Obese must get treatment or lose benefits says PM:

First topic message reminder :

David Cameron will today launch review into cost of obesity and addiction
   The prime minister will pledge to make 'support and treatment' available
   But said he wanted to see more people 'coming off benefits and into work'

Obese people who refuse medical treatment to help them lose weight could have their benefits cut, the Prime Minister will announce today.

David Cameron will launch a review to work out the cost to taxpayers and the economy of 'preventable' conditions such as obesity and drug and alcohol addiction.

He has asked a government health adviser to examine plans to force people with health problems to undertake treatment when claiming benefits.
Mr Cameron will pledge to make 'support and treatment' available to those with drug and alcohol problems, and the obese, who want 'the opportunity to improve their lives'.

But he will add: 'We must look at what we do when people simply say no thanks and refuse that help but expect taxpayers to carry on funding their benefits.
Over the next five years I want to see many more people coming off sick benefit and into work.'
WAR ON SLEAZE? SEND FOR HOON

Disgraced former Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon watched as David Cameron gave a speech on tackling corruption yesterday.

Mr Hoon – one of the most senior politicians caught up in the ‘cash for access’ scandal in 2010 – was part of a UK trade delegation in Singapore.

The ex-Labour MP was filmed saying he expected £3,000 a day to help firms lobbying ministers. He is now a top manager at helicopter maker AgustaWestland. Mr Hoon’s appointment in 2011 caused disquiet as the firm had won a £1.7billion deal when he was Defence Secretary.

Around 90,000 people claiming sickness benefits, worth on average around £100 a week, whose primary condition is alcoholism or drug addiction could have their payments docked unless they agree to treatment. A further 1,800 receive incapacity benefit with the main reason listed as weight-related issues.

The claimants currently get offered treatment such as courses and medication to help them get better and back to work, but there is no legal requirement to accept the help.

Dame Carol Black, chairman of the Nuffield Trust and an adviser to the Department of Health, will today make an urgent call for evidence from experts and medical specialists before providing recommendations.

She said: 'Addiction to drugs and alcohol, and in some cases extreme obesity, can have a profoundly damaging impact on people's chances of taking up meaningful employment.

'By reviewing the support that is available here and abroad to people with these conditions, it is my hope that we can present a thorough analysis of the options available to Government. I am looking forward to discussing these issues with as many people as possible.'



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i guess he will be in favour of eugenics very soon

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11407747/Fat-genes-are-to-blame-for-a-fifth-of-obesity.html


Fat genes are to blame for more than a fifth of obesity meaning exercise and dieting are of little use to millions, a new study has found.

The landmark research, published in the journal Nature, is the most precise estimate yet for the percentage of obesity caused by DNA rather than lifestyle and is expected to fuel moves to categorise obesity as a disability.
--------------------------------------------------------------


this fucking government is getting beyond a joke more like 1940 germany that 2015 uk

the right just HAVE to have someone to bully....

victorismyhero wrote:just seen the other thread...

ok last term in parliament it was bash the unemployed

this term is clearly going to be bash the fat bastard....

Well it was good enough for Carter USM.

Or its about time humanity changed its culture of being gluttons.
We are eating so unhealthy.
Again responsibility Victor

There was a whole long-arsed programme (scientifically snd otherwise) proving that diets DO NOT work.

What works is this:

Eating smaller portions and making protein and vegetables your main carbs as well as a HANDFUL of carbs such as rice, pasta, potato

Exercising at least three times a week - fat-burning cardio and body weight exercise (sit ups will NOT burn fat they only make muscle underneath the fat)

Eat sweet treats sparingly - avoid sugar and avoid eating a lot of bread (and wheat)

Most importantly, and this is why diets DONT WORK, you need to stick to an eating plan that can become your way of life; if you know you need a sweet treat then limit it to 2 biscuits a day and make that your treat.

If you find a Way of eating that suits you, doesn't make you miss out on treats and its food you enjoy, you're more likely to stick to it and combined with exercise, you will lose weight.

eddie wrote:There was a whole long-arsed programme (scientifically snd otherwise) proving  that diets DO NOT work.

