermarket rubbish, pumped up with water and chemicals). Of course you come across the odd beer-belly or, as suggested, people who are naturally plump. But in the UK I see more and more younger women who are not so much fat as misshapen. Not the traditional English “pear-shape”, but the lower half of their bodies twice the size of their uppers. My own daughters have tended towards it, and as far as I can make out (the exact details I DON’T go into!), this has coincided with a change to their method of contraception: evidently a permanent medication which even reduces or eliminates menstruation. Just a thought, but perhaps the side effects of drugs and medicines play an important rôle? Genetics predispose how and where fat is accumulated. I recall an article stating those with greater fat below waist level are healthier than those who accumulate it all over. Genetics play an important part in maximum adipose accumulation I discussed. That's not to say our lifestyles haven't had any input or genetic evolution. Not sure I buy this argument. We have similar genetics to Denmark and Netherlands where it's unusual to see obese people, particularly women. Having lived and worked there it seems to me people take more care and pride in their bodies. If you look at UK and US where obesity is prevalent, it's largely down to overeating large quantities of low quality food. You didn't want to comprehend what I stated? I did NOT state genetics is the cause of obesity but WHERE fat is accumulated. The other paragraph was a nod in the direction of genetic expression. Since I don't know enough about what triggers a gene to be on/off I left it at "genetic evolution". Well yes, but in turn, fat accumulation is what leads to obesity, so there is an implied link to genetics, no?" If you stack particular shelves in a supermarket of one product, you're not the cause of the product, you stack them there cos that's your job. If they are on promotion you may have to stack them in two different areas. Cos it's your job. Genetics is just telling your body where to stack the fat. Genetics designs the shelves so you can stack a maximum amount. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods. I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. We'll have to agree to disagree. But veg is only one element of your diet. A cheap microwave meal that purports to have the nutritional requirements is cheaper than buying your macro nutrients separately if cooking for one. Rubbish, the aforementioned veg box will, depending on the exact contents, make about 10 portions of tasty balanced meals with the addition of some other cheap ingredients such as chickpeas, chopped tomatoes, lentils, maybe a small amount of meat or fish, herbs and spices. Slow cooker so uses little power. Less than 50p a portion is easy to achieve." I think a lot depends on public transport links, accessibility, and yes, cooking skills. When I lived in Scotland I was utterly blown away by how many chippers and late-night take-away places existed. I was also equally horrified at the "typical" British diet. Being lucky enough to come from a continental background, with BOTH of my parents shopping for groceries at the local Italian or Greek grocers, scouring the supermarket flyers every week and cutting out coupons to save 10 cents on a can of navy beans or chopped tomatoes, I learned early on how to make do with less. But I'm one of the lucky ones. Ireland even has a worse track record per capita for obesity when it comes to price of produce and lack of general cooking skills. Also consider that if you are the mother of three children, who's school only permits you to bolt down your lunch at your desk before the teaching staff kick you out to the yard, it's perfectly natural that no matter what "healthy eating" school lunch policy exists, it really depends on where you live, your marital status, take home pay and a variety of other factors. I've even heard the argument that supermarkets were once directed by certain British and Irish policies to "hide" their crisps or alcohol. Imagine the fuss the major retailers made about that... So instead, the government taxes the poor ... again.. by adding a "fat tax" on things like soft drinks and processed snacks. So... who's to blame? Well, everyone and no one. I ask anyone on this thread to consider the difficulties many face this coming winter because of costs rising in fuel, food, housing and basic necessities. Not all of us are lucky enough to be able to afford shopping at Waitrose. Not all of us have the same personal responsibilities towards raising their children. Not all of us own a car or have time to go to the gym. I know I didn't and I was a SAHM for 12 years. With ZERO help. And let's consider bariatric surgery as a "final" solution. I can tell you from personal experience that IT IS NOT. Bariatric surgeons are emotional manipulators when it comes to targeting anyone above a BMI over 40, at any age, regardless of sex, race or financial means. They are the peddlers of the infamous "Before-and-After" photos... the "Before" photo featuring a badly dressed, glum-looking fatso in stretchy pants and tee-shirt and the "After" photo featuring a glossy, slim, well-dressed so-and-so, teeth whitened, smiling into the camera. What those same bariatric clinics (commercial ones especially) neglect to show you is the "After-After" pic, taken 6 months to a year after peak weight loss. That's because those same clinics are only interested in getting us ignorant, sad sack fatties in and out the door as soon as possible, without ANY physio or psychological or dietary follow up. You want to know where many Brits and Irish fly for a gastric bypass? Turkey. These same clinics also sell you cosmetic surgery to remove the inevitable loose skin you get, especially after a gastric bypass. The surgeons DON'T tell you about your lifetime lactose intolerance. They don't bother to check if you suffer any other illnesses- especially congenital ones like Bicuspid Aortic Valve disease. Guess what, kids. I went through BOTH bariatric procedures. 2015 and 2018. The weight always comes back. Oh, and I was diagnosed with BAV during COVID. How in hells did those smartypants doctors miss THAT one during my routine ECGs? Eh? I can tell you that my GP was shocked. Had I stayed in Ireland, I'd be a dead woman. Thank you NHS/HSE. The ONLY way to effectively and PERMANENTLY lose weight is to throw out the damned fool BMI charts, take a Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis of your fat vs muscle snd work from there. I did lose all that weight once... when I was 25... but I was lucky enough to see a GP once a week, for FREE, who advised me on my diet, looked at my weekly dietary intake and ask pointed questions about how I was feeling, because I had mental health issues. So again... don't judge a book by its cover. And never trust statistics. I did my master's in it. I know how easy it is to manipulate results based on which variables you use and how to phrase the question. And to quote Jello Biafra: "Don't hate the media. Become the media." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods. I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. We'll have to agree to disagree. But veg is only one element of your diet. A cheap microwave meal that purports to have the nutritional requirements is cheaper than buying your macro nutrients separately if cooking for one. Rubbish, the aforementioned veg box will, depending on the exact contents, make about 10 portions of tasty balanced meals with the addition of some other cheap ingredients such as chickpeas, chopped tomatoes, lentils, maybe a small amount of meat or fish, herbs and spices. Slow cooker so uses little power. Less than 50p a portion is easy to achieve. I think a lot depends on public transport links, accessibility, and yes, cooking skills. When I lived in Scotland I was utterly blown away by how many chippers and late-night take-away places existed. I was also equally horrified at the "typical" British diet. Being lucky enough to come from a continental background, with BOTH of my parents shopping for groceries at the local Italian or Greek grocers, scouring the supermarket flyers every week and cutting out coupons to save 10 cents on a can of navy beans or chopped tomatoes, I learned early on how to make do with less. But I'm one of the lucky ones. Ireland even has a worse track record per capita for obesity when it comes to price of produce and lack of general cooking skills. Also consider that if you are the mother of three children, who's school only permits you to bolt down your lunch at your desk before the teaching staff kick you out to the yard, it's perfectly natural that no matter what "healthy eating" school lunch policy exists, it really depends on where you live, your marital status, take home pay and a variety of other factors. I've even heard the argument that supermarkets were once directed by certain British and Irish policies to "hide" their crisps or alcohol. Imagine the fuss the major retailers made about that... So instead, the government taxes the poor ... again.. by adding a "fat tax" on things like soft drinks and processed snacks. So... who's to blame? Well, everyone and no one. I ask anyone on this thread to consider the difficulties many face this coming winter because of costs rising in fuel, food, housing and basic necessities. Not all of us are lucky enough to be able to afford shopping at Waitrose. Not all of us have the same personal responsibilities towards raising their children. Not all of us own a car or have time to go to the gym. I know I didn't and I was a SAHM for 12 years. With ZERO help. And let's consider bariatric surgery as a "final" solution. I can tell you from personal experience that IT IS NOT. Bariatric surgeons are emotional manipulators when it comes to targeting anyone above a BMI over 40, at any age, regardless of sex, race or financial means. They are the peddlers of the infamous "Before-and-After" photos... the "Before" photo featuring a badly dressed, glum-looking fatso in stretchy pants and tee-shirt and the "After" photo featuring a glossy, slim, well-dressed so-and-so, teeth whitened, smiling into the camera. What those same bariatric clinics (commercial ones especially) neglect to show you is the "After-After" pic, taken 6 months to a year after peak weight loss. That's because those same clinics are only interested in getting us ignorant, sad sack fatties in and out the door as soon as possible, without ANY physio or psychological or dietary follow up. You want to know where many Brits and Irish fly for a gastric bypass? Turkey. These same clinics also sell you cosmetic surgery to remove the inevitable loose skin you get, especially after a gastric bypass. The surgeons DON'T tell you about your lifetime lactose intolerance. They don't bother to check if you suffer any other illnesses- especially congenital ones like Bicuspid Aortic Valve disease. Guess what, kids. I went through BOTH bariatric procedures. 2015 and 2018. The weight always comes back. Oh, and I was diagnosed with BAV during COVID. How in hells did those smartypants doctors miss THAT one during my routine ECGs? Eh? I can tell you that my GP was shocked. Had I stayed in Ireland, I'd be a dead woman. Thank you NHS/HSE. The ONLY way to effectively and PERMANENTLY lose weight is to throw out the damned fool BMI charts, take a Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis of your fat vs muscle snd work from there. I did lose all that weight once... when I was 25... but I was lucky enough to see a GP once a week, for FREE, who advised me on my diet, looked at my weekly dietary intake and ask pointed questions about how I was feeling, because I had mental health issues. So again... don't judge a book by its cover. And never trust statistics. I did my master's in it. I know how easy it is to manipulate results based on which variables you use and how to phrase the question. And to quote Jello Biafra: "Don't hate the media. Become the media."" I will defend the BMI chart - it can indicate weight loss, weight gain BUT it is NEVER the whole picture. AND it dismisses those who are fat on the inside. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods. I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. We'll have to agree to disagree. But veg is only one element of your diet. A cheap microwave meal that purports to have the nutritional requirements is cheaper than buying your macro nutrients separately if cooking for one. Rubbish, the aforementioned veg box will, depending on the exact contents, make about 10 portions of tasty balanced meals with the addition of some other cheap ingredients such as chickpeas, chopped tomatoes, lentils, maybe a small amount of meat or fish, herbs and spices. Slow cooker so uses little power. Less than 50p a portion is easy to achieve. I think a lot depends on public transport links, accessibility, and yes, cooking skills. When I lived in Scotland I was utterly blown away by how many chippers and late-night take-away places existed. I was also equally horrified at the "typical" British diet. Being lucky enough to come from a continental background, with BOTH of my parents shopping for groceries at the local Italian or Greek grocers, scouring the supermarket flyers every week and cutting out coupons to save 10 cents on a can of navy beans or chopped tomatoes, I learned early on how to make do with less. But I'm one of the lucky ones. Ireland even has a worse track record per capita for obesity when it comes to price of produce and lack of general cooking skills. Also consider that if you are the mother of three children, who's school only permits you to bolt down your lunch at your desk before the teaching staff kick you out to the yard, it's perfectly natural that no matter what "healthy eating" school lunch policy exists, it really depends on where you live, your marital status, take home pay and a variety of other factors. I've even heard the argument that supermarkets were once directed by certain British and Irish policies to "hide" their crisps or alcohol. Imagine the fuss the major retailers made about that... So instead, the government taxes the poor ... again.. by adding a "fat tax" on things like soft drinks and processed snacks. So... who's to blame? Well, everyone and no one. I ask anyone on this thread to consider the difficulties many face this coming winter because of costs rising in fuel, food, housing and basic necessities. Not all of us are lucky enough to be able to afford shopping at Waitrose. Not all of us have the same personal responsibilities towards raising their children. Not all of us own a car or have time to go to the gym. I know I didn't and I was a SAHM for 12 years. With ZERO help. And let's consider bariatric surgery as a "final" solution. I can tell you from personal experience that IT IS NOT. Bariatric surgeons are emotional manipulators when it comes to targeting anyone above a BMI over 40, at any age, regardless of sex, race or financial means. They are the peddlers of the infamous "Before-and-After" photos... the "Before" photo featuring a badly dressed, glum-looking fatso in stretchy pants and tee-shirt and the "After" photo featuring a glossy, slim, well-dressed so-and-so, teeth whitened, smiling into the camera. What those same bariatric clinics (commercial ones especially) neglect to show you is the "After-After" pic, taken 6 months to a year after peak weight loss. That's because those same clinics are only interested in getting us ignorant, sad sack fatties in and out the door as soon as possible, without ANY physio or psychological or dietary follow up. You want to know where many Brits and Irish fly for a gastric bypass? Turkey. These same clinics also sell you cosmetic surgery to remove the inevitable loose skin you get, especially after a gastric bypass. The surgeons DON'T tell you about your lifetime lactose intolerance. They don't bother to check if you suffer any other illnesses- especially congenital ones like Bicuspid Aortic Valve disease. Guess what, kids. I went through BOTH bariatric procedures. 2015 and 2018. The weight always comes back. Oh, and I was diagnosed with BAV during COVID. How in hells did those smartypants doctors miss THAT one during my routine ECGs? Eh? I can tell you that my GP was shocked. Had I stayed in Ireland, I'd be a dead woman. Thank you NHS/HSE. The ONLY way to effectively and PERMANENTLY lose weight is to throw out the damned fool BMI charts, take a Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis of your fat vs muscle snd work from there. I did lose all that weight once... when I was 25... but I was lucky enough to see a GP once a week, for FREE, who advised me on my diet, looked at my weekly dietary intake and ask pointed questions about how I was feeling, because I had mental health issues. So again... don't judge a book by its cover. And never trust statistics. I did my master's in it. I know how easy it is to manipulate results based on which variables you use and how to phrase the question. And to quote Jello Biafra: "Don't hate the media. Become the media." I will defend the BMI chart - it can indicate weight loss, weight gain BUT it is NEVER the whole picture. AND it dismisses those who are fat on the inside." Agreed but only to a certain extent. In fact, BMI was invented by Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician, and sociologist, devised the basis of the BMI between 1830 and 1850 as he developed what he called "social physics". Quetelet himself never intended for the index, then called the Quetelet Index, to be used as a means of medical assessment. From a statistical POV, it rates very poorly across sex and race. Before BMI, doctors used the much worse Met Life weight charts. Dieting and weight loss is a multi-trillion dollar industry that affects your insurance premiums, your dental and general health plan (whether you're in the NHS is immaterial: NHS doesn't cover everything and there are even discrepancies between NHS England, Scotland, Wales and NI. Again, the "weight management" and dietitian industry relies on statistics, to fund itself. A prescription for Xenical (a weight loss pill, I won't tell you the side effects) can set you back hundreds of pounds/euro/dollars per month, depending where you live and who's your insurer. Let's apply the same statistical model of BMI to auto safety standards. The seat belt and seat design is based on your "average" white male (whatever that means". That means anyone who isn't an AWM is more likely to suffer in a car collision, even if they have their seat belts on. That includes pregnant women and, yes, the obese. That's statistics for you, I'm afraid. BMI should be tossed out. The only people it serves are the ones who have a financial stake in it. However well-intentioned a small proportion of medical staff are towards their patients, the truth is rarely so simple. The full medical picture of each patient is very complex. But insurance companies, hospital and clinical administrators and professional weight loss surgeons and their staff don't like complexity. It's much simpler to parrot BMI than do a thorough job of assessing the full picture. