State Funded Slimming Classes
- Thread starter Malc
- Start date
This doesn't make sense, you should eat 2000kcal, 40% as carbs, 4kcal per gramme.
But the RDA is 130g?
I think RDA basically means bare minimum, just as 1200kcal is often given as a bare minimum to get the nutrition you require (i.e. enough carbs, fats and protein to maintain the bodies essential functions and not become unwell).
no RDA is not bare minimum, its the optimum for an average poerson doing average things (so obviosuly qquite vauge).
you kinda just showed that yourself the RDA of calories for a man is 2200, if the bareminimum is only 1200 thats a lot above it.
actually I goggled again for a more thorough answer it's 300g for a 19-29 year old from a .gov uk website.
that water melon would still be half your calories and nearly all your carbs and I doubt very filling
with vitamins I think the RDA is usually the minimum to keep scurvy etc at bay
Last edited:
Soldato
If the fatties spent less on food they could afford it?
Soldato
How are the fat people taxed to compensate this extra burden on the state?
Associate
How is it extra burden, £100 for slimming lessons instead of £5000 for a gastric band?
So we've gone from fat people to people on the dole, what a surprise.
Soldato
How are people who do sport taxed to compensate for their extra burden on the state? Virtually everyone I know who does some form of sport has injured themselves enough to need medical treatment (the last shattering their leg in three places falling down a mountain).
No, because it will cost a shedload of public money and will barely help a soul.
I reiterate - the obesity problem isn't because fat people can't afford slimming classes. Providing free slimming classes won't change a damn thing.
You don't need to be a genius to work out that providing free slimming classes won't work, they already do similar community based projects and they don't work.
Fat people aren't going to suddenly go "OH MY GOD, FREE SLIMMING CLASS? YOU HAVE SAVED ME!"
Maybe providing vouchers to help pay for slimming classes could work in some cases, maybe, but an entire NHS scheme costing hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds?
If you think that's going to be effective at solving obesity, let alone cost effective then you need to replace the captain of your brain ship because he's drunk at the wheel.
It's another one of those stupid ideas that some twit has come up with in a meeting, and a load of soft hearted idiots around them have gone "What a good idea, well done you, well done, that's really clever" instead of doing what they should have done which is go "How on earth is that going to solve anything? If they're that poor that slimming classes aren't an option then they can stop buying findus crispy pancakes and frozen chips! In what way is this going to be an effective use of taxpayers money or more to the point, an effective solution to the problem?" at which point Timmy the typical head in the clouds thinktank moron will sit down and be quiet realising he should have thought it through before speaking.
The burden of convincing people and idea will work lies with the person who came up with the idea, to suggest I should show you why it wouldn't work is just absurd, I've said my bit, now it's up to you to dispute it without resorting to circular reasoning.
Oh and it's not emotion, it's logic. At no point did I involve my personal feelings in this, this is business - not lovers corner on radio 2, if you can't leave your feelings outside of this then you don't belong in the debate.
Last edited:
Caporegime
I would have thought that leading healthier lifestyles is still a net benefit after factoring in the cost of sporting related injuries, but I haven't seen any specific data confirming that.
I wonder how many of the people who come up with these hairbrained schemes have ever been fat. Surely the best way to come up with effective ideas is to gather a group of unrelated people, some of whom are fat and some who used to be. These people might actually be able to come up with ideas that are more likely to work. For one thing, the ones who used to be fat are presumably not anymore because they found something that worked.
There was a documentary on the telly all about WW and the like. And quotes from ex-CEOs along the lines of "if people actually did lose weight and keep it off we'd be out of business pretty quick".
They know they're selling snake oil.
The only factor that determines success or failure is the individual's resolve/willpower (in otherwise healthy people with no genuine medical conditions).
Associate
I am a fatty and the last time I required medical treatment was 20 years ago to have my tonsils out.
Just because I'm fat doesn't mean I use NHS more.
Just because someones fit doesn't mean they use the NHS less.
Soldato
I'm going to disagree. The RDA for Vitamin C is 60mg, generally considered only just enough to avoid scurvy - it's hardly the optimum amount, see below.
See here: http://www.ion.ac.uk/information/onarchives/vitamins
that's vitamins though which I already said seems to be the minimum rather than recommended.
as someone already pointed out if RDA for calories was the minimum it would be around 1200 instead of 2200
as someone already pointed out if RDA for calories was the minimum it would be around 1200 instead of 2200
Your only 32 years old give it another 10-20 years
Last edited:
Soldato
Yeah, I was just backing up your point about vitamin RDA - although it also highlights inconsistency in what RDA actual means/refers to.
Caporegime
Statistically, overweight/unhealthy people are more likely to suffer health conditions over the course of their life than healthy people. You might not have used the NHS much now, but you are more likely to as you get older.
Yes, there are always exceptions, my grandad drank and smoked his way to 85 years old, but policies need to be based on stats.
Soldato
How are people who play sport, climb mountains, cyclists, DIYers etc. taxed to compensate for the extra burden on the state?
Where's your boundary for who's fat and who isn't?
It reinforces my belief that knowledge, even in sporty fit people, is woefully lacking if you can think 130g of carbs is an acceptable amount for a day.
It seems to be an American RDA btw. I've even read one page telling people to eat 2200 kcals per day, that 40% of this should be carbs, and then say RDA is 130g. Complete nonsense.