What works is this:

Eating smaller portions and making protein and vegetables your main carbs as well as a HANDFUL of carbs such as rice, pasta, potato

Exercising at least three times a week - fat-burning cardio and body weight exercise (sit ups will NOT burn fat they only make muscle underneath the fat)

Eat sweet treats sparingly - avoid sugar and avoid eating a lot of bread (and wheat)

Most importantly, and this is why diets DONT WORK, you need to stick to an eating plan that can become your way of life; if you know you need a sweet treat then limit it to 2 biscuits a day and make that your treat.

If you find a Way of eating that suits you, doesn't make you miss out on treats and its food you enjoy, you're more likely to stick to it and combined with exercise, you will lose weight.

In fact, if you do sit ups you might end up with an even bigger stomach.

Watch out for those nuts too - they have a huge number of calories in them.

Yes nuts do

Hidden calories in a lot of things actually - bread being the worst of all

eddie wrote:Yes nuts do

Hidden calories in a lot of things actually - bread being the worst of all

It's common sense really eddie. I don't think that many people have no idea about this kind of thing.

eddie wrote:There was a whole long-arsed programme (scientifically snd otherwise) proving  that diets DO NOT work.

What works is this:

Eating smaller portions and making protein and vegetables your main carbs as well as a HANDFUL of carbs such as rice, pasta, potato

Exercising at least three times a week - fat-burning cardio and body weight exercise (sit ups will NOT burn fat they only make muscle underneath the fat)

Eat sweet treats sparingly - avoid sugar and avoid eating a lot of bread (and wheat)

Most importantly, and this is why diets DONT WORK, you need to stick to an eating plan that can become your way of life; if you know you need a sweet treat then limit it to 2 biscuits a day and make that your treat.

If you find a Way of eating that suits you, doesn't make you miss out on treats and its food you enjoy, you're more likely to stick to it and combined with exercise, you will lose weight.

All diets are crap (to an extent)

its really quite simple (for most but not all people) If you are eating a reasonable diet (and that can cover many sins) and want to loose weight the BEST way is NOT to go on a "diet", but to simply carry on eating what you normnally do...just put less on your plate....by gradual degrees.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:There was a whole long-arsed programme (scientifically snd otherwise) proving  that diets DO NOT work.

What works is this:

Eating smaller portions and making protein and vegetables your main carbs as well as a HANDFUL of carbs such as rice, pasta, potato

Exercising at least three times a week - fat-burning cardio and body weight exercise (sit ups will NOT burn fat they only make muscle underneath the fat)

Eat sweet treats sparingly - avoid sugar and avoid eating a lot of bread (and wheat)

Most importantly, and this is why diets DONT WORK, you need to stick to an eating plan that can become your way of life; if you know you need a sweet treat then limit it to 2 biscuits a day and make that your treat.

If you find a Way of eating that suits you, doesn't make you miss out on treats and its food you enjoy, you're more likely to stick to it and combined with exercise, you will lose weight.

In fact, if you do sit ups you might end up with an even bigger stomach.

depends on who you do the situps on

victorismyhero wrote:

eddie wrote:There was a whole long-arsed programme (scientifically snd otherwise) proving  that diets DO NOT work.

What works is this:

Eating smaller portions and making protein and vegetables your main carbs as well as a HANDFUL of carbs such as rice, pasta, potato

Exercising at least three times a week - fat-burning cardio and body weight exercise (sit ups will NOT burn fat they only make muscle underneath the fat)

Eat sweet treats sparingly - avoid sugar and avoid eating a lot of bread (and wheat)

Most importantly, and this is why diets DONT WORK, you need to stick to an eating plan that can become your way of life; if you know you need a sweet treat then limit it to 2 biscuits a day and make that your treat.

If you find a Way of eating that suits you, doesn't make you miss out on treats and its food you enjoy, you're more likely to stick to it and combined with exercise, you will lose weight.