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods. I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. We'll have to agree to disagree. But veg is only one element of your diet. A cheap microwave meal that purports to have the nutritional requirements is cheaper than buying your macro nutrients separately if cooking for one. Rubbish, the aforementioned veg box will, depending on the exact contents, make about 10 portions of tasty balanced meals with the addition of some other cheap ingredients such as chickpeas, chopped tomatoes, lentils, maybe a small amount of meat or fish, herbs and spices. Slow cooker so uses little power. Less than 50p a portion is easy to achieve. I think a lot depends on public transport links, accessibility, and yes, cooking skills. When I lived in Scotland I was utterly blown away by how many chippers and late-night take-away places existed. I was also equally horrified at the "typical" British diet. Being lucky enough to come from a continental background, with BOTH of my parents shopping for groceries at the local Italian or Greek grocers, scouring the supermarket flyers every week and cutting out coupons to save 10 cents on a can of navy beans or chopped tomatoes, I learned early on how to make do with less. But I'm one of the lucky ones. Ireland even has a worse track record per capita for obesity when it comes to price of produce and lack of general cooking skills. Also consider that if you are the mother of three children, who's school only permits you to bolt down your lunch at your desk before the teaching staff kick you out to the yard, it's perfectly natural that no matter what "healthy eating" school lunch policy exists, it really depends on where you live, your marital status, take home pay and a variety of other factors. I've even heard the argument that supermarkets were once directed by certain British and Irish policies to "hide" their crisps or alcohol. Imagine the fuss the major retailers made about that... So instead, the government taxes the poor ... again.. by adding a "fat tax" on things like soft drinks and processed snacks. So... who's to blame? Well, everyone and no one. I ask anyone on this thread to consider the difficulties many face this coming winter because of costs rising in fuel, food, housing and basic necessities. Not all of us are lucky enough to be able to afford shopping at Waitrose. Not all of us have the same personal responsibilities towards raising their children. Not all of us own a car or have time to go to the gym. I know I didn't and I was a SAHM for 12 years. With ZERO help. And let's consider bariatric surgery as a "final" solution. I can tell you from personal experience that IT IS NOT. Bariatric surgeons are emotional manipulators when it comes to targeting anyone above a BMI over 40, at any age, regardless of sex, race or financial means. They are the peddlers of the infamous "Before-and-After" photos... the "Before" photo featuring a badly dressed, glum-looking fatso in stretchy pants and tee-shirt and the "After" photo featuring a glossy, slim, well-dressed so-and-so, teeth whitened, smiling into the camera. What those same bariatric clinics (commercial ones especially) neglect to show you is the "After-After" pic, taken 6 months to a year after peak weight loss. That's because those same clinics are only interested in getting us ignorant, sad sack fatties in and out the door as soon as possible, without ANY physio or psychological or dietary follow up. You want to know where many Brits and Irish fly for a gastric bypass? Turkey. These same clinics also sell you cosmetic surgery to remove the inevitable loose skin you get, especially after a gastric bypass. The surgeons DON'T tell you about your lifetime lactose intolerance. They don't bother to check if you suffer any other illnesses- especially congenital ones like Bicuspid Aortic Valve disease. Guess what, kids. I went through BOTH bariatric procedures. 2015 and 2018. The weight always comes back. Oh, and I was diagnosed with BAV during COVID. How in hells did those smartypants doctors miss THAT one during my routine ECGs? Eh? I can tell you that my GP was shocked. Had I stayed in Ireland, I'd be a dead woman. Thank you NHS/HSE. The ONLY way to effectively and PERMANENTLY lose weight is to throw out the damned fool BMI charts, take a Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis of your fat vs muscle snd work from there. I did lose all that weight once... when I was 25... but I was lucky enough to see a GP once a week, for FREE, who advised me on my diet, looked at my weekly dietary intake and ask pointed questions about how I was feeling, because I had mental health issues. So again... don't judge a book by its cover. And never trust statistics. I did my master's in it. I know how easy it is to manipulate results based on which variables you use and how to phrase the question. And to quote Jello Biafra: "Don't hate the media. Become the media." I will defend the BMI chart - it can indicate weight loss, weight gain BUT it is NEVER the whole picture. AND it dismisses those who are fat on the inside. Agreed but only to a certain extent. In fact, BMI was invented by Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician, and sociologist, devised the basis of the BMI between 1830 and 1850 as he developed what he called "social physics". Quetelet himself never intended for the index, then called the Quetelet Index, to be used as a means of medical assessment. From a statistical POV, it rates very poorly across sex and race. Before BMI, doctors used the much worse Met Life weight charts. Dieting and weight loss is a multi-trillion dollar industry that affects your insurance premiums, your dental and general health plan (whether you're in the NHS is immaterial: NHS doesn't cover everything and there are even discrepancies between NHS England, Scotland, Wales and NI. Again, the "weight management" and dietitian industry relies on statistics, to fund itself. A prescription for Xenical (a weight loss pill, I won't tell you the side effects) can set you back hundreds of pounds/euro/dollars per month, depending where you live and who's your insurer. Let's apply the same statistical model of BMI to auto safety standards. The seat belt and seat design is based on your "average" white male (whatever that means". That means anyone who isn't an AWM is more likely to suffer in a car collision, even if they have their seat belts on. That includes pregnant women and, yes, the obese. That's statistics for you, I'm afraid. BMI should be tossed out. The only people it serves are the ones who have a financial stake in it. However well-intentioned a small proportion of medical staff are towards their patients, the truth is rarely so simple. The full medical picture of each patient is very complex. But insurance companies, hospital and clinical administrators and professional weight loss surgeons and their staff don't like complexity. It's much simpler to parrot BMI than do a thorough job of assessing the full picture. " As a HCP, I'm aware of its failings. As a patient I've argued against it being used just to determine I'm borderline obese and a nurse tell me to exercise more or watch my diet. I told her not to go there! It's infuriating when a HCP think they know best  . Sometimes they do when they are experts in their field, but often they don't and don't listen to the expert of the body before them - their patient. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods. I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. We'll have to agree to disagree. But veg is only one element of your diet. A cheap microwave meal that purports to have the nutritional requirements is cheaper than buying your macro nutrients separately if cooking for one. Rubbish, the aforementioned veg box will, depending on the exact contents, make about 10 portions of tasty balanced meals with the addition of some other cheap ingredients such as chickpeas, chopped tomatoes, lentils, maybe a small amount of meat or fish, herbs and spices. Slow cooker so uses little power. Less than 50p a portion is easy to achieve. I think a lot depends on public transport links, accessibility, and yes, cooking skills. When I lived in Scotland I was utterly blown away by how many chippers and late-night take-away places existed. I was also equally horrified at the "typical" British diet. Being lucky enough to come from a continental background, with BOTH of my parents shopping for groceries at the local Italian or Greek grocers, scouring the supermarket flyers every week and cutting out coupons to save 10 cents on a can of navy beans or chopped tomatoes, I learned early on how to make do with less. But I'm one of the lucky ones. Ireland even has a worse track record per capita for obesity when it comes to price of produce and lack of general cooking skills. Also consider that if you are the mother of three children, who's school only permits you to bolt down your lunch at your desk before the teaching staff kick you out to the yard, it's perfectly natural that no matter what "healthy eating" school lunch policy exists, it really depends on where you live, your marital status, take home pay and a variety of other factors. I've even heard the argument that supermarkets were once directed by certain British and Irish policies to "hide" their crisps or alcohol. Imagine the fuss the major retailers made about that... So instead, the government taxes the poor ... again.. by adding a "fat tax" on things like soft drinks and processed snacks. So... who's to blame? Well, everyone and no one. I ask anyone on this thread to consider the difficulties many face this coming winter because of costs rising in fuel, food, housing and basic necessities. Not all of us are lucky enough to be able to afford shopping at Waitrose. Not all of us have the same personal responsibilities towards raising their children. Not all of us own a car or have time to go to the gym. I know I didn't and I was a SAHM for 12 years. With ZERO help. And let's consider bariatric surgery as a "final" solution. I can tell you from personal experience that IT IS NOT. Bariatric surgeons are emotional manipulators when it comes to targeting anyone above a BMI over 40, at any age, regardless of sex, race or financial means. They are the peddlers of the infamous "Before-and-After" photos... the "Before" photo featuring a badly dressed, glum-looking fatso in stretchy pants and tee-shirt and the "After" photo featuring a glossy, slim, well-dressed so-and-so, teeth whitened, smiling into the camera. What those same bariatric clinics (commercial ones especially) neglect to show you is the "After-After" pic, taken 6 months to a year after peak weight loss. That's because those same clinics are only interested in getting us ignorant, sad sack fatties in and out the door as soon as possible, without ANY physio or psychological or dietary follow up. You want to know where many Brits and Irish fly for a gastric bypass? Turkey. These same clinics also sell you cosmetic surgery to remove the inevitable loose skin you get, especially after a gastric bypass. The surgeons DON'T tell you about your lifetime lactose intolerance. They don't bother to check if you suffer any other illnesses- especially congenital ones like Bicuspid Aortic Valve disease. Guess what, kids. I went through BOTH bariatric procedures. 2015 and 2018. The weight always comes back. Oh, and I was diagnosed with BAV during COVID. How in hells did those smartypants doctors miss THAT one during my routine ECGs? Eh? I can tell you that my GP was shocked. Had I stayed in Ireland, I'd be a dead woman. Thank you NHS/HSE. The ONLY way to effectively and PERMANENTLY lose weight is to throw out the damned fool BMI charts, take a Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis of your fat vs muscle snd work from there. I did lose all that weight once... when I was 25... but I was lucky enough to see a GP once a week, for FREE, who advised me on my diet, looked at my weekly dietary intake and ask pointed questions about how I was feeling, because I had mental health issues. So again... don't judge a book by its cover. And never trust statistics. I did my master's in it. I know how easy it is to manipulate results based on which variables you use and how to phrase the question. And to quote Jello Biafra: "Don't hate the media. Become the media." I will defend the BMI chart - it can indicate weight loss, weight gain BUT it is NEVER the whole picture. AND it dismisses those who are fat on the inside. Agreed but only to a certain extent. In fact, BMI was invented by Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician, and sociologist, devised the basis of the BMI between 1830 and 1850 as he developed what he called "social physics". Quetelet himself never intended for the index, then called the Quetelet Index, to be used as a means of medical assessment. From a statistical POV, it rates very poorly across sex and race. Before BMI, doctors used the much worse Met Life weight charts. Dieting and weight loss is a multi-trillion dollar industry that affects your insurance premiums, your dental and general health plan (whether you're in the NHS is immaterial: NHS doesn't cover everything and there are even discrepancies between NHS England, Scotland, Wales and NI. Again, the "weight management" and dietitian industry relies on statistics, to fund itself. A prescription for Xenical (a weight loss pill, I won't tell you the side effects) can set you back hundreds of pounds/euro/dollars per month, depending where you live and who's your insurer. Let's apply the same statistical model of BMI to auto safety standards. The seat belt and seat design is based on your "average" white male (whatever that means". That means anyone who isn't an AWM is more likely to suffer in a car collision, even if they have their seat belts on. That includes pregnant women and, yes, the obese. That's statistics for you, I'm afraid. BMI should be tossed out. The only people it serves are the ones who have a financial stake in it. However well-intentioned a small proportion of medical staff are towards their patients, the truth is rarely so simple. The full medical picture of each patient is very complex. But insurance companies, hospital and clinical administrators and professional weight loss surgeons and their staff don't like complexity. It's much simpler to parrot BMI than do a thorough job of assessing the full picture. As a HCP, I'm aware of its failings. As a patient I've argued against it being used just to determine I'm borderline obese and a nurse tell me to exercise more or watch my diet. I told her not to go there! It's infuriating when a HCP think they know best . Sometimes they do when they are experts in their field, but often they don't and don't listen to the expert of the body before them - their patient."BMI probably isn't perfect, and may err on the wrong side of borderline cases. But the OP flagged-up the staggering cost to the NHS and society of obesity. Most of us don't need to be a HCP or expert in BMIs to recognise that somebody carrying up to double their ideal body weight is likely to suffer health problems. If BMI helps the majority of people control their weight, that's a good thing, no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods. I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. We'll have to agree to disagree. But veg is only one element of your diet. A cheap microwave meal that purports to have the nutritional requirements is cheaper than buying your macro nutrients separately if cooking for one. Rubbish, the aforementioned veg box will, depending on the exact contents, make about 10 portions of tasty balanced meals with the addition of some other cheap ingredients such as chickpeas, chopped tomatoes, lentils, maybe a small amount of meat or fish, herbs and spices. Slow cooker so uses little power. Less than 50p a portion is easy to achieve. I think a lot depends on public transport links, accessibility, and yes, cooking skills. When I lived in Scotland I was utterly blown away by how many chippers and late-night take-away places existed. I was also equally horrified at the "typical" British diet. Being lucky enough to come from a continental background, with BOTH of my parents shopping for groceries at the local Italian or Greek grocers, scouring the supermarket flyers every week and cutting out coupons to save 10 cents on a can of navy beans or chopped tomatoes, I learned early on how to make do with less. But I'm one of the lucky ones. Ireland even has a worse track record per capita for obesity when it comes to price of produce and lack of general cooking skills. Also consider that if you are the mother of three children, who's school only permits you to bolt down your lunch at your desk before the teaching staff kick you out to the yard, it's perfectly natural that no matter what "healthy eating" school lunch policy exists, it really depends on where you live, your marital status, take home pay and a variety of other factors. I've even heard the argument that supermarkets were once directed by certain British and Irish policies to "hide" their crisps or alcohol. Imagine the fuss the major retailers made about that... So instead, the government taxes the poor ... again.. by adding a "fat tax" on things like soft drinks and processed snacks. So... who's to blame? Well, everyone and no one. I ask anyone on this thread to consider the difficulties many face this coming winter because of costs rising in fuel, food, housing and basic necessities. Not all of us are lucky enough to be able to afford shopping at Waitrose. Not all of us have the same personal responsibilities towards raising their children. Not all of us own a car or have time to go to the gym. I know I didn't and I was a SAHM for 12 years. With ZERO help. And let's consider bariatric surgery as a "final" solution. I can tell you from personal experience that IT IS NOT. Bariatric surgeons are emotional manipulators when it comes to targeting anyone above a BMI over 40, at any age, regardless of sex, race or financial means. They are the peddlers of the infamous "Before-and-After" photos... the "Before" photo featuring a badly dressed, glum-looking fatso in stretchy pants and tee-shirt and the "After" photo featuring a glossy, slim, well-dressed so-and-so, teeth whitened, smiling into the camera. What those same bariatric clinics (commercial ones especially) neglect to show you is the "After-After" pic, taken 6 months to a year after peak weight loss. That's because those same clinics are only interested in getting us ignorant, sad sack fatties in and out the door as soon as possible, without ANY physio or psychological or dietary follow up. You want to know where many Brits and Irish fly for a gastric bypass? Turkey. These same clinics also sell you cosmetic surgery to remove the inevitable loose skin you get, especially after a gastric bypass. The surgeons DON'T tell you about your lifetime lactose intolerance. They don't bother to check if you suffer any other illnesses- especially congenital ones like Bicuspid Aortic Valve disease. Guess what, kids. I went through BOTH bariatric procedures. 2015 and 2018. The weight always comes back. Oh, and I was diagnosed with BAV during COVID. How in hells did those smartypants doctors miss THAT one during my routine ECGs? Eh? I can tell you that my GP was shocked. Had I stayed in Ireland, I'd be a dead woman. Thank you NHS/HSE. The ONLY way to effectively and PERMANENTLY lose weight is to throw out the damned fool BMI charts, take a Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis of your fat vs muscle snd work from there. I did lose all that weight once... when I was 25... but I was lucky enough to see a GP once a week, for FREE, who advised me on my diet, looked at my weekly dietary intake and ask pointed questions about how I was feeling, because I had mental health issues. So again... don't judge a book by its cover. And never trust statistics. I did my master's in it. I know how easy it is to manipulate results based on which variables you use and how to phrase the question. And to quote Jello Biafra: "Don't hate the media. Become the media." I will defend the BMI chart - it can indicate weight loss, weight gain BUT it is NEVER the whole picture. AND it dismisses those who are fat on the inside. Agreed but only to a certain extent. In fact, BMI was invented by Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician, and sociologist, devised the basis of the BMI between 1830 and 1850 as he developed what he called "social physics". Quetelet himself never intended for the index, then called the Quetelet Index, to be used as a means of medical assessment. From a statistical POV, it rates very poorly across sex and race. Before BMI, doctors used the much worse Met Life weight charts. Dieting and weight loss is a multi-trillion dollar industry that affects your insurance premiums, your dental and general health plan (whether you're in the NHS is immaterial: NHS doesn't cover everything and there are even discrepancies between NHS England, Scotland, Wales and NI. Again, the "weight management" and dietitian industry relies on statistics, to fund itself. A prescription for Xenical (a weight loss pill, I won't tell you the side effects) can set you back hundreds of pounds/euro/dollars per month, depending where you live and who's your insurer. Let's apply the same statistical model of BMI to auto safety standards. The seat belt and seat design is based on your "average" white male (whatever that means". That means anyone who isn't an AWM is more likely to suffer in a car collision, even if they have their seat belts on. That includes pregnant women and, yes, the obese. That's statistics for you, I'm afraid. BMI should be tossed out. The only people it serves are the ones who have a financial stake in it. However well-intentioned a small proportion of medical staff are towards their patients, the truth is rarely so simple. The full medical picture of each patient is very complex. But insurance companies, hospital and clinical administrators and professional weight loss surgeons and their staff don't like complexity. It's much simpler to parrot BMI than do a thorough job of assessing the full picture. As a HCP, I'm aware of its failings. As a patient I've argued against it being used just to determine I'm borderline obese and a nurse tell me to exercise more or watch my diet. I told her not to go there! It's infuriating when a HCP think they know best . Sometimes they do when they are experts in their field, but often they don't and don't listen to the expert of the body before them - their patient.
