A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Physical activity is very important for health and should be encouraged, but obesity is much more to do with intake than exercise. Most public health analysts think government hasn’t tried enough to reduce obesity, so I don’t see the rationale for your “let’s give up” attitude.
well public health analysts are likely to think that aren't they ? Just as people who work for Stonewall think the government does not do enough for gay rights and Age Concern staff think the government does not do enough for the elderly. Its a mindset that we have more and more in this age where we think the government has to do all this stuff that once was up to the individual . Put it this way people were a lot thinner 30 years ago when none of this "intervention" was done - And the government really does have to cut its overall expenditurte (given the gas subsidy and debt and deficit) - it may as well start with stuff that does not work
I was against the move upon hearing it, but that's a good point.
Doubt the cause and effect loop is that quick or that simple. After all, obesity is a cumulative thing over years.
We don't even know if it has/hasn't worked, since that could only be done by comparing real UK with doppelganger UK without the last 30 years of campaigning. After all, people's everyday lifestyles are less active (more cars) and involve more food. Perhaps the anti-obesity measures of recent decades have stopped things getting worse (e.g. America) but are insufficient.
And obesity costs us all. It's obvious with an NHS system, but any "bottom line, nobody misses out on vital treatment for lack of money" system will have the same challenge. Public health is boring, nannying, and costs money which is easy to chop without instant disaster. But there will come a time when you really regret it's absence.
Wasn't Mr Johnson a convert after his covid (which is one of the things that interacts badly with obesity)? He was proclaiming action in, what was it, June 2020? But not much seems to have happened.
As the only comorbidity that people could do anything about, it does seem a bit mad there wasn't a campaign during 2020. Especially as we didn't think vaccines would arrive.
There were 41 weeks between the 1st and 2nd full lockdowns. That's 41 pounds at the NHS easy pace, or 19kg.
That's almost exactly what it would take an obese person to reach a healthy weight. (Based on someone 5' 10")
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Visited my daughter at her student digs in Oxford on Saturday. Great day sightseeing and drinking too much coffee but we dropped by one of the colleges to learn that tours were cancelled out of respect for the Queen. Quite why it would be disrespectful to tour the college as opposed to stuff we did instead is puzzling. Would the Queen have minded?
I'm remembering the media's outrage at people enjoying themselves at the beach during spring 2020, and I think organisations are terrified of a photo of people enjoying themselves on their premises during the period of mourning finding its way into the newspapers.
As an example of how fear of imagined social pressure leads to self-policing I think it would be hard to beat.
Yep. Puritanism: "The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
Plus customer costs incurred in booking locally for one night in some other hotels, which probably thought their Christmas had come early and jacked up the price the moment they realised ... and meals too (or at least the excess price)>
So it would be disrespectful to the Queen to stay at Centreparcs but not at a hotel outside of Centreparcs. I'm finding this corporate virtue-signalling very tiresome.
I'm not sure it's about respect per se, rather allowing staff to watch the funeral. However, I am sure most organisations could find enough employees who couldn't care less to staff the day.
We are having a wet room fitted, (hat-tip MattW for advice) and the chap plans to work on Monday. Did ask him if he was getting time and a half but apparently not.
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
I would be offended by 17% and consider it quite disrespectful, perhaps even alarmed. Now is there a constable around to nick the board of Centreparcs perhaps?
I think if I'd booked a week and was effectively losing a day of activities then I'd consider a day's refund reasonable as long as I also had the alternative of cancelling and rearranging at the same price. Mind you, I probably would cancel and rearrange in that case, which does suggest that the 17% is not enough (if it was enough, I'd choose the money back).
OK, it might be the start of a sustained climb, but the big picture is still wobbles on a gentle Conservative slide that has been going on for over a year now. But of a bounce back from the latest nadir (less bad news on energy? rallying round the flag?) But not a transformative change yet.
Can Truss turn that around? I don't quite see how. Even if the acute Ukraine/energy costs crisis goes away, all the chronic bad news will still be there. (To be clear, I doubt that Johnson could turn it round either.)
Superb fact I unearthed in the Wiki entry for Papua New Guinea and the monarchy
Colloquially, the former Queen was referred to as "Misis Kwin" (Mrs Queen) and as "Mama belong big family" in the creole language of Tok Pisin.[2] Prior to ascending the throne, the then Prince Charles was referred to in Tok Pisin as "Nambawan pikinini bilong Misis Kwin" (The first child of Mrs Queen)”
Also, the British monarchy is hugely popular there. Zero desire for a republic
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
It is indeed. The man is a walking parody. I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is, but this is an example. Pure virtue signalling. Not a vote winner.
And, it should be said, highly unlikely to become law before the next election whereupon it will be buried never to resurface.
Royalists: there's no way noncey Andrew will ever get near the reins of reigning.
Royalty:
Peston talking cr*p as usual.
The people entitled to serve as counsellors are exactly the same as those who served as counsellors under the Queen, minus Charles and plus Camilla (as consort) and Beatrice (as the next in line after Andrew). This is determined by statute not be any palace processes or decisions of Charles.
If there wants to be a change in how this is determined then there needs to be a statute (and there should be).
Part of the problem with "anti-obesity" measures is that not everybody agrees what causes obesity or what "healthy" foods actually are.
On a simplistic level, sure, everyone agrees calories in versus calories out but then when you start to think about policies on foods 'high in fat' etc - actually there's a lot of evidence that foods high in fat can be quite healthy.
For a very long time foods high in fat have been stigmatised and still today in the supermarkets you see 'low fat' advertised as if its healthier, but if you check the nutritional information on a lot of 'low fat' alternatives, the fat has been replaced with sugar instead.
Is it healthier to eat 'low fat' but high sugar food, or lower sugar but higher fat foods? Speak to different people and you'll get different answers.
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
It is indeed. The man is a walking parody. I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is, but this is an example. Pure virtue signalling. Not a vote winner.
And how much is it all going to cost? Either to do the survey or to change if people take option one!
From now on I am going to refer to King Charles III as “Nambawan pikinini bilong Misis Kwin” as he is properly styled by the sensible Papuans
Misis Kwin has a certain ring to it. Also suggestive of a certain gender fluidity, which matches the national woke zeitgeist.
We could also adopt an adaptation of Quinn the Eskimo as our new national anthem. Much catchier than GSTK.
Edit: We stopped building the big ships and the boats Some are trashing monuments Others, jotting down notes Ev’rybody’s in despair Every girl's a boy But when Misis Kwin gets here Ev’rybody’s gonna jump for joy Come all without, come all within You’ll not see nothing like our Misis Kwin
Let's ask again in a year's time. Quite meaningless at this point.
Not “meaningless” for those who argue that HMQEII’s death would trigger a republic.
It was never going to be instantaneous, was it? As discussed over recent days the succession is very much a belt and braces operation - Charles becomes king automatically and immediately to ensure there is no convenient interregnum in which to consider the future, but is then kingified further by the Accession Council and further again by the coronation, to make it look as if it's a popular acclaim sort of deal. My point was just that there's recency and novelty bias in polling now. Give it a year, and don't discount the tendency of events to happen. The York/Roberts payoff could have been seriously destabilising if it happened now rather than under HMQ.
