Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
99% of cricket matches seem to be just standing around anyway. It's like darts only with a longer waddle to the bar.
fat people, that is
yes and ho!
as long as it's applied to alcoholics/drug users/smokers who refuse treatment also, and it's screened to allow for mental health issues, then awesome.
But it won't be. So: not awesome.
that wouldn't be remotely awesome
for people who were unable to work because of their obesity but refusing to take free treatment to remedy that problem.
i was once again optimistic.
because they're overweight?!
it'll never get passed
but, this is definitely BAD? because...everyone can choose to do what they want to do?
i thought this was in reference to people who were unable to apply for jobs because their obesity was incapacitating them.
but if they then say 'i'm now so big that sorry, i can't work: give me benefit', and that can be fixed with exercise, then it becomes something else. Because it puts strain on the budget, and for people who really can't work because of something they CAN'T remedy
it's about being on benefit
so you can encourage people to lose weight and that will save the country some money. that seems to be a good thing?
But loads of education in schools and for new parents as well as proper funding for decent school meals as an option is about all you can do.
Probably a tax on proper wank foods to directly fund the nhs treatment of obesity as well but that's a minefield and some people get their knickers in a twist about it.
would be prescribed.
i clearly should have actually read everything before commenting. oh well.
Not everyone has to be captain joggers or whatever but people should still be actively encouraged to be relatively healthy for their own sake.
But don't go spreading that shallow muck hither and thither when you know little or nothing about the people you might be talking about.
we're saying this is bad because people should be allowed to be fat if they want to be. it's personal choice - question mark (?)
like nobody should be under any pressure to lose weight
in order to sell books,
eople can tune in for a shallow ten minute summary based on sketchy research that enables them to feel they have insight into something without ever having to have to experience it, learn about it, or even think about it.
so can anyone else explain to me why encouraging people to take steps to not be obese is bad?
he thought you were saying that without exception people simply choose to be fat or not. Which isn't true. But that's not what I think you were saying.
And the difficulty of all of this is the difference between encouraging and enforcing through threat of benefit cuts.
... you are right, for the reasons you suggested and many others, it is a stupid idea.
it's just sometimes people are like "this is bad" and i don't fully understand why. saving money for the nhs (and government) and people being not obese seems like a good thing to me.
maybe think about the question in another way? ... forced abortion of the disabled, killing off the elderly, not allowing people to smoke, take drugs, drink ... would all arguably, in theory, save money for the NHS ... but your instinct would probably be different on those issues. Punishing the result of a complex set of influences and choices is just not smart, taking the personal and making it policy is a rotten idea.
People are financially penalised for smoking and drinking due to the extra cost incurred to the national health system.
and the ludicrous comparison between legislation on cigarettes and alcohol and Euthanasia.
I was pointing out that people have effectively been punished for smoking and drinking financially without major outcry.
It is an ends/means scenario really.
Assuming your point, how does that contribute to whether this is a good idea or not?
Assuming you do as I've said above, I don't think this is the best policy or even a good policy. You said: Punishing the result of a complex set of influences and choices is just not smart, taking the personal and making it policy is a rotten idea. I'm pointing out that we do that already, WITHOUT major outcry, so I'm unclear as to why you're referencing it.
resulting in a 'bad' overall situation.
pretty basic stuff, dude.
Not, 'unable to walk' due to being overweight as a secondary cause?
or just stage 3?
If for all then claiming benefits for a severe beer gut is utterly ridiculous.
i THINK it's just stage 3
and that comes in at stage 2
arbitrary removal of vital benefits from social groups with no voice: absolutely necessary
That I will not stand for!
1) there is fairly strong evidence that exercise is amongst the least effective way of weight management
2) the very idea of this as a policy shows how far we have wondered into the ‘what the fuck?!’ realm these last 18 months
3) this is just thinktank wittering, won’t ever happen.
granted it needs to be coupled with a healthy eating plan, but I guarantee it's not as you put it 'least effective way of weight management'
but really, it is a poor focus of policy and money
In fact it's not really healthy eating, you surely need to eat a calorie controlled diet? (Which essentially means being hungrier than normal, I would imagine.)
