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

[999tigger]

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.

 

 

Lack of education is a big factor.

 

Your plan on just taxing everything would be spectacularly unsuccessful and just disrciminate against the poor. It isnt about healthy v unhealthy foods, its the fact people have no portion control. You cna get just as fat eating helathy foods.

 

---------- Post added 23-12-2016 at 16:41 ----------

 

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

 

How do you know people dont want to participate or they werent having good success in their target areas??

 

---------- Post added 23-12-2016 at 16:51 ----------

 

Yeah, like gravity is a theory.

 

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

 

 

That's a form of structural disadvantage.

 

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

 

 

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 ----------

 

 

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?

 

Gawd I knew I hadnt missed you at all.

 

Richer does make a difference compared to the war when there was rationing. Now people can buy as much as they like within reason and certainly enough to get obese. Thats different from worrying where you next meal was coming from.

 

Lifestyle does make a massive difference. Weight is about the balance of consumption v expenditure. If you are going to be in a calorific surplus because you are not burning the amounts you used to then you will gain weight consistently. Sar in an office and driving everywhere is not going to burn the calories that cycling to work and walking would. You can add to that people now eat more because they can and its more of a regular thing for people to eat takeaways or dine out.

 

Self control yes, in the sense of portion control. It must be because less of it is being exercised and people were / are getting fatter. People are responsible for what they eat and how much. There is a change in attitudes to food, such that some people indulge, but also other sections of society have a beter underdtanding and have changed their diets, so its a mixed picture.

 

Obesity isnt a condition of the poor, its just more common in those from deprived backgrounds. There are still plenty of better off people who are obese. Its virtaully identical for men across the classes, but the big difference is for woemn who are 50% more likely to be obese is they are from a poor/ deprived background. This is from a eport for the NHS by the Adult Obesity Observatory for the NHS on reviewing the data from Health Survey for England.

Edited December 23, 2016 by 999tigger

[lindylou53]

It's really not well said. It's missing the point entirely that obesity is a disease of the poor, not a disease of those with no will power.

 

So if it is a 'disease of the poor' why was it not so 50 years ago? - there were plenty of poor people around then - arguably many more.

[sedith]

Crystal Peaks is a perfect example if you want to see the extent of the obesity problem in Sheffield. Numerous fast food outlets selling burgers, pasties, sausage rolls, chips, fried chicken to 20 stone roll up smoking, tattooed women attired in inappropriate dress for their stature. Even larger 30yr old men aboard a mobility scooter. I can't see there will be a future 'pension crisis' as most of them will be dead by 50.

Crystal Peaks is the home and birthplace of the 'front arse'

[Titanic99]

I was reading the other day that to put on a pound in weight you need to consume 3500 extra calories which doesn't seem a lot to me. So a 50 year old person who is 50 pounds overweight (classed as Obese) has effectively consumed less than 10 calories a day more than they should.I'm not sure if this is right but it doesn't seem a lot to me and surely breaks this myth of huge over-indulgence to put weight on

[ukdobby]

Lack of education is a big factor.

 

Your plan on just taxing everything would be spectacularly unsuccessful and just disrciminate against the poor. It isnt about healthy v unhealthy foods, its the fact people have no portion control. You cna get just as fat eating helathy foods.

 

---------- Post added 23-12-2016 at 16:41 ----------

 

 

How do you know people dont want to participate or they werent having good success in their target areas??

 

---------- Post added 23-12-2016 at 16:51 ----------

 

 

Government doesn't cancel successful projects,ask Mrs Batmanghelidjh.

[LeMaquis]

The council will no doubt trot out the usual lame excuse and blame government cuts .

 

Its the health police again.

 

I only buy large fish and large chips. Yeah im fat ,but i dont care. Im not having some jumped up jobsworth telling me what i can and cannot eat .

 

Just fancy that.

