Send fat people to slimming classes

Dravokivich

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I've honestly never seen people complain to shopkeepers about cigarette prices.

I've worked in shops for 2 years and saw it regularly each week.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The pub prices are due to the fact that people have never run a pub business and don't know the cost of overheads, which is strange as sometimes these same people don't see a problem with paying a restaurant multiples of what they'd pay in a supermarket for the same ingredients.

Makes part of it, but a chunk of it is down to taxes.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Sure, they're old reliables, but that's because it's a steady income for the government. Day in, day out, people are buying alcohol, cigarettes and petrol.

So what happened to the health benefit that you suggested is meant to be the primary reason for taxing them then?

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

So do you agree with the NHS proposal? Would you prefer that in Ireland? Or do you have a better solution?

The first half of my post said no. The clue is in my questioning of the effectiveness of it.

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Edit: the comment on petrol is a strawman. I never implied all taxes were for the benefit of our health or to reduce the usage of something.

Nope, it was a sarcastic remark on the back of you making a mention of 2 of the 3 reliables. Felt fitting to get the band back together. Don't make me out to be more intellectual than I am

Jawgap wrote: »

There was a study done in St James' Hospital, and one of the big problems people had was their conception of 'food' and 'meals' - some people, for example, in the 'snacks' portion of their food diaries had things like domino's pizza, bags of chips etc. Others expressed disbelief that alcohol contained calories! Some people you can educate, but some have to be shaken out of their views.

My issue with this is that alcohol is only an ingredient. They should be looking at the beverage itself. Not focusing on a part of it. Are people surprised that Coke has calories?

Michael D Not Higgins

The 'health benefit' comes from offsetting it against the healthcare cost.

Jawgap

Dravokivich wrote: »

.....
My issue with this is that alcohol is only an ingredient. They should be looking at the beverage itself. Not focusing on a part of it. Are people surprised that Coke has calories?

when I referenced 'alcohol' I was using it as shorthand for alcoholic beverages - people were surprised wine, beer and spirits contained calories.

The assumption seemed to be that if it didn't taste 'sweet' then it didn't contain calories.

Calibos

Calories, Calories, Calories.

Had a 3L per day Coke habit. 1200 calories. Diagnosed with Metabolic syndrome. Changed to 0 Calorie 0 Sugar Coke Zero. Instant daily 1200 calorie deficit. Lost a stone in about 5 weeks. Was on an SNRI for a year for anxiety. Sent my appetite into the stratosphere. Put on 1.5 stone. Came off SNRI. Appetite went back to normal. Weight starting to fall off again.

Exercise smexercise!! A donut could be 500 calories and to burn 500 calories you need to do 2 hours of high intensity exercise to burn it off. What do people feel like after 2 hours high intensity exercise? They feel like rewarding themselves with a fcuking donut!! Its a lot easier just not to eat the donut in the first place.

Another reason why fatter people don't exercise? Have you ever carried home a 7KG sack of potatoes from the shops? You're physically fcuked by the time you get home with it. A fat person could be carrying multiples of that around on them permanently. No wonder they don't want to exercise.

Diet needs to be at the forefront not exercise. When people are down to a more manageable weight, then they can start tackling fitness. When they've lost the layers of fat tissue, then they can start thinking about building abs that will no longer be hidden under a layer of fat etc etc

Put too much emphasis on exercise at the beginning and when people don't see results quick enough or results commensurate with the effort they feel they are putting in, well its a recipe for failure. Fcuk this, Fcuk all of this exercise and diet. Get them losing the pounds first with the diet. Tell them to only weigh themselves once a month. Using my own Coke zero anecdote again. I knew I had cut 1200 calories a day. I was gutted when after a week I seemed to have lost nothing, after 2 weeks I'd only lost a couple of pounds. However because I wasn't making any effort and dieting as the Coke Zero switch was effortless, I was merely disappointed. Its not like I was struggling with a diet and seeing no results and thus packing in the diet. Good thing too. Turns out when I weighed myself at the 5 week mark it seemed the weight loss had accelerated big time. Theres just a metabolic lag. Your body waiting to see if this is a new calorific paradigm before it switches from its other energy conservation mechanisms to dipping into its fat stores instead. ie. Watch your weight but don't watch it too often. A month seems a happy medium. Get them seeing results with minimal exertion first and then the rest will eventually follow.