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
It is indeed. The man is a walking parody. I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is, but this is an example. Pure virtue signalling. Not a vote winner.
And, it should be said, highly unlikely to become law before the next election whereupon it will be buried never to resurface.
'I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is'
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
It is indeed. The man is a walking parody. I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is, but this is an example. Pure virtue signalling. Not a vote winner.
And how much is it all going to cost? Either to do the survey or to change if people take option one!
Probably significantly more than the cost of a government information campaign on obesity. JRM being of course famously focused on value for money and not spending taxpayer's money on silly projects.
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
I filled in the questionnaire and had a lot of fun. Hopefully one or two of the fruitier responses will brighten the day of some underpaid civil servant although I doubt they would pierce JRM's Dreadnought-grade armour plating of entirely unmeritted self-regard even if anyone dared to show them to him.
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
It is indeed. The man is a walking parody. I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is, but this is an example. Pure virtue signalling. Not a vote winner.
And, it should be said, highly unlikely to become law before the next election whereupon it will be buried never to resurface.
'I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is'
Comatose?
Really ought to rhyme with woke in order to stick. "Volk"?
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
I would be offended by 17% and consider it quite disrespectful, perhaps even alarmed. Now is there a constable around to nick the board of Centreparcs perhaps?
I think if I'd booked a week and was effectively losing a day of activities then I'd consider a day's refund reasonable as long as I also had the alternative of cancelling and rearranging at the same price. Mind you, I probably would cancel and rearrange in that case, which does suggest that the 17% is not enough (if it was enough, I'd choose the money back).
It is far from enough for those arriving on Monday. The check in/out days are clearly worth much less at Centreparcs than the normal days. You check out at 10 and check in at 4, most people book their activities on the other days. Finding alternative accommodation at short notice or re-arranging trains/flights is going to cause additional expenses for many, and everything gets more expensive at short notice. 25-30% would have been tolerable.
Not sure if the people checking out are getting a refund too, probably not but they can usually use the facilities all day so are missing out too. If they are getting 17% that is generous, but zero would be harsh.
Of course the right decision if they were worried about staffing was to close the facilities but keep the lodges and check in open.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
It is indeed. The man is a walking parody. I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is, but this is an example. Pure virtue signalling. Not a vote winner.
And, it should be said, highly unlikely to become law before the next election whereupon it will be buried never to resurface.
'I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is'
Comatose?
Really ought to rhyme with woke in order to stick. "Volk"?
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
I would be offended by 17% and consider it quite disrespectful, perhaps even alarmed. Now is there a constable around to nick the board of Centreparcs perhaps?
I think if I'd booked a week and was effectively losing a day of activities then I'd consider a day's refund reasonable as long as I also had the alternative of cancelling and rearranging at the same price. Mind you, I probably would cancel and rearrange in that case, which does suggest that the 17% is not enough (if it was enough, I'd choose the money back).
I would not remotely consider a day's refund to be reasonable compensation for the disruption. Wouldn't scratch the surface.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Top post - spot on!
I am in the same boat - poor control, love food and drink, greedy, call it what you will but it means I am constantly fighting against my nature to keep control of my weight.
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
I filled in the questionnaire and had a lot of fun. Hopefully one or two of the fruitier responses will brighten the day of some underpaid civil servant although I doubt they would pierce JRM's Dreadnought-grade armour plating of entirely unmeritted self-regard even if anyone dared to show them to him.
It's the shamelessness of the bias in the questions that gets me.
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
I would be offended by 17% and consider it quite disrespectful, perhaps even alarmed. Now is there a constable around to nick the board of Centreparcs perhaps?
I think if I'd booked a week and was effectively losing a day of activities then I'd consider a day's refund reasonable as long as I also had the alternative of cancelling and rearranging at the same price. Mind you, I probably would cancel and rearrange in that case, which does suggest that the 17% is not enough (if it was enough, I'd choose the money back).
Surprisingly, the bike track day at Cadwell is still on for the day of the Statty Fyoonz. 105dB(A) noise limit too as an added bonus. See you all in the fast group and keep it full fucking gas on the exit from turn 12 aka 'The Mountain'.
I just worked out (I’m having a lazy Seville morning) that Nambawan pikinini bilong Misis Kwin, AKA King Chaz 3, rules over about 18,735,000 square kilometres of all the land on earth. So about a sixth of the entire planet. Ok it’s down from a quarter but hey. Not bad for 2022
We just need to persuade the US to become UK subjects again (they might as well, they’re gagging for royalty) and maybe one of the massive stans, and we’ll be BACK
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
It is indeed. The man is a walking parody. I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is, but this is an example. Pure virtue signalling. Not a vote winner.
And how much is it all going to cost? Either to do the survey or to change if people take option one!
Probably significantly more than the cost of a government information campaign on obesity. JRM being of course famously focused on value for money and not spending taxpayer's money on silly projects.
In any event, the change to metric measures happened long before we joined the Common Market, let alone the EU!
Part of the problem with "anti-obesity" measures is that not everybody agrees what causes obesity or what "healthy" foods actually are.
On a simplistic level, sure, everyone agrees calories in versus calories out but then when you start to think about policies on foods 'high in fat' etc - actually there's a lot of evidence that foods high in fat can be quite healthy.
For a very long time foods high in fat have been stigmatised and still today in the supermarkets you see 'low fat' advertised as if its healthier, but if you check the nutritional information on a lot of 'low fat' alternatives, the fat has been replaced with sugar instead.
Is it healthier to eat 'low fat' but high sugar food, or lower sugar but higher fat foods? Speak to different people and you'll get different answers.
Sure, but there is not much debate about whether drinking a litre of Coke a day is good for you. And of course, extremely similar drinks can be re-formulated with far less sugar.
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
It is indeed. The man is a walking parody. I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is, but this is an example. Pure virtue signalling. Not a vote winner.
And, it should be said, highly unlikely to become law before the next election whereupon it will be buried never to resurface.
'I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is'
Comatose?
Really ought to rhyme with woke in order to stick. "Volk"?
There's something a bit curious about the mixture of Center Parcs and lying in state. Like caravanning meets the coronation, or a rainy bank holiday in a Little Chef meets the dawn of a new era. Cliff Richard singing at Wimbledon in the rain.
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
I would be offended by 17% and consider it quite disrespectful, perhaps even alarmed. Now is there a constable around to nick the board of Centreparcs perhaps?
I think if I'd booked a week and was effectively losing a day of activities then I'd consider a day's refund reasonable as long as I also had the alternative of cancelling and rearranging at the same price. Mind you, I probably would cancel and rearrange in that case, which does suggest that the 17% is not enough (if it was enough, I'd choose the money back).
I would not remotely consider a day's refund to be reasonable compensation for the disruption. Wouldn't scratch the surface.
Meh, I guess I'm just a hakuna matata kind of guy.
I'm also speaking from a position of great ignorance, having never been to CenterParcs. Although I did once visit a CP knock-off with the glorious name of Sandy Balls.
Part of the problem with "anti-obesity" measures is that not everybody agrees what causes obesity or what "healthy" foods actually are.
