- Joined
- 29 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 1,416
I agree but does this mean that we have lost a whole generation? How can we help today's overweigh population?
What about banning vent machines from all schools etc?
How should the NHS deal with the obesity epidemic? Lost battle?
- Thread starter mranderson
- Start date
I agree but does this mean that we have lost a whole generation? How can we help today's overweigh population?
What about banning vent machines from all schools etc?
Bad idea IMO. The students that benefit from easy access to refreshments far outweigh (pun not intended) the fatties who just cant stop eating anyway.
Why remove something which benefits regular people just because some irresponsible fatties cant stop overeating? Massively unfair.
Last edited:
I don't think children are old enough to understand the long term impact of over-eating anyway - schools shouldn't really be selling food products which no absolutely no nutritional value (or items which individually are far more than a child would need to consume in one sitting) - massive king sized Mars bars I'm sure schools could do without.
It's a combination of things, poor education, poor choices, bad parents, poor quality food is cheaper, disingenuous food labelling, the lie that low-fat = good etc - none of these things in isolation if solved would achieve that much - but with a combined effort it may.
Sugar is a highly addictive substance, one which a scarily large portion of the developed world are addicted to - we wouldn't accept companies lacing food with cocaine to sell more products, so why do we accept the deliberate lacing of foods with salt & sugar to increase it's addictive qualities?.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_addiction
"Researchers say that sugar and the taste of sweet is said to stimulate the brain by activating beta endorphin receptor sites, the same chemicals activated in the brain by the ingestion of heroin and morphine."
"Finally, a 2008 study noted that sugar affects opioids and dopamine in the brain, and thus might be expected to have addictive potential. It referenced bingeing, withdrawal, craving and cross-sensitization, and gave each of them operational definitions in order to demonstrate behaviorally that sugar bingeing is a reinforcer. These behaviors were said to be related to neurochemical changes in the brain that also occur during addiction to drugs. Neural adaptations included changes in dopamine and opioid receptor binding, enkephalin mRNA expression and dopamine and acetylcholine release in the nucleus accumbens."
Last edited:
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2008
- Posts
- 1,416
So give more money to food manufacturers instead of the NHS so they produce healthier food or add more tax to unhealthy food?
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,177
at least us smokers pay for our treatment up front, we pay shed loads of tax.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 2,777
- Location
- Derby
I wonder if it would be cheaper to subsidise healthy food (which in turn results in a healthier population) than it costs to pay for having a population of whales with 50,000 different health complaints.
I don't think lack of education can be used as an excuse/reason any more. I think it stopped being a valid reason 20+ years ago. I think it purely comes down to not caring/laziness/gluttony. That's it. We all know what bad foods are, children aren't stupid, they know whats bad for you - but ultimately its the parents/adults who choose what goes into their own/childrens bodies and they definitely know whats not healthy. Education is simply not a valid argument.
Last edited:
i think the health issues and extra care for old people make that a bad idea (if you look at it purely from the money perspective)
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 3,017
- Location
- Midlands
I agree with this. It still won't stop people from smoking eating or drinking to excess though. If the prospect of death doesn't stop them, then having to pay for their own health care sure won't do a damn thing.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 3,833
- Location
- London
Fat isn't the problem.
High calorific diets and **** all exercise is the problem.
Anything that makes people eat fewer calories (More fibre, more lean protein) is good.
Anything that makes people do some exercise (Zumba, Crossfit, Submarine Racing) is good.
I'm not sure it's even up to the NHS, although it is a health issue, it's also a social one.
High calorific diets and **** all exercise is the problem.
Anything that makes people eat fewer calories (More fibre, more lean protein) is good.
Anything that makes people do some exercise (Zumba, Crossfit, Submarine Racing) is good.
I'm not sure it's even up to the NHS, although it is a health issue, it's also a social one.
Education is the only way, and a starting point would actually be teaching kids how to cook, I was lucky in that my mum and gran were both very good cooks, so always cooked, thus i took an interest and they taught me how to cook, and now i am a pretty good cook and there is very little i can't make.
However if you parents can't cook then kids have little hope of learning, i don't know whats it's like in schools now, but i did food all through school and at GCSE level, and it taught me precicely nothing about cooking, the people who started unable to cook for toffee, finished unable to cook for toffee, but we did all learn the importance of FIFO which has absolutely no real world use outside a restaurant as how often does someone buy enough of the same stuff to make FIFO relevent?
