Send fat people to slimming classes

Michael D Not Higgins

Dravokivich wrote: »

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. For that less people are taking it up.

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.

That's why any tax would need to be backed up by other programs. The idea is that you tackle the problem holistically and the issue is one of normalisation. By bringing down the normalisation, you bring down the problem.

Of course there's not going to be as much of an easy solution as a ban like for smoking but we have to at least try to tackle these problems and trying every approach and seeing what sticks is the best approach in my opinion.

Daith

Tarzana wrote: »

If they put a premium on essential foods, now THAT would be wrong.

Like water?

Why should a healthy person who (probably) pays more to eat "healthy" foods be penalized if they fancy a pizza for the first time in a year?

bumper234

Can just imagine in a few years if they bought in a sugar tax. Walking down Moore ztreet and instead of the usual tobacco and cigarettes whispers it will be

Sugar...anyone for sugarrrrrrr

We will be hearing about sugar busts at Dublin port, reports of containers with up to 30 million worth of sugar being confiscated.

Daith

bumper234 wrote: »

Can just imagine in a few years if they bought in a sugar tax. Walking down Moore ztreet and instead of the usual tobacco and cigarettes whispers it will be

Sugar...anyone for sugarrrrrrr

We will be hearing about sugar busts at Dublin port, reports of containers with up to 30 million worth of sugar being confiscated.

Are you really just a former fat person who now looks down their nose at someone ordering burger, Cheese fries and milkshake? You examine other peoples lunches?

bumper234

Daith wrote: »

Are you really just a former fat person who now looks down their nose at someone ordering burger, Cheese fries and milkshake? You examine other peoples lunches?

Please show me a single post here here where i have looked down my nose at anyone.

Daith

bumper234 wrote: »

Please show me a single post here here where i have looked down my nose at anyone.

Sure

bumper234 wrote: »

Can just imagine in a few years if they bought in a sugar tax. Walking down Moore ztreet and instead of the usual tobacco and cigarettes whispers it will be

Sugar...anyone for sugarrrrrrr

We will be hearing about sugar busts at Dublin port, reports of containers with up to 30 million worth of sugar being confiscated.

Do you judge other peoples eating habits?

runawaybishop

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

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

Indeed. Taxing food is daft though, you can overeat and get fat on pretty much anything.

bumper234

Daith wrote: »

Sure

How is a light hearted comment about sugar being smuggled into the country considered "looking down my nose at people"? :rolleyes:

Daith

bumper234 wrote: »

How is a light hearted comment about sugar being smuggled into the country considered "looking down my nose at people"? :rolleyes:

It was less the smuggling but more the

bumper234 wrote: »

Sugar...anyone for sugarrrrrrr

comment.:rolleyes:

bumper234

Daith wrote: »

It was less the smuggling but more the

Sugar...anyone for sugarrrrrrr

comment.:rolleyes:

Ahhh i see

So you have probably never walked down Moore street in Dublin.

jimgoose

Rather than dreaming up endless new ways of slapping ordinary people around, I suggest the powers-that-be dream up a couple of ways to stop asshole food producers stuffing things full of sugar and labelling the result "low-fat", thus creating a whole generation of obese people with Type 2 diabetes who can't figure out why they're like that.

Daith

bumper234 wrote: »

Ahhh i see

So you have probably never walked down Moore street in Dublin.

Yes I have :rolleyes:

I tend not to mimic people though...

But do you judge peoples eating habits as a former fat person?

bumper234

Daith wrote: »

Yes I have :rolleyes:

I tend not to mimic people though...

But do you judge peoples eating habits as a former fat person?

So taking the piss out of the dealers accents as a light hearted attempt at humour offends you?

Why would i judge someones eating habits?

Tarzana

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?

High fat can be good, except if it's trans fat sh1t which is what is contained in a lot of junk food. High carb, simple carbohydrates in high amounts are absolutely worthless. Hells, we tend to overeat the complex kind too.

runawaybishop wrote: »

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

No, because just you're thin doesn't mean you're healthy. If you eat a lot of junk food, you're probably not, no matter what size you are.