On a simplistic level, sure, everyone agrees calories in versus calories out but then when you start to think about policies on foods 'high in fat' etc - actually there's a lot of evidence that foods high in fat can be quite healthy.
For a very long time foods high in fat have been stigmatised and still today in the supermarkets you see 'low fat' advertised as if its healthier, but if you check the nutritional information on a lot of 'low fat' alternatives, the fat has been replaced with sugar instead.
Is it healthier to eat 'low fat' but high sugar food, or lower sugar but higher fat foods? Speak to different people and you'll get different answers.
Although I find the evidence in favour of delicious, delicious refined sugar as being most problematic quite convincing, it's entirely possible that the answer will be different for different people.
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
I would be offended by 17% and consider it quite disrespectful, perhaps even alarmed. Now is there a constable around to nick the board of Centreparcs perhaps?
I think if I'd booked a week and was effectively losing a day of activities then I'd consider a day's refund reasonable as long as I also had the alternative of cancelling and rearranging at the same price. Mind you, I probably would cancel and rearrange in that case, which does suggest that the 17% is not enough (if it was enough, I'd choose the money back).
You don't just lose a day of activities though. This is one of my beefs with Centreparks - it takes so bloody long to get on and off the site you can almost write off the whole day you are arriving or leaving. And where do you and all your stuff go for the day? Imagine you're booked Friday to Friday - you've gone from having 6 whole days on the site (S, S, M, T, W, Th) to 3 (S, W, Th).
Part of the problem with "anti-obesity" measures is that not everybody agrees what causes obesity or what "healthy" foods actually are.
On a simplistic level, sure, everyone agrees calories in versus calories out but then when you start to think about policies on foods 'high in fat' etc - actually there's a lot of evidence that foods high in fat can be quite healthy.
For a very long time foods high in fat have been stigmatised and still today in the supermarkets you see 'low fat' advertised as if its healthier, but if you check the nutritional information on a lot of 'low fat' alternatives, the fat has been replaced with sugar instead.
Is it healthier to eat 'low fat' but high sugar food, or lower sugar but higher fat foods? Speak to different people and you'll get different answers.
Sure, but there is not much debate about whether drinking a litre of Coke a day is good for you. And of course, extremely similar drinks can be re-formulated with far less sugar.
That's absolutely true, though a lot of overweight people will drink "Diet" drinks, while a lot of skinny people can drink full sugar Coke.
Different people with different hormones absolutely can react to food differently. And hormones also affect people's appetites etc too, so some people that get accused of being 'greedy' are genuinely feeling hungry when they eat, while others who find they don't struggle with weight don't find themselves hungry as often.
Changing which foods you eat can affect your hormones too, which makes the whole thing much more complicated than the simplistic answers some put forwards.
Everybody's second favourite geordie after Gazza, Fiona Hill, has an excellent article in Foreign Policy on VVP's motivation and the wider conflict. Seek it out via the paywall busting site of your choice.
Briefly, VVP holds that the current extent of the Russian Federation is an incomplete aberration that's Lenin's fault. There is no Russia that does not include Ukraine so the SMO is as existential for Russia as it is for Ukraine. Also, the West underestimates the pragmatic durability of the Russia-China relationship.
That's not exactly news. They've been spouting this nationalistic/fascist crap since the start of the invasion. And if he didn't believe it, then his behaviour would be even more deranged than it is.
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
I would be offended by 17% and consider it quite disrespectful, perhaps even alarmed. Now is there a constable around to nick the board of Centreparcs perhaps?
I think if I'd booked a week and was effectively losing a day of activities then I'd consider a day's refund reasonable as long as I also had the alternative of cancelling and rearranging at the same price. Mind you, I probably would cancel and rearrange in that case, which does suggest that the 17% is not enough (if it was enough, I'd choose the money back).
You don't just lose a day of activities though. This is one of my beefs with Centreparks - it takes so bloody long to get on and off the site you can almost write off the whole day you are arriving or leaving. And where do you and all your stuff go for the day? Imagine you're booked Friday to Friday - you've gone from having 6 whole days on the site (S, S, M, T, W, Th) to 3 (S, W, Th).
Absolutely! That's why I said 17% doesn't scratch the surface.
Its disgraceful, and I quite like Centreparcs and have stayed their regularly but this is really off-putting.
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
It failed but not by quite as wide a margin as I'd thought.
But, I think that works both ways.
Are you and Leon quite OK with how "woke" Charles, William and Harry are or has it not really dawned on you both yet?
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
I would be offended by 17% and consider it quite disrespectful, perhaps even alarmed. Now is there a constable around to nick the board of Centreparcs perhaps?
I think if I'd booked a week and was effectively losing a day of activities then I'd consider a day's refund reasonable as long as I also had the alternative of cancelling and rearranging at the same price. Mind you, I probably would cancel and rearrange in that case, which does suggest that the 17% is not enough (if it was enough, I'd choose the money back).
You don't just lose a day of activities though. This is one of my beefs with Centreparks - it takes so bloody long to get on and off the site you can almost write off the whole day you are arriving or leaving. And where do you and all your stuff go for the day? Imagine you're booked Friday to Friday - you've gone from having 6 whole days on the site (S, S, M, T, W, Th) to 3 (S, W, Th).
The 17% is after the reverse ferret though? So you don't have to leave and return to the site, you just have a day on site where pretty much nothing is open (not sure about food, if there's no eateries open then that could also be a big problem reuqiring higher refund). So you lose a day of activities, have to go for a walk or read a book or watch a film or something.
17% clearly nowhere near enough for actually getting booted out as per the original plan.
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
I would be offended by 17% and consider it quite disrespectful, perhaps even alarmed. Now is there a constable around to nick the board of Centreparcs perhaps?
I think if I'd booked a week and was effectively losing a day of activities then I'd consider a day's refund reasonable as long as I also had the alternative of cancelling and rearranging at the same price. Mind you, I probably would cancel and rearrange in that case, which does suggest that the 17% is not enough (if it was enough, I'd choose the money back).
Surprisingly, the bike track day at Cadwell is still on for the day of the Statty Fyoonz. 105dB(A) noise limit too as an added bonus. See you all in the fast group and keep it full fucking gas on the exit from turn 12 aka 'The Mountain'.
I can't help feeling it's what she would have wanted.
Part of the problem with "anti-obesity" measures is that not everybody agrees what causes obesity or what "healthy" foods actually are.
On a simplistic level, sure, everyone agrees calories in versus calories out but then when you start to think about policies on foods 'high in fat' etc - actually there's a lot of evidence that foods high in fat can be quite healthy.
For a very long time foods high in fat have been stigmatised and still today in the supermarkets you see 'low fat' advertised as if its healthier, but if you check the nutritional information on a lot of 'low fat' alternatives, the fat has been replaced with sugar instead.
Is it healthier to eat 'low fat' but high sugar food, or lower sugar but higher fat foods? Speak to different people and you'll get different answers.
Sure, but there is not much debate about whether drinking a litre of Coke a day is good for you. And of course, extremely similar drinks can be re-formulated with far less sugar.
That's absolutely true, though a lot of overweight people will drink "Diet" drinks, while a lot of skinny people can drink full sugar Coke.