All diets are crap (to an extent)

its really quite simple (for most but not all people) If you are eating a reasonable diet (and that can cover many sins) and want to loose weight the BEST way is NOT to go on a "diet", but to simply carry on eating what you normnally do...just put less on your plate....by gradual degrees.

Well that's going on a diet - ie, eating less calories.

I think it's snacks which are the main problem for some people - chocolate, biscuits, sweets, crisps, etc.

victorismyhero wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In fact, if you do sit ups you might end up with an even bigger stomach.

depends on who you do the situps on  

Cuchulain wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jan/04/observerspecialbritainsschools.medicineandhealth


Second okay point take on Vit D, which can now be part of a healthier diet.

You are just strenthening my argument.

nope didge that post directly undermined your claim that the war time/post war diet was better in some way than what we have today...it wasnt...in fact it was appalling
people had dietry deficiency ilnesses, reduced immunity, and died earlier

much of the food was VERY fatty....post war bacon would give a modern wimp like you a coronary a post war breakfast was a heart attack on a plate...

lets see fatty bacon eggs and fried bread, all fried in the bacon fat from yesterday, probably along with black pudding.

ughhhhhh

so no the diet wasnt "better" by a long stretch of the immagination....NOR were people "healthier"

Ah, well according to some people, fat isn't bad for you - it's sugar which is the baddie.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. It's my opinion that they put the fat back on because they start to eat too many calories again.

Did you read the article?

Some of it, yes - it's pretty long.

When people say that diets don't work, they generally mean that they can't stick to them. It says that half of those who have bariatric surgery put the weight on again. Well why do you think that is? It's because they eat too much again after they have the band removed.

The issue of whether obesity actually causes ill health is a different one. The people who are claiming benefits because they're obese clearly think that it does. It can put a lot of pressure on your joints for a start, and who needs that?

I don't think anyone is saying you have to be stick thin to be healthy, but if you're so fat that you can barely move, clearly that's not healthy or normal.

First, the numbers don't lie -- for most people, significant weight loss is nearly impossible. Did you read the part about the woman who had lost 55 lbs. and kept it off for 11 years? 1,800-calorie diet, an hour of cardio every day in order to keep where she's at.

Second -- I think whether people should get benefits for being obese and whether the government should cut benefits to people who don't fight their obesity are two separate issues. I'll just say that in the U.S., some conservative lawmakers decided it would be a good idea in their states to drug-test welfare recipients.

As state legislatures convene across the country, proposals keep cropping up to drug test applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, or welfare. Bills have been introduced so far in Montana, Texas, and West Virginia, with a handful of others also considering such a move. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has gone further, proposing to drug test applicants for food stamps and unemployment benefits. They follow recent bills put into action in Maine, Michigan, and Mississippi.

Proponents of these bills claim they will save money by getting drug users off the dole and thus reduce spending on benefits. But states that are looking at bills of their own may want to consider the fact that the drug testing programs that are already up and running haven’t seen such results.

According to state data gathered by ThinkProgress, the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent. Meanwhile, they’ve collectively spent nearly $1 million on the effort, and millions more may have to be spent in coming years.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/

I think that there's this myth that if we were to cut benefits/welfare, suddenly "all that money" is going to end up back in working people's bank accounts. Does anybody really think that would happen, though?

Raggamuffin wrote:Ah, well according to some people, fat isn't bad for you - it's sugar which is the baddie.

fat aint bad for you per se.....too much fat however.......

same as sugar....it aint bad per se...too much however and.......

the worst is fructose AKA corn syrup now thats the stuff thats killing yanks
yet I use it as part of my diet control over my diabetes, since it counts as just carbs as opposed to "sugar"

(it doesnt hit your system as hard or fast as sugar...it acts like starch AND you only need about 1/3 rd of the amount for the same sweetness)

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Some of it, yes - it's pretty long.

When people say that diets don't work, they generally mean that they can't stick to them. It says that half of those who have bariatric surgery put the weight on again. Well why do you think that is? It's because they eat too much again after they have the band removed.