You only have to watch programmes like Jamies ministry of food to see how shocking the standards of cooking ability are in general, people not knowing what boiling water looked like, people unable to prepare an onion, so they have little option to rely on processed ****.
Processed / fast food is not a cheap option either, eating a varied and balanced diet of home cooked meals is not expensive at all, yes if you go and get all the best ingredients from the butchers and green grocers then yea it will cost, but i am quite happy i can feed 2 people home cooked meals every day for less than 20 quid a week, if not less.
Cost is not an excuse, but if we have parents have never been taught to cook then the responsibility of doing so for the kids must fall on the schools as if they are not taught to cook as a minimum then all the "oohhh x is bad" will have sod all impact.
However if you parents can't cook then kids have little hope of learning, i don't know whats it's like in schools now, but i did food all through school and at GCSE level, and it taught me precicely nothing about cooking, the people who started unable to cook for toffee, finished unable to cook for toffee, but we did all learn the importance of FIFO which has absolutely no real world use outside a restaurant as how often does someone buy enough of the same stuff to make FIFO relevent?
You only have to watch programmes like Jamies ministry of food to see how shocking the standards of cooking ability are in general, people not knowing what boiling water looked like, people unable to prepare an onion, so they have little option to rely on processed ****.
Processed / fast food is not a cheap option either, eating a varied and balanced diet of home cooked meals is not expensive at all, yes if you go and get all the best ingredients from the butchers and green grocers then yea it will cost, but i am quite happy i can feed 2 people home cooked meals every day for less than 20 quid a week, if not less.
Cost is not an excuse, but if we have parents have never been taught to cook then the responsibility of doing so for the kids must fall on the schools as if they are not taught to cook as a minimum then all the "oohhh x is bad" will have sod all impact.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 May 2012
- Posts
- 359
The thing that no one has actually touched on which is very surprising you're all pointing out its the children? i dont know about you but my mum cooked my meals.
The parents are the 1st point of teaching a child right and wrong why cant they do it with food?
My childs getting fat - maybe i should take him to the park more get some exercise and make him eat less fat?
Also the smoker pointing out you pay tax, everyone who works pays it too, it's your choice to get taxed that extra. Suggesting we pay for treatment no matter what is ridiculous.
If you're fat and go to the NHS 9/10 times they are just to lazy to get help on their diet and do some exercise! As someoe said above its a social issue not an NHS one
The parents are the 1st point of teaching a child right and wrong why cant they do it with food?
My childs getting fat - maybe i should take him to the park more get some exercise and make him eat less fat?
Also the smoker pointing out you pay tax, everyone who works pays it too, it's your choice to get taxed that extra. Suggesting we pay for treatment no matter what is ridiculous.
If you're fat and go to the NHS 9/10 times they are just to lazy to get help on their diet and do some exercise! As someoe said above its a social issue not an NHS one
Anyone that ever spent a lot of time in Scandinavia, will realise that they have respect for themselves and their environment, while fat slobbering pigs here tend to exist only for the reason to stuff as much **** down their throats as they can.
Funny this thread should come up. Was on the tube this morning from Central back to West Hampstead and when this walrus with donut glazing around her mouth stumble onto the tube, clutching more donuts. I swear her knuckles was almost white with the strength she held on to it. There were a lot of open seats but she never sat down, for the simple reason that her ass wouldn't fit. While this made me reel in disgust, I also took a look around me and noticed that at least 80% of the people in the carriage was fat. Fat Stomachs, Tripple chins, giant asses and legs the size of a my waist was all around.
No self respect.
But hey, not their faults off course. As most fatties would say, they're medically incapable of losing weight
Because most parents are stupid and generally thick too. They lack the will and discipline themselves, why would the kid be any different?
Correct post is correct.
Hey hey hey, take your sense of responsibility and self control out of this thread mister.
People don't choose to have self control - making the entire concept of "personal responsibility" meaningless.
We know that a certain percentage of the population are unable to make healthy diet choices when left to make decisions on their own.
Coupled with the fact that everybody has a different metabolic rate & responds different to exercise - it's a bit of a generalisation to assume that it's just a case of being "self inflicted".
After that you need to take into account the out-right lies printed on food packaging & the deliberate attempt to make "fat free" sound like it's automatically healthy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Whether it is junk or a load of fruit, if calories > calories out, you'll get fat.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Except for a tiny, tiny minority of people, metabolic rate has almost nothing to do with it.
Calories in > Calories out = Get fat
easy.