BMI probably isn't perfect, and may err on the wrong side of borderline cases. But the OP flagged-up the staggering cost to the NHS and society of obesity. Most of us don't need to be a HCP or expert in BMIs to recognise that somebody carrying up to double their ideal body weight is likely to suffer health problems. If BMI helps the majority of people control their weight, that's a good thing, no?"No it doesn't. It just stigmatised and diminishes them. As previously stated, BMI was never meant as anything other than a way to measure 18th century population in Western Europe. In fact, it was a component of his study of l'homme moyen, or the average man. Quetelet thought of the average man as a social ideal, and developed the body mass index as a means of discovering the socially ideal human person. According to Lars Grue and Arvid Heiberg in the Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, Quetelet's idealization of the average man would be elaborated upon by Francis Galton a decade later in the development of Eugenics. Now we're for Eugenics, are we?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods. I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. We'll have to agree to disagree. But veg is only one element of your diet. A cheap microwave meal that purports to have the nutritional requirements is cheaper than buying your macro nutrients separately if cooking for one. Rubbish, the aforementioned veg box will, depending on the exact contents, make about 10 portions of tasty balanced meals with the addition of some other cheap ingredients such as chickpeas, chopped tomatoes, lentils, maybe a small amount of meat or fish, herbs and spices. Slow cooker so uses little power. Less than 50p a portion is easy to achieve. I think a lot depends on public transport links, accessibility, and yes, cooking skills. When I lived in Scotland I was utterly blown away by how many chippers and late-night take-away places existed. I was also equally horrified at the "typical" British diet. Being lucky enough to come from a continental background, with BOTH of my parents shopping for groceries at the local Italian or Greek grocers, scouring the supermarket flyers every week and cutting out coupons to save 10 cents on a can of navy beans or chopped tomatoes, I learned early on how to make do with less. But I'm one of the lucky ones. Ireland even has a worse track record per capita for obesity when it comes to price of produce and lack of general cooking skills. Also consider that if you are the mother of three children, who's school only permits you to bolt down your lunch at your desk before the teaching staff kick you out to the yard, it's perfectly natural that no matter what "healthy eating" school lunch policy exists, it really depends on where you live, your marital status, take home pay and a variety of other factors. I've even heard the argument that supermarkets were once directed by certain British and Irish policies to "hide" their crisps or alcohol. Imagine the fuss the major retailers made about that... So instead, the government taxes the poor ... again.. by adding a "fat tax" on things like soft drinks and processed snacks. So... who's to blame? Well, everyone and no one. I ask anyone on this thread to consider the difficulties many face this coming winter because of costs rising in fuel, food, housing and basic necessities. Not all of us are lucky enough to be able to afford shopping at Waitrose. Not all of us have the same personal responsibilities towards raising their children. Not all of us own a car or have time to go to the gym. I know I didn't and I was a SAHM for 12 years. With ZERO help. And let's consider bariatric surgery as a "final" solution. I can tell you from personal experience that IT IS NOT. Bariatric surgeons are emotional manipulators when it comes to targeting anyone above a BMI over 40, at any age, regardless of sex, race or financial means. They are the peddlers of the infamous "Before-and-After" photos... the "Before" photo featuring a badly dressed, glum-looking fatso in stretchy pants and tee-shirt and the "After" photo featuring a glossy, slim, well-dressed so-and-so, teeth whitened, smiling into the camera. What those same bariatric clinics (commercial ones especially) neglect to show you is the "After-After" pic, taken 6 months to a year after peak weight loss. That's because those same clinics are only interested in getting us ignorant, sad sack fatties in and out the door as soon as possible, without ANY physio or psychological or dietary follow up. You want to know where many Brits and Irish fly for a gastric bypass? Turkey. These same clinics also sell you cosmetic surgery to remove the inevitable loose skin you get, especially after a gastric bypass. The surgeons DON'T tell you about your lifetime lactose intolerance. They don't bother to check if you suffer any other illnesses- especially congenital ones like Bicuspid Aortic Valve disease. Guess what, kids. I went through BOTH bariatric procedures. 2015 and 2018. The weight always comes back. Oh, and I was diagnosed with BAV during COVID. How in hells did those smartypants doctors miss THAT one during my routine ECGs? Eh? I can tell you that my GP was shocked. Had I stayed in Ireland, I'd be a dead woman. Thank you NHS/HSE. The ONLY way to effectively and PERMANENTLY lose weight is to throw out the damned fool BMI charts, take a Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis of your fat vs muscle snd work from there. I did lose all that weight once... when I was 25... but I was lucky enough to see a GP once a week, for FREE, who advised me on my diet, looked at my weekly dietary intake and ask pointed questions about how I was feeling, because I had mental health issues. So again... don't judge a book by its cover. And never trust statistics. I did my master's in it. I know how easy it is to manipulate results based on which variables you use and how to phrase the question. And to quote Jello Biafra: "Don't hate the media. Become the media." I will defend the BMI chart - it can indicate weight loss, weight gain BUT it is NEVER the whole picture. AND it dismisses those who are fat on the inside. Agreed but only to a certain extent. In fact, BMI was invented by Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician, and sociologist, devised the basis of the BMI between 1830 and 1850 as he developed what he called "social physics". Quetelet himself never intended for the index, then called the Quetelet Index, to be used as a means of medical assessment. From a statistical POV, it rates very poorly across sex and race. Before BMI, doctors used the much worse Met Life weight charts. Dieting and weight loss is a multi-trillion dollar industry that affects your insurance premiums, your dental and general health plan (whether you're in the NHS is immaterial: NHS doesn't cover everything and there are even discrepancies between NHS England, Scotland, Wales and NI. Again, the "weight management" and dietitian industry relies on statistics, to fund itself. A prescription for Xenical (a weight loss pill, I won't tell you the side effects) can set you back hundreds of pounds/euro/dollars per month, depending where you live and who's your insurer. Let's apply the same statistical model of BMI to auto safety standards. The seat belt and seat design is based on your "average" white male (whatever that means". That means anyone who isn't an AWM is more likely to suffer in a car collision, even if they have their seat belts on. That includes pregnant women and, yes, the obese. That's statistics for you, I'm afraid. BMI should be tossed out. The only people it serves are the ones who have a financial stake in it. However well-intentioned a small proportion of medical staff are towards their patients, the truth is rarely so simple. The full medical picture of each patient is very complex. But insurance companies, hospital and clinical administrators and professional weight loss surgeons and their staff don't like complexity. It's much simpler to parrot BMI than do a thorough job of assessing the full picture. As a HCP, I'm aware of its failings. As a patient I've argued against it being used just to determine I'm borderline obese and a nurse tell me to exercise more or watch my diet. I told her not to go there! It's infuriating when a HCP think they know best . Sometimes they do when they are experts in their field, but often they don't and don't listen to the expert of the body before them - their patient.
BMI probably isn't perfect, and may err on the wrong side of borderline cases. But the OP flagged-up the staggering cost to the NHS and society of obesity. Most of us don't need to be a HCP or expert in BMIs to recognise that somebody carrying up to double their ideal body weight is likely to suffer health problems. If BMI helps the majority of people control their weight, that's a good thing, no?"I have never come across anyone who likes the BMI, except me . The majority of people underestimate their category of obesity. Men are better at perceiving women as obese but worst at perceiving their own category. Women tend to underestimate by one category, men by two. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods. I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. We'll have to agree to disagree. But veg is only one element of your diet. A cheap microwave meal that purports to have the nutritional requirements is cheaper than buying your macro nutrients separately if cooking for one. Rubbish, the aforementioned veg box will, depending on the exact contents, make about 10 portions of tasty balanced meals with the addition of some other cheap ingredients such as chickpeas, chopped tomatoes, lentils, maybe a small amount of meat or fish, herbs and spices. Slow cooker so uses little power. Less than 50p a portion is easy to achieve. I think a lot depends on public transport links, accessibility, and yes, cooking skills. When I lived in Scotland I was utterly blown away by how many chippers and late-night take-away places existed. I was also equally horrified at the "typical" British diet. Being lucky enough to come from a continental background, with BOTH of my parents shopping for groceries at the local Italian or Greek grocers, scouring the supermarket flyers every week and cutting out coupons to save 10 cents on a can of navy beans or chopped tomatoes, I learned early on how to make do with less. But I'm one of the lucky ones. Ireland even has a worse track record per capita for obesity when it comes to price of produce and lack of general cooking skills. Also consider that if you are the mother of three children, who's school only permits you to bolt down your lunch at your desk before the teaching staff kick you out to the yard, it's perfectly natural that no matter what "healthy eating" school lunch policy exists, it really depends on where you live, your marital status, take home pay and a variety of other factors. I've even heard the argument that supermarkets were once directed by certain British and Irish policies to "hide" their crisps or alcohol. Imagine the fuss the major retailers made about that... So instead, the government taxes the poor ... again.. by adding a "fat tax" on things like soft drinks and processed snacks. So... who's to blame? Well, everyone and no one. I ask anyone on this thread to consider the difficulties many face this coming winter because of costs rising in fuel, food, housing and basic necessities. Not all of us are lucky enough to be able to afford shopping at Waitrose. Not all of us have the same personal responsibilities towards raising their children. Not all of us own a car or have time to go to the gym. I know I didn't and I was a SAHM for 12 years. With ZERO help. And let's consider bariatric surgery as a "final" solution. I can tell you from personal experience that IT IS NOT. Bariatric surgeons are emotional manipulators when it comes to targeting anyone above a BMI over 40, at any age, regardless of sex, race or financial means. They are the peddlers of the infamous "Before-and-After" photos... the "Before" photo featuring a badly dressed, glum-looking fatso in stretchy pants and tee-shirt and the "After" photo featuring a glossy, slim, well-dressed so-and-so, teeth whitened, smiling into the camera. What those same bariatric clinics (commercial ones especially) neglect to show you is the "After-After" pic, taken 6 months to a year after peak weight loss. That's because those same clinics are only interested in getting us ignorant, sad sack fatties in and out the door as soon as possible, without ANY physio or psychological or dietary follow up. You want to know where many Brits and Irish fly for a gastric bypass? Turkey. These same clinics also sell you cosmetic surgery to remove the inevitable loose skin you get, especially after a gastric bypass. The surgeons DON'T tell you about your lifetime lactose intolerance. They don't bother to check if you suffer any other illnesses- especially congenital ones like Bicuspid Aortic Valve disease. Guess what, kids. I went through BOTH bariatric procedures. 2015 and 2018. The weight always comes back. Oh, and I was diagnosed with BAV during COVID. How in hells did those smartypants doctors miss THAT one during my routine ECGs? Eh? I can tell you that my GP was shocked. Had I stayed in Ireland, I'd be a dead woman. Thank you NHS/HSE. The ONLY way to effectively and PERMANENTLY lose weight is to throw out the damned fool BMI charts, take a Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis of your fat vs muscle snd work from there. I did lose all that weight once... when I was 25... but I was lucky enough to see a GP once a week, for FREE, who advised me on my diet, looked at my weekly dietary intake and ask pointed questions about how I was feeling, because I had mental health issues. So again... don't judge a book by its cover. And never trust statistics. I did my master's in it. I know how easy it is to manipulate results based on which variables you use and how to phrase the question. And to quote Jello Biafra: "Don't hate the media. Become the media." I will defend the BMI chart - it can indicate weight loss, weight gain BUT it is NEVER the whole picture. AND it dismisses those who are fat on the inside. Agreed but only to a certain extent. In fact, BMI was invented by Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician, and sociologist, devised the basis of the BMI between 1830 and 1850 as he developed what he called "social physics". Quetelet himself never intended for the index, then called the Quetelet Index, to be used as a means of medical assessment. From a statistical POV, it rates very poorly across sex and race. Before BMI, doctors used the much worse Met Life weight charts. Dieting and weight loss is a multi-trillion dollar industry that affects your insurance premiums, your dental and general health plan (whether you're in the NHS is immaterial: NHS doesn't cover everything and there are even discrepancies between NHS England, Scotland, Wales and NI. Again, the "weight management" and dietitian industry relies on statistics, to fund itself. A prescription for Xenical (a weight loss pill, I won't tell you the side effects) can set you back hundreds of pounds/euro/dollars per month, depending where you live and who's your insurer. Let's apply the same statistical model of BMI to auto safety standards. The seat belt and seat design is based on your "average" white male (whatever that means". That means anyone who isn't an AWM is more likely to suffer in a car collision, even if they have their seat belts on. That includes pregnant women and, yes, the obese. That's statistics for you, I'm afraid. BMI should be tossed out. The only people it serves are the ones who have a financial stake in it. However well-intentioned a small proportion of medical staff are towards their patients, the truth is rarely so simple. The full medical picture of each patient is very complex. But insurance companies, hospital and clinical administrators and professional weight loss surgeons and their staff don't like complexity. It's much simpler to parrot BMI than do a thorough job of assessing the full picture. As a HCP, I'm aware of its failings. As a patient I've argued against it being used just to determine I'm borderline obese and a nurse tell me to exercise more or watch my diet. I told her not to go there! It's infuriating when a HCP think they know best . Sometimes they do when they are experts in their field, but often they don't and don't listen to the expert of the body before them - their patient.
BMI probably isn't perfect, and may err on the wrong side of borderline cases. But the OP flagged-up the staggering cost to the NHS and society of obesity. Most of us don't need to be a HCP or expert in BMIs to recognise that somebody carrying up to double their ideal body weight is likely to suffer health problems. If BMI helps the majority of people control their weight, that's a good thing, no?
No it doesn't. It just stigmatised and diminishes them. As previously stated, BMI was never meant as anything other than a way to measure 18th century population in Western Europe.
In fact, it was a component of his study of l'homme moyen, or the average man. Quetelet thought of the average man as a social ideal, and developed the body mass index as a means of discovering the socially ideal human person. According to Lars Grue and Arvid Heiberg in the Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, Quetelet's idealization of the average man would be elaborated upon by Francis Galton a decade later in the development of Eugenics.
Now we're for Eugenics, are we?
"I've accepted BMI isn't perfect, but believe by discrediting it as a reasonable measure of obesity we risk losing a tool that serves most people well and moreover tells them the stark truth about their weight. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods. I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. We'll have to agree to disagree. But veg is only one element of your diet. A cheap microwave meal that purports to have the nutritional requirements is cheaper than buying your macro nutrients separately if cooking for one. Rubbish, the aforementioned veg box will, depending on the exact contents, make about 10 portions of tasty balanced meals with the addition of some other cheap ingredients such as chickpeas, chopped tomatoes, lentils, maybe a small amount of meat or fish, herbs and spices. Slow cooker so uses little power. Less than 50p a portion is easy to achieve. I think a lot depends on public transport links, accessibility, and yes, cooking skills. When I lived in Scotland I was utterly blown away by how many chippers and late-night take-away places existed. I was also equally horrified at the "typical" British diet. Being lucky enough to come from a continental background, with BOTH of my parents shopping for groceries at the local Italian or Greek grocers, scouring the supermarket flyers every week and cutting out coupons to save 10 cents on a can of navy beans or chopped tomatoes, I learned early on how to make do with less. But I'm one of the lucky ones. Ireland even has a worse track record per capita for obesity when it comes to price of produce and lack of general cooking skills. Also consider that if you are the mother of three children, who's school only permits you to bolt down your lunch at your desk before the teaching staff kick you out to the yard, it's perfectly natural that no matter what "healthy eating" school lunch policy exists, it really depends on where you live, your marital status, take home pay and a variety of other factors. I've even heard the argument that supermarkets were once directed by certain British and Irish policies to "hide" their crisps or alcohol. Imagine the fuss the major retailers made about that... So instead, the government taxes the poor ... again.. by adding a "fat tax" on things like soft drinks and processed snacks. So... who's to blame? Well, everyone and no one. I ask anyone on this thread to consider the difficulties many face this coming winter because of costs rising in fuel, food, housing and basic necessities. Not all of us are lucky enough to be able to afford shopping at Waitrose. Not all of us have the same personal responsibilities towards raising their children. Not all of us own a car or have time to go to the gym. I know I didn't and I was a SAHM for 12 years. With ZERO help. And let's consider bariatric surgery as a "final" solution. I can tell you from personal experience that IT IS NOT. Bariatric surgeons are emotional manipulators when it comes to targeting anyone above a BMI over 40, at any age, regardless of sex, race or financial means. They are the peddlers of the infamous "Before-and-After" photos... the "Before" photo featuring a badly dressed, glum-looking fatso in stretchy pants and tee-shirt and the "After" photo featuring a glossy, slim, well-dressed so-and-so, teeth whitened, smiling into the camera. What those same bariatric clinics (commercial ones especially) neglect to show you is the "After-After" pic, taken 6 months to a year after peak weight loss. That's because those same clinics are only interested in getting us ignorant, sad sack fatties in and out the door as soon as possible, without ANY physio or psychological or dietary follow up. You want to know where many Brits and Irish fly for a gastric bypass? Turkey. These same clinics also sell you cosmetic surgery to remove the inevitable loose skin you get, especially after a gastric bypass. The surgeons DON'T tell you about your lifetime lactose intolerance. They don't bother to check if you suffer any other illnesses- especially congenital ones like Bicuspid Aortic Valve disease. Guess what, kids. I went through BOTH bariatric procedures. 2015 and 2018. The weight always comes back. Oh, and I was diagnosed with BAV during COVID. How in hells did those smartypants doctors miss THAT one during my routine ECGs? Eh? I can tell you that my GP was shocked. Had I stayed in Ireland, I'd be a dead woman. Thank you NHS/HSE. The ONLY way to effectively and PERMANENTLY lose weight is to throw out the damned fool BMI charts, take a Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis of your fat vs muscle snd work from there. I did lose all that weight once... when I was 25... but I was lucky enough to see a GP once a week, for FREE, who advised me on my diet, looked at my weekly dietary intake and ask pointed questions about how I was feeling, because I had mental health issues. So again... don't judge a book by its cover. And never trust statistics. I did my master's in it. I know how easy it is to manipulate results based on which variables you use and how to phrase the question. And to quote Jello Biafra: "Don't hate the media. Become the media." I will defend the BMI chart - it can indicate weight loss, weight gain BUT it is NEVER the whole picture. AND it dismisses those who are fat on the inside. Agreed but only to a certain extent. In fact, BMI was invented by Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician, and sociologist, devised the basis of the BMI between 1830 and 1850 as he developed what he called "social physics". Quetelet himself never intended for the index, then called the Quetelet Index, to be used as a means of medical assessment. From a statistical POV, it rates very poorly across sex and race. Before BMI, doctors used the much worse Met Life weight charts. Dieting and weight loss is a multi-trillion dollar industry that affects your insurance premiums, your dental and general health plan (whether you're in the NHS is immaterial: NHS doesn't cover everything and there are even discrepancies between NHS England, Scotland, Wales and NI. Again, the "weight management" and dietitian industry relies on statistics, to fund itself. A prescription for Xenical (a weight loss pill, I won't tell you the side effects) can set you back hundreds of pounds/euro/dollars per month, depending where you live and who's your insurer. Let's apply the same statistical model of BMI to auto safety standards. The seat belt and seat design is based on your "average" white male (whatever that means". That means anyone who isn't an AWM is more likely to suffer in a car collision, even if they have their seat belts on. That includes pregnant women and, yes, the obese. That's statistics for you, I'm afraid. BMI should be tossed out. The only people it serves are the ones who have a financial stake in it. However well-intentioned a small proportion of medical staff are towards their patients, the truth is rarely so simple. The full medical picture of each patient is very complex. But insurance companies, hospital and clinical administrators and professional weight loss surgeons and their staff don't like complexity. It's much simpler to parrot BMI than do a thorough job of assessing the full picture. As a HCP, I'm aware of its failings. As a patient I've argued against it being used just to determine I'm borderline obese and a nurse tell me to exercise more or watch my diet. I told her not to go there! It's infuriating when a HCP think they know best . Sometimes they do when they are experts in their field, but often they don't and don't listen to the expert of the body before them - their patient.