The issue of whether obesity actually causes ill health is a different one. The people who are claiming benefits because they're obese clearly think that it does. It can put a lot of pressure on your joints for a start, and who needs that?

I don't think anyone is saying you have to be stick thin to be healthy, but if you're so fat that you can barely move, clearly that's not healthy or normal.

First, the numbers don't lie -- for most people, significant weight loss is nearly impossible. Did you read the part about the woman who had lost 55 lbs. and kept it off for 11 years? 1,800-calorie diet, an hour of cardio every day in order to keep where she's at.

Second -- I think whether people should get benefits for being obese and whether the government should cut benefits to people who don't fight their obesity are two separate issues. I'll just say that in the U.S., some conservative lawmakers decided it would be a good idea in their states to drug-test welfare recipients.

As state legislatures convene across the country, proposals keep cropping up to drug test applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, or welfare. Bills have been introduced so far in Montana, Texas, and West Virginia, with a handful of others also considering such a move. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has gone further, proposing to drug test applicants for food stamps and unemployment benefits. They follow recent bills put into action in Maine, Michigan, and Mississippi.

Proponents of these bills claim they will save money by getting drug users off the dole and thus reduce spending on benefits. But states that are looking at bills of their own may want to consider the fact that the drug testing programs that are already up and running haven’t seen such results.

According to state data gathered by ThinkProgress, the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent. Meanwhile, they’ve collectively spent nearly $1 million on the effort, and millions more may have to be spent in coming years.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/

I think that there's this myth that if we were to cut benefits/welfare, suddenly "all that money" is going to end up back in working people's bank accounts. Does anybody really think that would happen, though?

and even if it did, it would only make about 20c a week

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Some of it, yes - it's pretty long.

When people say that diets don't work, they generally mean that they can't stick to them. It says that half of those who have bariatric surgery put the weight on again. Well why do you think that is? It's because they eat too much again after they have the band removed.

The issue of whether obesity actually causes ill health is a different one. The people who are claiming benefits because they're obese clearly think that it does. It can put a lot of pressure on your joints for a start, and who needs that?

I don't think anyone is saying you have to be stick thin to be healthy, but if you're so fat that you can barely move, clearly that's not healthy or normal.

First, the numbers don't lie -- for most people, significant weight loss is nearly impossible. Did you read the part about the woman who had lost 55 lbs. and kept it off for 11 years? 1,800-calorie diet, an hour of cardio every day in order to keep where she's at.

Second -- I think whether people should get benefits for being obese and whether the government should cut benefits to people who don't fight their obesity are two separate issues. I'll just say that in the U.S., some conservative lawmakers decided it would be a good idea in their states to drug-test welfare recipients.

As state legislatures convene across the country, proposals keep cropping up to drug test applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, or welfare. Bills have been introduced so far in Montana, Texas, and West Virginia, with a handful of others also considering such a move. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) has gone further, proposing to drug test applicants for food stamps and unemployment benefits. They follow recent bills put into action in Maine, Michigan, and Mississippi.

Proponents of these bills claim they will save money by getting drug users off the dole and thus reduce spending on benefits. But states that are looking at bills of their own may want to consider the fact that the drug testing programs that are already up and running haven’t seen such results.

According to state data gathered by ThinkProgress, the seven states with existing programs — Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Utah — are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferret out very few drug users. The statistics show that applicants actually test positive at a lower rate than the drug use of the general population. The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent. Meanwhile, they’ve collectively spent nearly $1 million on the effort, and millions more may have to be spent in coming years.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/

I think that there's this myth that if we were to cut benefits/welfare, suddenly "all that money" is going to end up back in working people's bank accounts. Does anybody really think that would happen, though?

1800 calories sounds fine - it's not exactly starvation mode. 50 minutes exercise a day sounds fine too. It says she has a small frame, so she'll probably need less calories than someone who's bigger anyway. I wouldn't bother with the ankle weights or weighted vest though - that's just asking for trouble.