Dravokivich

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

The 'health benefit' comes from offsetting it against the healthcare cost.

Taxes here generally don't get earmarked based on where they came from. This is also different from what you initially said. You were bringing the idea that the more someone spends on a product, due to its taxes, the less of that product someone will buy.

Jawgap wrote: »

when I referenced 'alcohol' I was using it as shorthand for alcoholic beverages - people were surprised wine, beer and spirits contained calories.

The assumption seemed to be that if it didn't taste 'sweet' then it didn't contain calories.

It wasn't you yourself I was referring to. But the comment, in general is made regularly in the media. "Alcohol has hidden Calories," no it doesn't. People for whatever reason just don't think about it.

flutered

can we start with the head honchos of the labour party, some of who are more than obese

Tarzana

bumper234 wrote: »

I have now dropped from 225lbs to 195lbs day?

Still fat.



:pac:

Ah no, fair play. But no, sending people to slimming classes is a terrible idea.

periodictable

Stop them gorging themselves and make em walk 10 miles a day. A refusal means no NHS treatment.

Tarzana

Celly Smunt wrote: »

Junk food doesn't automatically make you fat though, excess junk food does.A skinny bastard like myself shouldn't suffer for a fatty's lack of discipline.

But if you're not eating it that regularly, what does it matter? It'd be a minuscule extra amount of spending in a year, if you're as disciplined as you make out of course... And if you DO eat lots of junk food, well, that's not good, even if you are a "skinny bastard".

Tarzana

mike65 wrote: »

Has anyone ever really sought to discover why the people who are overweight became overweight in the first instance? People bang on about mental will, sugar, fat and lack of exercise but many of us are not overweight and have no trouble maintaining an appropriate weight.

Good point. It's all fine and well to be self-righteous about it but, well, the problem isn't going away! So, it would be better to figure out why it's happening. I do love when people of a healthy weight bang on about discipline, as if being overweight is the only way lack of self-discipline manifests itself. :pac: It's the most visible way though, and people loooove to feel superior so it's an easy target.

Dravokivich

Tarzana wrote: »

But if you're not eating it that regularly, what does it matter? It'd be a minuscule extra amount of spending in a year, if you're as disciplined as you make out of course... And if you DO eat lots of junk food, well, that's not good, even if you are a "skinny bastard".

I don't want to pay more, because the idea is to fine someone else.

bumper234

Tarzana wrote: »

Still fat.



:pac:

Ah no, fair play. But no, sending people to slimming classes is a terrible idea.

You should see my other leg :pac:

Tarzana

Dravokivich wrote: »

I don't want to pay more, because the idea is to fine someone else.

Well, it wouldn't be a fine, it's a tax. The whole thing behind taxes is we all pay them even we don't benefit from everything they're spent on. That's how the ol' taxes work. And like I said, if you don't eat much junk, it'll be a tiny amount extra in a year.

Jawgap

Dravokivich wrote: »

.....
It wasn't you yourself I was referring to. But the comment, in general is made regularly in the media. "Alcohol has hidden Calories," no it doesn't. People for whatever reason just don't think about it.

It's not about 'hidden' calories - people just don't know and as @Calibos suggested even when they do know they have no concept of what 500 calories means.......that's why nutritional labelling, calories on menus etc doesn't work for the majority of people who are relatively ill-informed on this issue.

There was a pilot project in the US where instead of calories on the menu, they put in the amount of moderate exercise (brisk walking) you would have to do to burn off the food option next to it. It was much more successful because people had a frame of reference they could relate to. Interestingly, no restaurant is interested in pursuing it - perhaps because calories are ambiguous to the lay person and the food industry would prefer it remained that way.

EDIT - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/dietandfitness/10014291/How-an-exercise-menu-helps-us-shed-the-pounds.html

Dravokivich

Tarzana wrote: »

Well, it wouldn't be a fine, it's a tax. The whole thing behind taxes is we all pay them even we don't benefit from everything they're spent on. That's how the ol' taxes work. And like I said, if you don't eat much junk, it'll be a tiny amount extra in a year.