BMI probably isn't perfect, and may err on the wrong side of borderline cases. But the OP flagged-up the staggering cost to the NHS and society of obesity. Most of us don't need to be a HCP or expert in BMIs to recognise that somebody carrying up to double their ideal body weight is likely to suffer health problems. If BMI helps the majority of people control their weight, that's a good thing, no?
No it doesn't. It just stigmatised and diminishes them. As previously stated, BMI was never meant as anything other than a way to measure 18th century population in Western Europe.
In fact, it was a component of his study of l'homme moyen, or the average man. Quetelet thought of the average man as a social ideal, and developed the body mass index as a means of discovering the socially ideal human person. According to Lars Grue and Arvid Heiberg in the Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, Quetelet's idealization of the average man would be elaborated upon by Francis Galton a decade later in the development of Eugenics.
Now we're for Eugenics, are we?
I've accepted BMI isn't perfect, but believe by discrediting it as a reasonable measure of obesity we risk losing a tool that serves most people well and moreover tells them the stark truth about their weight. "I think the 'overweight' or 'obese' are well aware that "they" are 'overweight' or 'obese'. They don't need judgemental and ignorant strangers to tell them anything. Would you tell someone to put out their cigarette in the street or take the wine glass away from someone at a bar? The only 'stark truth' is the hypocrisy of this entire debate which seems to have been bringing all the sizeist trolls out of the woodwork. And of course, the stark truth is that most gyms don't cater to those who would most profit from it. Funnily enough, when I attended yoga class in Ireland, it was aimed at the elderly. I greatly enjoyed it and it helped me on the long road to recovery. No fat-friendly gyms in the UK and EU. Too bad, eh? Oh dear...  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods. I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. We'll have to agree to disagree. But veg is only one element of your diet. A cheap microwave meal that purports to have the nutritional requirements is cheaper than buying your macro nutrients separately if cooking for one. Rubbish, the aforementioned veg box will, depending on the exact contents, make about 10 portions of tasty balanced meals with the addition of some other cheap ingredients such as chickpeas, chopped tomatoes, lentils, maybe a small amount of meat or fish, herbs and spices. Slow cooker so uses little power. Less than 50p a portion is easy to achieve. I think a lot depends on public transport links, accessibility, and yes, cooking skills. When I lived in Scotland I was utterly blown away by how many chippers and late-night take-away places existed. I was also equally horrified at the "typical" British diet. Being lucky enough to come from a continental background, with BOTH of my parents shopping for groceries at the local Italian or Greek grocers, scouring the supermarket flyers every week and cutting out coupons to save 10 cents on a can of navy beans or chopped tomatoes, I learned early on how to make do with less. But I'm one of the lucky ones. Ireland even has a worse track record per capita for obesity when it comes to price of produce and lack of general cooking skills. Also consider that if you are the mother of three children, who's school only permits you to bolt down your lunch at your desk before the teaching staff kick you out to the yard, it's perfectly natural that no matter what "healthy eating" school lunch policy exists, it really depends on where you live, your marital status, take home pay and a variety of other factors. I've even heard the argument that supermarkets were once directed by certain British and Irish policies to "hide" their crisps or alcohol. Imagine the fuss the major retailers made about that... So instead, the government taxes the poor ... again.. by adding a "fat tax" on things like soft drinks and processed snacks. So... who's to blame? Well, everyone and no one. I ask anyone on this thread to consider the difficulties many face this coming winter because of costs rising in fuel, food, housing and basic necessities. Not all of us are lucky enough to be able to afford shopping at Waitrose. Not all of us have the same personal responsibilities towards raising their children. Not all of us own a car or have time to go to the gym. I know I didn't and I was a SAHM for 12 years. With ZERO help. And let's consider bariatric surgery as a "final" solution. I can tell you from personal experience that IT IS NOT. Bariatric surgeons are emotional manipulators when it comes to targeting anyone above a BMI over 40, at any age, regardless of sex, race or financial means. They are the peddlers of the infamous "Before-and-After" photos... the "Before" photo featuring a badly dressed, glum-looking fatso in stretchy pants and tee-shirt and the "After" photo featuring a glossy, slim, well-dressed so-and-so, teeth whitened, smiling into the camera. What those same bariatric clinics (commercial ones especially) neglect to show you is the "After-After" pic, taken 6 months to a year after peak weight loss. That's because those same clinics are only interested in getting us ignorant, sad sack fatties in and out the door as soon as possible, without ANY physio or psychological or dietary follow up. You want to know where many Brits and Irish fly for a gastric bypass? Turkey. These same clinics also sell you cosmetic surgery to remove the inevitable loose skin you get, especially after a gastric bypass. The surgeons DON'T tell you about your lifetime lactose intolerance. They don't bother to check if you suffer any other illnesses- especially congenital ones like Bicuspid Aortic Valve disease. Guess what, kids. I went through BOTH bariatric procedures. 2015 and 2018. The weight always comes back. Oh, and I was diagnosed with BAV during COVID. How in hells did those smartypants doctors miss THAT one during my routine ECGs? Eh? I can tell you that my GP was shocked. Had I stayed in Ireland, I'd be a dead woman. Thank you NHS/HSE. The ONLY way to effectively and PERMANENTLY lose weight is to throw out the damned fool BMI charts, take a Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis of your fat vs muscle snd work from there. I did lose all that weight once... when I was 25... but I was lucky enough to see a GP once a week, for FREE, who advised me on my diet, looked at my weekly dietary intake and ask pointed questions about how I was feeling, because I had mental health issues. So again... don't judge a book by its cover. And never trust statistics. I did my master's in it. I know how easy it is to manipulate results based on which variables you use and how to phrase the question. And to quote Jello Biafra: "Don't hate the media. Become the media." I will defend the BMI chart - it can indicate weight loss, weight gain BUT it is NEVER the whole picture. AND it dismisses those who are fat on the inside. Agreed but only to a certain extent. In fact, BMI was invented by Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician, and sociologist, devised the basis of the BMI between 1830 and 1850 as he developed what he called "social physics". Quetelet himself never intended for the index, then called the Quetelet Index, to be used as a means of medical assessment. From a statistical POV, it rates very poorly across sex and race. Before BMI, doctors used the much worse Met Life weight charts. Dieting and weight loss is a multi-trillion dollar industry that affects your insurance premiums, your dental and general health plan (whether you're in the NHS is immaterial: NHS doesn't cover everything and there are even discrepancies between NHS England, Scotland, Wales and NI. Again, the "weight management" and dietitian industry relies on statistics, to fund itself. A prescription for Xenical (a weight loss pill, I won't tell you the side effects) can set you back hundreds of pounds/euro/dollars per month, depending where you live and who's your insurer. Let's apply the same statistical model of BMI to auto safety standards. The seat belt and seat design is based on your "average" white male (whatever that means". That means anyone who isn't an AWM is more likely to suffer in a car collision, even if they have their seat belts on. That includes pregnant women and, yes, the obese. That's statistics for you, I'm afraid. BMI should be tossed out. The only people it serves are the ones who have a financial stake in it. However well-intentioned a small proportion of medical staff are towards their patients, the truth is rarely so simple. The full medical picture of each patient is very complex. But insurance companies, hospital and clinical administrators and professional weight loss surgeons and their staff don't like complexity. It's much simpler to parrot BMI than do a thorough job of assessing the full picture. As a HCP, I'm aware of its failings. As a patient I've argued against it being used just to determine I'm borderline obese and a nurse tell me to exercise more or watch my diet. I told her not to go there! It's infuriating when a HCP think they know best . Sometimes they do when they are experts in their field, but often they don't and don't listen to the expert of the body before them - their patient.
BMI probably isn't perfect, and may err on the wrong side of borderline cases. But the OP flagged-up the staggering cost to the NHS and society of obesity. Most of us don't need to be a HCP or expert in BMIs to recognise that somebody carrying up to double their ideal body weight is likely to suffer health problems. If BMI helps the majority of people control their weight, that's a good thing, no?
No it doesn't. It just stigmatised and diminishes them. As previously stated, BMI was never meant as anything other than a way to measure 18th century population in Western Europe.
In fact, it was a component of his study of l'homme moyen, or the average man. Quetelet thought of the average man as a social ideal, and developed the body mass index as a means of discovering the socially ideal human person. According to Lars Grue and Arvid Heiberg in the Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, Quetelet's idealization of the average man would be elaborated upon by Francis Galton a decade later in the development of Eugenics.
Now we're for Eugenics, are we?
I've accepted BMI isn't perfect, but believe by discrediting it as a reasonable measure of obesity we risk losing a tool that serves most people well and moreover tells them the stark truth about their weight.
I think the 'overweight' or 'obese' are well aware that "they" are 'overweight' or 'obese'. They don't need judgemental and ignorant strangers to tell them anything.
Would you tell someone to put out their cigarette in the street or take the wine glass away from someone at a bar?
The only 'stark truth' is the hypocrisy of this entire debate which seems to have been bringing all the sizeist trolls out of the woodwork.
And of course, the stark truth is that most gyms don't cater to those who would most profit from it.
Funnily enough, when I attended yoga class in Ireland, it was aimed at the elderly. I greatly enjoyed it and it helped me on the long road to recovery.
No fat-friendly gyms in the UK and EU. Too bad, eh?
Oh dear...
"Your anecdote about cigarettes and alcohol hits the mark. Should you tell somebody if either of those were damaging their health? Absolutely, if you cared for their wellbeing. So why is weight any different? If BMI is a useful tool to highlight deviation from a healthy size/weight relationship, where's the problem? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure about weight gain but this thread is certainly getting bloated with the huge long posts and reply+quote "Well it *is* the politics forum.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear.... this old can of worms again. Ho effin ho. Let's get a few facts straight, shall we? Obesity is an eating disorder. Like anorexia or bulimia. It differs from other eating disorders as, among other things, it can be caused by a combination of factors: poverty, early childhood trauma, post-natal depression, genetics, a faulty metabolism, disability, addiction, mental health issues, and a garden variety of familial, societal and yes, even abuse by the very same doctors who are "trying to help you". It isn't an easy illness to overcome, any more than alcoholism, drug addiction or cancer. I've lost count how many times a doctor would look at me and BEFORE even bothering his hole to look at my full medical chart simply say "you have to lose weight" (d'uh, thanks, Doc, I'd no idea). Now, if we're going to use statistical analysis, I'd like to point out the following where the UK is concerned: The leading causes of death in the UK are the following: 1. Alzheimer's and dementia 2. Heart disease 3.Chronic respiratory diseases (asthma, sleep apnea) 4. Cerebrovascular disease (strokes, aneurysms) 5. Lung cancer 6. Influenza and pneumonia According to the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) latest release, the top 10 causes of death worldwide are: Ischaemic heart disease Stroke Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Lower respiratory infections Neonatal conditions Trachea, bronchus and lung cancers Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease Diarrhoeal diseases Diabetes Kidney diseases Heart disease is by far the world’s biggest killer, and it has also seen the biggest rise in deaths since 2000 and now accounts for around 8.9 million deaths each year. So.... before people start throwing potshots at fat people, consider the cost of the above, the flawed premise of the OPs statement and the real reason why life is so expensive in the UK. A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. Fuel poverty is higher than ever and social services and affordable housing are being cut. You want to spread the tax burden? Tax the rich. End of rant. " At least three or four of those diseases have strong links with obesity. So if you reduce obesity you will reduced deaths by those diseases. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can this be true, each person, whether through direct or indirect taxation paying £1462 a year towards the cost of our overweight population Guardian article estimates this includes £63bn cost to people affected, £19bn cost to NHS and £15bn cost to society" Let's see... Tax lost in UK amounts to £35bn – almost half, say campaigners, due to fraud £2.9 billion to violence £3.5 billion to alcohol related death and hospital admissions And here's the money shot... £100 million lost to... Brexit. Thoughts, OP? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
A few excess kilos on an otherwise "average" frame isn't anything to panic over in the grand scheme of things. It amuses me to see certain male profiles list themselves as "athletic" when the photos prove otherwise.
As a big, tall, incredibly strong woman with big feet, a vice grip that scares the bejesus out of my physiotherapists and nurses, my catlike reflexes and my ability to beat seven snots out of anyone trying to physically intimidate me... not to mention my massive shoulders and bone structure I tend to root for the little guy. I don't like bullies. I never have.
I was always teased as a teenager for being "not girly enough" and believe me, it hurt. The jibes, the endless comparisons with my slimmer siblings and classmates, the bullying at school... and, well, the ensuing difficulties I grew up with made me unhappy for a long time.
I just think that if we can be tolerant towards those of us who are... "different" then I think we can extend that generosity towards anyone struggling with their weight... especially at this time of year.
Happy Hannukah to my peeps!!