The best thing is not to let too much weight creep on in the first place really. It doesn't go on overnight, so people have plenty of time to do something about it before they put on 55 pounds.

I just think that if people are getting public money - ie, benefits - they should make best efforts to control whatever is causing them to claim it. I really don't see what's unreasonable about that.

I also don't think it's just about money - it's about taking personal responsibility for yourself. This is why people call me "right wing" I guess - I don't think that the state should nanny people all the time throughout their lives.

victorismyhero wrote:and even if it did, it would only make about 20c a week

Exactly, and even less here in the U.S. where the social safety net is weaker.

victorismyhero wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:




http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jan/04/observerspecialbritainsschools.medicineandhealth


Second okay point take on Vit D, which can now be part of a healthier diet.

You are just strenthening my argument.

nope didge that post directly undermined your claim that the war time/post war diet was better in some way than what we have today...it wasnt...in fact it was appalling
people had dietry deficiency ilnesses, reduced immunity, and died earlier

much of the food was VERY fatty....post war bacon would give a modern wimp like you a coronary  a post war breakfast was a heart attack on a plate...

lets see fatty bacon eggs and fried bread, all fried in the bacon fat from yesterday, probably along with black pudding.

ughhhhhh

so no the diet wasnt "better" by a long stretch of the immagination....NOR were people "healthier"

Er no medical advances were not as good as they were today the diets were fine, so beg to differ on that fron and you are living proof it certainly did you no harm.  

So yes it was far better by a long way mate

Like I say you can have a far bealthier diet and on far less money .

The point you keep avoiding is people are progressively getting more obese even more so in western societies because we have far to much crap as an easy option

I suggest you read again as you are very much mistaken

Raggamuffin wrote:1800 calories sounds fine - it's not exactly starvation mode. 50 minute's exercise a day sounds fine too. It says she has a small frame, so she'll probably need less calories than someone who's bigger anyway. I wouldn't bother with the ankle weights or weighted vest though - that's just asking for trouble.

The best thing is not to let too much weight creep on in the first place really. It doesn't go on overnight, so people have plenty of time to do something about it before they put on 55 pounds.

I just think that if people are getting public money - ie, benefits - they should make best efforts to control whatever is causing them to claim it. I really don't see what's unreasonable about that.

I also don't think it's just about money - it's about taking personal responsibility for yourself. This is why people call me "right wing" I guess - I don't think that the state should nanny people all the time throughout their lives.

1800 calories would be low for a woman of 40 who stands 5-4, weighs 130 and exercises only half as much as this woman does.

As to the "nanny" stuff, sorry, but nobody gets through life without help. Those benefits are there to help you too, if you need them.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:1800 calories sounds fine - it's not exactly starvation mode. 50 minute's exercise a day sounds fine too. It says she has a small frame, so she'll probably need less calories than someone who's bigger anyway. I wouldn't bother with the ankle weights or weighted vest though - that's just asking for trouble.  

The best thing is not to let too much weight creep on in the first place really. It doesn't go on overnight, so people have plenty of time to do something about it before they put on 55 pounds.

I just think that if people are getting public money - ie, benefits - they should make best efforts to control whatever is causing them to claim it. I really don't see what's unreasonable about that.

I also don't think it's just about money - it's about taking personal responsibility for yourself. This is why people call me "right wing" I guess - I don't think that the state should nanny people all the time throughout their lives.

1800 calories would be low for a woman of 40 who stands 5-4, weighs 130 and exercises only half as much as this woman does.

As to the "nanny" stuff, sorry, but nobody gets through life without help. Those benefits are there to help you too, if you need them.

It wouldn't be particularly low. If someone was that height and weight, and did 25 minutes exercise a day, it would be fine. It doesn't actually say what this woman weighs now or how tall she is anyway.

Benefits are indeed there to help you if you need them, but they're not supposed to be a lifestyle alternative. If someone can improve their own health by losing weight, they should try - if they're getting public money because they're too fat.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Yes nuts do

Hidden calories in a lot of things actually - bread being the worst of all

It's common sense really eddie. I don't think that many people have no idea about this kind of thing.

