payment from nhs for diet class

[mrsmoneyspender]

hi, i don't know if this has been posted , i searched but couldn't find it, but for anyone who hasn't heard yet
the nhs are paying you to go to your diet meetings , ie weight watchers, slimming world, rosemary connley
i visited my doctors and asked help for loosing weight and was offered a 12 week program at any of the above classes, after loosing 5% in that period you can apply for another 12 weeks, i think this is all you get. it is a great incentive to get you on the right road to weight loss, i came out of my doctors feeling llike i had won the lottery!
the only condition was that i wasn't already registered
i have started this week and came across a few more ladies who also are on this, some of them went to the nurse and was offered it
the doc gives you a letter with a contact number and you tell them which diet class you want to use, they then send the vouchers.
hope this helps someone
mrs ms

[onetomany]

no mine does a gym discount

[Bronnie]

Around half the UK population is overweight, with 1 in 5 adults obese and the problem is forecast to worsen, with the ensuing health problems presenting a massive drain on NHS resources. There is no doubt the problem needs to be tackled. Whether targetting NHS funds to individuals in this way is the most appropriate and cost effective use of resources is another question.

Slimming classes currently cost around £4.50 per week with concessions for pensioners and young people and people who have successfuly lost weight and wish to maintain. Many GP surgeries and community centres in less-well off areas offer healthy eating classes/ weight management sessions free or at nominal cost to the public.

I would say most overweight individuals (and that includes me ) have willingly spent considerably more than £4.50 per week on the foods/ drinks/ junk that have led to them becoming overweight in the first place and will easily be saving that amount on their food/drinks weekly outgoings for their new healthier regime .

I personally do not think the NHS should be footing the bill for Slimming Clubs. It is up to the individual to take responsibility and the NHS to support and advise in other ways.

[mrsmoneyspender]

i think the nhs are doing this as a trial, i have heard there are only certain people who may be able to get this,
i fall into a catogory which is i have an illnesss that makes it hard for me to loose weight. i have had years of tests and trials on different medicine and have tried countless times to diet and keep the weight off, i exercise as much as i can. the treatments of tablets cost much more than diet classes and i was offered the stomach band which i think will have cost the nhs several thousand pounds,
i agree that people who don't have a real problem with weight should not be given this help but it is giving me new hope that i can get help and encouragement from the diet class and i still have to visit my doctor to inform him how i am progressing
i respect your views but not everyone can help there weight problems and i think if this helps people it will cut down costs in other areas of treatment for health problems related to weight gain.
mrs ms

[oystercatcher]

I think if this system actually works it should save the NHS quite a lot of money.
The diet classes are actually cheaper (to the NHS) than having a one to one with the nurse. Also if it prevents all the obesity related illnesses then it saves LOADS ! I'm guessing this system is only for those who are clinically obese not just anyone.

I must find out if my surgery does anything like this as it sounds a brilliant idea.

[Bronnie]

:)mrsmoneyspender, I do hope you are able to move towards resolving your health problems and I hope you find the initiative helpful.

I think it is quite an interesting subject for discussion.

At the SW meetings I attended recently, practically everybody there had been members of SW on and off numerous times over the years, losing the weight, often several stones, putting it back on again and returning for another to lose it again. I have myself. Many people in the group I was attending looked like they needed to lose in the region of 3 or more stones.

I think this does call into question the efficacy of Slimming Clubs in actually helping people to learn realistic strategies needed to maintain the loss. I would say losing weight is the easy part of the weight management process (and no way is it easy!!)

Sorry, but I still can't see any reason why the clinically obese shouldn't pay the modest fee for their slimming classes themselves. Does this mean if the NHS didn't pay, then they wouldn't bother?

[dizziblonde]

Yay another person bashing fat people. Do you shout abuse at them out of car windows in the street too? (I've had that done to me in the past and I've a friend who has had her shopping trolley contents commented on by complete strangers, despite having nothing of any controversy in there - no wonder lots of overweight people don't go out of their houses, therefore don't remain active and get trapped into an ever-increasing cycle of weight, social isolation, low self-esteem, comfort/boredom eating, increased weight)

We've finally stopped bashing the NHS helping smokers stop smoking with things like nicotine replacement and stop smoking classes etc... why shouldn't this be the same? You don't want fat people using NHS resources (last time I went to the doctors was a year ago for an ear infection btw... I hardly cost the NHS a tonne), but you won't give them any support to change their ways - apart from making them social pariahs.

And for the record - I DON'T throw cream cakes down my neck endlessly, so let's ditch that offensive stereotype please. I'm genetically predisposed to carry weight anyway, and because of the depression which haunts all the women in my family, I've got a tendency to lock myself away in the house (I border on agroaphobic) which led to me becoming increasingly physically inactive, piling on the weight, hiding away even more (especially after getting abuse hurled at me while walking back from lectures as a size 18 student) and things spiralling out of control. I also had an abusive relationship with a man who controlled every aspect of my life - including my diet and wouldn't let me choose salad and the like because he was scared of me recovering my self-esteem and leaving him like the waste of space he was. I also don't expect the NHS to bail me out, I pay myself and go to the gym 6 times a week, I eat sensibly, I'm losing weight gradually but it's MY business, not any of the self-appointed busybodies who love to judge and blame people.

I am however quite outspoken on the completely useless way in which obesity is being adressed in society - stigmatizing, demonizing and bashing people who quite often have really awful self-esteem issues bound up inexorably with their weight is not going to help them lose it. If subsidizing people to join a slimming class or a gym (my local gym does subsidized and supervised 12 week activity programmes for people - not the route I've taken to joining it though) helps to get them out and about (walking to these places also burns calories), removes their social isolation and raises their self esteem (helping with the boredom/comfort eating aspect) and educates them in better food choices/recipe choices etc as well as the direct ways to help them lose weight with the ensuing self-esteem boosts when they DO drop a bit... it's worth the cost really.

Lots of people DON'T know how to do things like cook sensible food - and the marketed "low fat/healthy option/generic slimming brand" options in supermarkets cost more - if you can't cook from scratch you don't appreciate it's do-able.... and these days lots of kids and parents are the generations who don't have a clue really. I've seen kids sent to school with a packed lunch consisting of 3 Jacob's crackers and half a chocolate easter egg - if throwing some money into adressing the parenting skills of these parents, or allowing schools to have the facilities to teach proper cooking (not just making chocolate cornflake cakes) is going to help the problem - it's an investment for long-term gain.

It's about flipping time the NHS and the like started offering constructive help to those desperate to lose weight - who are often depressed and need the way out of their depression marked out in baby steps... anyone who's been in that state of mind knows how difficult it can be to get out of the spiral and how you sometimes DO need pretty much the level of signposts saying "walk here", "get out of bed" to help you begin to make the change then why begrudge that. Sitting there complaining that people could spend the cash of one cream cake on the weekly fee just stereotypes and demonizes people and makes it even harder for them to make that initial change.

When I walked into the gym and asked to join, it was flipping hard to do. When I started going there, and had to put up with a couple of snide stick insects sniggering at the sight of me coming in - it was even harder. If I wasn't as stubborn or determined as I am (I want to lose weight in order to be able to concieve - note, I don't expect the NHS to help me while I'm the size I am - I'm not even registered with a doctor since I moved so you can't accuse me of wasting NHS resources), I would have ran away and not gone back because of how hard initial steps are. Some people aren't as strong-willed (or bolshy) as I am - they need the help to get there - or they'll continue in the cycle, with their kids perpetuating it. I'm glad the NHS is finally doing something other than shoving rumpled diet sheets at people and barking at them to "lose some weight".

[Bronnie]

Oh dear!

I'm sorry you're so upset that you have misinterpreted my posts.

[busiscoming2]

They are also offering several (I think 6) free sessions at participating local gym's, on a Doctors recommendation. My friend has done this not because of her weight but because she is depressed.

[wigwam]

Thanks OP for this information. I was going to join SW tomorrow but will now enquire with the GP tomorrow to see if they are a member of this scheme.

As an NHS worker do I feel guilty for NHS helping fat people?
Absolutely not - more waste in NHS is down to people not attending appointments / not taking medications / not willing to give up smoking / alcohol / lose weight - unlike people willing to help themselves and reduce future NHS costs.

[taxdodger]

Thanks OP for this information. I was going to join SW tomorrow but will now enquire with the GP tomorrow to see if they are a member of this scheme.

As an NHS worker do I feel guilty for NHS helping fat people?
Absolutely not - more waste in NHS is down to people not attending appointments / not taking medications / not willing to give up smoking / alcohol / lose weight - unlike people willing to help themselves and reduce future NHS costs.

However most of these things fall into the adictions class and are indicaive of other underlyinig problems.Having weak will power is no different from haing a weak heart, should people with weak hearts be denied medical tretament.
So people might consider you to be weak in the head or in laymans terms 'thick', should you be denied treatment because of that?

[Avoriaz]

…the nhs are paying you to go to your diet meetings , ie weight watchers, slimming world, rosemary connley
i visited my doctors and asked help for loosing weight and was offered a 12 week program at any of the above classes….
Please don't spend my taxes on NHS diet meetings, advice etc.

You don’t need the NHS to lose weight.

You don’t need to visit your doctor to get help to lose weight.

There is a closely guarded secret to losing (not loosing) weight that appears to be known to only an increasingly small minority.

I will let you into this secret.

It requires you to eat less and/or to exercise more. Preferably both but either on its own will usually do.

It works. Guaranteed. You don’t see many fat or obese people in famine zones?

I know that eating less and exercising more is an unpopular diet but unfortunately it is the only method that actually works.