I'm off to eat two tubs of Ben and Jerry's and watch a Man Vs Food marathon.
And was then told he'd worked off half a latte or something ludicrous like that.
Obviously exercise helps but you have to approach these things holistically so simply saying, "Do some exercise," isn't that important. By all means do some exercise, though, because endorphins make you feel good.
Weight shouldn't really be front and centre on this really, should be cholesterol, diabetes and respiratory related problems that can happen without being significantly hefty.
Plenty of healthy chubbers.
even a very slow run for that long (say 12 minute miles) would burn approx 500 calories - a medium latte from a Starbucks or Costa is around 250.
running at 12 minutes per mile for an hour would burn around 500 calories.
You burn few calories with exercise compared to how much is in most food we'd eat so it really needs to be diet first. Just getting people who are overweight to put in some exercise in a vague way (i.e. just spend time in the gym) is completely fucking retarded.
calorie burning exercise than you'd be able to achieve for free outdoors.
I'm a shit swimmer. I can't put my head underwater so I don't really go nuts swimming lengths. I'd assume you really have to be pushing a strong crawl to make a difference to just walking a lot.
Burns a shedload more than running and it's more pleasant for a lot of people to do as well as running is a pain in the arse. Especially if you're carrying any amount of weight.
sandwich and coffee from Pret --- about the same.
Means you could eat two 800 calorie meals a day and a decent breakfast and snacks and still have a calorie deficit on your daily allowance. Assuming you were just trying to lose weight, which again shouldn't just be the focus.
Also you assuming you had the self discipline to stick to 1900 calories a day, which is pretty much fuck all, you'd still be HEALTHIER if you did some exercise and ate the extra food.
Whilst racking up delicious gym time.
"What are you doing after you run?" It turns out one group of friends was stopping at Starbucks for muffins afterward.
And it seems to focus a lot on food consumption post a work out - as in you eat more as you're hungry. Again, exercise needs to be coupled with a healthy diet or else. The article does raise good points such as exercise doesn't mean 'going to the gym' but rather walking instead of getting a taxi - and seeing exercise as a way to improve your health and not just a means to losing weight.
as your metabolism is usually higher in the 20-30 minutes after running/cycling/whatever. However, that doesn't mean you can just scoff three Mars bars and treat them as dead calories - it's still about eating sensible things and treating them as part of your daily food/drink intake.
I think people will do the work but then keep their old lifestyles and eating habits, which is counterproductive.
but your weight will be made up of muscle and not fat
If you just eat low calories and lose fat then you don't gain any muscle mass, that'll be the best way to lose WEIGHT, but if you exercise then obviously you gain muscle mass.
It'll never happen, and they know it'll never happen, and they know there's no sound basis or evidence for it, but it will serve its purpose, which is to pit people against each other.
Good one, Conservatives. You've really rung the changes from those mean old Labour Nanny State types.
I was gonig to say that personally, I think encouraging people to lose weight is a good thing but this is all done in the context of persecuting people. Got no job? SCUM! Not in training? SCUM. Working class? SCUM! Working but taking child benefit? SCUM. Working not taking child benefit but in a council house in an ok area? SCUM. Working, not in a council house and not taking benefits but taking jobs cash in hand? SCUM.
Now it's fat? SCUM.
It's the Tory devide and rule. Let the working classes, low earners and big families fight amongst themselves so we can ignore Cameron's own tax dodging
the £40,00 fraululant expense claims,
the fact that IDS claimed child beneift for ALL four of his children but is limiting it to two now.
The fact that Starbucks and Amazon and google are not pressured into paying more tax and are avoided millions of pound of tax each year owed to the UK
The fact that the IMF has blamed George Osborne for the double dip recession. The fact that there is no jobs due to ideological austerity cuts that are way too much, too fast.