Rags I went and made a cup,of tea and couldn't resist a piece of French stick with butter

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's common sense really eddie. I don't think that many people have no idea about this kind of thing.

Rags I went and made a cup,of tea and couldn't resist a piece of French stick with butter

Oh heck!

Eddie, there's one basic rule. If you enjoy eating it, it's probably fattening.

Cuchulain wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:

nope didge that post directly undermined your claim that the war time/post war diet was better in some way than what we have today...it wasnt...in fact it was appalling
people had dietry deficiency ilnesses, reduced immunity, and died earlier

much of the food was VERY fatty....post war bacon would give a modern wimp like you a coronary  a post war breakfast was a heart attack on a plate...

lets see fatty bacon eggs and fried bread, all fried in the bacon fat from yesterday, probably along with black pudding.

ughhhhhh

so no the diet wasnt "better" by a long stretch of the immagination....NOR were people "healthier"

Er no medical advances were not as good as they were today the diets were fine, so beg to differ on that fron and you are living proof it certainly did you no harm.  

So yes it was far better by a long way mate

Like I say you can have a far bealthier diet and on far less money .

The point you keep avoiding is people are progressively getting more obese even more so in western societies because we have far to much crap as an easy option

I suggest you read again as you are very much mistaken

rationing was over the year I was born.

and the stats say different

vitamin deficiencies were rife. Ill health was the norm for most working class people..

poor immunity

all down to diet...NOT "medical advances"

people died before of just around "retirement age" due to a life time of bad diet as much as anything else....

do you see rickets to day...very very rarely.....and thats due to diet NOT medical advances...the cause (and its cure) were known back then

the poor diet was WHY the inclusion of vitamin additives in margerine, cereals and bread was mandated (though it was never i think implemented in bread)

and like i said a breakfast from then would see most folks off in short order these days.....we dont work hard enough to burn it.....and even then It DID see people off ...regularly....

in general we have a FAR better diet today, junk food included...just too much of it......

if you enjoy it..its probably illegal, immoral, fattening or taxable.....

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's common sense really eddie. I don't think that many people have no idea about this kind of thing.

Rags I went and made a cup,of tea and couldn't resist a piece of French stick with butter

Oh heck!

Eddie, there's one basic rule. If you enjoy eating it, it's probably fattening.

I know! and as I was eating it I was thinking about what I'd just said to you! Hahahaha

I love raw mushrooms and eat dozens of them, they are filling and low fat, but I wouldn't care anyway, I'm pretty addicted!

and if you are unwaged you most certainly should NOT have it

thanks...the tory party

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh heck!

Eddie, there's one basic rule. If you enjoy eating it, it's probably fattening.

I know! and  as I was eating it I was thinking about what I'd just said to you! Hahahaha

I love raw mushrooms and eat dozens of them, they are filling and low fat, but I wouldn't care anyway, I'm pretty addicted!

fungal freak

More bollocks... fatties are fat purely because they eat too much and don't move about enough.


Fresh food Is cheap.


I have no sympathy for anyone who sits around and eats crap all day every day and then pretends that this isn't the cause of them being a fatty!


Then some of them even try to use this fatness as an excuse to not work when it is The not working that is mostly the cause of sitting around all day with nothing to do but eat crap!

Eilzel wrote:If they accept medical treatment they wont lose out though.

There is a serious obesity crisis that largely IS caused by bad diet and lack of physical activity in the UK. The government shouldn't be supporting that kind of lifestyle should they?

The condition is accepting treatment, if someone doesn't want to accept help why should they be allowed to accept handouts?

I don't always support the Tory government, but on tjis I fully agree.

This post interests me. Do you only apply that to things like obesity Les? If so, is that because you consider it to be self-inflicted, or is it because you consider it to be treatable? If it's the latter, would you extend that to any condition which is treatable?