Different people with different hormones absolutely can react to food differently. And hormones also affect people's appetites etc too, so some people that get accused of being 'greedy' are genuinely feeling hungry when they eat, while others who find they don't struggle with weight don't find themselves hungry as often.
Changing which foods you eat can affect your hormones too, which makes the whole thing much more complicated than the simplistic answers some put forwards.
The healthy people who drink full sugar Coke, generally don't drink a lot of it, so are not impacted much by the per unit tax. The overweight people often drink a lot of soft drinks whether diet or full sugar, so the tax has relatively more impact.
Of course its not perfect, diet drinks are definitely much worse than water anyway so the substitute is not always great either, but it is a clear small bit of progress.
It takes a strange mind to see the UK now, in the midst of a cost of living crisis, a proxy war, coming out of the misery of Covid, with intergenerational unfairness at record levels, and think what we really should focus on is reducing taxes on the most sugary version of Coca Cola.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
There are 2 reasons why the formula calories in - calories out breaks down. In essence it the formula is correct and is useful as a guide, but i) the food industry measures calories by "burning" the food and measuring how much extra energy is created. How many calories are ingested by a human body will differ between food types and body types. ii) it is extremely difficult to know what the calories out value actually is. There is a lot more to it than just, how many steps a person does in a day, how many minutes cycled, kilos lifted etc. The same amount of activity for two people can give very different "calories out" values.
Everybody's second favourite geordie after Gazza, Fiona Hill, has an excellent article in Foreign Policy on VVP's motivation and the wider conflict. Seek it out via the paywall busting site of your choice.
Briefly, VVP holds that the current extent of the Russian Federation is an incomplete aberration that's Lenin's fault. There is no Russia that does not include Ukraine so the SMO is as existential for Russia as it is for Ukraine. Also, the West underestimates the pragmatic durability of the Russia-China relationship.
That's not exactly news. They've been spouting this nationalistic/fascist crap since the start of the invasion. And if he didn't believe it, then his behaviour would be even more deranged than it is.
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
It is indeed. The man is a walking parody. I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is, but this is an example. Pure virtue signalling. Not a vote winner.
And how much is it all going to cost? Either to do the survey or to change if people take option one!
It's a complete outrage. Was it in the 2019 manifesto? Was it f*ck.
JRM should be prosecuted for unlawful misuse of public funds - Misconduct in Public Office.
Part of the problem with "anti-obesity" measures is that not everybody agrees what causes obesity or what "healthy" foods actually are.
On a simplistic level, sure, everyone agrees calories in versus calories out but then when you start to think about policies on foods 'high in fat' etc - actually there's a lot of evidence that foods high in fat can be quite healthy.
For a very long time foods high in fat have been stigmatised and still today in the supermarkets you see 'low fat' advertised as if its healthier, but if you check the nutritional information on a lot of 'low fat' alternatives, the fat has been replaced with sugar instead.
Is it healthier to eat 'low fat' but high sugar food, or lower sugar but higher fat foods? Speak to different people and you'll get different answers.
Sure, but there is not much debate about whether drinking a litre of Coke a day is good for you. And of course, extremely similar drinks can be re-formulated with far less sugar.
There are known issues around artificial sweeteners too. They may lack calories, but have other effects on complex metabolism/hormone regulation etc.
Everybody's second favourite geordie after Gazza, Fiona Hill, has an excellent article in Foreign Policy on VVP's motivation and the wider conflict. Seek it out via the paywall busting site of your choice.
Briefly, VVP holds that the current extent of the Russian Federation is an incomplete aberration that's Lenin's fault. There is no Russia that does not include Ukraine so the SMO is as existential for Russia as it is for Ukraine. Also, the West underestimates the pragmatic durability of the Russia-China relationship.
Well Russia is going to fail in its existential conflict then.
Hopefully Russia breaks up into constituent provinces, but more likely Putin will be replaced with someone who accepts Russia's place in the world doesn't include Ukraine anymore.
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
It failed but not by quite as wide a margin as I'd thought.
But, I think that works both ways.
Are you and Leon quite OK with how "woke" Charles, William and Harry are or has it not really dawned on you both yet?
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
It failed but not by quite as wide a margin as I'd thought.
But, I think that works both ways.
Are you and Leon quite OK with how "woke" Charles, William and Harry are or has it not really dawned on you both yet?
I loved it when Nambawan Pikinini had to swear an oath as Defender of the Protestant Faith
Everybody's second favourite geordie after Gazza, Fiona Hill, has an excellent article in Foreign Policy on VVP's motivation and the wider conflict. Seek it out via the paywall busting site of your choice.
Briefly, VVP holds that the current extent of the Russian Federation is an incomplete aberration that's Lenin's fault. There is no Russia that does not include Ukraine so the SMO is as existential for Russia as it is for Ukraine. Also, the West underestimates the pragmatic durability of the Russia-China relationship.
That's not exactly news. They've been spouting this nationalistic/fascist crap since the start of the invasion. And if he didn't believe it, then his behaviour would be even more deranged than it is.
Part of the problem with "anti-obesity" measures is that not everybody agrees what causes obesity or what "healthy" foods actually are.
On a simplistic level, sure, everyone agrees calories in versus calories out but then when you start to think about policies on foods 'high in fat' etc - actually there's a lot of evidence that foods high in fat can be quite healthy.
For a very long time foods high in fat have been stigmatised and still today in the supermarkets you see 'low fat' advertised as if its healthier, but if you check the nutritional information on a lot of 'low fat' alternatives, the fat has been replaced with sugar instead.
Is it healthier to eat 'low fat' but high sugar food, or lower sugar but higher fat foods? Speak to different people and you'll get different answers.
Sure, but there is not much debate about whether drinking a litre of Coke a day is good for you. And of course, extremely similar drinks can be re-formulated with far less sugar.
There are known issues around artificial sweeteners too. They may lack calories, but have other effects on complex metabolism/hormone regulation etc.
Agreed, they are not good for you. But if you are going to drink a litre of soft drinks a day, diet is better than full sugar. If you drink 100ml a day full sugar might be best but then the taxes are not going to make any significant difference.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
I would be offended by 17% and consider it quite disrespectful, perhaps even alarmed. Now is there a constable around to nick the board of Centreparcs perhaps?
I think if I'd booked a week and was effectively losing a day of activities then I'd consider a day's refund reasonable as long as I also had the alternative of cancelling and rearranging at the same price. Mind you, I probably would cancel and rearrange in that case, which does suggest that the 17% is not enough (if it was enough, I'd choose the money back).
Surprisingly, the bike track day at Cadwell is still on for the day of the Statty Fyoonz. 105dB(A) noise limit too as an added bonus. See you all in the fast group and keep it full fucking gas on the exit from turn 12 aka 'The Mountain'.
I can't help feeling it's what she would have wanted.
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
It is indeed. The man is a walking parody. I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is, but this is an example. Pure virtue signalling. Not a vote winner.
And how much is it all going to cost? Either to do the survey or to change if people take option one!
It's a complete outrage. Was it in the 2019 manifesto? Was it f*ck.
JRM should be prosecuted for unlawful misuse of public funds - Misconduct in Public Office.
