payment from nhs for diet class

RichOneday_2

Ted_Hutchinson wrote: »

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

RichOneday wrote: »

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?

nickyhutch

aliasojo wrote: »

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?

"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

aliasojo wrote: »

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. 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'. 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.

Ted_Hutchinson

Loopy_Girl wrote: »

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.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.