Activity Sheffield to be axed, a good way to combat obesity?

[andrejuan]

It's not a lame excuse is it. The government have implemented massive local government cuts - I'm sure they would have preferred to keep it going.

 

I am sure this is part of the problem, but instead of scrapping a terrific service, why not make a charge for the free activities and increase the charge for the paid activities?

 

The activities for the youngsters are very useful in school holidays, and many parents would pay far more than the current charges to give kids the benefit.

[bendix]

I can't make you read or learn, so lets just leave it there shall we.

 

I've read them. They are theories, not facts. They are theories that can easily be repudiated.

 

I personally think they are wrong, and believe primarily in the personal responsibility.

 

In fact, it's downright condescending to those poor people you are supposedly defending. You are essentially patronising them: "poor loves, it's not they're fault they're obese. They know no better. They have no willpower or ability to think for themselves. Society made them like they are."

 

 

The easiest way to deal with obesity is to treat it the same way as tobacco. Tax the hell out of it. Make sugary drinks ridiculously expensive. Tax fast food places to the nth degree. Once it hits people in the pocket they will be obliged to look at healthier options. For those that don't, the extra revenues will help offset the cost of keeping them alive on the NHS.

Edited December 22, 2016 by bendix

[ukdobby]

I was leaving Drakehouse retail park yesterday at 11am and the car behind me sat 2 big people each stuffing in their mouths a big Mac,it may have been Brunch but looking at them I'd guess no and say it was probably a between meal snack,that's why people are obese,what I will say if theirs so much obesity in the city then Activity Sheffield wasn't working.

[bendix]

I was leaving Drakehouse retail park yesterday at 11am and the car behind me sat 2 big people each stuffing in their mouths a big Mac,it may have been Brunch but looking at them I'd guess no and say it was probably a between meal snack,that's why people are obese,what I will say if theirs so much obesity in the city then Activity Sheffield wasn't working.

 

 

I regularly sit in Starbucks and see young families come in and order 4 creamy drinks, four savoury snacks like a bacon roll and then a muffin each also. This is during the morning, and the entire family is out so I'm guessing they are not working and are on benefits. Calorie content of each person's 'snack' is around 1300 each based on the easy to read notices in Starbucks, but what gets me is the cost. That little bundle would have cost close to 40 quid for a mid-morning snack.

 

It puts my 3 calorie £1 black coffee to shame.

[rogets]

We were in the car the other day and the 4 year old said "can you explain to me why there are so many overweight people now than there were in the 1950s, and what social and economic factors are facilitating the surge in obesity"

 

My response was "don't know"

[999tigger]

I was leaving Drakehouse retail park yesterday at 11am and the car behind me sat 2 big people each stuffing in their mouths a big Mac,it may have been Brunch but looking at them I'd guess no and say it was probably a between meal snack,that's why people are obese,what I will say if theirs so much obesity in the city then Activity Sheffield wasn't working.

 

They hadnt been in existence long (c18 months). You wouldnt know the starting point or how many people they had actually helped.

 

Have you had much dealing with them and familiar with the service they offer?

 

Do you think its a waste of money to try and help people to a healthier lifestyle?

 

If you make no effort, then what would your plan be?

 

---------- Post added 22-12-2016 at 17:45 ----------

 

I regularly sit in Starbucks and see young families come in and order 4 creamy drinks, four savoury snacks like a bacon roll and then a muffin each also. This is during the morning, and the entire family is out so I'm guessing they are not working and are on benefits. Calorie content of each person's 'snack' is around 1300 each based on the easy to read notices in Starbucks, but what gets me is the cost. That little bundle would have cost close to 40 quid for a mid-morning snack.

 

It puts my 3 calorie £1 black coffee to shame.

 

Lack of education and lack of self control.

 

Part of Activity Sheffield was to help educate about nutrition, ecourage participation in a more active lifestyle and teach about weight loss. £40 is outrageous, but then people have the money so they indulge.

 

---------- Post added 22-12-2016 at 17:48 ----------

 

We were in the car the other day and the 4 year old said "can you explain to me why there are so many overweight people now than there were in the 1950s, and what social and economic factors are facilitating the surge in obesity"

 

My response was "don't know"

 

Richer= more money and more foo to buy. people indulge. People were healthier in the war when they had limited diets.

 

Lifestyle= People less active, they sit in offices and they drive about in cars as opposed to more manula jobs and walking to places. Kids play on XBox or PC instead of bikes or sports.

 

Means we eat more and move less= increase in weight.

[ukdobby]

They hadnt been in existence long (c18 months). You wouldnt know the starting point or how many people they had actually helped.

 

Have you had much dealing with them and familiar with the service they offer?

 

Do you think its a waste of money to try and help people to a healthier lifestyle?

 

If you make no effort, then what would your plan be?

 

To be honest I've never heard of them and it is a waste if people don't want to participate.

Edited December 23, 2016 by nikki-red
fixed quote tags

[Cyclone]

I've read them. They are theories, not facts.

Yeah, like gravity is a theory.

 

---------- Post added 23-12-2016 at 07:31 ----------

 

I still think it's a generational thing like unemployment, if parents are unemployed kids are more likely to be unemployed.

 

That's a form of structural disadvantage.

 

---------- Post added 23-12-2016 at 07:32 ----------

 

taxing fags and beer never stopped anyone smoking or drinking. people just moan about the extra cost and continue to smoke and drink

 

You say that, but smoking is at the lowest level for what, a century, and continuing to fall.

Drinking amongst the youngest legal group is at an all time low...

 

Are you sure that taxation doesn't work?

 

And even if it doesn't, it funds the provision of care that is required.

 

---------- Post added 23-12-2016 at 07:37 ----------

 

T

 

Richer= more money and more foo to buy. people indulge. People were healthier in the war when they had limited diets.

 

Lifestyle= People less active, they sit in offices and they drive about in cars as opposed to more manula jobs and walking to places. Kids play on XBox or PC instead of bikes or sports.

 

Means we eat more and move less= increase in weight.

 

So if 'Richer = more likely to be fat' why are the poor the ones who are most likely to be obese? Yes, people are now well off enough to not actually be thin through lack of food, but clearly it's not as simple as that.

 

LIfestyle: this contributes, but weight is mostly about diet, not all that much about activity.

 

If it's "lack of self control" then what changed. Why did people 20 years ago, 40 years ago, 60 years ago have much higher levels of self control?

Do you really think that "self control" amongst the poor particularly is gradually declining over time?

[Bob Arctor]

Spot on! Show me a 'poor' family whose house doesn't have a satellite dish.

 

You could go out for a day with one of our support workers lindylou, you would meet loads of poor families without satellite dishes or Sky. It's just not affordable on a low income, I'm afraid it's a stereotype that's used by newspapers who want to justify government policies that make people worse off.

[Halibut]

You could go out for a day with one of our support workers lindylou, you would meet loads of poor families without satellite dishes or Sky. It's just not affordable on a low income, I'm afraid it's a stereotype that's used by newspapers who want to justify government policies that make people worse off.

 

I agree. I could show lindylou plenty of households where there certainly aren't satellite dishes, but where children don't have enough to eat and where they struggle to get hold of decent clothing.