Baruch atah Adonai Eloheinu Melech ha-olam, asher kid'shanu b-mitzvotav, v-tzivanu l'hadlik ner shel Hanukkah.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Had the unfortunate experience of visiting the wessex heary beat ward 22 years ago, as a visitor thankfully. I said to one of the nurses, I thought the ward would be full overweight people, yes I know, sterotypical. There were a lot thin and actually very fit people there. Her reply was 'we only see the unlucky ones here, the lucky ones are dead before the hit the tarmac' it's not being overweight, its the underlying causes that cause people to be overweight that are the problem. My Dr keeps telling me I need to be 65Kg, the last time I was near that I fainted giving blood, confused the nurse as I had donated dozens of times in the past." 65kg? No, a range is what the GP should be promoting. If you're overweight/obese, a 5% loss should be aimed for. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morbidity linked to people being overweight is a big drain on the NHS. That seems unlikely. Dead people don't tend to use the NHS very much." But there not dead are they?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morbidity linked to people being overweight is a big drain on the NHS. That seems unlikely. Dead people don't tend to use the NHS very much. But there not dead are they??" Nevermind seems someone already corrected you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. A veg box in Lidl gives you 5kg of end of date or slightly marked fruit and veg for £1.50. On what measure is that cheaper than beer and crisps? It’s very easy to buy healthy food. I buy ridiculous amounts of vegetables and fruit and it’s so much cheaper than fast food. Eating healthy is ostensibly for some the hard part. But it's not cheaper than processed foods. I would say it’s on the same level to be honest. We'll have to agree to disagree. But veg is only one element of your diet. A cheap microwave meal that purports to have the nutritional requirements is cheaper than buying your macro nutrients separately if cooking for one. Rubbish, the aforementioned veg box will, depending on the exact contents, make about 10 portions of tasty balanced meals with the addition of some other cheap ingredients such as chickpeas, chopped tomatoes, lentils, maybe a small amount of meat or fish, herbs and spices. Slow cooker so uses little power. Less than 50p a portion is easy to achieve. I think a lot depends on public transport links, accessibility, and yes, cooking skills. When I lived in Scotland I was utterly blown away by how many chippers and late-night take-away places existed. I was also equally horrified at the "typical" British diet. Being lucky enough to come from a continental background, with BOTH of my parents shopping for groceries at the local Italian or Greek grocers, scouring the supermarket flyers every week and cutting out coupons to save 10 cents on a can of navy beans or chopped tomatoes, I learned early on how to make do with less. But I'm one of the lucky ones. Ireland even has a worse track record per capita for obesity when it comes to price of produce and lack of general cooking skills. Also consider that if you are the mother of three children, who's school only permits you to bolt down your lunch at your desk before the teaching staff kick you out to the yard, it's perfectly natural that no matter what "healthy eating" school lunch policy exists, it really depends on where you live, your marital status, take home pay and a variety of other factors. I've even heard the argument that supermarkets were once directed by certain British and Irish policies to "hide" their crisps or alcohol. Imagine the fuss the major retailers made about that... So instead, the government taxes the poor ... again.. by adding a "fat tax" on things like soft drinks and processed snacks. So... who's to blame? Well, everyone and no one. I ask anyone on this thread to consider the difficulties many face this coming winter because of costs rising in fuel, food, housing and basic necessities. Not all of us are lucky enough to be able to afford shopping at Waitrose. Not all of us have the same personal responsibilities towards raising their children. Not all of us own a car or have time to go to the gym. I know I didn't and I was a SAHM for 12 years. With ZERO help. And let's consider bariatric surgery as a "final" solution. I can tell you from personal experience that IT IS NOT. Bariatric surgeons are emotional manipulators when it comes to targeting anyone above a BMI over 40, at any age, regardless of sex, race or financial means. They are the peddlers of the infamous "Before-and-After" photos... the "Before" photo featuring a badly dressed, glum-looking fatso in stretchy pants and tee-shirt and the "After" photo featuring a glossy, slim, well-dressed so-and-so, teeth whitened, smiling into the camera. What those same bariatric clinics (commercial ones especially) neglect to show you is the "After-After" pic, taken 6 months to a year after peak weight loss. That's because those same clinics are only interested in getting us ignorant, sad sack fatties in and out the door as soon as possible, without ANY physio or psychological or dietary follow up. You want to know where many Brits and Irish fly for a gastric bypass? Turkey. These same clinics also sell you cosmetic surgery to remove the inevitable loose skin you get, especially after a gastric bypass. The surgeons DON'T tell you about your lifetime lactose intolerance. They don't bother to check if you suffer any other illnesses- especially congenital ones like Bicuspid Aortic Valve disease. Guess what, kids. I went through BOTH bariatric procedures. 2015 and 2018. The weight always comes back. Oh, and I was diagnosed with BAV during COVID. How in hells did those smartypants doctors miss THAT one during my routine ECGs? Eh? I can tell you that my GP was shocked. Had I stayed in Ireland, I'd be a dead woman. Thank you NHS/HSE. The ONLY way to effectively and PERMANENTLY lose weight is to throw out the damned fool BMI charts, take a Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis of your fat vs muscle snd work from there. I did lose all that weight once... when I was 25... but I was lucky enough to see a GP once a week, for FREE, who advised me on my diet, looked at my weekly dietary intake and ask pointed questions about how I was feeling, because I had mental health issues. So again... don't judge a book by its cover. And never trust statistics. I did my master's in it. I know how easy it is to manipulate results based on which variables you use and how to phrase the question. And to quote Jello Biafra: "Don't hate the media. Become the media." I will defend the BMI chart - it can indicate weight loss, weight gain BUT it is NEVER the whole picture. AND it dismisses those who are fat on the inside. Agreed but only to a certain extent. In fact, BMI was invented by Adolphe Quetelet, a Belgian astronomer, mathematician, statistician, and sociologist, devised the basis of the BMI between 1830 and 1850 as he developed what he called "social physics". Quetelet himself never intended for the index, then called the Quetelet Index, to be used as a means of medical assessment. From a statistical POV, it rates very poorly across sex and race. Before BMI, doctors used the much worse Met Life weight charts. Dieting and weight loss is a multi-trillion dollar industry that affects your insurance premiums, your dental and general health plan (whether you're in the NHS is immaterial: NHS doesn't cover everything and there are even discrepancies between NHS England, Scotland, Wales and NI. Again, the "weight management" and dietitian industry relies on statistics, to fund itself. A prescription for Xenical (a weight loss pill, I won't tell you the side effects) can set you back hundreds of pounds/euro/dollars per month, depending where you live and who's your insurer. Let's apply the same statistical model of BMI to auto safety standards. The seat belt and seat design is based on your "average" white male (whatever that means". That means anyone who isn't an AWM is more likely to suffer in a car collision, even if they have their seat belts on. That includes pregnant women and, yes, the obese. That's statistics for you, I'm afraid. BMI should be tossed out. The only people it serves are the ones who have a financial stake in it. However well-intentioned a small proportion of medical staff are towards their patients, the truth is rarely so simple. The full medical picture of each patient is very complex. But insurance companies, hospital and clinical administrators and professional weight loss surgeons and their staff don't like complexity. It's much simpler to parrot BMI than do a thorough job of assessing the full picture. As a HCP, I'm aware of its failings. As a patient I've argued against it being used just to determine I'm borderline obese and a nurse tell me to exercise more or watch my diet. I told her not to go there! It's infuriating when a HCP think they know best . Sometimes they do when they are experts in their field, but often they don't and don't listen to the expert of the body before them - their patient.
BMI probably isn't perfect, and may err on the wrong side of borderline cases. But the OP flagged-up the staggering cost to the NHS and society of obesity. Most of us don't need to be a HCP or expert in BMIs to recognise that somebody carrying up to double their ideal body weight is likely to suffer health problems. If BMI helps the majority of people control their weight, that's a good thing, no?
No it doesn't. It just stigmatised and diminishes them. As previously stated, BMI was never meant as anything other than a way to measure 18th century population in Western Europe.
In fact, it was a component of his study of l'homme moyen, or the average man. Quetelet thought of the average man as a social ideal, and developed the body mass index as a means of discovering the socially ideal human person. According to Lars Grue and Arvid Heiberg in the Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, Quetelet's idealization of the average man would be elaborated upon by Francis Galton a decade later in the development of Eugenics.
Now we're for Eugenics, are we?
I've accepted BMI isn't perfect, but believe by discrediting it as a reasonable measure of obesity we risk losing a tool that serves most people well and moreover tells them the stark truth about their weight. "Agreed BMI is not a perfect measure but it's good enough and is an accurate description of most people. Obviously there will be outliers for eg some races have more bonedensity then others and it can not tell the difference between going over muscled as apposed to fat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look. I'm well aware of the dangers of an unhealthy diet, a sedentary lifestyle and, yes, excess weight. There are many of us who suffer from being overweight or obese. I'm 100% behind anyone, thin or fat, trying to improve their overall health. I think age and wisdom also lends a particular perspective on this. And quite aside from the "esthetic" element of weight management, where the excess weight accumulates will definitely have an impact on joint health - knees in particular. It's one thing to be some plump, single little chicklet bouncing her DD's in her Anne Summers baby doll dress. It's quite another when same chicklet audibly grunts with effort in touching their toes or putting on a pair of shoes 30 years later
A few excess kilos on an otherwise "average" frame isn't anything to panic over in the grand scheme of things. It amuses me to see certain male profiles list themselves as "athletic" when the photos prove otherwise.
As a big, tall, incredibly strong woman with big feet, a vice grip that scares the bejesus out of my physiotherapists and nurses, my catlike reflexes and my ability to beat seven snots out of anyone trying to physically intimidate me... not to mention my massive shoulders and bone structure I tend to root for the little guy. I don't like bullies. I never have.
I was always teased as a teenager for being "not girly enough" and believe me, it hurt. The jibes, the endless comparisons with my slimmer siblings and classmates, the bullying at school... and, well, the ensuing difficulties I grew up with made me unhappy for a long time.
I just think that if we can be tolerant towards those of us who are... "different" then I think we can extend that generosity towards anyone struggling with their weight... especially at this time of year.
Happy Hannukah to my peeps!!
Baruch atah Adonai Eloheinu Melech ha-olam, asher kid'shanu b-mitzvotav, v-tzivanu l'hadlik ner shel Hanukkah. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear.... this old can of worms again. Ho effin ho. Let's get a few facts straight, shall we? Obesity is an eating disorder. Like anorexia or bulimia. It differs from other eating disorders as, among other things, it can be caused by a combination of factors: poverty, early childhood trauma, post-natal depression, genetics, a faulty metabolism, disability, addiction, mental health issues, and a garden variety of familial, societal and yes, even abuse by the very same doctors who are "trying to help you". It isn't an easy illness to overcome, any more than alcoholism, drug addiction or cancer. I've lost count how many times a doctor would look at me and BEFORE even bothering his hole to look at my full medical chart simply say "you have to lose weight" (d'uh, thanks, Doc, I'd no idea). Now, if we're going to use statistical analysis, I'd like to point out the following where the UK is concerned: The leading causes of death in the UK are the following: 1. Alzheimer's and dementia 2. Heart disease 3.Chronic respiratory diseases (asthma, sleep apnea) 4. Cerebrovascular disease (strokes, aneurysms) 5. Lung cancer 6. Influenza and pneumonia According to the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) latest release, the top 10 causes of death worldwide are: Ischaemic heart disease Stroke Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Lower respiratory infections Neonatal conditions Trachea, bronchus and lung cancers Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease Diarrhoeal diseases Diabetes Kidney diseases Heart disease is by far the world’s biggest killer, and it has also seen the biggest rise in deaths since 2000 and now accounts for around 8.9 million deaths each year. So.... before people start throwing potshots at fat people, consider the cost of the above, the flawed premise of the OPs statement and the real reason why life is so expensive in the UK. A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. Fuel poverty is higher than ever and social services and affordable housing are being cut. You want to spread the tax burden? Tax the rich. End of rant. " Being overweight/obesity isn't classified as an eating disorder. It can occur with an eating disorder but it isn't one. It's a medical condition of accumulating to much body fat. There's no single cause to obesity, it can be very complex and I fully acknowledge that on an individual level dealing with/loosing excessive weight can be very challenging and multifaceted. However in general it can be said the increase of overweight/obese people in our society over the last 3 to 4 decades is clearly linked to processed food high in fat and sugar and a decrease in physical activity. Overweight/obesity can increase substantially the risk of many health conditions and diseases directly linked to the death causes listed by you above, including heart diseases. And there is where the additional health costs come in. The best way to fight extra weight is to prevent it. Sadly beside food taxes and some half arsed campaigns there's very little done to lead our society back to healthier eating. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear.... this old can of worms again. Ho effin ho. Let's get a few facts straight, shall we? Obesity is an eating disorder. Like anorexia or bulimia. It differs from other eating disorders as, among other things, it can be caused by a combination of factors: poverty, early childhood trauma, post-natal depression, genetics, a faulty metabolism, disability, addiction, mental health issues, and a garden variety of familial, societal and yes, even abuse by the very same doctors who are "trying to help you". It isn't an easy illness to overcome, any more than alcoholism, drug addiction or cancer. I've lost count how many times a doctor would look at me and BEFORE even bothering his hole to look at my full medical chart simply say "you have to lose weight" (d'uh, thanks, Doc, I'd no idea). Now, if we're going to use statistical analysis, I'd like to point out the following where the UK is concerned: The leading causes of death in the UK are the following: 1. Alzheimer's and dementia 2. Heart disease 3.Chronic respiratory diseases (asthma, sleep apnea) 4. Cerebrovascular disease (strokes, aneurysms) 5. Lung cancer 6. Influenza and pneumonia According to the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) latest release, the top 10 causes of death worldwide are: Ischaemic heart disease Stroke Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Lower respiratory infections Neonatal conditions Trachea, bronchus and lung cancers Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease Diarrhoeal diseases Diabetes Kidney diseases Heart disease is by far the world’s biggest killer, and it has also seen the biggest rise in deaths since 2000 and now accounts for around 8.9 million deaths each year. So.... before people start throwing potshots at fat people, consider the cost of the above, the flawed premise of the OPs statement and the real reason why life is so expensive in the UK. A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. Fuel poverty is higher than ever and social services and affordable housing are being cut. You want to spread the tax burden? Tax the rich. End of rant. Just out of curiosity, when you say tax the rich. What's rich in your opinion. Large salary with few assets. Cash poor, largely asset rich. Cash, investments, second homes, holiday homes etc. Cash poor and business owner where the wealth comes from value of business. We had this discussion in the pub with friends and the different perceptions were wide and varied. PS. Not to get into a pissing contest but I've been overweight and now I'm slim, from my experience much rather be slim as I hated myself when overweight. My turning point was some kids in the swimming pool saying I look like a whale getting out, they thought I didn't hear. It was upsetting but they were bang on, totally correct, I looked shit. So, I could cry, moan and say all the stuff fat folks say or, say those kids were correct and lose the pounds. Lost the pounds, its hard, hard, hard but once its starts to come off you will be so pleased and smug and happy to flash the flesh at every available option. Naked beaches, naked swimming, parties and clubs. Good luck to everyone who takes on the weight loss journey. Give it time, be kind to yourself, accept you will fail on some weeks but its probably taken years to put on the weight so give it time to come off. Don't look for excuses to give up and surround yourself with supportive people Good luck and good health. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Returning from abroad I find people in the Uk unhappy. No one is smiling anymore. " Everyone that doesn't use social media is very happy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Eat only the amount of calories your body needs." Finally! Let's not forget move a little more. It's within everyone's ability to loose excess weight, if they want to. Sedentary lifestyle is a choice and not an affliction | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Eat only the amount of calories your body needs." If you give some people 2,500 calories in carbs, they'll burn it all and feel fit and healthy. But others will take the same 2,500 calories in carbs, turn some of that into fat, and then feel tired and unmotivated. It's not just the amount of calories ingested, it's the makeup of the person that determines whether they gain weight or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Eat only the amount of calories your body needs." Archaic viewpoint | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I know a lot of overweight people who are very healthy. I am not overweight but have high blood pressure heart disease & type 2 diabetes. Genetics are often more of an issue than lifestyle & you cannot change your parents. " Overweight, obesity and underweight, increases risk of disease. Underweight can be more of a symptom than a cause Vs the other two categories. We're all healthy until we're not | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Eat only the amount of calories your body needs. Finally! Let's not forget move a little more. It's within everyone's ability to loose excess weight, if they want to. Sedentary lifestyle is a choice and not an affliction" Although this is correct for some people, due to the complexity of obesity it's not a solution for all. However, movement will carry benefits even if weight category remains the same | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Eat only the amount of calories your body needs. If you give some people 2,500 calories in carbs, they'll burn it all and feel fit and healthy. But others will take the same 2,500 calories in carbs, turn some of that into fat, and then feel tired and unmotivated. It's not just the amount of calories ingested, it's the makeup of the person that determines whether they gain weight or not." Calorie source is relevant also. Foods can have a high calorific density while be nutritionally deficient. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Eat only the amount of calories your body needs. Finally! Let's not forget move a little more. It's within everyone's ability to loose excess weight, if they want to. Sedentary lifestyle is a choice and not an affliction Although this is correct for some people, due to the complexity of obesity it's not a solution for all. However, movement will carry benefits even if weight category remains the same " Pretty sure that it isn’t only cardio exercise that is key. There are multiple benefits of weight training, not least that muscle burns more calories than fat (may have that terminology wrong) and using weights helps increase bone density which is better for old age. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Eat only the amount of calories your body needs. Finally! Let's not forget move a little more. It's within everyone's ability to loose excess weight, if they want to. Sedentary lifestyle is a choice and not an affliction Although this is correct for some people, due to the complexity of obesity it's not a solution for all. However, movement will carry benefits even if weight category remains the same Pretty sure that it isn’t only cardio exercise that is key. There are multiple benefits of weight training, not least that muscle burns more calories than fat (may have that terminology wrong) and using weights helps increase bone density which is better for old age." 100% correct! Obesity is self inflicted. Nobody force feeds anyone do they? I understand that there can be psychological issues with some people who are overweight and in some cases certain medications can contribute but I'm fairly certain for the majority it's caused by eating too much and not exercising enough. It's not easy to lose weight, it requires a lot of effort but what takes even more is sustaining it. I don't agree with fat shaming but feel it's even more detrimental to normalise obesity. I don't think it's fair to call it an illness as it involves choice. Cancer is an illness and nobody chooses it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Eat only the amount of calories your body needs. Finally! Let's not forget move a little more. It's within everyone's ability to loose excess weight, if they want to. Sedentary lifestyle is a choice and not an affliction Although this is correct for some people, due to the complexity of obesity it's not a solution for all. However, movement will carry benefits even if weight category remains the same Pretty sure that it isn’t only cardio exercise that is key. There are multiple benefits of weight training, not least that muscle burns more calories than fat (may have that terminology wrong) and using weights helps increase bone density which is better for old age." That's why I stated movement rather than cardio. Yes bone density can be improved. And increase in muscle mass uses more calories and usually results in decreasing fat levels. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. It's as simple as that, no?" Gaining weight is a lot easier than losing it (for most people). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. It's as simple as that, no?" That's true, and it does sound simple, but it isn't. No one can control how their body burns calories. Give 3000 calories to one person and they'll burn the lot and be full of energy. Give the same 3000 calories to someone else, and they'll turn 500 of those calories into fat, and gain weight. Give the second person just 2000 calories and their body will still turn some of them into fat, while not providing enough energy to keep that person going all day. So if you're unlucky, you'll have a fat-hoarding metabolism, and it'll be much harder to burn all the calories you eat, no matter how much you eat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Eat only the amount of calories your body needs. Finally! Let's not forget move a little more. It's within everyone's ability to loose excess weight, if they want to. Sedentary lifestyle is a choice and not an affliction Although this is correct for some people, due to the complexity of obesity it's not a solution for all. However, movement will carry benefits even if weight category remains the same Pretty sure that it isn’t only cardio exercise that is key. There are multiple benefits of weight training, not least that muscle burns more calories than fat (may have that terminology wrong) and using weights helps increase bone density which is better for old age. 100% correct! Obesity is self inflicted. Nobody force feeds anyone do they? I understand that there can be psychological issues with some people who are overweight and in some cases certain medications can contribute but I'm fairly certain for the majority it's caused by eating too much and not exercising enough. It's not easy to lose weight, it requires a lot of effort but what takes even more is sustaining it. I don't agree with fat shaming but feel it's even more detrimental to normalise obesity. I don't think it's fair to call it an illness as it involves choice. Cancer is an illness and nobody chooses it." You may not want to normalise obesity but unfortunately, it IS normal (at least to the extent of two-thirds of adults being overweight/obese in this country). I've stated in a prior post about poor obesity recognition, especially in men about themselves. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. It's as simple as that, no? That's true, and it does sound simple, but it isn't. No one can control how their body burns calories. Give 3000 calories to one person and they'll burn the lot and be full of energy. Give the same 3000 calories to someone else, and they'll turn 500 of those calories into fat, and gain weight. Give the second person just 2000 calories and their body will still turn some of them into fat, while not providing enough energy to keep that person going all day. So if you're unlucky, you'll have a fat-hoarding metabolism, and it'll be much harder to burn all the calories you eat, no matter how much you eat." how has that sexond person managed to only burn 1500 cals? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Eat only the amount of calories your body needs. Finally! Let's not forget move a little more. It's within everyone's ability to loose excess weight, if they want to. Sedentary lifestyle is a choice and not an affliction Although this is correct for some people, due to the complexity of obesity it's not a solution for all. However, movement will carry benefits even if weight category remains the same Pretty sure that it isn’t only cardio exercise that is key. There are multiple benefits of weight training, not least that muscle burns more calories than fat (may have that terminology wrong) and using weights helps increase bone density which is better for old age. 100% correct! Obesity is self inflicted. Nobody force feeds anyone do they? I understand that there can be psychological issues with some people who are overweight and in some cases certain medications can contribute but I'm fairly certain for the majority it's caused by eating too much and not exercising enough. It's not easy to lose weight, it requires a lot of effort but what takes even more is sustaining it. I don't agree with fat shaming but feel it's even more detrimental to normalise obesity. I don't think it's fair to call it an illness as it involves choice. Cancer is an illness and nobody chooses it. You may not want to normalise obesity but unfortunately, it IS normal (at least to the extent of two-thirds of adults being overweight/obese in this country). I've stated in a prior post about poor obesity recognition, especially in men about themselves." And you may want to accept that not everyone agrees with your opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The answer is simple. Eat only the amount of calories your body needs. Finally! Let's not forget move a little more. It's within everyone's ability to loose excess weight, if they want to. Sedentary lifestyle is a choice and not an affliction Although this is correct for some people, due to the complexity of obesity it's not a solution for all. However, movement will carry benefits even if weight category remains the same Pretty sure that it isn’t only cardio exercise that is key. There are multiple benefits of weight training, not least that muscle burns more calories than fat (may have that terminology wrong) and using weights helps increase bone density which is better for old age. 100% correct! Obesity is self inflicted. Nobody force feeds anyone do they? I understand that there can be psychological issues with some people who are overweight and in some cases certain medications can contribute but I'm fairly certain for the majority it's caused by eating too much and not exercising enough. It's not easy to lose weight, it requires a lot of effort but what takes even more is sustaining it. I don't agree with fat shaming but feel it's even more detrimental to normalise obesity. I don't think it's fair to call it an illness as it involves choice. Cancer is an illness and nobody chooses it. You may not want to normalise obesity but unfortunately, it IS normal (at least to the extent of two-thirds of adults being overweight/obese in this country). I've stated in a prior post about poor obesity recognition, especially in men about themselves. And you may want to accept that not everyone agrees with your opinion. " My opinion is evidence-based. I'm happy to share the facts. If people refute them it's no skin off my nose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. It's as simple as that, no? That's true, and it does sound simple, but it isn't. No one can control how their body burns calories. Give 3000 calories to one person and they'll burn the lot and be full of energy. Give the same 3000 calories to someone else, and they'll turn 500 of those calories into fat, and gain weight. Give the second person just 2000 calories and their body will still turn some of them into fat, while not providing enough energy to keep that person going all day. So if you're unlucky, you'll have a fat-hoarding metabolism, and it'll be much harder to burn all the calories you eat, no matter how much you eat.how has that sexond person managed to only burn 1500 cals? " Besides movement/expending calories, source matters. Think of how long it takes to digest food, the longer it takes, the more calories are the expended breaking food down. This is why some foods have negative calories. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. It's as simple as that, no?" "That's true, and it does sound simple, but it isn't. No one can control how their body burns calories. Give 3000 calories to one person and they'll burn the lot and be full of energy. Give the same 3000 calories to someone else, and they'll turn 500 of those calories into fat, and gain weight. Give the second person just 2000 calories and their body will still turn some of them into fat, while not providing enough energy to keep that person going all day. So if you're unlucky, you'll have a fat-hoarding metabolism, and it'll be much harder to burn all the calories you eat, no matter how much you eat." "how has that sexond person managed to only burn 1500 cals? " Well, I think it would be more like burning 1900, with 100 getting stored away. Their metabolism will just release the energy sparingly, making the person feel tired all day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. It's as simple as that, no? That's true, and it does sound simple, but it isn't. No one can control how their body burns calories. Give 3000 calories to one person and they'll burn the lot and be full of energy. Give the same 3000 calories to someone else, and they'll turn 500 of those calories into fat, and gain weight. Give the second person just 2000 calories and their body will still turn some of them into fat, while not providing enough energy to keep that person going all day. So if you're unlucky, you'll have a fat-hoarding metabolism, and it'll be much harder to burn all the calories you eat, no matter how much you eat.how has that sexond person managed to only burn 1500 cals? Besides movement/expending calories, source matters. Think of how long it takes to digest food, the longer it takes, the more calories are the expended breaking food down. This is why some foods have negative calories." Aren't carbs the devil here. Isn't the increase in obesity linked to the increased consumption of carbs and the introduction of the low fat diet from the late 50s onwards?, Mrs x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. It's as simple as that, no? Gaining weight is a lot easier than losing it (for most people)." Indeed. Because fat cells, once created, cannot be eliminated. So don't generate them in the first place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. It's as simple as that, no? Gaining weight is a lot easier than losing it (for most people). Indeed. Because fat cells, once created, cannot be eliminated. So don't generate them in the first place." So you think fat cells multiply rather than shrink and grow? Multiplying of cells is what cancer is (in extremely simplistic terms). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. It's as simple as that, no? That's true, and it does sound simple, but it isn't. No one can control how their body burns calories. Give 3000 calories to one person and they'll burn the lot and be full of energy. Give the same 3000 calories to someone else, and they'll turn 500 of those calories into fat, and gain weight. Give the second person just 2000 calories and their body will still turn some of them into fat, while not providing enough energy to keep that person going all day. So if you're unlucky, you'll have a fat-hoarding metabolism, and it'll be much harder to burn all the calories you eat, no matter how much you eat.how has that sexond person managed to only burn 1500 cals? Besides movement/expending calories, source matters. Think of how long it takes to digest food, the longer it takes, the more calories are the expended breaking food down. This is why some foods have negative calories. Aren't carbs the devil here. Isn't the increase in obesity linked to the increased consumption of carbs and the introduction of the low fat diet from the late 50s onwards?, Mrs x" When I was at school, the emphasis was on a balanced diet (macro and micronutrients). The carbs were split into starches and sugars (with fruit and veg as a separate group ). Fat was the demon of the 80s. We can safely demonise processed foods in my opinion and especially fat and sugar foods (cakes, biscuits, ice-cream, cheesecake - you get the picture). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. It's as simple as that, no? That's true, and it does sound simple, but it isn't. No one can control how their body burns calories. Give 3000 calories to one person and they'll burn the lot and be full of energy. Give the same 3000 calories to someone else, and they'll turn 500 of those calories into fat, and gain weight. Give the second person just 2000 calories and their body will still turn some of them into fat, while not providing enough energy to keep that person going all day. So if you're unlucky, you'll have a fat-hoarding metabolism, and it'll be much harder to burn all the calories you eat, no matter how much you eat.how has that sexond person managed to only burn 1500 cals? Besides movement/expending calories, source matters. Think of how long it takes to digest food, the longer it takes, the more calories are the expended breaking food down. This is why some foods have negative calories. Aren't carbs the devil here. Isn't the increase in obesity linked to the increased consumption of carbs and the introduction of the low fat diet from the late 50s onwards?, Mrs x When I was at school, the emphasis was on a balanced diet (macro and micronutrients). The carbs were split into starches and sugars (with fruit and veg as a separate group ). Fat was the demon of the 80s. We can safely demonise processed foods in my opinion and especially fat and sugar foods (cakes, biscuits, ice-cream, cheesecake - you get the picture)."People have the choice to eat whatever they like otherwise it's a not a free state | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. It's as simple as that, no? That's true, and it does sound simple, but it isn't. No one can control how their body burns calories. Give 3000 calories to one person and they'll burn the lot and be full of energy. Give the same 3000 calories to someone else, and they'll turn 500 of those calories into fat, and gain weight. Give the second person just 2000 calories and their body will still turn some of them into fat, while not providing enough energy to keep that person going all day. So if you're unlucky, you'll have a fat-hoarding metabolism, and it'll be much harder to burn all the calories you eat, no matter how much you eat.how has that sexond person managed to only burn 1500 cals? Besides movement/expending calories, source matters. Think of how long it takes to digest food, the longer it takes, the more calories are the expended breaking food down. This is why some foods have negative calories. Aren't carbs the devil here. Isn't the increase in obesity linked to the increased consumption of carbs and the introduction of the low fat diet from the late 50s onwards?, Mrs x When I was at school, the emphasis was on a balanced diet (macro and micronutrients). The carbs were split into starches and sugars (with fruit and veg as a separate group ). Fat was the demon of the 80s. We can safely demonise processed foods in my opinion and especially fat and sugar foods (cakes, biscuits, ice-cream, cheesecake - you get the picture).
People have the choice to eat whatever they like otherwise it's a not a free state"People can eat mud if they want to .
I don't think anyone has mentioned making certain food types an illegal consumption. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. It's as simple as that, no? Gaining weight is a lot easier than losing it (for most people). Indeed. Because fat cells, once created, cannot be eliminated. So don't generate them in the first place. So you think fat cells multiply rather than shrink and grow? Multiplying of cells is what cancer is (in extremely simplistic terms)." Eh? I haven't made any claims about cells multiplying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. It's as simple as that, no? Gaining weight is a lot easier than losing it (for most people). Indeed. Because fat cells, once created, cannot be eliminated. So don't generate them in the first place. So you think fat cells multiply rather than shrink and grow? Multiplying of cells is what cancer is (in extremely simplistic terms). Eh? I haven't made any claims about cells multiplying. " I didn't state you did. I was seeking clarification on your knowledge about fat cells. I'll rephrase my question: Do you think the body produces more fat cells than shrink and grow? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. It's as simple as that, no? Gaining weight is a lot easier than losing it (for most people). Indeed. Because fat cells, once created, cannot be eliminated. So don't generate them in the first place. So you think fat cells multiply rather than shrink and grow? Multiplying of cells is what cancer is (in extremely simplistic terms). Eh? I haven't made any claims about cells multiplying. I didn't state you did. I was seeking clarification on your knowledge about fat cells. I'll rephrase my question: Do you think the body produces more fat cells than shrink and grow?" Why exactly do I have to clarify my knowledge on any particular topic to you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you eat more calories than you burn, you gain weight. It's as simple as that, no? Gaining weight is a lot easier than losing it (for most people). Indeed. Because fat cells, once created, cannot be eliminated. So don't generate them in the first place. So you think fat cells multiply rather than shrink and grow? Multiplying of cells is what cancer is (in extremely simplistic terms). Eh? I haven't made any claims about cells multiplying. I didn't state you did. I was seeking clarification on your knowledge about fat cells. I'll rephrase my question: Do you think the body produces more fat cells than shrink and grow? Why exactly do I have to clarify my knowledge on any particular topic to you?" Do or don't. I don't actually care. I wanted to understand your rationale before stating "you're wrong". It's called polite discussion. Since you appear to not want to fully engage, I will infer that your statement means the fat we acquire are additional cells as you state "don't generate them in the first place". Cell regeneration is an interesting topic. Faulty processes cause additional cells by either not destroying maladapted cells or removal of dead cells (this gives the impression of cells multiplying, it is a poor choice of words tho). Bottom line, through cell regeneration the number of (fat) cells is stable unless you're looking at cancer. Growth of adipose and visceral fat cells causes the stereotypical obese shapes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BBW can be high maintenance. Won't put me off though "Are you saying to remain a BBW it is high maintenance?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Might need to add some money to that amount OP if the cost of an extra air line seat for larger people is added onto other travellers like what is being proposed in the US. " Completely stupid policy by one airline. If you can't fit in one seat you should have to buy two. Same should apply on public transport. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Might need to add some money to that amount OP if the cost of an extra air line seat for larger people is added onto other travellers like what is being proposed in the US. Completely stupid policy by one airline. If you can't fit in one seat you should have to buy two. Same should apply on public transport." Buy two seats?? A bit harsh, overweight people have got enough on their plate!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Might need to add some money to that amount OP if the cost of an extra air line seat for larger people is added onto other travellers like what is being proposed in the US. Completely stupid policy by one airline. If you can't fit in one seat you should have to buy two. Same should apply on public transport." It’s a passable policy if the airline take the financial hit. But we all know the cost will always be passed on so is unfair to burden others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If people gain weight until they need medical intervention, (they would have been warned of the consequences) then they should pay for that medical intervention. Maybe through a loan scheme that they pay back over time. Also the reasons for this trend should be looked into if the foods being sold are an issue then they should be banned. Again the food industry are making profits from fatty foods which cause consequences for us as we pay for those consequences through cash and health issues." Your opinion shows you don't know much about the subject: People with obesity are less likely to visit their HCP unless on an emergency basis. HCPs are disinclined to broach the subject of obesity due to it being emotive. GPs were given a monetary incentive in 2021/2 to sign obese patients up to weight watchers/ slimming world to a free period of time (either 10 or 12 weeks), to provide support without judgement. Obesity can be a medical disorder so why should they have to pay for medical procedures. Should cardiac patients pay for treatment? These people can be "fat on the inside" and directly have caused heart issues by eating the wrong foods. Should COPD patients pay for their treatment (direct link to smoking)? And so on. Fatty foods? No, foods with high calorie density and nutritionally deficit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morbidity linked to people being overweight is a big drain on the NHS. That seems unlikely. Dead people don't tend to use the NHS very much." But they don’t pop off right away | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If people gain weight until they need medical intervention, (they would have been warned of the consequences) then they should pay for that medical intervention. Maybe through a loan scheme that they pay back over time. Also the reasons for this trend should be looked into if the foods being sold are an issue then they should be banned. Again the food industry are making profits from fatty foods which cause consequences for us as we pay for those consequences through cash and health issues. Your opinion shows you don't know much about the subject: People with obesity are less likely to visit their HCP unless on an emergency basis. HCPs are disinclined to broach the subject of obesity due to it being emotive. GPs were given a monetary incentive in 2021/2 to sign obese patients up to weight watchers/ slimming world to a free period of time (either 10 or 12 weeks), to provide support without judgement. Obesity can be a medical disorder so why should they have to pay for medical procedures. Should cardiac patients pay for treatment? These people can be "fat on the inside" and directly have caused heart issues by eating the wrong foods. Should COPD patients pay for their treatment (direct link to smoking)? And so on. Fatty foods? No, foods with high calorie density and nutritionally deficit. " If a person is using my tax money to keep healthy whilst doing things which may harm their health then yes they should pay, because the companies who make unhealthy items available will not pay, now if we where discussing the companies who make this discussion possible then we would well I would say they should pay, but they don't no ones says anything about that fact so the people have to pay. Companies would then use the supply and demand excuse I expect so we will pay regardless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If people gain weight until they need medical intervention, (they would have been warned of the consequences) then they should pay for that medical intervention. Maybe through a loan scheme that they pay back over time. Also the reasons for this trend should be looked into if the foods being sold are an issue then they should be banned. Again the food industry are making profits from fatty foods which cause consequences for us as we pay for those consequences through cash and health issues. Your opinion shows you don't know much about the subject: People with obesity are less likely to visit their HCP unless on an emergency basis. HCPs are disinclined to broach the subject of obesity due to it being emotive. GPs were given a monetary incentive in 2021/2 to sign obese patients up to weight watchers/ slimming world to a free period of time (either 10 or 12 weeks), to provide support without judgement. Obesity can be a medical disorder so why should they have to pay for medical procedures. Should cardiac patients pay for treatment? These people can be "fat on the inside" and directly have caused heart issues by eating the wrong foods. Should COPD patients pay for their treatment (direct link to smoking)? And so on. Fatty foods? No, foods with high calorie density and nutritionally deficit. If a person is using my tax money to keep healthy whilst doing things which may harm their health then yes they should pay, because the companies who make unhealthy items available will not pay, now if we where discussing the companies who make this discussion possible then we would well I would say they should pay, but they don't no ones says anything about that fact so the people have to pay. Companies would then use the supply and demand excuse I expect so we will pay regardless." Good argument for private medical insurance and private healthcare being compulsory, you can keep some of your tax £'s | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If people gain weight until they need medical intervention, (they would have been warned of the consequences) then they should pay for that medical intervention. Maybe through a loan scheme that they pay back over time. Also the reasons for this trend should be looked into if the foods being sold are an issue then they should be banned. Again the food industry are making profits from fatty foods which cause consequences for us as we pay for those consequences through cash and health issues. Your opinion shows you don't know much about the subject: People with obesity are less likely to visit their HCP unless on an emergency basis. HCPs are disinclined to broach the subject of obesity due to it being emotive. GPs were given a monetary incentive in 2021/2 to sign obese patients up to weight watchers/ slimming world to a free period of time (either 10 or 12 weeks), to provide support without judgement. Obesity can be a medical disorder so why should they have to pay for medical procedures. Should cardiac patients pay for treatment? These people can be "fat on the inside" and directly have caused heart issues by eating the wrong foods. Should COPD patients pay for their treatment (direct link to smoking)? And so on. Fatty foods? No, foods with high calorie density and nutritionally deficit. If a person is using my tax money to keep healthy whilst doing things which may harm their health then yes they should pay, because the companies who make unhealthy items available will not pay, now if we where discussing the companies who make this discussion possible then we would well I would say they should pay, but they don't no ones says anything about that fact so the people have to pay. Companies would then use the supply and demand excuse I expect so we will pay regardless. Good argument for private medical insurance and private healthcare being compulsory, you can keep some of your tax £'s "I have private health care, so I do keep some of my tax, for it being compulsory that's your bag. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If people gain weight until they need medical intervention, (they would have been warned of the consequences) then they should pay for that medical intervention. Maybe through a loan scheme that they pay back over time. Also the reasons for this trend should be looked into if the foods being sold are an issue then they should be banned. Again the food industry are making profits from fatty foods which cause consequences for us as we pay for those consequences through cash and health issues. Your opinion shows you don't know much about the subject: People with obesity are less likely to visit their HCP unless on an emergency basis. HCPs are disinclined to broach the subject of obesity due to it being emotive. GPs were given a monetary incentive in 2021/2 to sign obese patients up to weight watchers/ slimming world to a free period of time (either 10 or 12 weeks), to provide support without judgement. Obesity can be a medical disorder so why should they have to pay for medical procedures. Should cardiac patients pay for treatment? These people can be "fat on the inside" and directly have caused heart issues by eating the wrong foods. Should COPD patients pay for their treatment (direct link to smoking)? And so on. Fatty foods? No, foods with high calorie density and nutritionally deficit. If a person is using my tax money to keep healthy whilst doing things which may harm their health then yes they should pay, because the companies who make unhealthy items available will not pay, now if we where discussing the companies who make this discussion possible then we would well I would say they should pay, but they don't no ones says anything about that fact so the people have to pay. Companies would then use the supply and demand excuse I expect so we will pay regardless." Ok so people with cardiac issues, type 2 diabetes, obesity, COPD, breaking limbs on skiing holidays, cirrhosis of the liver, and everything else attributable to poor choices, should pay for their own treatment! Having children is largely by choice... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reports like these simply exist to justify the State interfering a bit more in our lives. The main thing is to come up with a big scary number that most people aren’t interested enough to delve into to discover whether it has any validity or not. The media aren’t interested enough, diligent enough, or clever enough, to do the sums either, or generally they are in the same ideological place as the think tanks that the plebs all need controlling a bit more, so the media will gleefully just regurgitate whatever charities, think tanks, or interest groups feed them. But the desired end result is that the population just gets controlled a little bit more its own expense." You capture the dilemma for governments. If they attempt measures to improve public health, everybody screams Nanny State. Then they moan when they can't get to see a GP or get that hip operation. The numbers are only scary because they're true. It's common sense - just walk around a mainland European or Asian city - there is FAR less obesity. It's mostly a US/UK phenomenon mostly : just bad diet and lack of self-control. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reports like these simply exist to justify the State interfering a bit more in our lives. The main thing is to come up with a big scary number that most people aren’t interested enough to delve into to discover whether it has any validity or not. The media aren’t interested enough, diligent enough, or clever enough, to do the sums either, or generally they are in the same ideological place as the think tanks that the plebs all need controlling a bit more, so the media will gleefully just regurgitate whatever charities, think tanks, or interest groups feed them. But the desired end result is that the population just gets controlled a little bit more its own expense. You capture the dilemma for governments. If they attempt measures to improve public health, everybody screams Nanny State. Then they moan when they can't get to see a GP or get that hip operation. The numbers are only scary because they're true. It's common sense - just walk around a mainland European or Asian city - there is FAR less obesity. It's mostly a US/UK phenomenon mostly : just bad diet and lack of self-control." The problem is that the numbers aren’t true, as previous correspondents in this thread have pointed out. As indeed have others externally to this site who have bothered to analyse them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reports like these simply exist to justify the State interfering a bit more in our lives. The main thing is to come up with a big scary number that most people aren’t interested enough to delve into to discover whether it has any validity or not. The media aren’t interested enough, diligent enough, or clever enough, to do the sums either, or generally they are in the same ideological place as the think tanks that the plebs all need controlling a bit more, so the media will gleefully just regurgitate whatever charities, think tanks, or interest groups feed them. But the desired end result is that the population just gets controlled a little bit more its own expense. You capture the dilemma for governments. If they attempt measures to improve public health, everybody screams Nanny State. Then they moan when they can't get to see a GP or get that hip operation. The numbers are only scary because they're true. It's common sense - just walk around a mainland European or Asian city - there is FAR less obesity. It's mostly a US/UK phenomenon mostly : just bad diet and lack of self-control. The problem is that the numbers aren’t true, as previous correspondents in this thread have pointed out. As indeed have others externally to this site who have bothered to analyse them. " You may well be correct that the precise figures are inaccurate, but it's plainly obvious that with around 25% of the population obese, and 40% overweight, our healthcare system faces a tsunami of ill health and associated cost. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that the numbers aren’t true, as previous correspondents in this thread have pointed out. As indeed have others externally to this site who have bothered to analyse them." "You may well be correct that the precise figures are inaccurate, but it's plainly obvious that with around 25% of the population obese, and 40% overweight, our healthcare system faces a tsunami of ill health and associated cost." And this is why 'reports' like this get published. Because it starts a conversation, and at the end of it some people will have been convinced that there is a problem to be solved. The fact is that, without accurate figures, we can't say whether obesity is a net drain on the UK. Maybe they do all die off early and save the government lots of pension money. Maybe those diseases afflict people that aren't fat. Maybe we don't actually know why some people get fat and others don't. Without accurate figures, we don't know what we should be doing and what we shouldn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess everyone, whether overweight, a smoker, a drinker , a drug user or those with hereditary diseases 'costs' us all something to one degree or another. But that's life and anything could happen to any of us, so I don't object to it at all. I do object to MPs blaming immigration for everything and handing out each other lucrative government contracts though." Has the government been blaming immigration for making people fat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that the numbers aren’t true, as previous correspondents in this thread have pointed out. As indeed have others externally to this site who have bothered to analyse them. You may well be correct that the precise figures are inaccurate, but it's plainly obvious that with around 25% of the population obese, and 40% overweight, our healthcare system faces a tsunami of ill health and associated cost. And this is why 'reports' like this get published. Because it starts a conversation, and at the end of it some people will have been convinced that there is a problem to be solved. The fact is that, without accurate figures, we can't say whether obesity is a net drain on the UK. Maybe they do all die off early and save the government lots of pension money. Maybe those diseases afflict people that aren't fat. Maybe we don't actually know why some people get fat and others don't. Without accurate figures, we don't know what we should be doing and what we shouldn't." You are right of course, but we have a national tendency to pedantry over numbers : "It's not 95% it's 93.57%". That is just in the noise and distracts attention from the primary argument, it's causes and solutions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that the numbers aren’t true, as previous correspondents in this thread have pointed out. As indeed have others externally to this site who have bothered to analyse them. You may well be correct that the precise figures are inaccurate, but it's plainly obvious that with around 25% of the population obese, and 40% overweight, our healthcare system faces a tsunami of ill health and associated cost. And this is why 'reports' like this get published. Because it starts a conversation, and at the end of it some people will have been convinced that there is a problem to be solved. The fact is that, without accurate figures, we can't say whether obesity is a net drain on the UK. Maybe they do all die off early and save the government lots of pension money. Maybe those diseases afflict people that aren't fat. Maybe we don't actually know why some people get fat and others don't. Without accurate figures, we don't know what we should be doing and what we shouldn't. You are right of course, but we have a national tendency to pedantry over numbers : "It's not 95% it's 93.57%". That is just in the noise and distracts attention from the primary argument, it's causes and solutions. " Quite, let’s not worry about the truth or whether a course of action might actually achieve anything, let’s just base government policy on hunches and prejudice. Which to be fair is pretty much what’s happening anyway. Sadiq Khan being the most prominent example. If the facts don’t suit the narrative, just pay someone to make them up or spew out outright falsehoods. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess everyone, whether overweight, a smoker, a drinker , a drug user or those with hereditary diseases 'costs' us all something to one degree or another. But that's life and anything could happen to any of us, so I don't object to it at all. I do object to MPs blaming immigration for everything and handing out each other lucrative government contracts though. Has the government been blaming immigration for making people fat? " Okay, the government has been trying to make immigration a focus as some sort of panacea for the country's ills, while various members concentrate on making a few quid. FWIW I think that has been a problem for various governments , but the last few do seem to have a penchant for sticking their noses in the trough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess everyone, whether overweight, a smoker, a drinker , a drug user or those with hereditary diseases 'costs' us all something to one degree or another. But that's life and anything could happen to any of us, so I don't object to it at all. I do object to MPs blaming immigration for everything and handing out each other lucrative government contracts though. Has the government been blaming immigration for making people fat? " Okay, the government has been trying to make immigration a focus as some sort of panacea for the country's ills, while various members concentrate on making a few quid. FWIW I think that has been a problem for various governments , but the last few do seem to have a penchant for sticking their noses in the trough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that the numbers aren’t true, as previous correspondents in this thread have pointed out. As indeed have others externally to this site who have bothered to analyse them. You may well be correct that the precise figures are inaccurate, but it's plainly obvious that with around 25% of the population obese, and 40% overweight, our healthcare system faces a tsunami of ill health and associated cost. And this is why 'reports' like this get published. Because it starts a conversation, and at the end of it some people will have been convinced that there is a problem to be solved. The fact is that, without accurate figures, we can't say whether obesity is a net drain on the UK. Maybe they do all die off early and save the government lots of pension money. Maybe those diseases afflict people that aren't fat. Maybe we don't actually know why some people get fat and others don't. Without accurate figures, we don't know what we should be doing and what we shouldn't. You are right of course, but we have a national tendency to pedantry over numbers : "It's not 95% it's 93.57%". That is just in the noise and distracts attention from the primary argument, it's causes and solutions. Quite, let’s not worry about the truth or whether a course of action might actually achieve anything, let’s just base government policy on hunches and prejudice. Which to be fair is pretty much what’s happening anyway. Sadiq Khan being the most prominent example. If the facts don’t suit the narrative, just pay someone to make them up or spew out outright falsehoods." Fair point, but you could equally say let's just quibble over the fine details and run the clock down - that will avoid having to do anything. Then everybody can get on with moaning about NHS waiting list. There's a balance to be struck between debating things and getting something done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that the numbers aren’t true, as previous correspondents in this thread have pointed out. As indeed have others externally to this site who have bothered to analyse them. You may well be correct that the precise figures are inaccurate, but it's plainly obvious that with around 25% of the population obese, and 40% overweight, our healthcare system faces a tsunami of ill health and associated cost. And this is why 'reports' like this get published. Because it starts a conversation, and at the end of it some people will have been convinced that there is a problem to be solved. The fact is that, without accurate figures, we can't say whether obesity is a net drain on the UK. Maybe they do all die off early and save the government lots of pension money. Maybe those diseases afflict people that aren't fat. Maybe we don't actually know why some people get fat and others don't. Without accurate figures, we don't know what we should be doing and what we shouldn't. You are right of course, but we have a national tendency to pedantry over numbers : "It's not 95% it's 93.57%". That is just in the noise and distracts attention from the primary argument, it's causes and solutions. Quite, let’s not worry about the truth or whether a course of action might actually achieve anything, let’s just base government policy on hunches and prejudice. Which to be fair is pretty much what’s happening anyway. Sadiq Khan being the most prominent example. If the facts don’t suit the narrative, just pay someone to make them up or spew out outright falsehoods. Fair point, but you could equally say let's just quibble over the fine details and run the clock down - that will avoid having to do anything. Then everybody can get on with moaning about NHS waiting list. There's a balance to be struck between debating things and getting something done." How far do you think these rules should go to “protect the NHS”? Logically we should be having state mandated diets, state mandated exercise periods each day, maybe we should all be forced outside at 6am at gunpoint if necessary with exercise music blaring out across loudspeakers. A ban on smoking, chocolate and cream cakes, biscuits. A yearly alcohol allowance. Public humiliations of drug addicts and dealers. A ban on dangerous sports like horse riding. Forced daily mindfulness sessions to aid mental well being. All these things would help to ease the pressure on “Our NHS”. But the resulting society would appear to be quite miserabilist and make North Korea look like a fun place to live. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that the numbers aren’t true, as previous correspondents in this thread have pointed out. As indeed have others externally to this site who have bothered to analyse them. You may well be correct that the precise figures are inaccurate, but it's plainly obvious that with around 25% of the population obese, and 40% overweight, our healthcare system faces a tsunami of ill health and associated cost. And this is why 'reports' like this get published. Because it starts a conversation, and at the end of it some people will have been convinced that there is a problem to be solved. The fact is that, without accurate figures, we can't say whether obesity is a net drain on the UK. Maybe they do all die off early and save the government lots of pension money. Maybe those diseases afflict people that aren't fat. Maybe we don't actually know why some people get fat and others don't. Without accurate figures, we don't know what we should be doing and what we shouldn't. You are right of course, but we have a national tendency to pedantry over numbers : "It's not 95% it's 93.57%". That is just in the noise and distracts attention from the primary argument, it's causes and solutions. Quite, let’s not worry about the truth or whether a course of action might actually achieve anything, let’s just base government policy on hunches and prejudice. Which to be fair is pretty much what’s happening anyway. Sadiq Khan being the most prominent example. If the facts don’t suit the narrative, just pay someone to make them up or spew out outright falsehoods. Fair point, but you could equally say let's just quibble over the fine details and run the clock down - that will avoid having to do anything. Then everybody can get on with moaning about NHS waiting list. There's a balance to be struck between debating things and getting something done. How far do you think these rules should go to “protect the NHS”? Logically we should be having state mandated diets, state mandated exercise periods each day, maybe we should all be forced outside at 6am at gunpoint if necessary with exercise music blaring out across loudspeakers. A ban on smoking, chocolate and cream cakes, biscuits. A yearly alcohol allowance. Public humiliations of drug addicts and dealers. A ban on dangerous sports like horse riding. Forced daily mindfulness sessions to aid mental well being. All these things would help to ease the pressure on “Our NHS”. But the resulting society would appear to be quite miserabilist and make North Korea look like a fun place to live." Well, I've worked in a Japanese company where they did just that - collective exercise. But no, I'm not advocating that - I think we must all take responsibility for our own health. But it seems to me, as a former ex-pat, that Brits are poor at this compared to other countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The problem is that the numbers aren’t true, as previous correspondents in this thread have pointed out. As indeed have others externally to this site who have bothered to analyse them." "You may well be correct that the precise figures are inaccurate, but it's plainly obvious that with around 25% of the population obese, and 40% overweight, our healthcare system faces a tsunami of ill health and associated cost." "And this is why 'reports' like this get published. Because it starts a conversation, and at the end of it some people will have been convinced that there is a problem to be solved. The fact is that, without accurate figures, we can't say whether obesity is a net drain on the UK. Maybe they do all die off early and save the government lots of pension money. Maybe those diseases afflict people that aren't fat. Maybe we don't actually know why some people get fat and others don't. Without accurate figures, we don't know what we should be doing and what we shouldn't." "You are right of course, but we have a national tendency to pedantry over numbers : "It's not 95% it's 93.57%". That is just in the noise and distracts attention from the primary argument, it's causes and solutions. " Claiming that the cost is £98bn when the actual figure is £19bn is not "in the noise". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fair point, but you could equally say let's just quibble over the fine details and run the clock down - that will avoid having to do anything. Then everybody can get on with moaning about NHS waiting list. There's a balance to be struck between debating things and getting something done." But the issue here is that we don't know if anything needs to be done. We have a report that contains obviously incorrect figures, and only looks at one side of the issue. How do you know that anything needs doing (other than 'it feels like it does')? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fair point, but you could equally say let's just quibble over the fine details and run the clock down - that will avoid having to do anything. Then everybody can get on with moaning about NHS waiting list. There's a balance to be struck between debating things and getting something done. But the issue here is that we don't know if anything needs to be done. We have a report that contains obviously incorrect figures, and only looks at one side of the issue. How do you know that anything needs doing (other than 'it feels like it does')?" Well to me if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. Look, if you're not convinced there's a a compelling link between health self-awareness and NHS costs fair enough. We'll just have to tolerate an overloaded and second rate healthcare system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fair point, but you could equally say let's just quibble over the fine details and run the clock down - that will avoid having to do anything. Then everybody can get on with moaning about NHS waiting list. There's a balance to be struck between debating things and getting something done. But the issue here is that we don't know if anything needs to be done. We have a report that contains obviously incorrect figures, and only looks at one side of the issue. How do you know that anything needs doing (other than 'it feels like it does')? Well to me if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. Look, if you're not convinced there's a a compelling link between health self-awareness and NHS costs fair enough. We'll just have to tolerate an overloaded and second rate healthcare system." But isn’t the question here what steps you want to take to improve this health self awareness and exactly how it is going to improve the health service. So far all we have is that fat people are a problem and if something is done about them then people wont be dying unnecessarily from heart disease and cancer because they can’t get treatment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fair point, but you could equally say let's just quibble over the fine details and run the clock down - that will avoid having to do anything. Then everybody can get on with moaning about NHS waiting list. There's a balance to be struck between debating things and getting something done. But the issue here is that we don't know if anything needs to be done. We have a report that contains obviously incorrect figures, and only looks at one side of the issue. How do you know that anything needs doing (other than 'it feels like it does')? Well to me if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. Look, if you're not convinced there's a a compelling link between health self-awareness and NHS costs fair enough. We'll just have to tolerate an overloaded and second rate healthcare system. But isn’t the question here what steps you want to take to improve this health self awareness and exactly how it is going to improve the health service. So far all we have is that fat people are a problem and if something is done about them then people wont be dying unnecessarily from heart disease and cancer because they can’t get treatment." So what exactly is false in your final paragraph? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fair point, but you could equally say let's just quibble over the fine details and run the clock down - that will avoid having to do anything. Then everybody can get on with moaning about NHS waiting list. There's a balance to be struck between debating things and getting something done. But the issue here is that we don't know if anything needs to be done. We have a report that contains obviously incorrect figures, and only looks at one side of the issue. How do you know that anything needs doing (other than 'it feels like it does')? Well to me if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. Look, if you're not convinced there's a a compelling link between health self-awareness and NHS costs fair enough. We'll just have to tolerate an overloaded and second rate healthcare system. But isn’t the question here what steps you want to take to improve this health self awareness and exactly how it is going to improve the health service. So far all we have is that fat people are a problem and if something is done about them then people wont be dying unnecessarily from heart disease and cancer because they can’t get treatment. So what exactly is false in your final paragraph? " Let’s assume nothing. What practical steps are you advocating? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fair point, but you could equally say let's just quibble over the fine details and run the clock down - that will avoid having to do anything. Then everybody can get on with moaning about NHS waiting list. There's a balance to be struck between debating things and getting something done. But the issue here is that we don't know if anything needs to be done. We have a report that contains obviously incorrect figures, and only looks at one side of the issue. How do you know that anything needs doing (other than 'it feels like it does')? Well to me if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. Look, if you're not convinced there's a a compelling link between health self-awareness and NHS costs fair enough. We'll just have to tolerate an overloaded and second rate healthcare system. But isn’t the question here what steps you want to take to improve this health self awareness and exactly how it is going to improve the health service. So far all we have is that fat people are a problem and if something is done about them then people wont be dying unnecessarily from heart disease and cancer because they can’t get treatment. So what exactly is false in your final paragraph? Let’s assume nothing. What practical steps are you advocating?" That's above my pay grade, but personally I think it's down to people taking individual responsibility for their own health. In a sense, the NHS mitigates against this, because people think the get free healthcare (actually they don't, but that's the perception). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fair point, but you could equally say let's just quibble over the fine details and run the clock down - that will avoid having to do anything. Then everybody can get on with moaning about NHS waiting list. There's a balance to be struck between debating things and getting something done." "But the issue here is that we don't know if anything needs to be done. We have a report that contains obviously incorrect figures, and only looks at one side of the issue. How do you know that anything needs doing (other than 'it feels like it does')?" "Well to me if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. Look, if you're not convinced there's a a compelling link between health self-awareness and NHS costs fair enough. We'll just have to tolerate an overloaded and second rate healthcare system." Ah! You'll be one of those people that, back in the 70s, was prescribing bed rest to people that had just had a heart attack, reasoning that 'it was stress that caused the problem, so rest will cure it'. You'll then have been completely shocked when the stats were analysed and it turned out that bed rest was killing more patients than exercise was. My point is, if you don't have a complete picture of what's wrong, and what effect your intervention will have, you risk doing more harm than good. Basing an intervention on 'feels right to me' might end up killing people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fair point, but you could equally say let's just quibble over the fine details and run the clock down - that will avoid having to do anything. Then everybody can get on with moaning about NHS waiting list. There's a balance to be struck between debating things and getting something done. But the issue here is that we don't know if anything needs to be done. We have a report that contains obviously incorrect figures, and only looks at one side of the issue. How do you know that anything needs doing (other than 'it feels like it does')? Well to me if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. Look, if you're not convinced there's a a compelling link between health self-awareness and NHS costs fair enough. We'll just have to tolerate an overloaded and second rate healthcare system. Ah! You'll be one of those people that, back in the 70s, was prescribing bed rest to people that had just had a heart attack, reasoning that 'it was stress that caused the problem, so rest will cure it'. You'll then have been completely shocked when the stats were analysed and it turned out that bed rest was killing more patients than exercise was. My point is, if you don't have a complete picture of what's wrong, and what effect your intervention will have, you risk doing more harm than good. Basing an intervention on 'feels right to me' might end up killing people." Point taken, but I'm hardly espousing some radical medical breakthrough here. There is firm correlation between obesity and poor health that has been accepted for decades. Going back to the OP, it follows that there must therefore be a correlation between obesity and NHS costs, and to the UK economy. The exact numbers seem a a bit academic, no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Fair point, but you could equally say let's just quibble over the fine details and run the clock down - that will avoid having to do anything. Then everybody can get on with moaning about NHS waiting list. There's a balance to be struck between debating things and getting something done. But the issue here is that we don't know if anything needs to be done. We have a report that contains obviously incorrect figures, and only looks at one side of the issue. How do you know that anything needs doing (other than 'it feels like it does')? Well to me if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. Look, if you're not convinced there's a a compelling link between health self-awareness and NHS costs fair enough. We'll just have to tolerate an overloaded and second rate healthcare system. Ah! You'll be one of those people that, back in the 70s, was prescribing bed rest to people that had just had a heart attack, reasoning that 'it was stress that caused the problem, so rest will cure it'. You'll then have been completely shocked when the stats were analysed and it turned out that bed rest was killing more patients than exercise was. My point is, if you don't have a complete picture of what's wrong, and what effect your intervention will have, you risk doing more harm than good. Basing an intervention on 'feels right to me' might end up killing people. Point taken, but I'm hardly espousing some radical medical breakthrough here. There is firm correlation between obesity and poor health that has been accepted for decades. Going back to the OP, it follows that there must therefore be a correlation between obesity and NHS costs, and to the UK economy. The exact numbers seem a a bit academic, no? " Maybe the NHS just isn’t very good at treating obesity. It wouldn’t be surprising. It’s not very good at treating lots of things. A lot of its staff appear to be sufferers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Point taken, but I'm hardly espousing some radical medical breakthrough here. There is firm correlation between obesity and poor health that has been accepted for decades." But you are proposing that we "do something". You don't know what we should do, or whether it will save the NHS any money, or whether people want that something to be done for them, you just feel that something must be done regardless. That's a poor basis on which to call for action. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Point taken, but I'm hardly espousing some radical medical breakthrough here. There is firm correlation between obesity and poor health that has been accepted for decades. But you are proposing that we "do something". You don't know what we should do, or whether it will save the NHS any money, or whether people want that something to be done for them, you just feel that something must be done regardless. That's a poor basis on which to call for action." Just because I don't have all the solutions (who does?), doesn't mean there isn't a problem that needs fixing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Point taken, but I'm hardly espousing some radical medical breakthrough here. There is firm correlation between obesity and poor health that has been accepted for decades." "But you are proposing that we "do something". You don't know what we should do, or whether it will save the NHS any money, or whether people want that something to be done for them, you just feel that something must be done regardless. That's a poor basis on which to call for action." "Just because I don't have all the solutions (who does?), doesn't mean there isn't a problem that needs fixing." And just because you feel that there is a problem that needs fixing, doesn't mean that there is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Point taken, but I'm hardly espousing some radical medical breakthrough here. There is firm correlation between obesity and poor health that has been accepted for decades. But you are proposing that we "do something". You don't know what we should do, or whether it will save the NHS any money, or whether people want that something to be done for them, you just feel that something must be done regardless. That's a poor basis on which to call for action. Just because I don't have all the solutions (who does?), doesn't mean there isn't a problem that needs fixing. And just because you feel that there is a problem that needs fixing, doesn't mean that there is." But it's not just me is it? It's pretty much the entire medical profession. But I'm sure you know that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess everyone, whether overweight, a smoker, a drinker , a drug user or those with hereditary diseases 'costs' us all something to one degree or another. But that's life and anything could happen to any of us, so I don't object to it at all. I do object to MPs blaming immigration for everything and handing out each other lucrative government contracts though. Has the government been blaming immigration for making people fat? " The people with obesity have been eating the people from the small boats | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can this be true, each person, whether through direct or indirect taxation paying £1462 a year towards the cost of our overweight population Guardian article estimates this includes £63bn cost to people affected, £19bn cost to NHS and £15bn cost to society" The cost to the NHS is about a third of that (source- .gov). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morbidity linked to people being overweight is a big drain on the NHS. That seems unlikely. Dead people don't tend to use the NHS very much." You're getting morbidity mixed up with being morbid. Morbidity is what your condition is while you're suffering from a serious medical condition. Morbid, in general use, is thinking about sad or depressing things, especially death. However in medicine morbid also means the nature of or indicative of disease. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Oh dear.... this old can of worms again. Ho effin ho. Let's get a few facts straight, shall we? Obesity is an eating disorder. Like anorexia or bulimia. It differs from other eating disorders as, among other things, it can be caused by a combination of factors: poverty, early childhood trauma, post-natal depression, genetics, a faulty metabolism, disability, addiction, mental health issues, and a garden variety of familial, societal and yes, even abuse by the very same doctors who are "trying to help you". It isn't an easy illness to overcome, any more than alcoholism, drug addiction or cancer. I've lost count how many times a doctor would look at me and BEFORE even bothering his hole to look at my full medical chart simply say "you have to lose weight" (d'uh, thanks, Doc, I'd no idea). Now, if we're going to use statistical analysis, I'd like to point out the following where the UK is concerned: The leading causes of death in the UK are the following: 1. Alzheimer's and dementia 2. Heart disease 3.Chronic respiratory diseases (asthma, sleep apnea) 4. Cerebrovascular disease (strokes, aneurysms) 5. Lung cancer 6. Influenza and pneumonia According to the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) latest release, the top 10 causes of death worldwide are: Ischaemic heart disease Stroke Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease Lower respiratory infections Neonatal conditions Trachea, bronchus and lung cancers Dementia and Alzheimer’s disease Diarrhoeal diseases Diabetes Kidney diseases Heart disease is by far the world’s biggest killer, and it has also seen the biggest rise in deaths since 2000 and now accounts for around 8.9 million deaths each year. So.... before people start throwing potshots at fat people, consider the cost of the above, the flawed premise of the OPs statement and the real reason why life is so expensive in the UK. A bag of fresh produce at a UK supermarket costs much more than a beer and crisps. Fuel poverty is higher than ever and social services and affordable housing are being cut. You want to spread the tax burden? Tax the rich. End of rant. " I agree with a lot of what you say but, before I throw my full weight behind your campaign to "tax rich", could you tell me at what level of income or wealth do you consider someone "rich"? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can this be true, each person, whether through direct or indirect taxation paying £1462 a year towards the cost of our overweight population Guardian article estimates this includes £63bn cost to people affected, £19bn cost to NHS and £15bn cost to society The cost to the NHS is about a third of that (source- .gov)." Government plans are just window dressing to look like they are addressing the issue. The problem any government faces are the hysterical screams of 'Nanny State', whenever any meaningful measures are proposed. So we are locked into a cycle of obesity, ill-health and overloaded health services. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can this be true, each person, whether through direct or indirect taxation paying £1462 a year towards the cost of our overweight population Guardian article estimates this includes £63bn cost to people affected, £19bn cost to NHS and £15bn cost to society The cost to the NHS is about a third of that (source- .gov). Government plans are just window dressing to look like they are addressing the issue. The problem any government faces are the hysterical screams of 'Nanny State', whenever any meaningful measures are proposed. So we are locked into a cycle of obesity, ill-health and overloaded health services." You still haven’t explained what practical steps you would like to see enforced on fat people. Is euthanasia out of the question? It would help alleviate pressure on “Our NHS” if the is our primary concern. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can this be true, each person, whether through direct or indirect taxation paying £1462 a year towards the cost of our overweight population Guardian article estimates this includes £63bn cost to people affected, £19bn cost to NHS and £15bn cost to society The cost to the NHS is about a third of that (source- .gov). Government plans are just window dressing to look like they are addressing the issue. The problem any government faces are the hysterical screams of 'Nanny State', whenever any meaningful measures are proposed. So we are locked into a cycle of obesity, ill-health and overloaded health services. You still haven’t explained what practical steps you would like to see enforced on fat people. Is euthanasia out of the question? It would help alleviate pressure on “Our NHS” if the is our primary concern." I haven't suggested 'enforcing' steps on anybody, much less euthanasia. You seem to be getting a bit carried away. What I DID suggest, is that people should take personal responsibility for their own health. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can this be true, each person, whether through direct or indirect taxation paying £1462 a year towards the cost of our overweight population Guardian article estimates this includes £63bn cost to people affected, £19bn cost to NHS and £15bn cost to society The cost to the NHS is about a third of that (source- .gov). Government plans are just window dressing to look like they are addressing the issue. The problem any government faces are the hysterical screams of 'Nanny State', whenever any meaningful measures are proposed. So we are locked into a cycle of obesity, ill-health and overloaded health services. You still haven’t explained what practical steps you would like to see enforced on fat people. Is euthanasia out of the question? It would help alleviate pressure on “Our NHS” if the is our primary concern. I haven't suggested 'enforcing' steps on anybody, much less euthanasia. You seem to be getting a bit carried away. What I DID suggest, is that people should take personal responsibility for their own health. " That should go without saying. And for everyone, not just fat people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How much does it cost each of us to keep a government minister? I mean, apart from the obvious salary and expenses, all the little extras like awarding contracts to their mates who clearly aren't suitable , tax avoidance, nepotism etc etc." Tax avoidance is entirely legal. You can't count that as a cost to the country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How much does it cost each of us to keep a government minister? I mean, apart from the obvious salary and expenses, all the little extras like awarding contracts to their mates who clearly aren't suitable , tax avoidance, nepotism etc etc. Tax avoidance is entirely legal. You can't count that as a cost to the country." Part of the problem here is how the terms tax avoidance and tax evasion have been conflated. HMRC’s own messaging has exacerbated this issue (deliberately using it as a nudge technique to sow doubt and concern). The other distasteful aspect related to tax avoidance is that the sheer complexity of UK tax rules is such that only those with really clued up accountants and tax experts can exploit all the loopholes, which means generally only the wealthy can make full use of legal tax avoidance activity and schemes. The third issue, is that it appears HMRC have granted themselves the power in some areas to apply retrospective tax on areas that, at the time, were not actually illegal but were subsequently clamped down on. Specifically umbrella companies paying people via a loan. HMRC have applied retrospective action up to 20 years on what at that time was legal avoidance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, what is the group that did this study trying to sell? Who funded them?" The organisation that funded the 'research' was the Tony Blair Foundation. Their aim is to prove that people can't be trusted with their own lives, and that government should make all their decisions for them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, what is the group that did this study trying to sell? Who funded them? The organisation that funded the 'research' was the Tony Blair Foundation. Their aim is to prove that people can't be trusted with their own lives, and that government should make all their decisions for them." Exactly, it's clearly all a load of bollox. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Also, what is the group that did this study trying to sell? Who funded them? The organisation that funded the 'research' was the Tony Blair Foundation. Their aim is to prove that people can't be trusted with their own lives, and that government should make all their decisions for them." They're not far wrong with some people  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How much does it cost each of us to keep a government minister? I mean, apart from the obvious salary and expenses, all the little extras like awarding contracts to their mates who clearly aren't suitable , tax avoidance, nepotism etc etc. Tax avoidance is entirely legal. You can't count that as a cost to the country." I don't care if it's legal, you can make anything legal. It's wrong and it comes at a cost to those of us lower down the food chain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