The fact that Vodafone was let off (not "avoided") £6b tax but the coalition government.
That fact that the NHS is being part privatised and £20m is coming out the budget.
The fact that they've cut tax for the richest in the UK.
The fact that there's about 20 other things I cant be bothered to mention.
Rant ranty rant. Can't be bothered to pursue this.
no one seems to bat an eyelid at the fact that obesity costs the NHS (and in return tax payers) £4 billion pounds a year.
I know that usually there are extreme cases in the media, but each time I read about a severely obese person who is demanding some gastric bypass surgery for free and has been claiming benefits for years also sit in front of fridges stocked with unhealthy food items and confess to eating huge amounts of takeaway every night. Fair enough forcing someone to swim isn't exactly an answer, but I do think there is a lot of self-made benefit scrounges who could do with a walk once in a while.
I'm not against health policy being formulated to start to break down some of the causes of obesity and deal with the problem. I don't think it's the DWP's place to be putting in place a half arsed attempt though, more something that the NHS should be doing.
in a proper upscaled manner. Like what they did for smoking and passing laws that affected the tabacco companies and boundaries of where you could and couldn't smoke.
I think it's because of
- smart cards to monitor if people enter a gym, which will cost money and probably prove incredibly easy to circumvent
- the assumption that just doing exercise alone will make a significant difference to someone's weight
- the assumption that it's okay to penalise people because they are obese and on benefits, as if we only provide benefits because of some kind of weird hangover from a different age and not because, y'know, this isn't a fucking medieval dictatorship where people are just completely fucking worthless unless they're working.
What I was saying is I don't think it's a bad thing that the focus is on tackling obesity, it may not be the correct way about it, but it is something. Can you show me other initiatives being put forward? As I said earlier, this is something that the government and NHS should be providing solutions for.
it's on cutting benefits
That was in 2010. I can only imagine how much that amount has grown (no pun intended) as I have said before, it may not be the correct way around tackling the issue of obesity and how much it is costing us (tax payers) but nothing else has been proposed by the government/NHS. I am not agreeing with it, but at least it's something?
How much do they cost?
the focus isn't on tackling obesity
it's on cutting benefits
It's just a way of getting people to direct their hatred/loathing towards yet another part of society who have very little power and are already its victims.
If this government were really interested in combating obesity, or legislating to reduce it, then they wouldn't have scrapped the Food Standards Agency and repllaced it with an advisory board made up of fast-food selling Tory donors.
and I said as much further upthread
but this little strand is concerned with the inherent prejudice involved in taking on board part on the Govt.'s message under the auspice of it being aimed at reducing obesity
the whole 'fat people are eating us out of house and home' nonsense is clearly just nonsense
the fact is that a whole raft of medical issues massively, disproportionately affect people in poverty and yet all indications point to Govt. policy increasing the number of people - particularly children - falling into poverty
Unfortunately I think it's incredibly short-sighted to think we will tackle this in any way that isn't some kind of medicine.
Humans are bloody awful at changing attitudes. It's in our nature to say, "Yeah we should do this," and for most of us not to. Just look at how much time and money has gone into pointing out that smoking is COMPLETELY pointless. And yet people still start, the majority of them probably being massively financially affected.
Yes, we see overweight, fat and obese people and we as a society say it's okay to treat them badly, to claim they're all only fat because they eat too much. And maybe they are but that's also the fault of a society where jobs are increasingly done sitting on your arse for incredibly long hours while food becomes increasingly tasty and easy to buy. And this is for a race of creatures designed to live off small amounts of not massively tasty food consumed when you could catch or forage it.
We have national healthcare but we're desperate not to spend any money on it. So why do we have it? Out of some weird view that only things you didn't bring on yourself should be treated? Should parents have to pay for a kid who falls over playing and breaks their leg? I mean this is as much in their control when you come down to it? Maybe we have to just fucking suck it up and realise that there is a moral reason we need to provide healthcare.
