Obesity benefits cut for refusal to exercise

Can anyone find the nutritional information on the Kellogg's site? I just find it really funny that if you go to dominos.ie you just click "food guide" at the bottom and straightaway have the option to view the information on whatever you want while on kelloggs.ie all I can find is waffle about how good grains are.

Fromthetrees

Deleted User wrote: »

I assume you missed this post



An obese person needs protein and fat. Needs them. The diet above is a carbohydrate and sugar diet.

You have a low fat and low protein diet with high carbohydrate and believe that is a good starting point for an obese person's calorie deficit? Excepting their mental wellbeing which includes their satiety and also their predication for contracting of diabetes.

Again, the worst part is that the absolute majority of people would believe that the above diet is 'probably a good place to start', when in fact it (if a calorie deficit is observed) will promote moodiness, tiredness, exhaustion, peaks and troughs (sugar levels), hunger pangs, a lack of satiety, an increase in the 'hunger feeling' and increased craving for 'junky' foods.

Right, so the example you gave of what most people think is a good diet but actually isn't was meant in the context of a bad diet for fat people. I'm sure it is and I see what you're saying but for most people it isn't that bad like I said, for an average person do you think the diet I tweeked from yours is actually a bad diet? Could I ask you to outline an example of what a good diet would be for an average person?

Fromthetrees

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Right, so the example you gave of what most people think is a good diet but actually isn't was meant in the context of a bad diet for fat people. I'm sure it is and I see what you're saying but for most people it isn't that bad like I said, for an average person do you think the diet I tweeked from yours is actually a bad diet? Could I ask you to outline an example of what a good diet would be for an average person?

This is a diet that all but those that suffer from gallstones could happily work from. Lots of healthy fats, lots of good protein, and an emphasis on real food (vegetables not factory-ised) food.

---

breakfast
2 Scrambled eggs, 2 pieces of bacon

lunch
tonnes of cauliflower and brocolli (obviously with some cheese on there too) with 2 pork chops cooked in apples and onions

Dinner
A salmon fillet with Kale, Spinach and Brocolli cooked in butter.

Snacks
Tin of Tuna with 3 tablespoons of full fat mayo
Half an avacado with some lime juice and chilli flakes

---

Fwiw, I criticized that diet for anyone. Obese to underweight people shouldn't eat like that. The diabetes factor would effect everyone on a diet with that much refined carbohydrate and sugar intake, and that's probably on the lower end of the scale for most people! RE: the tweaking. You removed the sugary juice, but the wheat intake remained high, you removed the fatty meats (required for satiety) but increased vegetables. You certainly made some good choices in improvements, but overall the basis for the diet remained with a low fat, low protein, high carboyhdrate system.

RainyDay

RainyDay wrote: »

Here's a mad idea - let's have public policies that actually work. Not public policies that we'd like to work, or would give us some sense of vengeance, or that rely on adults to act sensibly and logically - let's find policies that actually work in practice.

Has this policy actually worked in the UK or elsewhere?

Deleted User wrote: »

Kinda hard to invent one that'll work without it being tried somewhere.

Kinda hard to understand why people rush to support policies like this without asking if they actually work.

end of the road

scwazrh wrote: »

If they cut benefits for fat people they should stop healthcare for smokers , no more nhs covering pregnancy , no free medical for anyone who ends up in hospital for something there caused themselves such as car crashes due to speeding.Lets not forget helping people who maybe tried to commit suicide but failed , it was there choice so don't be using nhs money paying for any hospital services they need.
The list of personal choices that we each make that costs the state money is endless

good post, if were going to stop treatment for people everytime they make a bad choice probably most of the population will be dead, being honest theirs more of a chance of greece having a miraculous recovery of their economy then this uk proposal working

RainyDay

RainyDay wrote: »

Kinda hard to understand why people rush to support policies like this without asking if they actually work.

Well you can't say anything works until it's tried first.

end of the road

melekalikimaka wrote: »

they should have their kids taken from them

yeah great idea, instead of just educating the pearents we put more kids into the care system, meanwhile while thats taking place kids are being left with pearents or guardians who beat them to death because somebody missed a sign or social workers are overworked.

Fromthetrees

Deleted User wrote: »

This is a diet that all but those that suffer from gallstones could happily work from. Lots of healthy fats, lots of good protein, and an emphasis on real food (vegetables not factory-ised) food.

---

breakfast
2 Scrambled eggs, 2 pieces of bacon

lunch
tonnes of cauliflower and brocolli (obviously with some cheese on there too) with 2 pork chops cooked in apples and onions

Dinner
A salmon fillet with Kale, Spinach and Brocolli cooked in butter.

Snacks
Tin of Tuna with 3 tablespoons of full fat mayo
Half an avacado with some lime juice and chilli flakes

---

Fwiw, I criticized that diet for anyone. Obese to underweight people shouldn't eat like that. The diabetes factor would effect everyone on a diet with that much refined carbohydrate and sugar intake, and that's probably on the lower end of the scale for most people! RE: the tweaking. You removed the sugary juice, but the wheat intake remained high, you removed the fatty meats (required for satiety) but increased vegetables. You certainly made some good choices in improvements, but overall the basis for the diet remained with a low fat, low protein, high carboyhdrate system.

