Obesity benefits cut for refusal to exercise

Conall Cernach

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Got a link?

Unfortunately no. But my uncle gets it if that's any help. :pac:

Sam Kade

If this goes through the Chawners will have a serious wake up call.

Hilly Bill

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Feel free to point out where in the article it mentions people like this. Because I can't see it.

Thats the whole point of the cuts is so that they get healthy enough to look for work. Cut the welfare and cut the intake of cakes. simples.

awec

awec wrote: »

Fair play to you. Do you clean gutters and put up fences every day though?

No, but that has little to with my being a fat bastard, the same as the majority of people who are unemployed and happen to be overweight aren't in the situation due to their weight. A 16 stone woman and a 9 stone women are both laid off from an office job and unless the 16 stone woman starts exercising she'll receive less than the other one? It's a bull****.

Hilly Bill

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Thats the whole point of the cuts is so that they get healthy enough to look for work. Cut the welfare and cut the intake of cakes. simples.

You sure? They're talking about council tax benefit etc., nothing to do with not being able to find work due to obesity.

Hilly Bill

Deleted User wrote: »

No, but that has little to with my being a fat bastard, the same as the majority of people who are unemployed and happen to be overweight aren't in the situation due to their weight. A 16 stone woman and a 9 stone women are both laid off from an office job and unless the 16 stone woman starts exercising she'll receive less than the other one? It's a bull****.

I'd say it would be based on how long someone has been claiming and out of work .

Hilly Bill

Deleted User wrote: »

You sure? They're talking about council tax benefit etc., nothing to do with not being able to find work due to obesity.

It mentions benefit payments in the article.

Teyla Emmagan

Daftendirekt wrote: »

This is an idea designed to appeal to the kind of person who likes to abuse fat people while pretending to be concerned about their health or the financial burden they put on the healthcare system. Not a way to reduce obesity.

Absolutely. There's no point forcing someone to exercise if they don't change their eating habits. Something like 90% of weightloss is down to diet. No one is going to lose weight if they attend their state sanctioned exercise class and then have a bucket of chicken on the way home. And you can't police every mouthful people put into their mouths, thankfully we don't live in that sort of a society.

This is only designed to punish, not to help. They'd be better off helping the offending party learn about nutrition and how to cook their own meals from scratch. But if humiliation is the name of the game you're not going to take a holistic approach like that.

Absolutely bullsh*t initiative.

Hilly Bill

Hilly Bill wrote: »

It mentions benefit payments in the article.

Benefit payments mean an awful lot of things.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

donvito99 wrote: »

We need Simpson's style Fat Camps

Family guy, FTW...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_A1aXCeeSM

strandroad

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Absolutely. There's no point forcing someone to exercise if they don't change their eating habits. Something like 90% of weightloss is down to diet. No one is going to lose weight if they attend their state sanctioned exercise class and then have a bucket of chicken on the way home.

I did think so for a minute but then I changed my mind. A lot of overweight people are stuck in their homes half-depressed and the initial effort to start any sort of activity must be tremendous and often overwhelming so it never happens. If this incentivises them to move and get a little endorphin rush, perhaps it will actually be very helpful at least to those who genuinely want to lose weight.

JRant

Well if they're claiming disability benefits due to being over-weight then GTF. There are very few medical reasons for being morbidly obese.

If it's unemployment benefit I can't see how they can discriminate.

Then again heart consultants can and do refuse to deal with smokers or at least put serious pressure on them to quit.

Add "Nutrition" to the exercise class regime and it could be useful.

However they'll need to **** that ridiculous food pyramid out the window and teach these people to get back to basics to conquer most of their issues.

10 stone overweight is going to take a long long time to rectify...

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

10 stone overweight is going to take a long long time to rectify...

Bet I'll sort it in a year. :pac:

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Bet I'll sort it in a year. :pac:

1.2kg of weight a week

~ 9000kcal deficit per week.

I wouldn't recommend that to anyone without medical supervision tbh.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

1.2kg of weight a week

~ 9000kcal deficit per week.

I wouldn't recommend that to anyone without medical supervision tbh.