Have a nice day. :)

[Fire Fox]

We've finally stopped bashing the NHS helping smokers stop smoking with things like nicotine replacement and stop smoking classes etc... why shouldn't this be the same? You don't want fat people using NHS resources (last time I went to the doctors was a year ago for an ear infection btw... I hardly cost the NHS a tonne), but you won't give them any support to change their ways - apart from making them social pariahs.

It's about flipping time the NHS and the like started offering constructive help to those desperate to lose weight - who are often depressed and need the way out of their depression marked out in baby steps... anyone who's been in that state of mind knows how difficult it can be to get out of the spiral and how you sometimes DO need pretty much the level of signposts saying "walk here", "get out of bed" to help you begin to make the change then why begrudge that. Sitting there complaining that people could spend the cash of one cream cake on the weekly fee just stereotypes and demonizes people and makes it even harder for them to make that initial change.

When I walked into the gym and asked to join, it was flipping hard to do. When I started going there, and had to put up with a couple of snide stick insects sniggering at the sight of me coming in - it was even harder. If I wasn't as stubborn or determined as I am (I want to lose weight in order to be able to concieve - note, I don't expect the NHS to help me while I'm the size I am - I'm not even registered with a doctor since I moved so you can't accuse me of wasting NHS resources), I would have ran away and not gone back because of how hard initial steps are. Some people aren't as strong-willed (or bolshy) as I am - they need the help to get there - or they'll continue in the cycle, with their kids perpetuating it. I'm glad the NHS is finally doing something other than shoving rumpled diet sheets at people and barking at them to "lose some weight".

I am really sorry you have had a hard time, there is no excuse for the ignorance and rudeness you have encountered. Try a different gym if you have any further problems - none of the gyms I have worked for have been like that.

There is a major difference between
1. stating that obesity (a recognised, measurable disease state) and it's associated health problems are a drain on NHS resources (a recognised, measurable amount)
2. suggesting that individuals who are overweight are wasting NHS resources.
One statement is referring to a health condition and one to individuals, one statement is using a word that evokes 'blame' the other is not.

A huge percentage of our nation's health problems are down to our lifestyle choices, too little physical activity, smoking, drink and recreational drug taking, poor diet or overeating. If you smoke you are negatively affecting your health, irrespective of whether you have a recognised illness or not. If you overeat you are negatively affecting your heath, now or in the future. If you drive to work and sit at your desk all day ... ditto.

As you have rightly pointed out it isn't as simple as that. Mental health partially dictates our physical health - those with depression are significantly more likely to smoke, to be overweight, to drink or use drugs. If you are self-medicating this needs to be addressed. A disorder of mental health makes it more likely you will have diabetes or heart disease: severe mental illness is associated with a much shorter natural life span.

Around half the UK population is overweight, with 1 in 5 adults obese and the problem is forecast to worsen, with the ensuing health problems presenting a massive drain on NHS resources. There is no doubt the problem needs to be tackled. Whether targetting NHS funds to individuals in this way is the most appropriate and cost effective use of resources is another question.

[vik6525]

Yay another person bashing fat people. Do you shout abuse at them out of car windows in the street too? (I've had that done to me in the past and I've a friend who has had her shopping trolley contents commented on by complete strangers, despite having nothing of any controversy in there - no wonder lots of overweight people don't go out of their houses, therefore don't remain active and get trapped into an ever-increasing cycle of weight, social isolation, low self-esteem, comfort/boredom eating, increased weight)

We've finally stopped bashing the NHS helping smokers stop smoking with things like nicotine replacement and stop smoking classes etc... why shouldn't this be the same? You don't want fat people using NHS resources (last time I went to the doctors was a year ago for an ear infection btw... I hardly cost the NHS a tonne), but you won't give them any support to change their ways - apart from making them social pariahs.

And for the record - I DON'T throw cream cakes down my neck endlessly, so let's ditch that offensive stereotype please. I'm genetically predisposed to carry weight anyway, and because of the depression which haunts all the women in my family, I've got a tendency to lock myself away in the house (I border on agroaphobic) which led to me becoming increasingly physically inactive, piling on the weight, hiding away even more (especially after getting abuse hurled at me while walking back from lectures as a size 18 student) and things spiralling out of control. I also had an abusive relationship with a man who controlled every aspect of my life - including my diet and wouldn't let me choose salad and the like because he was scared of me recovering my self-esteem and leaving him like the waste of space he was. I also don't expect the NHS to bail me out, I pay myself and go to the gym 6 times a week, I eat sensibly, I'm losing weight gradually but it's MY business, not any of the self-appointed busybodies who love to judge and blame people.

I am however quite outspoken on the completely useless way in which obesity is being adressed in society - stigmatizing, demonizing and bashing people who quite often have really awful self-esteem issues bound up inexorably with their weight is not going to help them lose it. If subsidizing people to join a slimming class or a gym (my local gym does subsidized and supervised 12 week activity programmes for people - not the route I've taken to joining it though) helps to get them out and about (walking to these places also burns calories), removes their social isolation and raises their self esteem (helping with the boredom/comfort eating aspect) and educates them in better food choices/recipe choices etc as well as the direct ways to help them lose weight with the ensuing self-esteem boosts when they DO drop a bit... it's worth the cost really.

Lots of people DON'T know how to do things like cook sensible food - and the marketed "low fat/healthy option/generic slimming brand" options in supermarkets cost more - if you can't cook from scratch you don't appreciate it's do-able.... and these days lots of kids and parents are the generations who don't have a clue really. I've seen kids sent to school with a packed lunch consisting of 3 Jacob's crackers and half a chocolate easter egg - if throwing some money into adressing the parenting skills of these parents, or allowing schools to have the facilities to teach proper cooking (not just making chocolate cornflake cakes) is going to help the problem - it's an investment for long-term gain.

It's about flipping time the NHS and the like started offering constructive help to those desperate to lose weight - who are often depressed and need the way out of their depression marked out in baby steps... anyone who's been in that state of mind knows how difficult it can be to get out of the spiral and how you sometimes DO need pretty much the level of signposts saying "walk here", "get out of bed" to help you begin to make the change then why begrudge that. Sitting there complaining that people could spend the cash of one cream cake on the weekly fee just stereotypes and demonizes people and makes it even harder for them to make that initial change.

When I walked into the gym and asked to join, it was flipping hard to do. When I started going there, and had to put up with a couple of snide stick insects sniggering at the sight of me coming in - it was even harder. If I wasn't as stubborn or determined as I am (I want to lose weight in order to be able to concieve - note, I don't expect the NHS to help me while I'm the size I am - I'm not even registered with a doctor since I moved so you can't accuse me of wasting NHS resources), I would have ran away and not gone back because of how hard initial steps are. Some people aren't as strong-willed (or bolshy) as I am - they need the help to get there - or they'll continue in the cycle, with their kids perpetuating it. I'm glad the NHS is finally doing something other than shoving rumpled diet sheets at people and barking at them to "lose some weight".


Im sorry that you've had bad experiences, but your use of the words 'stick insects' really annoys me....

You're saying that people 'stigmatise' fat people, but didnt you just do exactlly the same thing to thin people?

[aliasojo]

Please don't spend my taxes on NHS diet meetings, advice etc.

You don’t need the NHS to lose weight.

You don’t need to visit your doctor to get help to lose weight.

There is a closely guarded secret to losing (not loosing) weight that appears to be known to only an increasingly small minority.

I will let you into this secret.

It requires you to eat less and/or to exercise more. Preferably both but either on its own will usually do.

It works. Guaranteed. You don’t see many fat or obese people in famine zones?

I know that eating less and exercising more is an unpopular diet but unfortunately it is the only method that actually works.



Have a nice day. :)


I can see that by the NHS spending £4.50 a week in the short term, they are hoping it will herd off the potential long term (and possibly costly)issues that overweight people may go on to develop.

However, people who are 'just' overweight (and by that I mean, are carrying extra weight but are not ill or have weight related health problems) have a choice and the ability to act on that choice. People who are ill don't.

Whilst I can see some benefit in this scheme, on balance I agree with Avoriaz in that I'd prefer NHS funds to not be used for programs such as this. If we had a thriving NHS with limitless funding, then fine we can embrace all sorts of initiatives .... but we dont have that luxury and whilst various waiting lists get longer and operations get cancelled because of staff shortages or lack of funding and certain cancer treatments are denied in certain areas because of cost....then I think it's wrong to subsidise individuals in this way.

I'm overweight, I have been for years. Sure....I'd love for someone to wave a magic wand for me but paying the £4.50 for me to attend a WW class isn't going to help my issues. I need to be determined and positive in the first place in order to help myself...if I can't make the effort to attend a class off my own bat, do you really think someone else paying the £4.50 a week is gonna make the difference? :rolleyes: If anything, it'll make me less likely to succeed as I know it's not my own money I'd be wasting if I didnt' attend a class one week. :confused:

[CrazyCat]

And for the record - I DON'T throw cream cakes down my neck endlessly, so let's ditch that offensive stereotype please. I'm genetically predisposed to carry weight anyway, and because of the depression which haunts all the women in my family, I've got a tendency to lock myself away in the house (I border on agroaphobic) which led to me becoming increasingly physically inactive, piling on the weight, hiding away even more (especially after getting abuse hurled at me while walking back from lectures as a size 18 student) and things spiralling out of control.

Just because you've locked yourself indoors, that shouldn't stop you from taking exercise... Instead of spending hours on the internet, turn up the radio and dance along, do your housework with gusto, or even spend an hour a day doing an aerobic workout video.

I know it's a cliche, but exercise really does help with depression, and it's surprising how quickly you can get fit just by making simple changes to your day.