Tarzana

Daith wrote: »

Yes it is.

OK then.

You have your view and you won't be swayed from it and I'm not going to hang around here all evening trying to do that. I gave you an idea of what junk food means. It's not my job to convince you. There a whole world of information out there.

I will say this though: NOBODY requires sugar in their diet, not a single person. A little bit is fine, but it's in no way a requirement. So, nobody has differing requirements on that. We *all* don't need it. We want it though. Clearly.

Tarzana

runawaybishop wrote: »

you can overeat and get fat on pretty much anything.

Pretty hard to do it with broccoli though. :pac:

Tarzana

jimgoose wrote: »

Rather than dreaming up endless new ways of slapping ordinary people around, I suggest the powers-that-be dream up a couple of ways to stop asshole food producers stuffing things full of sugar and labelling the result "low-fat", thus creating a whole generation of obese people with Type 2 diabetes who can't figure out why they're like that.

Now this would be good.

But sadly we live in a world where the US classed pizza as a vegetable a few years so that it could still be served in schools. I hate food industry lobbyists. THAT'S who Bill Hicks should have ranted about...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/18/pizza-vegetable-congress-says-so

runawaybishop

Tarzana wrote: »

High fat can be good, except if it's trans fat sh1t which is what is contained in a lot of junk food. High carb, simple carbohydrates in high amounts are absolutely worthless. Hells, we tend to overeat the complex kind too.



No, because just you're thin doesn't mean you're healthy. If you eat a lot of junk food, you're probably not, no matter what size you are.

High simple carbs are absolute fine, as is high fat or low fat if you choose. Isolating meals like that is just crap, it doesnt take into account peoples overall comsumption.

Junk food is a very loose definition, i can easily fit a McDs into my intake and still remain lean. Why should i be taxed on that?

I think it just comes down to
1) a blanket tax will be unfair on some.
2) excess food makes you fat, not "junk" foods.

Tarzana wrote: »

Pretty hard to do it with broccoli though. :pac:

Yup, I'd do it just to shut someone up though :pac:

Tarzana

runawaybishop wrote: »

High simple carbs are absolute fine

In tiny amounts.

The best metric for deciding if something is junk food is its nutritional value. Junk food is a highly palatable nutritional desert.

Excess foods make you fat. You'll get there quicker with junk food than anything else though. Much quicker. Not just because of its calorific content, but because as said above, it's hyper-palatable, it's designed that way.

everlast75

2 simple steps...

1) education of kids whilst in school with regards to what is in food and what effects it has - will benefit the future

2) reduce portion sizes - will benefit immediately

runawaybishop

Tarzana wrote: »

In tiny amounts.

The best metric for deciding if something is junk food is its nutritional value. Junk food is a highly palatable nutritional desert.

Excess foods make you fat. You'll get there quicker with junk food than anything else though. Much quicker. Not just because of its calorific content, but because as said above, it's hyper-palatable, it's designed that way.

Simple carbs are not junk though and have their place in a huge variety of diets.

Say you define junk as > 90% simple carbs. Companies will just reduce the content to 89% to avoid the tax. You aren't addressing the root issue which is that people are eating too much.

Tarzana

runawaybishop wrote: »

Simplecarbs are not junk though

They have no nutritional value and you can get energy elsewhere, so they are surplus to requirements.

runawaybishop wrote: »

Say you define junk as > 90% simple carbs. Companies will just reduce the content to 89% to avoid the tax. You aren't addressing the root issue which is that people are eating too much.

Oh, I agree, food companies will get around it. They're feckers. But it's like a quick fix that might work in conjunction with longer term measures.

Overheal

Considering physical fitness issues are often preventable, and they are being treated by an NHS, then I feel like their qualification to receive NHS care may depend on their willingness to maintain satisfactory progress in personal responsibility, no?