I've done 3 a week for a few months a couple of times til boredom got the better of me. :pac:

LETHAL LADY

Has anybody mentioned Fat Fighters?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I've done 3 a week for a few months a couple of times til boredom got the better of me. :pac:

so an unsustainable amount?

I know a guy that ran the first 5miles of a marathon in 23 minutes. Was on course for world record pace.

Didn't finish the race though...

That's the important part. There's a slow and steady process to create a sustainable path to 'freedom' for obese people. You can't eat rabbit food and drink watery milkshakes for 15 months and then suddenly expect to be able to behave appropriately when someone places a 200g bag of Doritos, a 2l bottle of Coke and some Haribo in front of you.

Teaching people information about nutrition and how to prepare and care for themselves appropriately would be far more beneficial to an obese person than forcing them to do 200kcals worth of low energy, low enthusiasm work.

Heck, send em to the Nutrition and Diet forum and tell them to read some stickies and post some questions.

A single Snickers bar undoes all the work of a 30minute run and more.

twinytwo

If they really want to sort this problem, they need to start with the kids. Get them eating well, playing sports and try to move them away from the whole idea of sitting inside all day playing xbox or what have you.

Froyo

Deleted User wrote: »

I've done 3 a week for a few months a couple of times til boredom got the better of me. :pac:

2lbs a week should be your maximum weight loss goal - a sustainable and safe one.

That's 8 per month. 1 stone = roughly 14lbs.

Teyla Emmagan

Deleted User wrote: »

A single Snickers bar undoes all the work of a 30minute run and more.

Life is so unfair..

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

so an unsustainable amount?

I know a guy that ran the first 5miles of a marathon in 23 minutes. Was on course for world record pace.

Didn't finish the race though...

Physically I was fine. I've no reason to believe that slower weightloss would've had me more motivated. And it didn't need to continue at that rate.

That's the important part. There's a slow and steady process to create a sustainable path to 'freedom' for obese people. You can't eat rabbit food and drink watery milkshakes for 15 months and then suddenly expect to be able to behave appropriately when someone places a 200g bag of Doritos, a 2l bottle of Coke and some Haribo in front of you.

Teaching people information about nutrition and how to prepare and care for themselves appropriately would be far more beneficial to an obese person than forcing them to do 200kcals worth of low energy, low enthusiasm work.

Heck, send em to the Nutrition and Diet forum and tell them to read some stickies and post some questions.

A single Snickers bar undoes all the work of a 30minute run and more.

Just getting people to actually do something is the main challenge IMO. On the larger scale correcting the food pyramid would be a nice start.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Physically I was fine. I've no reason to believe that slower weightloss would've had me more motivated. And it didn't need to continue at that rate.


Just getting people to actually do something is the main challenge IMO. On the larger scale correcting the food pyramid would be a nice start.

how were you mentally?

Were you eating like a normal person? Or like a ghost?

Again, there's an education aspect here that needs to change. There's no quick fix. Time and patience, and dedication to get better will be the most important factors in these people's lives.

I don't think that a 30min skipping and jogging session with this guy
http://www.virginmedia.com/images/mr-motivator-then-431x300.jpg
is even worth the money that would be required to be spent on it.

Sure you could argue that 'the govt will save money from those that don't take part, this will pay for the trainers' - except the ones that don't take part end up costing the govt a lot more 15 years later when they're being taken out of their homes by a crane and taking up an entire NHS ward on their own.

An awful lot (and I mean a ****ing awful lot) of people with the very best intentions simply cannot break the spell and lose weight. This is fundamentally down to how poorly the average persons knowledge of nutrition, and even worse, the propaganda that food companies have posted for years. (Low Fat this, Hydrogenated This)

Give them the classes (with non-partisan advice), for free. See if they work first.

Carrot, then stick. (ironic)

Larianne

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Why should someone who cant be arsed finding a job because they are happy enough to sit at home stuffing their face with cream cakes and watching Jeremy Kyle on the telly get benefits and then claim that they are too obese to work anyway.
There is a difference between someone who is lazy and obese and could do something about it and someone who has a medical condition through no fault of their own.