Also, anyone else a little uneasy with the reference to 'Imperial' measures.
Everybody's second favourite geordie after Gazza, Fiona Hill, has an excellent article in Foreign Policy on VVP's motivation and the wider conflict. Seek it out via the paywall busting site of your choice.
Briefly, VVP holds that the current extent of the Russian Federation is an incomplete aberration that's Lenin's fault. There is no Russia that does not include Ukraine so the SMO is as existential for Russia as it is for Ukraine. Also, the West underestimates the pragmatic durability of the Russia-China relationship.
Sadly, I suspect that is right.
Greater Russian Nationalism - as expressly endorsed by Putin and the boys for years.
I suppose people have been telling themselves that “he is too smart to believe in that”. But this is what they’ve been saying for years and years. And behaving to match - hence bombing Chechnya flat to save it.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
However it is not realistic for the Caribbean states to continue to have a white British head of state
Charles (#notmyking) is a direct descendent of the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) isn't he?
Or is that just one those things that arseholes who watch QI say that isn't really true?
It is almost certainly the case that everyone is. Also Charlemagne, Nero*, and anyone else from over 1000 years ago who had descendants.
There is a slight nuance here that there will be some people whose descendants genuinely all stayed in one place. So while it is certainly the case that if you pick random Anglo Saxon who had descendants 1000 years ago, if you are British, you are probably descended from him, as is everyone else British. But if you pick random Australian aboriginal from 1000 years ago that may well not be true. But for Mohammed, who had all sorts of descendents, many of whom fanned out across Europe and Asia, probably pretty much everyone British can count him as an ancestor.
*Name plucked out of the air. I don't actually know if he had descendants.
yes this video explains that concept in a mathy way.
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
It failed but not by quite as wide a margin as I'd thought.
But, I think that works both ways.
Are you and Leon quite OK with how "woke" Charles, William and Harry are or has it not really dawned on you both yet?
I loved it when Nambawan Pikinini had to swear an oath as Defender of the Protestant Faith
100% Non Woke
Although in fact he's more in favour of the rest of the faiths than the some of the more deranged anti-woke warriors, too.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Avoiding ultra-processed food is quite an effective weight loss strategy.
Not one popular with food manufacturers of course. Their profit is in selling processing and convenience.
I see Centreparcs have done a reverse ferret. Idiots.
Idiots for the forward ferret*, more than the reverse though.
17% refund, apparently. Fair enough for a week stay (it's around 1/6 of the price, so effectively a lost day) but if on a shorter stay it should be more. They should also allow people to cancel/move booking without penalty, don't know whether that is the case.
Either way, a good bit of Ratnering by CP.
*original ferret? is there a ferretitious term for the initial action?
Plus customer costs incurred in booking locally for one night in some other hotels, which probably thought their Christmas had come early and jacked up the price the moment they realised ... and meals too (or at least the excess price)>
So it would be disrespectful to the Queen to stay at Centreparcs but not at a hotel outside of Centreparcs. I'm finding this corporate virtue-signalling very tiresome.
I'm not sure it's about respect per se, rather allowing staff to watch the funeral. However, I am sure most organisations could find enough employees who couldn't care less to staff the day.
Somebody at the organisation probably got pissed off that this was an unscheduled Bank Holiday and that they couldn't charge customers more for staying over a Bank Holiday weekend like they normally would, but might have to pay staff more for working on a Bank Holiday.
Centerparcs is not closed on Bank Holidays, having a holiday resort closed over holidays would rather defeat their purpose, but they do jack the price up.
My personal guess was that this was a series of David Brents saying “we can’t authorise higher pay for the unexpected Bank Holiday”. Don’t want to be seen as week by Corporate….No staff, no opening. So they petulantly went for no opening.
Ironically, since this escalated, Corporate will probably fire some of them for fucking up.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
We bought ourselves some smaller dinner plates for that reason, but my main problem is eating too much delicious refined sugar.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Avoiding ultra-processed food is quite an effective weight loss strategy.
Not one popular with food manufacturers of course. Their profit is in selling processing and convenience.
Indeed. Richer American tourists who come to Europe - France, Spain, Greece etc - claim they lose weight simply by the switch to much less processed food (and walking more, obvs)
They make no other obvious changes to their diet. Or so they say
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Avoiding ultra-processed food is quite an effective weight loss strategy.
Not one popular with food manufacturers of course. Their profit is in selling processing and convenience.
It 'feels' like the right thing to do, and it's something Mrs P and I try to do, but why do you think it's an effective weight loss strategy? Is it proven?
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
It is indeed. The man is a walking parody. I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is, but this is an example. Pure virtue signalling. Not a vote winner.
And how much is it all going to cost? Either to do the survey or to change if people take option one!
It's a complete outrage. Was it in the 2019 manifesto? Was it f*ck.
JRM should be prosecuted for unlawful misuse of public funds - Misconduct in Public Office.
Also, anyone else a little uneasy with the reference to 'Imperial' measures.
Part of the problem with "anti-obesity" measures is that not everybody agrees what causes obesity or what "healthy" foods actually are.
On a simplistic level, sure, everyone agrees calories in versus calories out but then when you start to think about policies on foods 'high in fat' etc - actually there's a lot of evidence that foods high in fat can be quite healthy.
For a very long time foods high in fat have been stigmatised and still today in the supermarkets you see 'low fat' advertised as if its healthier, but if you check the nutritional information on a lot of 'low fat' alternatives, the fat has been replaced with sugar instead.
Is it healthier to eat 'low fat' but high sugar food, or lower sugar but higher fat foods? Speak to different people and you'll get different answers.
Sure, but there is not much debate about whether drinking a litre of Coke a day is good for you. And of course, extremely similar drinks can be re-formulated with far less sugar.
That's absolutely true, though a lot of overweight people will drink "Diet" drinks, while a lot of skinny people can drink full sugar Coke.
Different people with different hormones absolutely can react to food differently. And hormones also affect people's appetites etc too, so some people that get accused of being 'greedy' are genuinely feeling hungry when they eat, while others who find they don't struggle with weight don't find themselves hungry as often.
Changing which foods you eat can affect your hormones too, which makes the whole thing much more complicated than the simplistic answers some put forwards.
The healthy people who drink full sugar Coke, generally don't drink a lot of it, so are not impacted much by the per unit tax. The overweight people often drink a lot of soft drinks whether diet or full sugar, so the tax has relatively more impact.
Of course its not perfect, diet drinks are definitely much worse than water anyway so the substitute is not always great either, but it is a clear small bit of progress.
It takes a strange mind to see the UK now, in the midst of a cost of living crisis, a proxy war, coming out of the misery of Covid, with intergenerational unfairness at record levels, and think what we really should focus on is reducing taxes on the most sugary version of Coca Cola.
Ummm we might be talking cross purposes, I absolutely am not suggesting reversing the sugar tax on Coca Cola. In fact as someone who was brought up in the 80s to drink sugar-free soft drinks for dental reasons before it became popular for anti-obesity reasons, I am selfishly quite happy that more sugar-free alternatives are available now than in the past.