[Calvinandhobbs]

Yay another person bashing fat people. Do you shout abuse at them out of car windows in the street too?


:huh: At the time you had posted your comment, where in this thread did anyone "bash fat people"? It was a simple, mutually polite debate?

[Emmzi]

how easy it is for people with no weight problems to assume it's easy to just eat less and move more. Thank you SO much for informing us of this fact. Clearly the reason people are overweight is because they are thick or lazy.

Grr. This thread has me FUMING at the ignorance and prejudice on it. You can't oversimplify this problem with sweeping generalisations. Why not let the NHS do a pilot scheme and see what happens? Then you're making judgements on fact from controlled studies - not bigoted opinion.

[lesley1960]

how easy it is for people with no weight problems to assume it's easy to just eat less and move more. Thank you SO much for informing us of this fact. Clearly the reason people are overweight is because they are thick or lazy.

Grr. This thread has me FUMING at the ignorance and prejudice on it. You can't oversimplify this problem with sweeping generalisations. Why not let the NHS do a pilot scheme and see what happens? Then you're making judgements on fact from controlled studies - not bigoted opinion.



No one is saying its easy , but all the ones going off the deep end here seem to forget that ALL the slimming classes will basically tell you the same thing , i.e eat less , exercise more :confused:

[becky_rtw]

Actually most people who are overweight dont eat masses more than thin people - to become overweight you only need to consume 100-200 calories over what you're burning every day (easy enough to do of course)...and here's the problem...despite the fact it takes years to put on weight people want to lose it all instantly rather than the recommended 1lb per week by creating a small (say 500 calorie) deficit (with exercise or eating less but preferably both)...

Personally I dont think the NHS should be paying for these classes either, I think they should be catching it much earlier when people are merely a small amount overweight and show people by how even cutting out that latte a day can result in no more weight gain...and then working on exercise programs - the problem is with any free health service that it wants to treat the symptom(s) and not the cause(s) because thats cheaper. A holistic approach tailored to the individual would work so much better...

[aliasojo]

how easy it is for people with no weight problems to assume it's easy to just eat less and move more. Thank you SO much for informing us of this fact. Clearly the reason people are overweight is because they are thick or lazy.

Grr. This thread has me FUMING at the ignorance and prejudice on it. You can't oversimplify this problem with sweeping generalisations. Why not let the NHS do a pilot scheme and see what happens? Then you're making judgements on fact from controlled studies - not bigoted opinion.

I think this is very unfair Emmzi. People do realise that losing weight isn't easy, if it were, no-one would be overweight.

However, the answer to losing weight is easy...it's the only one there is. As far as I know, there is no other (non- surgical) way to lose weight ......you do have to eat less and move more. :confused: We all know that....the problem arises when some of us cant do that for whatever reason.

There's no point in having an emotional knee jerk reaction to that.....no-one is suggesting all fat people are thick or lazy, so don't read things that haven't been written.

In fact, if you re-read the thread, I think most of us are managing to discuss the subject quite well.....whether you or dizziblonde agree with our opinions or not.

[Emmzi]

In fact, if you re-read the thread, I think most of us are managing to discuss the subject quite well.....whether you or dizziblonde agree with our opinions or not.

You don't find this patronising or suggesting stupidity?

There is a closely guarded secret to losing (not loosing) weight that appears to be known to only an increasingly small minority.

I will let you into this secret.

It requires you to eat less and/or to exercise more. Preferably both but either on its own will usually do.

[DKLS]

There is a guaranteed method of losing weight, unfortunately its illegal and a lot of fun so not to be recommended.

[RichOneday]

I think I must be missing the point here!

If someone is overweight AND feels that it is a major issue for them AND feels that a program of SW classes is somehow the answer to their woes then why aren't they attending?

What's this great NHS initiative exactly? Oh that's right to fund the £4.50 pw. Is there something about being overweight that makes it easier to reach for someone else's purse/wallet rather than your own?

[aliasojo]

You don't find this patronising or suggesting stupidity?

There is a closely guarded secret to losing (not loosing) weight that appears to be known to only an increasingly small minority.

I will let you into this secret.

It requires you to eat less and/or to exercise more. Preferably both but either on its own will usually do.


To be honest, no. I think the point was made in a jokey / slightly wry way, and that doesn't suggest stupidity to me.

(Although to be fair.....I dont think pointing out spelling errors was necessarily helpful. ;))

[Emmzi]

To be honest, no. I think the point was made in a jokey / slightly wry way, and that doesn't suggest stupidity to me.

(Although to be fair.....I dont think pointing out spelling errors was necessarily helpful. ;))

It's possible you haven't been in a position where people treat you like your brain died because you are overweight or disabled.

I am not sure I see the humour in it myself.

Hiwever thank you for your alternative viewpoint. Your points have been calm and well made, in my opinion.

[hermoine]

Hi all

Speaking as someone who has lost weight several times with SW, WW and RC I do not really see the point in attending free of charge. Part of the reason why these classes work is because you are paying to attend and each week you will pay, be weighed receive some support and go home. The fact that you are paying and do not want to waste your cash is a serious motivator.

That said, I am not sure that these multi million pound industries really are the answer for anyone. They are full, as a previous poster said, of people who have been there before. I have joined on many occasions - the diet industry has it sussed they are the only people I can think of that when their product fails to deliver the customer totally blames themselves!!!! Anything else you buy you would blame the product or the manufacturer.

I have lost weight over the last 18monts. I have done it at home on my own by eating less and moving more. I have lost 3.5 stone and have about the same again to lose. My GP weighs me once a month and she is providing me with some support, I see her for other things which is what started me on this road, she said my joints would hurt less if I lost weight.

So whilst I would support anyone who wanted to lose weight, and even the idea of the NHS paying for them to do it, I am not sure that the slimming club will work if you do not pay for being there.

H

[aliasojo]

It's possible you haven't been in a position where people treat you like your brain died because you are overweight or disabled.



Actually, without going into detail and turning this thread into a 'look what happened to me' kind of thing.....I have. I can still remember the burning feeling of acute embarrasment as if it were yesterday. I also know I was much more sensitive about things for a long time afterwards and I analysed every remark made to me and about me, for alternative meaning.

It's just as an unhealthy way to be as it is to be overweight imo and it's important to regain perspective otherwise a person's emotional health will suffer just as much as their physical health.

Lord it's hard trying to be a well balanced (in every way) individual. :rotfl:

[Nelski]

Well on one hand the level of obesity in the UK is obviously a ticking time-bomb for the NHS in the future so if people really do get motivated by the fees for these classes being paid then maybe its a good thing. I think though that we do need to ask a couple of questions.

Why is this open to all obese people - Im sure Dawn French would qualify and yet has a few million quid stashed - shouldn't there be some form of means test?

Is the NHS fully supporting these classes now? I know lots of people who go for a while then pile it all back on again so where is the proper evidence that the route the NHS is supporting has long term clinical benefits? And if they do work why don't the NHS just run their own version of the classes open to anyone wanting to lose weight.

If it works then great but the cynic in me says that a 4.50 paid class will not provide the inner motivation that is really needed for a consistent long term weight loss.

And for the sake of balance maybe if gym sessions were subsidised for everyone not just the obese we would have less problems in the future - a thin person can be just as unfit and unhealthy as a fat person it just doesnt show as much;)

[magyar]

No-one needs gym sessions. We all have a big gym outside our front door, and you can run in it.

Someone who walks 5km a day will burn off about 400 calories. Do that ten times and they will lose 1lb in weight.

It really is as simple as calories in / calories out. There is absolutely no such thing as being 'predisposed' to carry weight. All the crap about diets is just something made up to see books and magazines.

[Emmzi]

It really is as simple as calories in / calories out. There is absolutely no such thing as being 'predisposed' to carry weight. All the crap about diets is just something made up to see books and magazines.

The Maths is that easy. The Doing isn't.

Lots of overweight people have psychological issues to overcome. Support groups can help with that, be it weight watchers or group therapy.

The NHS don't have enough psychologists and councellors to go round. Isn't it worth funding a few people to get group support to see if it works? A fiver a week is a damn sight cheaper than £50 an hour for a therapist. And, unlike self funded programmes, there is a definite structure - 5% weight off in so many weeks. And for my money, support group vs xenical/ alli or gastric band surgery? Let's give the safer, cheaper option a try.

Please folks - let them give the trial a go and prove it does or doesn't work for certain groups of people before you decry. Folks used to think therapy was tosh, that leeches cured everything (they cure a lot, but not everything!), and so on. Alcoholics get help; I bvelieve they *should* get help. How much worse to have a mental addiction to something you cannot live without?

What is so wrong with a trial? Or would you rather your taxes were spent on wheelchairs, and electric scooters for those to large to walk unaided? Or woukd you rather see a raft of suicides?

It's just a trial!

[mrsmoneyspender]

Thanks for all the support

I believe it will save the nhs money in preventing people getting more health problems
In addition to my health problems I am also at high risk of developing stroke,heart disease,ovarian cancer and as this is in my family my doctor encourages me to loose weight, it is a lot to cope with so I will take whatever help I am offered.
I found the class great as it gives information about food values,choices,etc but mostly it gives support which was very inspiring,
just listening to other people with the same issues and talking helps( much cheaper than counselling!)
I feel very positive and have had a good week so far and hope to be succesful losing weight
I am on a low wage, have three children and look after my disabled mum
I would not be able to afford this out of my income, i do have to buy certain foods for my health which are more expensive ie wheat free, gluten free and dairy free which i don't ask for help to pay
I have paid into the system and luckily i have never claimed any money from the state so i feel i am entitled to this help
the cost of treatment for smokers, alcoholics,drug users,anorexics etc is far more expensive and i do not begrudge anyone who has need of help from the nhs

Good luck to everyone trying to loose weight.

mrs ms

[RichOneday]

The Maths is that easy. The Doing isn't.