I would hazard a guess that most people who are obese are not happy with their life. Becoming obese is much more than just being a lazy so and so. It is multifactorial - psychological issues along with environmental and socio-economic factors. Education plays a huge part. It would be interesting to know what exercises the doctors are prescribing or the actual advice the doctors are giving these people. Advice and education from physiotherapists and dieticians would be more appropriate.

To help combat obesity, requires a proper multidisciplinary team input. Giving someone a few exercises to someone who's eaten fastfood and has never actually ran in the runners they're wearing isn't going to change a person.

It should be a family orientated intervention. You can't start off with the kids if the parents have no interested in promoting a healthy lifestyle. Also, when the kids are over in Granny's, they can't be having huge portions sizes.

Now, what family orientated intervention will work?? That question that is still unanswered. Cutting someone's benefit in order for them to exercise - is it the answer? It is very difficult to get someone to change their lifestyle, it is usually it is due to a health scare like a stroke or type II diabetes. So maybe, scaring someone with the risk of losing their benefits may work, but only if they are given the proper support and education, not a bunch of exercises prescribed by their GP. A community/group based programme may work the best.

BrokenArrows

I totally agree with this proposal.

Granted there are plenty of conditions with cause you to be more prone to put on weight but I guarantee if you ask these people who are obese because of this condition if they go to the gym then the answer will be no.

People with these conditions are genetically going to put on weight faster than the average person but becomming obese is 100% the fault of the person, not the disease.

If you have this condition then you need to eat healthier and go to the gym more often than the average person. It's not rocket science.

BrokenArrows

BrokenArrows wrote: »

I totally agree with this proposal.

Granted there are plenty of conditions with cause you to be more prone to put on weight but I guarantee if you ask these people who are obese because of this condition if they go to the gym then the answer will be no.

People with these conditions are genetically going to put on weight faster than the average person but becomming obese is 100% the fault of the person, not the disease.

If you have this condition then you need to eat healthier and go to the gym more often than the average person. It's not rocket science.

Define this please.

You will find a complete and utter ****storm of different views.

I am very happy with my understanding of nutrition, and have helped many people with it. But the majority of people's understanding of what is healthy and what is not is a mile off centre.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

how were you mentally?

Were you eating like a normal person? Or like a ghost?

Fine on both tbh. Better than usual probably.
Different people are different, many people at my weight would be in worse "shape" than I am. I "carry it well" as they say, health-wise it doesn't make a difference but mobility wise it does and it makes a big difference when starting exercising. And while when it comes down to it "a calorie is a calorie" I seem to burn off a lot more quickly than I apparently should, probably due to metabolism being at a standstill after 3 months of barely moving, I imagine similar applies to a lot of overweight people.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Define this please.

You will find a complete and utter ****storm of different views.

I am very happy with my understanding of nutrition, and have helped many people with it. But the majority of people's understanding of what is healthy and what is not is a mile off centre.

If people followed the food pyramid perfectly they'd be unlikely to be overweight.
In practice it's not the best model to encourage because people are stupid but cutting calories, takeaways, frozen pizza etc. is pretty straightforward when it comes down to it.

BrokenArrows

emmet02 wrote: »

Define this please.

You will find a complete and utter ****storm of different views.

I am very happy with my understanding of nutrition, and have helped many people with it. But the majority of people's understanding of what is healthy and what is not is a mile off centre.

Any definition of healthy is a balanced diet but if someone has a medical condition it would be on a professional to decide what's best for that individual person.

Rainbow_Bright

Froyo wrote: »

Yeah because being obese is akin to having a disorder such add muscular dystrophy!

What a silly thing to say.

Obesity is a 'condition' that is fully preventable and curable. It involves, to an extent, a person making the correct lifestyle choices.

There should be no benefits for essentially being fat and lazy.

In some cases, counselling should be provided to help them on their way. That's it.

Counselling may help but not all overweight individuals are simply "fat and lazy". It may be bacause of an illness which affects mobility e.g. back issues or perhaps weight gain due to thyroid issues or even depression.

Some empathy & consideration on your behalf would go a long way.