It's the principle of the idea. You are looking to punish those who overindulge by charging more through a tax. It's essentially a Fine.

Jawgap wrote: »

It's not about 'hidden' calories - people just don't know and as @Calibos suggested even when they do know they have no concept of what 500 calories means.......that's why nutritional labelling, calories on menus etc doesn't work for the majority of people who are relatively ill-informed on this issue.

There was a pilot project in the US where instead of calories on the menu, they put in the amount of moderate exercise (brisk walking) you would have to do to burn off the food option next to it. It was much more successful because people had a frame of reference they could relate to. Interestingly, no restaurant is interested in pursuing it - perhaps because calories are ambiguous to the lay person and the food industry would prefer it remained that way.

Anything on the TV always references it as "Hidden," when it comes to Alcohol. That's all my comment was about with how you presented the feedback from the St James Hospital study. People should expect something from what they consume, no matter what it is.

swimming in a sea

Jawgap wrote: »

Seriously?

How about not buying the Crunchies? Or better still, run / walk / cycle to the shop, buy the Crunchies and maybe only have one every second day as a treat?

AFAIK, Dunnes etc don't put a gun to your head and force you to buy them or insist you eat them in one sitting!

Never been fat a day in my life, just know that is not black and white.

Dunnes know that will get fat people to buy the multi-pack, so are they deliberately profiting of fat people?

Turtwig

Newscientist recently published an article about overweight olympians. (Behind a pay wall, so no point in linking.)

The crux of the article was that it's not even clear if being fat or "overweight" is a inherently bad thing. As long as it's not extreme of course! You see, back in the past, the people who tended to be fat also tended to be sedentary. That trend is become less and less true. Fat people are often incredibly fit. At the cardiologists conference last month in Copenhagen one of the remarks was that skinny young people were presenting with heart failure in a higher proportion to fat young people. The overlying commonality in people presenting was their sedentary lifestyle or complications from an underlying illness. It wasn't the fact that a person was fat/skinny.

Any program to get people to exercise is a good idea, but generalising it on fat people is a terribly myopic idea.

Just to add another caveat. Exercise, like fat, like just about everything else should be balanced to the individual. Even exercise can be detrimental to a person's health.

Tarzana

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's the principle of the idea. You are looking to punish those who overindulge by charging more through a tax. It's essentially a Fine.

But it's not. Junk food isn't an essential foodstuff, it's an occasional treat. If they put a premium on essential foods, now THAT would be wrong. There's a premium on booze and fags, also non-essentials. Why not junk food?

And if people eat less junk, maybe health spending will go down and money can be spent elsewhere.

Tarzana

Turtwig wrote: »

The crux of the article was that it's not even clear if being fat or "overweight" is a inherently bad thing. As long as it's not extreme of course!

Yeah, think I read somewhere before that being a tad overweight (as in, just a bit chubby) can be healthier than being on the low end of the healthy BMI range. But sshhhh, don't say that around people who pretend to be concerned about health spending on overweight people but actually are just visually offended and want to throw a tantrum about it.

Dravokivich

Tarzana wrote: »

But it's not. Junk food isn't an essential foodstuff, it's an occasional treat. If they put a premium on essential foods, now THAT would be wrong. There's a premium on booze and fags, also non-essentials. Why not junk food?

And if people eat less junk, maybe health spending will go down and money can be spent elsewhere.

Because there's no benefit behind the tax. All you are doing is preventing the ability for the consumer to spend that money on something else. No matter how little that tax is.

The only reason there is such a premium on booze and cigarettes is because they are quite likely the 2 most popular consumable items people purchase.

Michael D Not Higgins

Dravokivich wrote: »

Taxes here generally don't get earmarked based on where they came from. This is also different from what you initially said. You were bringing the idea that the more someone spends on a product, due to its taxes, the less of that product someone will buy.

Yes they get put in a big pot and then are doled out in the budget, hence why getting tax money from one thing can offset its cost to the state elsewhere. Not directly, but in the grand scheme of things, if the state brings in a billion from cigarettes and spends a billion on treating smoking related diseases, is that not a cost offset by a tax?