Lots of overweight people have psychological issues to overcome. Support groups can help with that, be it weight watchers or group therapy.



I'm sorry but it's so easy to throw that old chestnut around.

Are you seriously saying that the people who will end up getting funded by such an initiative have some sort of inability to put one foot in front of the other?:rolleyes:

If they have, then they have far bigger problems than any that a £4.50pw SW program can solve!

And a genetic predisposition to be overweight? - come on, you can't really believe that? It seems to be one of those excuses that people use so often that they actually believe it themselves. The fact that parents/other members of the family are in a similar weight situation does not indicate a 'genetic predisposition' - it indicates that family members tend to have the same sort of diet, hardly surprising really is it?

Why is the 'Doing' so difficult? One step is all it takes to get started. It doesn't take a support group or classes or £4.50 per week - just one foot in front of the other and the acceptance that it isnt someone/something else's fault!

[aliasojo]

Why is the 'Doing' so difficult?

I don't know. Do you have the answer to this question?

It's universally accepted that losing weight is a problem for many thousands of people all over the world. It is difficult. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be any fatties at all. :confused:

I'd love for someone to come up with the reason why it's difficult though. It's not enough to just say 'you can do it if you want to'....what is it that stops people from succeeding?

[RichOneday]

Or would you rather your taxes were spent on wheelchairs, and electric scooters for those to large to walk unaided? Or woukd you rather see a raft of suicides?

It's just a trial!

What???????????

This is only a question about who pays for SW/other slimming classes!

Why are you throwing around emotive issues that are irrelevant to the original question?

Is there some reason why overweight=poor? Unlikely!

But for anyone who is on benefits/low income and wants to lose weight there are all sorts of free/subsidised sports/exercises available. And I emphasise again..it doesn't cost anything to lose weight so even if overweight does equal poor it doesn't mean a jot.

Remember we are not talking about whether people with disabilities can exercise or any other similar type issues which muddy the discussion....just simply who should foot a £4.50pw bill to go to a SW meeting.

[Fire Fox]

I can see that by the NHS spending £4.50 a week in the short term, they are hoping it will herd off the potential long term (and possibly costly)issues that overweight people may go on to develop.

However, people who are 'just' overweight (and by that I mean, are carrying extra weight but are not ill or have weight related health problems) have a choice and the ability to act on that choice. People who are ill don't.

... but we dont have that luxury and whilst various waiting lists get longer and operations get cancelled because of staff shortages or lack of funding and certain cancer treatments are denied in certain areas because of cost....then I think it's wrong to subsidise individuals in this way.


Initiatives are not targetted at those who are 'just' overweight (BMI 25 to 30), they are targetted at those who are clinically obese (BMI 30+). Obesity is a medical disorder in itself, not simply a risk for other conditions. Most people who are clinically obese will have at least one other problem related to the weight - pain in the joints (back, knees, feet), infertility, hypertension, impaired fasting glucose - already.

Most cancers are caused or contributed to by lifestyle issues - being overweight, poor nutrition, smoking, inactivity. In fact experts estimate that one third of all cancers are related to poor lifestyle choices! I work in physical activity, I am qualified to work in smoking cessation and I have a lot of weight loss clients. Trust me when I say that obesity is a much more complex issue than simply eating less and exercising more.

To everyone: once you are not making lifestyle choices that will affect your future health then throw the first stone. Do you take 10,000 steps every day without fail? Do you strength train twice a week every week? Have you ever smoked? Do you eat at least five portions of fruit and veg every day without fail? Do you eat two or three portions of oily fish each week?

[RichOneday]

It's not enough to just say 'you can do it if you want to'....what is it that stops people from succeeding?

But it is!!

If it means enough to you, ie you want to enough, you will lose weight. It's simple, not difficult as you suggest.

The reason that millions of people are overweight/obese is because they don't want to or cant be bothered to get round to tackling it.

There is a general lack of ability to get motivated for anything which doesn't have near instant results. Take 10 years getting fat and get rid of it all in 10 minutes seems to be what is needed to get some people motivated.

All that is needed are a couple of small changes - a small decrease in food intake and a small increase in activity. Over time, maybe several months, weight will decrease.

[marcowil]

how easy it is for people with no weight problems to assume it's easy to just eat less and move more. Thank you SO much for informing us of this fact. Clearly the reason people are overweight is because they are thick or lazy.

Grr. This thread has me FUMING at the ignorance and prejudice on it. You can't oversimplify this problem with sweeping generalisations. Why not let the NHS do a pilot scheme and see what happens? Then you're making judgements on fact from controlled studies - not bigoted opinion.

I'm sorry to say this but the original comment was correct.

I am overweight and have been for years. I finally decided to do something about it late last year. I have now managed to lose nearly 3 stone simply by cutting down the amount i eat and cutting out (or trying to) the things i know make me put weight on. I joined Unislim to help me with this. It's hard going but I'm sticking at it.

I've always known that eating less and moving more will help me lose weight, I was just too lazy to do anything about it!!!

[RichOneday]

Initiatives are not targetted at those who are 'just' overweight (BMI 25 to 30), they are targetted at those who are clinically obese (BMI 30+). Obesity is a medical disorder in itself, not simply a risk for other conditions. Most people who are clinically obese will have at least one other problem related to the weight - pain in the joints (back, knees, feet), infertility, hypertension, impaired fasting glucose - already.

Most cancers are caused or contributed to by lifestyle issues - being overweight, poor nutrition, smoking, inactivity. In fact experts estimate that one third of all cancers are related to poor lifestyle choices! I work in physical activity, I am qualified to work in smoking cessation and I have a lot of weight loss clients. Trust me when I say that obesity is a much more complex issue than simply eating less and exercising more.



No! Obesity is just fatter than overweight - why does that make it a medical disorder?

Why does a long list of reasons why losing weight is a great idea make it a more complex issue than simply eating less and exercising more?

If you are suggesting that a very small minority are so incapacitated that they are unable to exercise at all, which is obviously the case, then how does funding £4.50pw SW classes help?

[magyar]

What is so wrong with a trial? Or would you rather your taxes were spent on wheelchairs, and electric scooters for those to large to walk unaided? Or woukd you rather see a raft of suicides?

It's just a trial!

Let's be clear, I'm not in the 'don't give fatties help on the NHS' camp.

My point is that it doesn't need to be expensive gym memberships, a very very simple system is simply getting people together to go for a walk round the local area. I would have no problem with the NHS funding something like this, because it would be very cheap.

My work has a walking club and a running club, all you do is turn up, walk or run round a 6km route - you meet people, you have fun, you get fit. Costs virtually nothing, just someone's time for 30 mins.

[sidefx]

When I walked into the gym and asked to join, it was flipping hard to do. When I started going there, and had to put up with a couple of snide stick insects sniggering at the sight of me coming in - it was even harder. .

Well isn't that their problem not yours? Or maybe it was a touch of paranoia on your behalf.

When I see cleary overweight person at the gym I use, I always admire them for wanting to get/stay fit and maybe lose some weight.

I do not agree that slimming class should be funded by NHS. If I put on weight I wouldn't get any help, unless of course I doubled my weight. I would have to use will power alone.

I do not think that gym membership should not be funded either. As an earlier poster mentioned, what's wrong with going for a walk or run in the great outdoors?

[Bronnie]

Initiatives are not targetted at those who are 'just' overweight (BMI 25 to 30), they are targetted at those who are clinically obese (BMI 30+). Obesity is a medical disorder in itself, not simply a risk for other conditions. Most people who are clinically obese will have at least one other problem related to the weight - pain in the joints (back, knees, feet), infertility, hypertension, impaired fasting glucose - already.

Most cancers are caused or contributed to by lifestyle issues - being overweight, poor nutrition, smoking, inactivity. In fact experts estimate that one third of all cancers are related to poor lifestyle choices! I work in physical activity, I am qualified to work in smoking cessation and I have a lot of weight loss clients. Trust me when I say that obesity is a much more complex issue than simply eating less and exercising more.

To everyone: once you are not making lifestyle choices that will affect your future health then throw the first stone. Do you take 10,000 steps every day without fail? Do you strength train twice a week every week? Have you ever smoked? Do you eat at least five portions of fruit and veg every day without fail? Do you eat two or three portions of oily fish each week?


I agree with a lot of what you have said in this thread , but with regard to your distinction between overweight and clinically obese, using a BMI calculator, a 40 year old woman of 5'5'' height is a healthy weight at 10stone 10lbs and clinically obese at 13stones. Looking around a SW group, I would say the vast majority of members were technically 'clinically obese' to start with.

Also, I would say lots of overweight people do eat healthilyand follow the guidelines , I certainly did when I was fat, but in addition to all the healthy stuf, I could pack away a whole load of fattening stuff /wine too!
Getting people onto healthy eating is a great step, if they are currently on a poor quality diet and educating a parent in this should have knock-on benefits for the rest of the family, however it is not an automatic path to weight loss.

[Daytona_nev]

and had to put up with a couple of snide stick insects

So you don't have a chip on your shoulder about people who are a healthy weight then?

[retrocircles]

I would say most overweight individuals (and that includes me ) have willingly spent considerably more than £4.50 per week on the foods/ drinks/ junk that have led to them becoming overweight in the first place and will easily be saving that amount on their food/drinks weekly outgoings for their new healthier regime .

I personally do not think the NHS should be footing the bill for Slimming Clubs. It is up to the individual to take responsibility and the NHS to support and advise in other ways.