So if someone produced a pill that made your appetite shrink, that made people simply eat within required calorie intake, I bet that would be more cost effective than anything else. And then people would moan about how it's the 'easy' way out or something, but all of us take the easy way out just living in modern society. Go and sink a bucket down the well to luck your water home, maybe? Taps are 'easy'.
there have been dramatic increases in people quitting. Your comment about money being wasted on telling people not to smoke is completely baseless and incorrect. Not to mention there have been a lot more than just awareness campaigns to combat smoking. Laws have been passed in both how cigarettes are advertised all the way to now proposing packaging to be limited to brand name only without any colour. As well as the obvious smoking ban in public areas. I think that if a more positive focus on not only awareness but continued targeting of fast food companies to stop enticing children to eat unhealthy happy meals or calling them out on poor products and high contents of salt and saturated fats in their products etc... but I completely agree that initiatives that focus on encouraging people who are on benefits due to being obese to a change in lifestyle is definitely in order. Not only as it is a huge drain on the tax payers, but because it is a far better quality of life. It should definitely not be a forced hand like this proposal suggests, as I have said before.
But I think it's interesting that it's been laws that are actually the sort of laws libertarians wet the bed about that have had the biggest effect.
And yet, people STILL smoke, they still take up smoking. It's reduced but it's definitely not stopped. Walk past the outside of any pub and you have to question what the hell's going on?
Really my focus here was on the fact that we've known cigarettes are incredibly bad for us for decades and until someone put those laws in place it didn't stop people. Roy Castle died of secondary smoke inhalation in 1994 and it was 12 years before we had a comprehensive ban on indoor smoking. For all those years in between we didn't do anything.
People just refuse to be helped and this is with something that can be contained, cordoned off and targeted. While it would be something to target happy meals and the like, there would still be a lot of very tasty food out there and people would eat it. Short of literally rationing food or enforcing laws on ingredients that any home cook could break or indeed anyone who liked to pour golden syrup on their thick buttered toast, there just isn't the scope to affect food like that.
Probably we could make exercise more appealing but that would maybe have to start with trying to not make school games teachers cunts who put you off doing games or exercise, which might also require some method of not having changing rooms where you're all at the mercy of the school's bullies, but I digress a bit there. :D
I think changing attitudes can happen but it's a gradual process. As with anything tackle them young and aggressively educate and try and scale back the influence of parties looking to take advantage of people's ignorance or ingrained attitudes.
and reduce salt in ready meals, there is positive moves being made forward to make sure people are informed about what they're eating and what the potential consequences to consistently bad lifestyle choices actually are.
Yeah, you CAN change attitudes over a long period but only to a certain section of the population and I think a lot of it is wildly tempered by what people enjoy.
For example, I don't think many people really enjoyed driving without a seatbelt. It wasn't actually a big deal and then people felt safer wearing one. But it's clear men (and I guess women too) aren't fans of condoms because as soon as the pressure of both advertising and apparent dangers of death were released people decided to ditch using them.
You can only change people so much, in my view, and only in so many different ways. If it's not clear, I'm not saying there isn't a problem with obesity, only that we're tackling it from a direction I think seems very backward thinking in its attitudes.
have their understanding of what is and isn't healthy food deliberately obfuscated by vested parties, have their time forcibly mismanaged and their unreasoned instinctive tendencies ruthlessly preyed upon.
what's happened to us, DK?
I fucking told you Chelsea were screwed with Turnbull in goal, didn't I?
bad middlesbrough karma at the root, always doomed to fall
torres is the card of destructive change in spanish tarot
If only they'd stayed home and watched Tim Lovejoy being horrendous on Channel 4?
this is a Conservative idea. people on DiS don't like Consevative ideas.
what is this, 1995? Diet is infinitely more important for fat loss than going to a gym. Next they'll be saying that eating fat makes you fat.