I mean as a college student I can get cash from the government to learn, but not only do I have to pay that **** back eventually, but they also measure SAP - satisfactory academic progress. If you don't meet the SAP requirement youre flagged as a waster ie. moocher and kicked off the funding.

periodictable

Tarzana wrote: »

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.

Go into any supermarket and observe what many people are putting into their trolley.
Processed food, high sugar content, snacks, confectionery, soft drinks, alcohol and more alcohol. Often the kids are chunky like the parents.
I know enough of people who had weight issues finally get a grip, significantly reduce their calorie input, exercise a little more, and to their amazement the pounds melt away.
Personally, I go through a phase of lucozade and 5-6 chocolate bars/day, and hey presto, my belt won't close. Time to cut the crap food, methinks and the waist size is back to normal.
No need for studies or excuses. You're fat because you eat incorrectly. Time to take a little personal responsibility and stop looking for someone to blame.

Tarzana

periodictable wrote: »

Go into any supermarket and observe what many people are putting into their trolley.
Processed food, high sugar content, snacks, confectionery, soft drinks, alcohol and more alcohol. Often the kids are chunky like the parents.
I know enough of people who had weight issues finally get a grip, significantly reduce their calorie input, exercise a little more, and to their amazement the pounds melt away.
Personally, I go through a phase of lucozade and 5-6 chocolate bars/day, and hey presto, my belt won't close. Time to cut the crap food, methinks and the waist size is back to normal.
No need for studies or excuses. You're fat because you eat incorrectly. Time to take a little personal responsibility and stop looking for someone to blame.

Whoosh. Completely missing the point. And neatly illustrating the thrust of my post too.

There's no denying lack of discipline is an issue with most overweight people. However lack of discipline does not just manifest in overeating.

periodictable

Tarzana wrote: »

There's no denying lack of discipline is an issue with most overweight people. However lack of discipline does not just manifest in overeating.

We're talking about overeating, nothing else.
One overeats, one gets fat, and a host of other problems. Whether or not one's mother hugged one less in childhood is beside the point. One is fat because one overeats.
Solution? Cut back on your calorie intake and exercise.
Or get a gastric band. Don't expect me to pay for your over indulgence.
Now, I had a large coke and two starbars an hour ago, so I'm off on the bike for some exercise.

biko

bumper234 wrote: »

I have now dropped from 225lbs to 195lbs

How many stone is that?

Amalgam

This might be of interest to some here, broadcast this week, Tuesday 27th..

Amusingly, a person on the show, poo-poo-ing criticism of a certain soft drink, is challenged, with rather delicious timing, by Sean Seán O'Rourke, about being an 'adviser for Nestlé'..

---

RTÉ Radio 1 - Today with Seán O'Rourke
The Great Sugar Debate - 27 May 2014 13:00

http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2014/0527/20140527_rteradio1-seanorourke-thegreatsu_c20586285_20586293_232_.mp3

(links directly to the Podcast .mp3 - Right click > Save Link As...)

..or, browse the Podcast listings for: Today with Sean O'Rourke

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_seanorourke.xml

---

'Slimming' is a grotty word/way to approach obesity, because just losing weight, without exercise, is accepting you've finished a puzzle properly, with a few painfully obvious pieces missing.

The problem is in your head.. and the feedback you get from empowering yourself through a better physique, better stamina, better endurance, may feed back into, and cancel out, anxiety issues, which may be at the root of compulsive eating.

bumper234

biko wrote: »

How many stone is that?

2 stone 2 lbs

end of the road

periodictable wrote: »

Stop them gorging themselves and make em walk 10 miles a day.

troll harder, to obvious

periodictable wrote: »

A refusal means no NHS treatment.

yeah, great idea, works so well, oh wait, so what do you do with them then if your not going to treat them because your so self righteous? where we stop at refusing treatment? disabled? those who become injoured? rethink