Just like smokers can surely afford all the patches, sticks etc to quit smoking? How long have the NHS been footing the bill for that?

At the end of the day it's a health condition/problem, therefore the NHS will foot the bill!

[retrocircles]

Please don't spend my taxes on NHS diet meetings, advice etc.

You don’t need the NHS to lose weight.

You don’t need to visit your doctor to get help to lose weight.

There is a closely guarded secret to losing (not loosing) weight that appears to be known to only an increasingly small minority.

I will let you into this secret.

It requires you to eat less and/or to exercise more. Preferably both but either on its own will usually do.

It works. Guaranteed. You don’t see many fat or obese people in famine zones?

I know that eating less and exercising more is an unpopular diet but unfortunately it is the only method that actually works.

Have a nice day. :)

What an idiot.

I had this view for 3 years, as I put weight on... yet I was eating less and less.

Guess what? Some people actually have things wrong with them that make them put on weight! SHOCK HORROR! So going to a doctor is a GOOD THING!

[nickyhutch]

What an idiot.

I had this view for 3 years, as I put weight on... yet I was eating less and less.

Guess what? Some people actually have things wrong with them that make them put on weight! SHOCK HORROR! So going to a doctor is a GOOD THING!

SOME people do.... most don't.

[Ted_Hutchinson]

SOME people do.... most don't.No but it's possible some people are addicted to wheat and other refined carbohydrates (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19223127) and are in denial and refuse to take seriously any information relating to their addiction.
If we are going to offer help to other addicts then helping carbohydrate addiction through obesity counseling is a reasonable strategy.

[nickyhutch]

Being addicted to wheat and other refined carbohydrates is not "having something wrong with them".

[Ted_Hutchinson]

Why does a long list of reasons why losing weight is a great idea make it a more complex issue than simply eating less and exercising more?Because only someone unaware of the science behind fat accumulation would make such an inane remark.
Exercising more is not a way to lose weight, If it is then the studies involving increased exercise reduces weight would be many and it will be easy for you to prove your point. In fact the studies that have been done with schoolkids proves that doubling the amount of exercise they do has little or no impact on weight loss. Does Exercise Really Make Us Thinner? -- New York Magazine (http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/)
Similarly if you had spent time listening to his Berkely lecture (http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216) you would understand more about what causes fat accumulation and this would help you understand how best to lose weight.

However the point I wanted to make is that obesity is a medical condition because each adipose tissue cell when it becomes enlarged gives off more pro inflammatory cytokines. Why does this matter. Well Vitamin D3 our body's main anti inflammatory agent is fat soluble. When people are gaining weight the circulating fatty acids that get absorbed into fat cells are the same ones that are carrying the 25(OH)D round the body. This means that as people get fatter they become Vitamin D deficient. The problem is particularly so in those who consume wheat and grains as these shorten the half life of 25(OH)D making carbohydrate eaters more prone to vitamin D deficiency. The lower vitamin D status is compensated for by an increase in Parathryoid hormone and this upregulates Calcitriol (that's made from 25(OH)d) therefore causing a viscous spiral of accelerating the demand for vitamin D while reducing the supply. This explains why obesity is associated with metabolic syndrome which precedes diabetes, stroke, alzheimers heart disease (http://www.grassrootshealth.org/_download/disease_incidence_prev_chart_101608.pdf) etc.

While you probably won't get the science behind your weight accumulation explained at your weight loss class it is useful to know. It's quite easy to get your 25(OH)D checked (http://www.grassrootshealth.net/d-action) and cheap to correct 25(OH)D status (http://www.iherb.com/Now-Foods-Vitamin-D-3-Highest-Potency-5-000-IU-120-Softgels/10421?at=0) (discount code in referrers board) and that then enables a low carbohydrate way of eating to succeed more easily because you have taken the inflammatory process out of the equation.

[Ted_Hutchinson]

Being addicted to wheat and other refined carbohydrates is not "having something wrong with them".Please explain why having an addiction is not a problem?

[Spicey]

Could someone please tell me where it only costs £4.50 for ww? as round here its over £5

[nickyhutch]

I didn't say it wasn't a problem. I said it wasn't something "wrong" with a persn in the sense that retrocircles meant "wrong".

Please try to stop being quite so patronising.

[Emmzi]

I didn't say it wasn't a problem. I said it wasn't something "wrong" with a persn in the sense that retrocircles meant "wrong".

Please try to stop being quite so patronising.

what did retrocircles mean by wrong, then?

[nickyhutch]

I took it to mean a medical condition that meant a person would gain weight easily or find it difficult to lose weight.

[dmg24]

I didn't say it wasn't a problem. I said it wasn't something "wrong" with a persn in the sense that retrocircles meant "wrong".

Please try to stop being quite so patronising.

POT KETTLE BLACK :confused:

[nickyhutch]

Where have I been partonising? I'm only answering Ted in the manner he speaks to me.

[Ted_Hutchinson]

I didn't say it wasn't a problem. I said it wasn't something "wrong" with a persn in the sense that retrocircles meant "wrong".

Please try to stop being quite so patronising.Perhaps carbohydrate addiction was not the "something Wrong" that retrocircles was referring to. There may be other reasons why retrocircles was accumulating excess weight while progressively eating less. But it is a cause of obesity that requires medical attention.
If you read Taubes Book (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Diet-Delusion-Gary-Taubes/dp/0091924286) or watched his video lectures (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4362041487661765149)you would have seen some dramatic photos of people with Lipodystrophy who can have part of their body obese while other parts are at the same time showing signs of starvation.
The idea that there is nothing "Wrong" with these people is absurd.

[RichOneday]

Because only someone unaware of the science behind fat accumulation would make such an inane remark.
Exercising more is not a way to lose weight, If it is then the studies involving increased exercise reduces weight would be many and it will be easy for you to prove your point. In fact the studies that have been done with schoolkids proves that doubling the amount of exercise they do has little or no impact on weight loss. Does Exercise Really Make Us Thinner? -- New York Magazine (http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/)
Similarly if you had spent time listening to his Berkely lecture (http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_details.php?webcastid=21216)you would understand more about what causes fat accumulation and this would help you understand how best to lose weight.

However the point I wanted to make is that obesity is a medical condition because each adipose tissue cell when it becomes enlarged gives off more pro inflammatory cytokines. Why does this matter. Well Vitamin D3 our body's main anti inflammatory agent is fat soluble. When people are gaining weight the circulating fatty acids that get absorbed into fat cells are the same ones that are carrying the 25(OH)D round the body. This means that as people get fatter they become Vitamin D deficient. The problem is particularly so in those who consume wheat and grains as these shorten the half life of 25(OH)D making carbohydrate eaters more prone to vitamin D deficiency. The lower vitamin D status is compensated for by an increase in Parathryoid hormone and this upregulates Calcitriol (that's made from 25(OH)d) therefore causing a viscous spiral of accelerating the demand for vitamin D while reducing the supply. This explains why obesity is associated with metabolic syndrome which precedes diabetes, stroke, alzheimers heart disease (http://www.grassrootshealth.org/_download/disease_incidence_prev_chart_101608.pdf) etc.

While you probably won't get the science behind your weight accumulation explained at your weight loss class it is useful to know. It's quite easy to get your 25(OH)D checked (http://www.grassrootshealth.net/d-action) and cheap to correct 25(OH)D status (http://www.iherb.com/Now-Foods-Vitamin-D-3-Highest-Potency-5-000-IU-120-Softgels/10421?at=0) (discount code in referrers board) and that then enables a low carbohydrate way of eating to succeed more easily because you have taken the inflammatory process out of the equation.

An inane remark?:rotfl:

If that is the best you can do in terms of providing scientific evidence indicating that exercise levels don't lead to weight loss then you've shot your own argument in the foot! The article you have referenced managed to find a study that was 'inconclusive'. And thats the best you've found to support your assertion?

Your claim that 'obesity' is a medical condition needs to be explained. Firstly 'obesity' is merely a label triggered by an arbitary number on the BMI scale, which labels some very fit people, who certainly dont have a medical condition, as obese. Obesity isn't even a measure of fat levels, it is a measure of weight relative to height. From your point of view having lots of lean muscle mass would mean you had a medical condition!

Although your explanation of fat accumulation is no doubt fascinating to some, how does an explanation of how fat accumulates somehow support your assertion that increased exercise doesn't lead to weight loss?:confused:

It looks like you just wanted to throw a bit of unrelated science in there for some reason that didn't follow any logic!

[the devil made me do it]

I haven't even bothered reading all of the posts on this thread because to be quite frank I can't believe what I'm reading :eek: say no more.

[Ted_Hutchinson]

An inane remark?:rotfl:But accurate as your failure to listen to the Taubes talk clearly shows. It's worth the hour spent and may prevent you making such a fool of yourself.
When you're in a hole it's best to stop digging.

[Bronnie]

Just like smokers can surely afford all the patches, sticks etc to quit smoking? How long have the NHS been footing the bill for that?

At the end of the day it's a health condition/problem, therefore the NHS will foot the bill!


The thread originally referred to the NHS paying fees for slimming clubs.

I have NEVER said the NHS should not have funding to offer support and advice to people who needed to lose weight. I HAVE suggested that the NHS paying the fees for people to attend commercial Slimming Clubs, may not be the best use of NHS resources in this instance. In particular with reference to the question of how successful they are in aiding long-term weight management.

We do not expect that the NHS foots the bill for all our health requirements, physical or psychological. Many people with serious health issues pay towards the cost of their medication through prescription charge. We also pay for charges for treatments, preventative and otherwise for oral and optical health and so on.

[RichOneday]

But accurate as your failure to listen to the Taubes talk clearly shows. It's worth the hour spent and may prevent you making such a fool of yourself.
When you're in a hole it's best to stop digging.