[Cyclone]

I was reading the other day that to put on a pound in weight you need to consume 3500 extra calories which doesn't seem a lot to me. So a 50 year old person who is 50 pounds overweight (classed as Obese) has effectively consumed less than 10 calories a day more than they should.I'm not sure if this is right but it doesn't seem a lot to me and surely breaks this myth of huge over-indulgence to put weight on

 

Do you mean 10 a day for a year?

 

That would be 3650 calories, or 1 pound over the year. If they did it for 50 years then it would be 50 pounds, but activity levels vary, so knowing how many calories you need is difficult.

 

---------- Post added 24-12-2016 at 10:36 ----------

 

 

So if it is a 'disease of the poor' why was it not so 50 years ago? - there were plenty of poor people around then - arguably many more.

 

Why don't you actually do some reading and find out.

 

---------- Post added 24-12-2016 at 10:37 ----------

 

Gawd I knew I hadnt missed you at all.

 

Richer does make a difference compared to the war when there was rationing. Now people can buy as much as they like within reason and certainly enough to get obese. Thats different from worrying where you next meal was coming from.

 

Lifestyle does make a massive difference. Weight is about the balance of consumption v expenditure. If you are going to be in a calorific surplus because you are not burning the amounts you used to then you will gain weight consistently. Sar in an office and driving everywhere is not going to burn the calories that cycling to work and walking would. You can add to that people now eat more because they can and its more of a regular thing for people to eat takeaways or dine out.

 

Self control yes, in the sense of portion control. It must be because less of it is being exercised and people were / are getting fatter. People are responsible for what they eat and how much. There is a change in attitudes to food, such that some people indulge, but also other sections of society have a beter underdtanding and have changed their diets, so its a mixed picture.

 

Obesity isnt a condition of the poor, its just more common in those from deprived backgrounds. There are still plenty of better off people who are obese. Its virtaully identical for men across the classes, but the big difference is for woemn who are 50% more likely to be obese is they are from a poor/ deprived background. This is from a eport for the NHS by the Adult Obesity Observatory for the NHS on reviewing the data from Health Survey for England.

 

You're thoroughly and completely wrong.

 

---------- Post added 24-12-2016 at 10:38 ----------

 

Ok ok. I am not saying that every single person in that generation doesn't know how to cook but there is no denying that a gap of skills and knowledge with the yonger generation exists. Fact is home cooking from scratch has declined over the decades with the rise and rise of pre-prepared and ready made food.

 

It has been well publicised for some time with some companies and educational establishments raising concerns and trying to do something about it.

 

http://www.blackmorevale.co.uk/new-survey-reveals-generational-skills-gap/story-27477041-detail/story.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-3260435/British-children-say-love-cooking-unable-chop-vegetables-make-salad-boil-egg.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/3325550/Catering-to-the-skills-gap.html

 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/oct/06/millennials-no-interest-in-cookery

 

It logical that this must have some overall impact of people's diet and weight.

 

Yes, just be careful with the over generalisations.

[Titanic99]

Do you mean 10 a day for a year?

 

That would be 3650 calories, or 1 pound over the year. If they did it for 50 years then it would be 50 pounds, but activity levels vary, so knowing how many calories you need is difficult.

 

Yes that's my understandng.

 

In reality two people of the same age of 50, one is the "normal"weight and the other is 4 stone overweight then the person overweight has had an extra nibble of a biscuit a day over those 50 years.

 

A bit different to the tales of gorging indicated on here, and it goes to show how only eating a little bit extra over a long period of time can lead to putting weight on.

[Cyclone]

In reality I doubt that such a small calorie surplus could be monitored.

The amount of calories you burn changes from day to day and over time.

My fitness watch claims to give you a daily estimate of calories used, yesterday 3223, the day before 2452, 3757, 2594, 3114, and so on. You can see that it can vary by 50% and 1000 calories between days! And the watch doesn't even know that I went bouldering for 2 hrs on Thu, so the variation is even higher than suggested.

[lindylou53]

You're thoroughly and completely wrong.

 

 

In your opinion - which of course has to be the right one.