Okay but I would have thought having a balance would be the ideal to aim towards. Fair enough if fat people need a specific diet but for the average person carbs aren't all bad, that's certainly what I would have thought. Without carbs you need to fill up on too much meat I would guess, I'm pretty sure we eat too much meat in The West as it is, I try not eat meat one day a week now and only fish on another one or two.

I do understand a little bit about sugar and carb crashes but I think (and assume) there's a sweet point (pun intended) where you can have sugar in your tea and the odd can of coke.

I must say I'm a bit surprised and amused that this thread has already reached seven pages and no sign of slowing down and seemingly nobody interested in the fact that this isn't even happening in Ireland!

Some council in England came up with some bizarre arse-backwards idea to frog march fat people into the gym? Your taxes aren't funding this lunacy, so why is anyone here so concerned? If that's how the British tax payer is inclined to allow their elected representatives to run things, then fcuk 'em, what's that got to do with you?

Fromthetrees

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Okay but I would have thought having a balance would be the ideal to aim towards. Fair enough if fat people need a specific diet but for the average person carbs aren't all bad, that's certainly what I would have thought. Without carbs you need to fill up on too much meat I would guess, I'm pretty sure we eat too much meat in The West as it is, I try not eat meat one day a week now and only fish on another one or two.

I do understand a little bit about sugar and carb crashes but I think (and assume) there's a sweet point (pun intended) where you can have sugar in your tea and the odd can of coke.

The role they play in the body is as a cheap fuel. They replace Glycogen in the muscles that have been used up. However the average person doesn't require very much of this as they are inactive and sedentary, and don't require their body to be able to run marathons.

The other point to note is that the body can survive very well on a very low carbohydrate intake, in that it can produce ketones itself from your fat stores and fat intake.

Most people take in far far far too much of their energy from carbohydrate, and in doing so miss their protein (meat, eggs, fish - essential for growth, repair and health) and their fats (avacados, coconuts, animal fats, Oily fish - essential for life as the body cannot make these! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_fatty_acid ) . Or if not worse, end up overconsuming calories in an effort to get enough of their requirements of the macronutrients -( too many calories = weight gain)

Where do you get this assertion of too much meat from? And why do you think that eating meat is a problem? The nutritional breakdown of meat is more often than not mostly protein, a moderate serving of fat and no carbohydrate. This changes depending on type of animal and type of cut, but that's the predominant breakdown.

I understand a lot about sugar and carb crashes, and I think that sugar is effectively a poison, and an addictive and destructive one at that. I'm all for moderation and not being totalitarian when it comes to nutritional information (yes - it is fine to have a can of coke once in a while, a slice of cake every couple of weeks etc - your body actually benefits from a little bit of junk), but I simply cannot find a use or need for sugar on a day-to-day basis in anyone's diet.

Diabetes epidemic, Obesity epidemic, increase in pancreatic cancer (highest mortality rate) - all have been linked to a completely non-essential ingredient (refined sugar) so why not just choose to avoid it altogether?

Also, with regards to carbohydrates, not all carbohydrates are the same. Note the GI index. Note that carbohydrates from particular foods illicit different reactions from the body, I've talked about the more extreme end of the scale (refined Table sugar has a GI index of 60) but things like Maltodextrin, a commonly used sweetner in processed foods has a GI index of 150!

This type of information would make a massive difference to someone trying to lose weight. As a lot of food companies have managed to completely sway the 'overriding information' in most people's brains.

Example of a product that an obese person might buy to try to lose weight.. Spot a killer ingredient or 7.

melekalikimaka

end of the road wrote: »

yeah great idea, instead of just educating the pearents we put more kids into the care system, meanwhile while thats taking place kids are being left with pearents or guardians who beat them to death because somebody missed a sign or social workers are overworked.

beat the fat off them :cool:

Handsome Bob

misterbizmuth wrote: »

I must say I'm a bit surprised and amused that this thread has already reached seven pages and no sign of slowing down and seemingly nobody interested in the fact that this isn't even happening in Ireland!

Some council in England came up with some bizarre arse-backwards idea to frog march fat people into the gym? Your taxes aren't funding this lunacy, so why is anyone here so concerned? If that's how the British tax payer is inclined to allow their elected representatives to run things, then fcuk 'em, what's that got to do with you?

AH loves its' fat threads, right up there with religion in its' ability to accelerate the page count.

Dravokivich

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Okay but I would have thought having a balance would be the ideal to aim towards. Fair enough if fat people need a specific diet but for the average person carbs aren't all bad, that's certainly what I would have thought. Without carbs you need to fill up on too much meat I would guess, I'm pretty sure we eat too much meat in The West as it is, I try not eat meat one day a week now and only fish on another one or two.

I do understand a little bit about sugar and carb crashes but I think (and assume) there's a sweet point (pun intended) where you can have sugar in your tea and the odd can of coke.