It appears the Government fiddled the figures and said it was 1 in 4. It's now been corrected to 1 in 15. Caught out again:

This article was amended on 29 July 2015. An earlier version stated that research in 2008 and 2010 indicated one in four working-age benefit claimants were suffering from alcohol dependency. This has been corrected, one in 15 working-age benefit claimants are dependent on drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine, and one in 25 working-age benefit claimants are suffering from alcohol dependency.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/29/benefits-drugs-alcohol-obesity-refusing-treatment-review

sassy wrote:It appears the Government fiddled the figures and said it was 1 in 4.  It's now been corrected to 1 in 15.   Caught out again:

This article was amended on 29 July 2015. An earlier version stated that research in 2008 and 2010 indicated one in four working-age benefit claimants were suffering from alcohol dependency. This has been corrected, one in 15 working-age benefit claimants are dependent on drugs such as heroin and crack cocaine, and one in 25 working-age benefit claimants are suffering from alcohol dependency.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/29/benefits-drugs-alcohol-obesity-refusing-treatment-review

The Government stated that, or did The Guardian make a mistake?

I would have been surprised at that high figure anyway.

korban dallas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:If they accept medical treatment they wont lose out though.

There is a serious obesity crisis that largely IS caused by bad diet and lack of physical activity in the UK. The government shouldn't be supporting that kind of lifestyle should they?

The condition is accepting treatment, if someone doesn't want to accept help why should they be allowed to accept handouts?

I don't always support the Tory government, but on tjis I fully agree.

and how do you differentiate between a genetic disposition to be over weight and bad diet

and how do you correct a bad diet when the cheap food  is heavy in surger and fats  to make it taste better you can only eat healthy if you can afford it

You forgot to mention the massive tax revenue raised on alcohol and that there is no tax on food...



PLus your claim on a fifth of overweight people being genetically predisposed to it is totally disingenuous... larger bone structure and/or muscle mass may tip some over into the 'overweight' bracket but not at all unable to work and not the big fatties we see about either!!!


These big fatties are totally caused by them eating too much, too much crap and not moving about.

I am 74 yrs old and weigh 17 stone, until I started treatment for Cancer and Heart failier I weighed 12 stone, I can't walk very well and no way can I exercise as too painful.The medication has give me a magnificent pair of tits.

nicko wrote:I am 74 yrs old and weigh 17 stone,     until I started treatment for Cancer and Heart failier  I weighed 12 stone, I can't walk very well and no way can I exercise as too painful.The medication has give me a magnificent pair of tits.

so when we gonna see you on page 3 then Nicko

Tommy Monk wrote:

korban dallas wrote:

Eilzel wrote:If they accept medical treatment they wont lose out though.

There is a serious obesity crisis that largely IS caused by bad diet and lack of physical activity in the UK. The government shouldn't be supporting that kind of lifestyle should they?

The condition is accepting treatment, if someone doesn't want to accept help why should they be allowed to accept handouts?

I don't always support the Tory government, but on tjis I fully agree.

and how do you differentiate between a genetic disposition to be over weight and bad diet

and how do you correct a bad diet when the cheap food  is heavy in surger and fats  to make it taste better you can only eat healthy if you can afford it

You forgot to mention the massive tax revenue raised on alcohol and that there is no tax on food...



PLus your claim on a fifth of overweight people being genetically predisposed to it is totally disingenuous... larger bone structure and/or muscle mass may tip some over into the 'overweight' bracket but not at all unable to work and not the big fatties we see about either!!!


These big fatties are totally caused by them eating too much, too much crap and not moving about.

I wouldn't put it like that but Tommy is right

the genetics would leave you 'overweight' compared to the BMI index but not really in the obese category and definitely not to the "so obese i cant work" category

I wouldn't be so hard on them they need support not ridicule but they would definitely need to be getting treatment.

Two stories I saw in A newspaper today are of two fatties and totally self inflicted... Lena Lupari was one who was getting something like £22,000 a year in benefits but could afford to drink 28 cans of red bull a day, and another about a woman who claimed to be too fat to do the school run!!!