I got blasted on here for my butter-coffee weight loss tip a while back though, so beware, the orthodoxy is strong.
but would it be done by calorie? just to certain food groups.. would a mars bar be taxed more than a block of cheese..? cream more than ultra skimmed milk..?
and if you read my comments properly you will see that whereas I don't agree with the proposal, I think there needs to be more stringent laws in place to tackle obesity as a whole. The fact that Obesity has risen to over a quater of british adults being obese will mean more and more people becoming incapacitated etc... Obesity isn't just about 'picking on a poor fat person' as you all are so quick to jump on. It affects families. It's a horrific disease that people seem to behave flippantly towards. So you can fuck off.
and not the cultural perpetrators
plus, telling Shrewbie to fuck off is some shagging-the-mafia-don's-wife shit
I think that if a more positive focus on not only awareness but continued targeting of fast food companies to stop enticing children to eat unhealthy happy meals or calling them out on poor products and high contents of salt and saturated fats in their products etc... but I completely agree that initiatives that focus on encouraging people who are on benefits due to being obese to a change in lifestyle is definitely in order. Not only as it is a huge drain on the tax payers, but because it is a far better quality of life. It should definitely not be a forced hand like this proposal suggests, as I have said before.
it's a more holistic problem than that - generalised neglect, lack of local community, dietary entropy...
and if you're sure it should 'definitely not be a forced hand', then what incentives are there to change the lifestyles of people under such duress? you either crack out the fat tax or you encourage the sale and purchase of cheap, healthy foods
but I think taking all the responsibility away from those who are claiming benefits for obesity is also wrong.
This government has consistently undermined and scuppered initiatives that were targeting obesity, for example scrapping the Food Standards Agency, reducing funding for NHS projects and replacing them with (Tory donor) fast food companies on advisory bodies.
now, how would you encourage those obese + on benefits to become less obese + less on benefits?
like a club where they all can get together and go walking/educate each other on cheap healthy eating
I'd imagine this has probably already been done. Kind of like that FAT VS SKINNY program where they show them how much food they eat in a week and then tell them their arteries are all clogged up
although it'd require mass subsidising of farmers. oh the minefield
alternative is to just plant fruit trees fucking everywhere
it encourages loopholes, illegal markets and fudging
better to encourage positive cultural change
fast healthy food would be the goal, and the lebanese have it nailed. baba ghanoush and falafel all round
i say 'attempting to help'
and also what Theo says above
Well I never...
and ended when I was 12. I would say you're wrong.
It seems a bit bullying and blackmailing to me and doesn't seem to solve the actual issue. It will cost loads to do these smart pass things and even then, you'll probably get people who will swipe in and not go - it'll be hard to police.
They say its about a positive incentive but having benefits because you need it is not an incentive really, its a necessity to some people.
Less benefit money will mean they're more likely to eat cheap junk food and crisps and crap. Fresh meat and vegetables costs way more than it does to eat unhealthily.
for an intervention, like on those awful channel 4 shows
then when an obese goes to pick up their benefits they walk in the room, doors lock and there is one of the hyper fatties sitting there naked, blubbering on about their locked in life and the rank stench of their folds
yes and ho
but it needs to be backed up with forced labour camps where the obese's food intake is scrutinised by hundreds of CCTV cameras to make sure they following a strict diet AND exercise regime as one without the other will not work, I think once they have reached an agreed socially acceptable weight where they can fully function again in society then they can be released from these camps, yes there may be some casualties of this regime or as the government would probably call them 'collatereal damage' but it would pale into insignificance when balanced against the overall cost of obesity and all it's side effects to the country as a whole.
Takes me a while sometimes.
they'll start on this:
They'll just concentrate on getting people out of debt, and therefore stress, in order to save this burden on the NHS. Even though the debt fuelled economy that has been encouraged for years is the reason so many of their supporters and huge corporations are now so rich... Oh no wait.
Just convenient that being prejudiced towards fat people is so socially acceptable now.