And yes, increasing the cost by taxes can bring down consumption. This has been shown with smokers over the last ten years in Ireland where the percentage has dropped since the smoking ban along with increased taxation. This has to be followed with other programs such as education and other controls. The BBC article makes mention of Birmingham which limits the number of takeaways in a given area as one example of such a control.

Tarzana

Dravokivich wrote: »

Because there's no benefit behind the tax.

You don't know that. We all pay taxes not knowing when or if they will come to us at some stage. They might, they might not.

Daith

Tarzana wrote: »

But it's not. Junk food isn't an essential foodstuff, it's an occasional treat. If they put a premium on essential foods, now THAT would be wrong. There's a premium on booze and fags, also non-essentials. Why not junk food?

Define junk food though? What's the criteria that makes something junk?

runawaybishop

Why would you pay for someone to burn off calories they got from overeating? Just pay them not to eat.

Tarzana

Daith wrote: »

Define junk food though? What's the criteria that makes something junk?

High simple sugars content, far higher than average salt content, highly processed. Excessive carbohydrate. Low to no nutritional value. That's the biggie actually. Can be high fat too though lots of healthy stuff is too. As to what constitutes high simple, high salt, highly processed, hit up a food scientist and ask them for the parameters. It's certainly not an unanswerable question though.

Michael D Not Higgins

Daith wrote: »

Define junk food though? What's the criteria that makes something junk?

Now we get to the real issue, how do we classify what should and should not be deemed part of any control measures?

This has been shown by another poster to be problematic when cheese fell into the high fat range and the dairy industry didn't want it labelled as one of the foods they couldn't advertise to children.

runawaybishop

Tarzana wrote: »

High simple sugars content, far higher than average salt content, highly processed. Excessive carbohydrate. Low to no nutritional value. Can be high fat too though lots of healthy stuff is too. As to what constitutes high simple, high salt, highly processed, hit up a food scientist and ask them for the parameters. It's certainly not an unanswerable question though.

Whats wrong with high fat or high carb? If i need to complete my macros for the day why the fook should i be penalised for people that have no self control?

Heres a better idea, add tax to a product on the fly based on how overweight that person is.

Michael D Not Higgins

runawaybishop wrote: »

Whats wrong with high fat or high carb? If i need to complete my macros for the day why the fook should i be penalised for people that have no self control?

Heres a better idea, add tax to a product on the fly based on how overweight that person is.

Cue the fat kids getting the skinnier kids to buy their sweets for them.

Dravokivich

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Yes they get put in a big pot and then are doled out in the budget, hence why getting tax money from one thing can offset its cost to the state elsewhere. Not directly, but in the grand scheme of things, if the state brings in a billion from cigarettes and spends a billion on treating smoking related diseases, is that not a cost offset by a tax?

And yes, increasing the cost by taxes can bring down consumption. This has been shown with smokers over the last ten years in Ireland where the percentage has dropped since the smoking ban along with increased taxation. This has to be followed with other programs such as education and other controls. The BBC article makes mention of Birmingham which limits the number of takeaways in a given area as one example of such a control.

The primary reason appears to have been the smoking ban, along with phasing out small packs. Prices always went up, although now they seem to be rather expensive in comparison to previously, all that did was drive demand for a black market. Secondly there's no advertising and is very rarely portrayed in the media. Shops can't even display them now either. Far less people are taking it up as result.

What difference is that going to do on a multi-pack of chocolate bars and a six pack of coke?

Limiting the number of takeaways means nothing when you can order for delivery.

Daith

Tarzana wrote: »

High simple sugars content, far higher than average salt content, highly processed. Excessive carbohydrate. Low to no nutritional value. That's the biggie actually. Can be high fat too though lots of healthy stuff is too. As to what constitutes high simple, high salt, highly processed, hit up a food scientist and ask them for the parameters. It's certainly not an unanswerable question though.

Yes it is. Define high. Low. None, excessive? Different people have different requirements. A person on protein based diet would define a high carb count different to somebody else.

Ask a food scientist to decide what's a nutritional value for everyone in ROI?