You seem to be wanting to prove some point but strangely one that is off topic!

The thread topic is whether its right for the NHS to fund SW and other slimming classes as oppose to people funding them themselves.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to go on the attack but have a re-read - I cant see where I've made a fool of myself. I may have disagreed with you but I will continue to feel comfortable in doing so if you want to claim that exercise has no effect on weight loss!!

[Apolonation]

I think it's completely ridiculous that people are giving credence to Avoriazs point of view. These are not 'your' taxes they are collective taxes. Just because you are not overweight does not mean that others who have payed the same taxes should not benefit from a scheme to make slimming club style consultations more accessible to those that need them. In fact I would argue that the slimming club style meetings would be exponentially more productive that a drab 1-1 consultation with a nurse.

I think it's a great initiative and will be calling my doctors tomorrow to find out if they are participating.

Perhaps we should stop treating drug users, and smokers etc... because some of us do not take drugs, or smoke? Or people that suffer from heart attacks, because some of us do not suffer from heart attacks?

[magyar]

You seem to be wanting to prove some point but strangely one that is off topic!

The thread topic is whether its right for the NHS to fund SW and other slimming classes as oppose to people funding them themselves.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to go on the attack but have a re-read - I cant see where I've made a fool of myself. I may have disagreed with you but I will continue to feel comfortable in doing so if you want to claim that exercise has no effect on weight loss!!

You may not have seen Ted before but he's a long-resident nutter on these boards. He always turns any thread into a diatribe about Vitamin D. Personally I find it easiest to ignore him...

[aliasojo]

That's unfair magyar. Ted is passionate about his beliefs which is why he tries to spread the word, if you like. I dont think that makes him a nutter.

This thread has turned into a nasty b*tch fest again. Why is it that we just can't share our different opinions without being ridiculed, called idiots or made to feel as if our opinions are completely wrong? We dont all have to agree but for God's sake can't we just discuss our thoughts on the subject?

Last time I looked, none of us was God and had all the (right) answers (to suit everyone), so who's to say anyone has more of a handle on this than anyone else? :confused:

[nickyhutch]

That's unfair magyar. Ted is passionate about his beliefs which is why he tries to spread the word, if you like. I dont think that makes him a nutter.

This thread has turned into a nasty b*tch fest again. Why is it that we just can't share our different opinions without being ridiculed, called idiots or made to feel as if our opinions are completely wrong? We dont all have to agree but for God's sake can't we just discuss our thoughts on the subject?

Last time I looked, none of us was God and had all the (right) answers (to suit everyone), so who's to say anyone has more of a handle on this than anyone else? :confused:

"Why is it that we just can't share our different opinions without being ridiculed, called idiots or made to feel as if our opinions are completely wrong?" Ask Ted, he's the one doing the ridiculing and name calling.

[Loopy Girl]

That's unfair magyar. Ted is passionate about his beliefs which is why he tries to spread the word, if you like. I dont think that makes him a nutter.



So you think it's acceptable when someone posts about a parent having cancer for example that he starts preaching about Vit D? That had they taken it they wouldn't have had the disease?

Or that he says it will cure everything from mental health to autism to dental decay to MS to cancer etc etc. The list goes on.

There's a difference between being passionate and being so obsessed and taking every opportunity to 'spread the word'. He hijacks many a thread which has nothing to do with what he preaches about.

And then speaks down to people since they don't read/watch the many you tube links that he puts up. He doesn't have an opinion on anything as a matter of fact as all he does is post links and copy large chunks from them.

[aliasojo]

Ok...I'm not getting into arguments about it, I just hoped we could step back and remember what the thread was actually about rather than continue down the path it's now on. :confused: And just for the record, there's several people on the thread who have posted comments about others. retrocircles (just as an example....sorry to single you out, nothing personal) started his/her post with 'what an idiot'. :confused: Not exactly helping discussion is it?

No worries though...I thought the subject was interesting but I don't care enough to be that bothered that it's now just an argument zone. :D

[Ted_Hutchinson]

So you think it's acceptable when someone posts about a parent having cancer for example that he starts preaching about Vit D? That had they taken it they wouldn't have had the disease?
The beneficial role of vitamin D and its analogs in cancer treatment and prevention. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19446468)The most important thing anyone with a cancer diagnosis needs to know is what leads to the best prognosis and longest life expectancy and also is most likely to prevent other family members suffering the same fate.

If you haven't the sense to read the latest science.
If you haven't the intelligence to understand what it is saying.
Then that is your tough luck.

The evidence that improving 25(OH)D status prevents cancer incidence and improves the prognosis for all those diagnosed with it is absolutely sound.

I really don't understand the motives for anyone wanting to prevent the latest knowledge that 55ng ~ 137,5nmol/l is the latest recommendation from the cancer experts who have studied all the vitamin D evidence.

It is however absolutely the case that we should not let these people prevent others learning what the latest evidence is.

Vitamin D and its analogs have been shown to exert antitumor effects via vitamin D receptors (VDR) both!in vitro!and!in vivo!through a complex network of genomic and non-genomic mechanisms.
1.
Blockade of the cells in the G1/Go phase and reduction of the number of cells in the S phase of the cell cycle.
2.
Induction of apoptosis (activates caspase cascade, increases intracellular free calcium, μ-calpain, induces GADD45α, p21, p27, insulin-like growth
receptor binding protein 5, tumor necrosis factor α, and Bcl-2 family system).
3.
Inhibition of cells growth (increases transforming growth factor-β).
4.
Increases expression of!E-Cadherin!and!Catenin!and targeting of PTEN-dependent fibronectin expression.
5.
Expression of Matrix Metalloproteinase (MPP) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF).
6.
Expression and regulation of oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes.
7.
Down-regulation of!c-myc!proto-oncogene in breast and ovarian neoplasms.
8.
Potentiation of the cytotoxic effect of cytokines in immune anti-cancer therapy.
9.
Inhibition of tumor promoter-induced ornithine decarboxylase (ODC) in the skin, stomach, colon, and liver in animals.
10.
Induction of cell differentiation.
11.
Inhibition of the PTH-related peptide (PTHrP) production from humoral hypercalcemia of malignancy tumor (HHMT), via the down-regulation and suppression of epidermal growth factor (ECF)-induced!PTHrP!gene expression.
12.
Expression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor δ (PPAR-δ).

to check vitamin D status in cancer patients, and propose that in patients with normal calcium levels, the serum 25OH-D3 levels should be restored to >55 ng/ml in cancer =137.5nmol/l

[Loopy Girl]

So I can keep smoking 20 a day but so long as I take Vit D then I won't get cancer? ooohh...tremendous, thanks for that.

Am off out to buy a box of 100 and smoke myself into oblivion then safe in the knowledge that I won't get lung cancer

Hurrah:j

[EssexGirl]

Comes out of hiding waving a white flag........

I am one of the "unfortunate" fat people who have taken the NHS up on it's kind offer of a weekly SW class. I have a medical condtion that makes losing weight and keeping it off difficult. Due to the nature of the condition, I have recently found out that I am predisposed to heart disease, cancer and other nasties. It's almost like having a death sentence hanging over my head. Lovely, not.

Anyway since joining SW, I have lost 5% of my body weight in 12 weeks. No mean feat with my condition. I have just started the 2nd 12 week stint.

So with the support of the SW group and the encouragement of the nurse at my local surgery I am on the road to (hopefully) better health.
And it's not just about the money. It's about commitment. You see just going to WW or SW each week, you only have yourself to answer to. By doing this through the NHS you have a moral "contract" so to speak, and it gives me the extra push I need to do well and succeed.

Oh and before the food bashers come in, yes I do eat my 5 a day and try to get the fish in twice a week. I cook 90% of meals from scratch and would never DREAM of sending my son to school with chocolate and a packet of crisps for his packed lunch.

[EssexGirl]

Just had a thought. I'm pretty sure the NHS have a contract with the SW & WW companies, rather than actually spending £5 per person per week.

[aliasojo]

And it's not just about the money. It's about commitment. You see just going to WW or SW each week, you only have yourself to answer to. By doing this through the NHS you have a moral "contract" so to speak, and it gives me the extra push I need to do well and succeed.




Well done. :) You make a very valid point about having a moral contract. I can see that for some people this might make the difference in the way they thought about class attendance and how much effort they put into changing their eating habits.

[RichOneday]

Comes out of hiding waving a white flag........

I am one of the "unfortunate" fat people who have taken the NHS up on it's kind offer of a weekly SW class. I have a medical condtion that makes losing weight and keeping it off difficult. Due to the nature of the condition, I have recently found out that I am predisposed to heart disease, cancer and other nasties. It's almost like having a death sentence hanging over my head. Lovely, not.

Anyway since joining SW, I have lost 5% of my body weight in 12 weeks. No mean feat with my condition. I have just started the 2nd 12 week stint.

So with the support of the SW group and the encouragement of the nurse at my local surgery I am on the road to (hopefully) better health.
And it's not just about the money. It's about commitment. You see just going to WW or SW each week, you only have yourself to answer to. By doing this through the NHS you have a moral "contract" so to speak, and it gives me the extra push I need to do well and succeed.



I'm sorry, but this is exactly the sort of post that will convince people that this sort of thing shouldn't be paid for out of public funds.

To briefly recap:

1. You have a number of serious risks attached to being overweight that you are fully aware of.

2. You have a great incentive to lose weight.

3. The support of an SW group helps you to achieve that aim.

4. Despite the above you simply couldn't be bothered going unless you had a 'moral obligation' to go because the NHS was paying? You can't generate the committment to go if you've only got yourself to answer to?