I was just making a comment about how complex the whole issue of obesity is. Simple answers don't tend to work for people and just saying "cut fatty foods" etc doesn't necessarily work, nor does simply saying "eat less" that tends to mean people get hungry and then snack on sugar or carb-heavy snacks between meals.
For me as someone who has always struggled with my weight, when I deliberately make an effort to eat more nutritious food, then I am not as hungry between meals and snack less, and control my weight better. Putting more veg on the plate and fewer carbs makes a big difference, more than simply saying "eat less" or "eat fewer fats".
Replacing "diet" or "low fat" food options with full-fat foods works well for me too. Butter, cheese and other dairy options for instance can be high in fats, but work very well as part of a balanced, nutritious meal and just cutting out fats doesn't work well for me at least.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
Also, anyone else a little uneasy with the reference to 'Imperial' measures.
Thats, kinda not a good name.
On my USN exchange it took me a while to realise WTF people were talking about when they referred to "Standard" units of measure. It's snappier than "Functionally Obsolete Mixed Radix Units" I suppose.
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
It is indeed. The man is a walking parody. I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is, but this is an example. Pure virtue signalling. Not a vote winner.
And how much is it all going to cost? Either to do the survey or to change if people take option one!
It's a complete outrage. Was it in the 2019 manifesto? Was it f*ck.
JRM should be prosecuted for unlawful misuse of public funds - Misconduct in Public Office.
Also, anyone else a little uneasy with the reference to 'Imperial' measures.
Thats, kinda not a good name.
What do they call them in the US? Genuinely interested.
Where was that island where they had the "Prince Philip Movement" , where they had merged his own arrival on the island with a piece of ancestral mythology, in a sort of socially adaptive, self-stabilising exercise ? Presumably this won't be passed on to Charles, or perhaps yes ?
Part of the problem with "anti-obesity" measures is that not everybody agrees what causes obesity or what "healthy" foods actually are.
On a simplistic level, sure, everyone agrees calories in versus calories out but then when you start to think about policies on foods 'high in fat' etc - actually there's a lot of evidence that foods high in fat can be quite healthy.
For a very long time foods high in fat have been stigmatised and still today in the supermarkets you see 'low fat' advertised as if its healthier, but if you check the nutritional information on a lot of 'low fat' alternatives, the fat has been replaced with sugar instead.
Is it healthier to eat 'low fat' but high sugar food, or lower sugar but higher fat foods? Speak to different people and you'll get different answers.
Sure, but there is not much debate about whether drinking a litre of Coke a day is good for you. And of course, extremely similar drinks can be re-formulated with far less sugar.
That's absolutely true, though a lot of overweight people will drink "Diet" drinks, while a lot of skinny people can drink full sugar Coke.
Different people with different hormones absolutely can react to food differently. And hormones also affect people's appetites etc too, so some people that get accused of being 'greedy' are genuinely feeling hungry when they eat, while others who find they don't struggle with weight don't find themselves hungry as often.
Changing which foods you eat can affect your hormones too, which makes the whole thing much more complicated than the simplistic answers some put forwards.
The healthy people who drink full sugar Coke, generally don't drink a lot of it, so are not impacted much by the per unit tax. The overweight people often drink a lot of soft drinks whether diet or full sugar, so the tax has relatively more impact.
Of course its not perfect, diet drinks are definitely much worse than water anyway so the substitute is not always great either, but it is a clear small bit of progress.
It takes a strange mind to see the UK now, in the midst of a cost of living crisis, a proxy war, coming out of the misery of Covid, with intergenerational unfairness at record levels, and think what we really should focus on is reducing taxes on the most sugary version of Coca Cola.
Ummm we might be talking cross purposes, I absolutely am not suggesting reversing the sugar tax on Coca Cola. In fact as someone who was brought up in the 80s to drink sugar-free soft drinks for dental reasons before it became popular for anti-obesity reasons, I am selfishly quite happy that more sugar-free alternatives are available now than in the past.
I was just making a comment about how complex the whole issue of obesity is. Simple answers don't tend to work for people and just saying "cut fatty foods" etc doesn't necessarily work, nor does simply saying "eat less" that tends to mean people get hungry and then snack on sugar or carb-heavy snacks between meals.
For me as someone who has always struggled with my weight, when I deliberately make an effort to eat more nutritious food, then I am not as hungry between meals and snack less, and control my weight better. Putting more veg on the plate and fewer carbs makes a big difference, more than simply saying "eat less" or "eat fewer fats".
Replacing "diet" or "low fat" food options with full-fat foods works well for me too. Butter, cheese and other dairy options for instance can be high in fats, but work very well as part of a balanced, nutritious meal and just cutting out fats doesn't work well for me at least.
Yes I agree with all that. My gripe is, as usual, with the govt for being silly and chasing headlines. Was hoping we might be past that with a new PM.
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
Mr. B, to be honest, it's the nonsense of decimalisation that aggravates me more. Bring back the sensible system of 240d in a pound, with shillings, florins, crowns, and guineas to add a little extra.
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
It is indeed. The man is a walking parody. I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is, but this is an example. Pure virtue signalling. Not a vote winner.
And how much is it all going to cost? Either to do the survey or to change if people take option one!
It's a complete outrage. Was it in the 2019 manifesto? Was it f*ck.
JRM should be prosecuted for unlawful misuse of public funds - Misconduct in Public Office.
Also, anyone else a little uneasy with the reference to 'Imperial' measures.
Thats, kinda not a good name.
What do they call them in the US? Genuinely interested.
Part of the problem with "anti-obesity" measures is that not everybody agrees what causes obesity or what "healthy" foods actually are.
On a simplistic level, sure, everyone agrees calories in versus calories out but then when you start to think about policies on foods 'high in fat' etc - actually there's a lot of evidence that foods high in fat can be quite healthy.
For a very long time foods high in fat have been stigmatised and still today in the supermarkets you see 'low fat' advertised as if its healthier, but if you check the nutritional information on a lot of 'low fat' alternatives, the fat has been replaced with sugar instead.
Is it healthier to eat 'low fat' but high sugar food, or lower sugar but higher fat foods? Speak to different people and you'll get different answers.
At an underlying level you are correct, but there is a huge danger that this kind of comment quickly turns into the argument/excuse "if the experts can't agree, i'll just carry on regardless". This approach has been very sucessfully employed by the anti global warning camp, and has long dogged nutritional advice.
There is a lot of concensus by those who work in this area, and the know that detail is a lot more nuanced than "fat=bad". Differences in opinions are quite small, but these tend to get amplified by media reporting and the food industry.
Getting good advice accross to everyone is not easy, partly because some are only prepared to listen to very simple guidelines, and others want much more detail.
Radio 4 More or Less…..Govt Dept BEIS consultation on Imperial measures
Would you prefer to shop in: 1) Imperial Measures 2) Imperial Measures with Metric Measures 3) There is no third option….
Sigh... this is utterly stupid. Is this a JRM special?
It is indeed. The man is a walking parody. I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is, but this is an example. Pure virtue signalling. Not a vote winner.
And how much is it all going to cost? Either to do the survey or to change if people take option one!
It's a complete outrage. Was it in the 2019 manifesto? Was it f*ck.
JRM should be prosecuted for unlawful misuse of public funds - Misconduct in Public Office.