I was under the impression that Protein was the main thing which can be used to regulate hunger when restructuring someone's diet. Most common source of which is through various meats.

Deleted User wrote: »

Example of a product that an obese person might buy to try to lose weight.. Spot a killer ingredient or 7.

It's not Kosher Certified either

Gummy Panda

emmet02 wrote: »

The role they play in the body is as a cheap fuel. They replace Glycogen in the muscles that have been used up. However the average person doesn't require very much of this as they are inactive and sedentary, and don't require their body to be able to run marathons.

The other point to note is that the body can survive very well on a very low carbohydrate intake, in that it can produce ketones itself from your fat stores and fat intake.

Most people take in far far far too much of their energy from carbohydrate, and in doing so miss their protein (meat, eggs, fish - essential for growth, repair and health) and their fats (avacados, coconuts, animal fats, Oily fish - essential for life as the body cannot make these! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_fatty_acid ) . Or if not worse, end up overconsuming calories in an effort to get enough of their requirements of the macronutrients -( too many calories = weight gain)

Where do you get this assertion of too much meat from? And why do you think that eating meat is a problem? The nutritional breakdown of meat is more often than not mostly protein, a moderate serving of fat and no carbohydrate. This changes depending on type of animal and type of cut, but that's the predominant breakdown.

I understand a lot about sugar and carb crashes, and I think that sugar is effectively a poison, and an addictive and destructive one at that. I'm all for moderation and not being totalitarian when it comes to nutritional information (yes - it is fine to have a can of coke once in a while, a slice of cake every couple of weeks etc - your body actually benefits from a little bit of junk), but I simply cannot find a use or need for sugar on a day-to-day basis in anyone's diet.

Diabetes epidemic, Obesity epidemic, increase in pancreatic cancer (highest mortality rate) - all have been linked to a completely non-essential ingredient (refined sugar) so why not just choose to avoid it altogether?

Also, with regards to carbohydrates, not all carbohydrates are the same. Note the GI index. Note that carbohydrates from particular foods illicit different reactions from the body, I've talked about the more extreme end of the scale (refined Table sugar has a GI index of 60) but things like Maltodextrin, a commonly used sweetner in processed foods has a GI index of 150!

This type of information would make a massive difference to someone trying to lose weight. As a lot of food companies have managed to completely sway the 'overriding information' in most people's brains.

Example of a product that an obese person might buy to try to lose weight.. Spot a killer ingredient or 7.

People can get fat on a low carb diet just as easily. Never liked using GI its based on eating the item in a fasted state. Just adding fat and protein to a meal effects the GI.

Gummy Panda

Gummy Panda wrote: »

People can get fat on a low carb diet just as easily. Never liked using GI its based on eating the item in a fasted state. Just adding fat and protein to a meal effects the GI.

I would strongly argue the opposite due to the satiety factor of healthy fats and the propensity to over-eat on a carbohydrate based diet.

The development of a leptin resistance from a carbohydrate rich diet is another effect that would also add to the ability of people to overeat calories.

So a fat/protein diet causes people to feel more full than a carbohydrate based diet. And a secondary feature of a carbohydrate based diet is that it actually reduces the bodies ability to feel full! A vicious cycle.

Pumpkinseeds

It's probably been suggested before, but why don't the UK just introduce a system like Ireland whereby those who can afford to pay for GP visits and prescriptions do so? I lived in the UK for years and I do have serious health issues, but there were so many time wasters filling GP waiting rooms.

No health service has a bottomless pit of money, instead of having a pointless debate about penalising fat people, Uk politicians should be taking a realistic approach to funding healthcare. Incidentally, I would have thought any government trying to penalise anybody for being fat would be leaving themselves open to a lawsuit. Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of how its dressed up

Medusa22

What about smokers who develop emphysema or COPD or lung cancer and are unable to work and are receiving benefits as a result. Should they also have their benefits cut if they refuse to give up smoking?

ash23

OK fair enough proposal.

Will they also be cutting illness benefit for people who have lung cancer but still smoke? Or who have asthma/emphysema and still smoke?
What about people who are bulimic/anorexic and refuse to eat? Or drug addicts/alcoholics who won't go to AA meetings?
Someone who risks their life to have a baby but won't go on birth control?

There are loads of cases where a person "self inflicts" a medical condition on themselves resulting in an inability to work so it should apply across the board to everyone and not just someone who is obese.

zenno

tayto lover wrote: »

Some of the doctors I know are obese themselves. Come to think of it James Reilly and Mary Harney as Ministers for Health say it all.

I wouldn't call it fat or obese, I would call it productive eating.

Froyo

Deleted User wrote: »

Can anyone find the nutritional information on the Kellogg's site? I just find it really funny that if you go to dominos.ie you just click "food guide" at the bottom and straightaway have the option to view the information on whatever you want while on kelloggs.ie all I can find is waffle about how good grains are.

Cereal is garbage. Don't eat it (unless it's as a treat now and then).

Froyo

Froyo wrote: »

Cereal is garbage. Don't eat it (unless it's as a treat now and then).

I wasn't planning to.