In a nutshell, you want the general public to pay, rather than yourself, because you can't be bothered going, despite being aware of all the risks, unless someone else is effectively checking up on you and making sure you're going!

[aliasojo]

In a nutshell, you want the general public to pay, rather than yourself, because you can't be bothered going, despite being aware of all the risks, unless someone else is effectively checking up on you and making sure you're going!


As I said earlier, I dont think the NHS should pay for this BUT I dont think losing weight is a black and white issue and I can accept that certain things will help tip the balance for some people.

[EssexGirl]

To briefly recap:

1. You have a number of serious risks attached to being overweight that you are fully aware of.

2. You have a great incentive to lose weight.



If you had read my post more carefully I have only recently found out that I am at greater risk for these conditions than mere mortals such as yourself. I have however been a bit overweight for some time. Therefore to counteract those risks my doctor offered me the chance to do something about it. The gravity of my situation a great incentive.
I would however like to point out that now I have lost 5% of my body weight I am a mere size 18, which in the overweight scheme of things isn't that big compared to a lot of big people.
Let's just say I'm trying to nip any problems in the bud.

I've worked and paid my taxes all of my life, never claimed benefits, so I don't consider myself to a be a burden to society by using a service that was readily offered to me.

[RichOneday]

If you had read my post more carefully I have only recently found out that I am at greater risk for these conditions than mere mortals such as yourself. I have however been a bit overweight for some time. Therefore to counteract those risks my doctor offered me the chance to do something about it. The gravity of my situation a great incentive.
I would however like to point out that now I have lost 5% of my body weight I am a mere size 18, which in the overweight scheme of things isn't that big compared to a lot of big people.
Let's just say I'm trying to nip any problems in the bud.

I've worked and paid my taxes all of my life, never claimed benefits, so I don't consider myself to a be a burden to society by using a service that was readily offered to me.


I did read your post carefully.

Nobody is saying anything about taking up the offer if it is made - simply whether the offer should be there in the first place.

You have completely sidestepped the point, though....why do you need a 'moral contract' to get you motivated to attend SW classes. Why does your own responsibilty for your own health not provide a big enough motivation for you to make the effort to attend?

[vik6525]

Comes out of hiding waving a white flag........

I am one of the "unfortunate" fat people who have taken the NHS up on it's kind offer of a weekly SW class. I have a medical condtion that makes losing weight and keeping it off difficult. Due to the nature of the condition, I have recently found out that I am predisposed to heart disease, cancer and other nasties. It's almost like having a death sentence hanging over my head. Lovely, not.

Anyway since joining SW, I have lost 5% of my body weight in 12 weeks. No mean feat with my condition. I have just started the 2nd 12 week stint.

So with the support of the SW group and the encouragement of the nurse at my local surgery I am on the road to (hopefully) better health.
And it's not just about the money. It's about commitment. You see just going to WW or SW each week, you only have yourself to answer to. By doing this through the NHS you have a moral "contract" so to speak, and it gives me the extra push I need to do well and succeed.

Oh and before the food bashers come in, yes I do eat my 5 a day and try to get the fish in twice a week. I cook 90% of meals from scratch and would never DREAM of sending my son to school with chocolate and a packet of crisps for his packed lunch.


Firstly, well done on your weight loss.

But secondly, why couldnt you have gone to WW or whatever under your own steam?

And thirdly, what is your medical condition that initially prevented you loosing weight, but now doesnt seem to be making a difference?

[aliasojo]

.......why do you need a 'moral contract' to get you motivated to attend SW classes. Why does your own responsibilty for your own health not provide a big enough motivation for you to make the effort to attend?

That's the burning question though isn't it? Can you answer this? Overweight people know everything in theory, so why is it that some are not successful in losing weight in practice? Why is this scheme apparently successful for some, given that they have failed to lose weight on their own before?

Why do alcoholics drink when they know it's killing their liver?

Why do drug addicts continue to shoot up when they know the next hit could be the last.

Unfortunately human behaviour doesn't always respond to what seems logical. :confused:

[RichOneday]

That's the burning question though isn't it? Can you answer this? Overweight people know everything in theory, so why is it that some are not successful in losing weight in practice? Why is this scheme apparently successful for some, given that they have failed to lose weight on their own before?

Why do alcoholics drink when they know it's killing their liver?

Why do drug addicts continue to shoot up when they know the next hit could be the last.

Unfortunately human behaviour doesn't always respond to what seems logical. :confused:

What scheme?

If anything is being successful - it is attending SW meetings.

Those meetings are available regardless of who is paying for them!

[aliasojo]

What scheme?

If anything is being successful - it is attending SW meetings.

Those meetings are available regardless of who is paying for them!

I'm surprised you had to ask 'what scheme' since we are clearly discussing an NHS initiative whereby people are being subsidised by the NHS to encourage them to attend classes in a bid to help them lose weight.

Obviously the classes are available without NHS involvement but the quote in post 73 explains why this seems to tip the balance for some.

[RichOneday]

I'm surprised you had to ask 'what scheme' since we are clearly discussing an NHS initiative whereby people are being subsidised by the NHS to encourage them to attend classes in a bid to help them lose weight.

Obviously the classes are available without NHS involvement but the quote in post 73 explains why this seems to tip the balance for some.


Indeed! Post 73 sums up that certain people are too lazy to help themselves, but will quite happily be nannied to take exactly the same course of action that is available for them to take themselves.

Why all the sympathy?

If people aren't prepared to help themselves and aren't motivated enough to get the help that they know is available then so be it, that is their choice.

But if they take that choice, why should they then be offered our money and hand holding to take exactly the same course of action.

What about all those that quite happily do fund themselves because they feel it is worthwhile to their long term health?

The fact that certain people have a higher degree of laziness doesn't give them a greater right to public funding!

[Emmzi]

Why all the sympathy?


Compassion.

Humanity.

A loathing of 'I'm alright Jack' attitudes.

Altruism.

[vik6525]

Indeed! Post 73 sums up that certain people are too lazy to help themselves, but will quite happily be nannied to take exactly the same course of action that is available for them to take themselves.

Why all the sympathy?

If people aren't prepared to help themselves and aren't motivated enough to get the help that they know is available then so be it, that is their choice.

But if they take that choice, why should they then be offered our money and hand holding to take exactly the same course of action.

What about all those that quite happily do fund themselves because they feel it is worthwhile to their long term health?

The fact that certain people have a higher degree of laziness doesn't give them a greater right to public funding!


:T:T:T:T:T

Couldnt agree more...

Im stick thin now, but I most certainly have been on the absolute other side too. I was nearly 20 stone. I made the decision to loose the weight, and I got off my lazy, greedy fat @ss and did something about it.

Same with smoking. If and when I decide to give up, I'll damm well buy my own patches! If people can afford 30 odd quid a week to spend on fags, then they can ruddy well buy their own nicotine replacement therapies!

[aliasojo]

Why all the sympathy?

I dont think I'm being sympathetic, it's just that I think I can understand some of the points made, even if I dont particularly feel the same way. :confused:

If people aren't prepared to help themselves and aren't motivated enough to get the help that they know is available then so be it, that is their choice.

I agree but different things motivate different people and whilst a paid for class wouldn't be the factor that would make a difference for me, I can accept it might for others.

The fact that certain people have a higher degree of laziness doesn't give them a greater right to public funding!

I haven't changed my mind, I'm still not saying people should be subsidised, I dont think they should....but I think the problematic issues involved with being overweight are much more complex than simply laziness and I can see the pov from the 'other' side.

[RichOneday]

Compassion.

Humanity.

A loathing of 'I'm alright Jack' attitudes.

Altruism.

There is something about this thread that stops certain posters answering the points that are raised and instead responding with emotive nonsense.

Where does the 'I'm alright Jack' thing come from - that's an assumption you've decided to make for some reason. Fwiw I was obese as recently as last October. It never for one second occurred to me that it might be someone else's fault or deserved sympathy. So I have no idea where you got that one from!:confused:

[Emmzi]

There is something about this thread that stops certain posters answering the points that are raised and instead responding with emotive nonsense.

Where does the 'I'm alright Jack' thing come from - that's an assumption you've decided to make for some reason. Fwiw I was obese as recently as last October. It never for one second occurred to me that it might be someone else's fault or deserved sympathy. So I have no idea where you got that one from!:confused:

You asked why the sympathy. I can only answer as to why I have sympathy. I cannot and would not attempt to speak as to why you have none.

I have directly addressed the question you asked. (why the sympathy?)

However I am not sure this is about money saving any more. Perhaps if you wish to continue we should take it to discussion time?

[Ted_Hutchinson]

So I can keep smoking 20 a day but so long as I take Vit D then I won't get cancer? ooohh...tremendous, thanks for that.Because Human Lung Tumors Destroy Anti-cancer Hormone Vitamin D (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090420151223.htm) it is particularly important that those with lung cancer maintain optimum Vitamin D status that is why higher Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels predict survival in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer patients. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17290055)
We also know that women and young participants with a higher level of vitamin D were observed to have a lower lung cancer risk. (http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/11/3274)

But that is NOT saying or implying that those with higher vitamin D status won't get lung cancer, nor does it mean they won't die from it.
It means only that your chances of getting it are less and your chances of dieing from it are also lowered if you have a 25(OH)D status above 125nmol/l (ie take 5000iu/daily).

Why do you always try to misinterpret what I am actually trying to show you?

But when it comes to the crunch which do you think is worse for your lungs?

Smoking or being Vitamin D deficient?