Also, anyone else a little uneasy with the reference to 'Imperial' measures.
Thats, kinda not a good name.
What do they call them in the US? Genuinely interested.
Freedom measures?
My mum is a staunch defender of imperial units. Also a Francophobe. I'm not sure whether she's thought about the etymology of 'avoirdupois'...
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
It failed but not by quite as wide a margin as I'd thought.
But, I think that works both ways.
Are you and Leon quite OK with how "woke" Charles, William and Harry are or has it not really dawned on you both yet?
Do you really think that is anything other than a public relations strategy ?
I mean, if you are looking for families that directly benefitted from slavery, it would be hard to find better examples than the various Royal Families of Europe, especially the UK Royal Family.
So, I don't for one moment believe that Charles & Co seriously entertain financially compensating the peoples who enriched them.
The "wokeness" is to obscure their culpability.
The "wokeness' is to tarnish the whole population of the UK with collective guilt for slavery, when it was largely a ruling elite who benefitted.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
The state has a responsibility to safeguarding children and that's where it should start. And we do a bit (more than some countries), but not enough, on childhood obesity. There's a reason we ban kids from driving, smoking and drinking. Yet you can still walk into a school canteen, pick up a deep pan pizza with an inch of cheese on top, have some chips on the side and follow up with a chocolate brownie then pop to the school shop in the afternoon for a cheese toastie.
Greece, Italy, Cyprus and several others around the med, disaster zone. Countries with the supposed mediterranean lifestyle and diet. Also countries where government provision in early years and school education has collapsed since the financial crisis. On the other hand France, the Nordics, the Baltic states: countries where state provision in healthcare and education has been and continues to be comprehensive and well funded, and school meals are regulated, all doing fine.
Look at the stats for countries like Mexico or South Africa to see the result of complete government inaction on young people's nutrition.
What, like Mexico introducing a soda tax in 2014 among other measures over the last few years.
Precisely because things have got to such a pretty pass. Hopefully it will stop or at least slow down the rot. But the issue is like the med countries they have a very weak central state, poorly funded public services including education, and in Mexico's case of course a vast mass-producer of the most unhealthy food on the planet along their Northern border.
Its been in place 8 years. Plenty time to work
You claimed Mexico did nothing. That’s not true.
In the U.K. childhood obesity is high relative to adult obesity due to a change in how it was measured. This article links to the graph. Do we really believe when kids become adults they suddenly become less obese.
Do you believe the online ad ban which its proponents claim will remove 4 whole calories a day at best on average is a worthwhile endeavour ?
An interesting paper but I'd wonder about other factors too. In the past I've posted here about my scepticism regarding child obesity simply from walking past four local schools on the way to the fish and chip shop.
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
Part of the problem with "anti-obesity" measures is that not everybody agrees what causes obesity or what "healthy" foods actually are.
On a simplistic level, sure, everyone agrees calories in versus calories out but then when you start to think about policies on foods 'high in fat' etc - actually there's a lot of evidence that foods high in fat can be quite healthy.
For a very long time foods high in fat have been stigmatised and still today in the supermarkets you see 'low fat' advertised as if its healthier, but if you check the nutritional information on a lot of 'low fat' alternatives, the fat has been replaced with sugar instead.
Is it healthier to eat 'low fat' but high sugar food, or lower sugar but higher fat foods? Speak to different people and you'll get different answers.
At an underlying level you are correct, but there is a huge danger that this kind of comment quickly turns into the argument/excuse "if the experts can't agree, i'll just carry on regardless". This approach has been very sucessfully employed by the anti global warning camp, and has long dogged nutritional advice.
There is a lot of concensus by those who work in this area, and the know that detail is a lot more nuanced than "fat=bad". Differences in opinions are quite small, but these tend to get amplified by media reporting and the food industry.
Getting good advice accross to everyone is not easy, partly because some are only prepared to listen to very simple guidelines, and others want much more detail.
The approach we take with our children is that the more multicoloured the meal, the better.
Not fail safe but pretty decent as a measure. Beige food is the killer.
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
I'm fully metric (49 years old) and I always ask in grams e.g. 700 grams of stewing steak etc
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
We need polling in the Carribean realms. A lot of their governments get tempted to fire from the hip - I suspect it's not a slam dunk in Antigua or even Jamaica.
Two factors at play here, I suspect. And likewise in Canada. The main one is complacency. Canada, Oz and NZ are all successful, prosperous democracies. Why risk that with wrenching political change?
I also suspect a backlash against Woke. Everyone Anglo in Oz and NZ is constantly bashed over the head with “white guilt” and “we stole these lands”
What’s a good but quiet way of subtly rebelling against all that? By saying “yes fair enough, but we also have our own European heritage, and we’re quite proud of that, actually”
So they stick with the monarchy.
Cf the NZ referendum to change the flag and drop the Union Jack. That failed badly. It was a discreet fuck-you to liberal Wokeness
It failed but not by quite as wide a margin as I'd thought.
But, I think that works both ways.
Are you and Leon quite OK with how "woke" Charles, William and Harry are or has it not really dawned on you both yet?
Do you really think that is anything other than a public relations strategy ?
I mean, if you are looking for families that directly benefitted from slavery, it would be hard to find better examples than the various Royal Families of Europe, especially the UK Royal Family.
So, I don't for one moment believe that Charles & Co seriously entertain financially compensating the peoples who enriched them.
The "wokeness" is to obscure their culpability.
The "wokeness' is to tarnish the whole population of the UK with collective guilt for slavery, when it was largely a ruling elite who benefitted.
Depends what you mean by "wokeness". Charles's multicultural spiritualism and environmentalism aren't a public relations strategy - they are facets of what was circulating when he was young in the late 1960's and early 1970's. It's not modern-style wokeness, if and where that exists beyond the political correctness-style caricatures, but it is helpful.
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
Also at the risk of being controversial:
My wife usually doles out the meals and I get a slightly larger helping than my wife does. I think this is generally the case - that the male eats more than the female. Calorie recommendations seem to imply this. My wife is only 73% of my weight (or I am 137% of hers if you like). I assume the practice in our house is common country-wide?
So why in restaurants are orders served of the same quantity of food regardless of whether the diner is male or female?
Part of the problem with "anti-obesity" measures is that not everybody agrees what causes obesity or what "healthy" foods actually are.
On a simplistic level, sure, everyone agrees calories in versus calories out but then when you start to think about policies on foods 'high in fat' etc - actually there's a lot of evidence that foods high in fat can be quite healthy.
For a very long time foods high in fat have been stigmatised and still today in the supermarkets you see 'low fat' advertised as if its healthier, but if you check the nutritional information on a lot of 'low fat' alternatives, the fat has been replaced with sugar instead.
Is it healthier to eat 'low fat' but high sugar food, or lower sugar but higher fat foods? Speak to different people and you'll get different answers.
At an underlying level you are correct, but there is a huge danger that this kind of comment quickly turns into the argument/excuse "if the experts can't agree, i'll just carry on regardless". This approach has been very sucessfully employed by the anti global warning camp, and has long dogged nutritional advice.
There is a lot of concensus by those who work in this area, and the know that detail is a lot more nuanced than "fat=bad". Differences in opinions are quite small, but these tend to get amplified by media reporting and the food industry.