Fucking disgrace!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Two stories I saw in A newspaper today are of two fatties and totally self inflicted... Lena Lupari was one who was getting something like £22,000 a year in benefits but could afford to drink 28 cans of red bull a day, and another about a woman who claimed to be too fat to do the school run!!!


Fucking disgrace!!!

I read that story about the Red Bull. How much is that a day? They're clearly giving her too much in benefits.

VICTOR, they don't do topless photo's anymore, I sent mine to them, the swine sent 'em back!

nicko wrote:VICTOR,  they don't do topless photo's anymore,  I sent mine to them,  the swine sent 'em back!

some people have no appreciation for the finer things in life nicko

[quote="Raggamuffin"]

Tommy Monk wrote:Two stories I saw in A newspaper today are of two fatties and totally self inflicted... Lena Lupari was one who was getting something like £22,000 a year in benefits but could afford to drink 28 cans of red bull a day, and another about a woman who claimed to be too fat to do the school run!!!


Fucking disgrace!!!

I read that story about the Red Bull. How much is that a day? They're clearly giving her too much in benefits. [Think the article said she spends a quarter of The 22k on the red bull, so that IS about £100 a week... although 26 cans a day is more like £20-25 a day so more like between £7-9k a year!!!


And she was saying she wanted the NHS to give her a gastric band to help her!!!


And although this won't stop her drinking any amount of fluids.!!!


Hardly genetic like KD claims many are...



All the examples like this are down to greed , too much shit food and laziness!!!

The woman said she didn't realise that Red Bull was giving her health issues. Her health issues are because of the amount of calories in it, so she put on weight. How could she not notice until she'd put on so much that she has health problems?

Honestly, some people just seem to have no sense at all.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I read that story about the Red Bull. How much is that a day? They're clearly giving her too much in benefits. [Think the article said she spends a quarter of The 22k on the red bull, so that IS about £100 a week... although 26 cans a day is more like £20-25 a day so more like between £7-9k a year!!!


And she was saying she wanted the NHS to give her a gastric band to help her!!!


And although this won't stop her drinking any amount of fluids.!!!


Hardly genetic like KD claims many are...



All the examples like this are down to greed , too much shit food and laziness!!!

what did i claim was genetic ?

i don`t work for the telegraph or the researches or the journal Nature,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11407747/Fat-genes-are-to-blame-for-a-fifth-of-obesity.html

Why are we giving idiots more money in benefits than they could possibly earn in employment...!?



It is a recipe for disaster...


And evidence of how over generous benefits are for single parents with multiple kids!

Tommy Monk wrote:Why are we giving idiots more money in benefits than they could possibly earn in employment...!?



It is a recipe for disaster...


And evidence of how over generous benefits are for single parents with multiple kids!

She gets £1,800 a month - that's just obscene, especially as she spent £450 a month on Red Bull.

This madness has to end.

Tommy Monk wrote:Why are we giving idiots more money in benefits than they could possibly earn in employment...!?



It is a recipe for disaster...


And evidence of how over generous benefits are for single parents with multiple kids!

you seemed to have ignored my question ?

what did i claim was genetic ?

KD, you made the claim about many obesity cases being down to genetics, then used the article to back up your claim.


Now I'm not disputing that there are some heavier set people about who are naturally large and fall into the BMI category of overweight... but these are Not the big fatties that We are talking about!!!


Most rugby players are technically classed as overweight as are many heavy weight boxers etc...


The excuse that it is genetic for the people who are so fat that they then try TO claim not being able to work etc is just bollocks!!!

Although Lupari has since quit drinking Red Bull (good move!) and lost about 30 pounds, she’s now saying she believes the National Health Service should help her lose the additional 70 pounds she needs to lose in order to avoid medical treatment. “I don’t want a gastric band or surgery but I think they should offer help for someone with this and to motivate them — something like a boot camp,” she told the Daily Mail.


wasn`t somebody saying they should be forced in to action yet this woman is doing just that and asking for help

seems some dam them for it on one hand ,then dam them for asking for help when they do ask for help

very strange

??