While this isn't an excuse to light up the fact is that pulmonary function is worse in people who are Vitamin D deficient than in smokers. (http://www.chestjournal.org/content/128/6/3792.long) So although it is clear smoking damages your lungs and causes lung cancer being vitamin D deficient damages your lungs more and also allows lung cancers to begin sooner and develop more rapidly.

The same interrelationship between obesity and Vitamin D status occurs if you look at the science.

[Daytona_nev]

Because Human Lung Tumors Destroy Anti-cancer Hormone Vitamin D (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090420151223.htm) it is particularly important that those with lung cancer maintain optimum Vitamin D status that is why higher Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels predict survival in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer patients. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17290055)
We also know that women and young participants with a higher level of vitamin D were observed to have a lower lung cancer risk. (http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/17/11/3274)

But that is NOT saying or implying that those with higher vitamin D status won't get lung cancer, nor does it mean they won't die from it.
It means only that your chances of getting it are less and your chances of dieing from it are also lowered if you have a 25(OH)D status above 125nmol/l (ie take 5000iu/daily).

Why do you always try to misinterpret what I am actually trying to show you?

But when it comes to the crunch which do you think is worse for your lungs?

Smoking or being Vitamin D deficient?

While this isn't an excuse to light up the fact is that pulmonary function is worse in people who are Vitamin D deficient than in smokers. (http://www.chestjournal.org/content/128/6/3792.long) So although it is clear smoking damages your lungs and causes lung cancer being vitamin D deficient damages your lungs more and also allows lung cancers to begin sooner and develop more rapidly.

The same interrelationship between obesity and Vitamin D status occurs if you look at the science.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Ted_Hutchinson]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzI used to spend my time trying to help people with their benefit claims, but I came to the conclusion that many, perhaps in fact the majority, were actually, like our MP's simply trying to manipulate the system.

I thought a better way of helping people would be to show them the most recent science that would enable them to lower their chances of becoming ill and needing to claim those disability benefits.

It is clear that for most people the appeal of being disabled, being obese or having cancer is far more appealing, because of the financial benefits that accrue and the prospect of having people feel sorry for you and the pleasure of having them care for you. rather than look after themselves and take responsibility for their own health.

It is now more acceptable to play the invalid/disabled card," I need help and money because I'm a poor disabled person" than make the mental effort to understand the reasons why your body behaves the way it does and take appropriate action to prevent disease and chronic disability. (http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=6065)

[Bronnie]

What if you were age 30, with a young family depending on you and 5 stones overweight?

What if you went to see your GP because you were feeling breathless going up and down stairs, your knee joints were aching and you were constantly exhausted?

What if your GP examined you and said there was nothing seriously wrong with you at the moment that losing the weight wouldn't cure, but if you continued to carry that amount of excess weight you would be laying the foundations for a whole raft of serious conditions that would drastically reduce your quality of life in future and could lead to an early death?

What if your GP said, we can give you advice and support to lose weight through the surgery, but actually many of my overweight patients go to a Slimming Club around the corner, and have had great success there, the woman who runs it is very supportive and the eating plan fits in with all the healthy guidelines, it costs £4.50 a week and I do believe in your circumstances it could really help you and is worth considering.

Would you take GP'S advice and go?
Would you pay, Yes or No?

[EssexGirl]

What if you were age 30, with a young family depending on you and 5 stones overweight?

What if you went to see your GP because you were feeling breathless going up and down stairs, your knee joints were aching and you were constantly exhausted?

What if your GP examined you and said there was nothing seriously wrong with you at the moment that losing the weight wouldn't cure, but if you continued to carry that amount of excess weight you would be laying the foundations for a whole raft of serious conditions that would drastically reduce your quality of life in future and could lead to an early death?

What if your GP said, we can give you advice and support to lose weight through the surgery, but actually many of my overweight patients go to a Slimming Club around the corner, and have had great success there, the woman who runs it is very supportive and the eating plan fits in with all the healthy guidelines, it costs £4.50 a week and I do believe in your circumstances it could really help you and is worth considering.

Would you take GP'S advice and go?
Would you pay, Yes or No?


Well I for one HAVE taken my GP's advice. That's why I'm going to SW, and sticking with it, because I now know clearer than ever what the consequences will be if I don't.

As for the money side of things, if you wanted a new TV (or insert object of desire of your choosing) and you had a choice to pay for it, or get the exact same thing for free, no strings attatched, tell me honestly, that you wouldn't go for the free one.

Once my subscription is over, I will of course carry on going to and paying for the class out of my own pocket.

I think the OP was right to post this thread as there may be people out there who need this service and wouldn't have known about it otherwise. I'm not here to be judge and jury (unlike some posters) over whether it's morally correct to be going to a slimming class courtesy of the NHS. I also think that the fat bashing that has gone on within this thread is childish, dispicable, tantamount to playground bullying. But hey, some people get their pleasure out of kicking vulnerable people when they are down.

[vik6525]

Well I for one HAVE taken my GP's advice. That's why I'm going to SW, and sticking with it, because I now know clearer than ever what the consequences will be if I don't.

As for the money side of things, if you wanted a new TV (or insert object of desire of your choosing) and you had a choice to pay for it, or get the exact same thing for free, no strings attatched, tell me honestly, that you wouldn't go for the free one.

Once my subscription is over, I will of course carry on going to and paying for the class out of my own pocket.

I think the OP was right to post this thread as there may be people out there who need this service and wouldn't have known about it otherwise. I'm not here to be judge and jury (unlike some posters) over whether it's morally correct to be going to a slimming class courtesy of the NHS. I also think that the fat bashing that has gone on within this thread is childish, dispicable, tantamount to playground bullying. But hey, some people get their pleasure out of kicking vulnerable people when they are down.


As far as I can see, there hasnt been any 'fat bashing' on this thread... A lot of people, myself included, have talked from their own personal experience.

ETA... Im sorry, but being overweight does not make you 'vulnerable'. It makes you overweight.

[RichOneday]

Having read through the whole thread there is no evidence of your so called 'fat bashing'.

What there is plenty evidence of, as there is on many other threads, is overweight people trying their best to take offence and reinforce their victim mentality.

The subject has been about whether the nhs should pay for slimming classes. The fact that many people feel that it shouldn't doesn't constitute bullying or 'fat bashing'.

However, it is often the case that you can tell who is overweight in these discussions because they quickly deviate from the point and find no end of imagined 'offensive remarks' in perfectly innocent comments.

They then tend to respond with what are personal attacks, in snide or sarcastic tones, as though they occupy some sort of moral high ground.

Ah well...........

[Crazy Jamie]

I also think that the fat bashing that has gone on within this thread is childish, dispicable, tantamount to playground bullying. But hey, some people get their pleasure out of kicking vulnerable people when they are down.Having been reading this thread with interest, I must admit that there seems to be a lot more perceived fat bashing going on than actual fat bashing. In fact, the only direct weight related insult that I can remember is when a self confessed overweight member labelled two girls within a gym as 'stick insects'. Which no doubt she feels is perfectly acceptable, whilst becoming outraged every time someone dares disagree with her on the issue of weight.

To be fair, and I hesitate to generalise here because I know there are plenty of exceptions, a recurring theme in these sorts of discussions is that those who are overweight will often get incredibly defensive whenever anyone disagrees with them to do with almost anything on the issue of weight. Any person opposing them is prejudiced or a bully. Any advice is patronising or ignorant. Any person who is in good physical condition and of a healthy weight automatically has an 'I'm alright, Jack' attitude, unless they are entirely supportive of those who are overweight. In general, the growing trend is to almost go out of your way to take offence.

The fact is, an awful lot of people who are overweight come up with the most inane excuses as to why they are overweight. Low self esteem? Understandable, but that's just a vicious cycle. Losing wait would actually approve your self esteem no doubt. Depression? Assuming that is a genuine claim, adrenaline actually counters the hormone that can cause depressive feelings, so exercise would actually kill both of those birds with one stone. A genetic pre disposition to carrying weight? That's just rubbish.

I always remember the Jimmy Carr line in relation to this issue;

"I'm fat because I have a thyroid problem."
"Oh really, what are you taking for that? Pies?"

Now that joke is offensive, but as with many such jokes it also has a lot of home truth to it. Only a very small minority of those who are overweight are so due to genuine medical reasons. Most are overweight due to an apathetic attitude towards exercise and/or healthy eating. And ironically, that apathetic attitude is why they cannot motivate themselves to lose weight. You can blame other people and other reasons all day long, but the simple fact is that the vast majority of people who are overweight in this country have no compelling reason why they cannot physically lose that weight. It just requires motivation and effort. If you cannot raise that motivation and effort, then fine. Just don't pretend that the reasons are more elaborate than they are. Even if you may fool yourself, you are not fooling anyone else.

[sidefx]

Having been reading this thread with interest, I must admit that there seems to be a lot more perceived fat bashing going on than actual fat bashing. In fact, the only direct weigh related insult that I can remember is when a self confessed overweight member labelled two girls within a gym as 'stick insects'. Which no doubt she feels is perfectly acceptable, whilst becoming outraged every time someone dares disagree with her on the issue of weight.


Now that joke is offensive, but as with many such jokes it also has a lot of home truth to it. Only a very small minority of those who are overweight are so due to genuine medical reasons. Most are overweight due to an apathetic attitude towards exercise and/or healthy eating. And ironically, that apathetic attitude is why they cannot motivate themselves to lose weight. You can blame other people and other reasons all day long, but the simple fact is that the vast majority of people who are overweight in this country have no compelling reason why they cannot physically lose that weight. It just requires motivation and effort. If you cannot raise that motivation and effort, then fine. Just don't pretend that the reasons are more elaborate than they are. Even if you may fool yourself, you are not fooling anyone else.

Well said :D

[RichOneday]

Great summary, Crazy