Getting good advice accross to everyone is not easy, partly because some are only prepared to listen to very simple guidelines, and others want much more detail.
The approach we take with our children is that the more multicoloured the meal, the better.
Not fail safe but pretty decent as a measure. Beige food is the killer.
That's really not good advice if you're foraging mushrooms...
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
I would ask for half a kilo...
That's only 227 grams...
Half a kilo is 500 grams ...
I don't ask for any weight, since I don't go to a butcher, I just grab whatever appropriate sized pack exists on the shelf at the supermarket. .
How many people go into the shops and ask for 454 grams of mince for example... most don't know that 454 grams is a pound weight. I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
I am most familiar with asking for the 568ml quantity
A bit surprised that outlets like the Guardian are still running acres of Royal coverage at the top of their front pages. Sure, the Telegraph and BBC you’d expect. But it’s not like there isn’t any actual news happening at the moment.
Liz Truss could scrap anti-obesity strategy in drive to cut red tape
Exclusive: Health officials ‘aghast’ as review launched of measures to deter people from eating junk food
There is a longstanding part of 'woke' thinking that essentially glorifies obesity, trying to suggest it is a social construct rather than a medical problem. The alternative 'fattylmpics' in 2012; along with the emergence of an academic discipline of 'fat studies' over the past 2 decades was an early manifestation of this. It is now mainstreamed with this idea of body positivity, people being obese and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, that the problem is with 'society' and it all being reducible to a question of identity, with them being 'victims'. There is a good chapter on it in 'cynical theories' by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay.
It is clearly not good for either the individual or society if you are obese . That said government "intervention" and spend in this area clearly has not worked so why bother ? Better to spend the dosh on making sport participation zero rated for VAT
Is it costing the government anything? I think the objection on the part of government is that it is a 'cost to business'.
red tape costs both government (or taxpayer) and business .Put it this way when you invite guests around for a dinner party do you think they woudl appreciate you putting little cards next to the servings telling them how many calories are in the food? Its nannying in the sense of the government thinking they can do something about it when it is down to individuals own respeonsibility for their health - as i said the best way for government to approach this is to not intervene but tax less healthy activity
About .01% of what obesity and its consequences cost the NHS.
and people are getting fatter - Its not working bascially because nobody needs "government education " on this (we have the sodding internet if you reallly do value education on this )- its up to individuals and their own responsibility - WFH probably does not help either - walking to work ,moving around offices probably helped a bit stave off the fat
Leaving it to individuals and their own responsibility isn't working though is it. Some action and nudges at the supplier end may not be a bad thing, though in general I agree with you that the state should stay out of matters of individual choice.
I'm happy enough with concepts like sugar taxes etc. These things have negative externalities which are picked up by the government so, like smoking, I've no problem with tax on that. There's also the point that pricing signals could be effective - e.g. two similar products, one cheaper due to lower sugar and dodging tax (e.g. someome might buy full sugar Coke out of habit, but Zero being cheaper due to tax might nudge them towards trying that). In practice, of course, what tends to happen - at least where the alternative is not fom the same vendor and lobbying fails to kill the tax - is that products are designed around the tax, to avoid it. Which is also fine.
Edit to add: a sometime colleague (occasional collaborations over a number of years, but not at the same institution) has done a lot of work on minimum alcohol pricing. Not my field and I haven't been involved, but it's interesting stuff.
I think controlling weight and eventually obesity is a really tough one for a lot of people. Some people don't get fat, for a lot of reasons. Some are very self disciplined, recognising that if they don't control what the eat and drink they will put on weight. Others are more naturally blessed, such as my wife. When she isn't hungry she has no interest in food. None. For me, I can eat whenever - hungry or not. I have poor control. I don't particularly eat a bad diet but almost certainly too much.
And yet weight really isn't as simple as calories in vs calories out. Loads of studies on over-eating (such as giving people 4000 to 5000 calories a day for an extended period but not seeing huge weight gains) bear this out. More likely hormone regulation about what the body does with food (does it store fats, or try to excrete sugars etc) plus gut bacteria, combined with food choices (processed food is terrible).
Frankkly if we only had greengrocers and butchers and had to cook from there we'd probably all be healthier.
Yep, it's complicated. At the base level, the solution to obesity is to eat less and/or exercise more. But there do seem to be substantial differences between what people can eat without becoming overwieght, beyond obvious differences in exercise. Some physiology, I expect, but maybe also some micro-differences in lifestyle and activity that are not easily recorded.
The eating less issue is key IMHO. Every fat person I know, especially those who complain they can’t lose weight just eat too much.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
Too true. As I've written here before, despite eating healthily I was for several years overweight, because I was overeating at meal times. Last year I lost a lot of weight, so that I am now a "healthy" weight and this year have sucessfully kept the weight off. Eating less was easily the main factor in losing weight.
I find the difference in how people react to smoking and obesity interesting. I’m an idiot and I smoke. I know it’s totally stupid and have given myself a point where I stop - it’s a specific moment soon where I will because of other things in my life but I know it will be when I totally stop.
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
Also at the risk of being controversial:
My wife usually doles out the meals and I get a slightly larger helping than my wife does. I think this is generally the case - that the male eats more than the female. Calorie recommendations seem to imply this. My wife is only 73% of my weight (or I am 137% of hers if you like). I assume the practice in our house is common country-wide?
So why in restaurants are orders served of the same quantity of food regardless of whether the diner is male or female?
Would your restaurant serve more to the 5ft2 bloke or the 6ft2 woman?
Comments
There were 41 weeks between the 1st and 2nd full lockdowns. That's 41 pounds at the NHS easy pace, or 19kg.
That's almost exactly what it would take an obese person to reach a healthy weight. (Based on someone 5' 10")
Can Truss turn that around? I don't quite see how. Even if the acute Ukraine/energy costs crisis goes away, all the chronic bad news will still be there. (To be clear, I doubt that Johnson could turn it round either.)
I don't know what the playground right wing version of woke is, but this is an example. Pure virtue signalling. Not a vote winner.
And, it should be said, highly unlikely to become law before the next election whereupon it will be buried never to resurface.
The people entitled to serve as counsellors are exactly the same as those who served as counsellors under the Queen, minus Charles and plus Camilla (as consort) and Beatrice (as the next in line after Andrew). This is determined by statute not be any palace processes or decisions of Charles.
If there wants to be a change in how this is determined then there needs to be a statute (and there should be).
On a simplistic level, sure, everyone agrees calories in versus calories out but then when you start to think about policies on foods 'high in fat' etc - actually there's a lot of evidence that foods high in fat can be quite healthy.
For a very long time foods high in fat have been stigmatised and still today in the supermarkets you see 'low fat' advertised as if its healthier, but if you check the nutritional information on a lot of 'low fat' alternatives, the fat has been replaced with sugar instead.
Is it healthier to eat 'low fat' but high sugar food, or lower sugar but higher fat foods? Speak to different people and you'll get different answers.
We could also adopt an adaptation of Quinn the Eskimo as our new national anthem. Much catchier than GSTK.
Edit:
We stopped building the big ships and the boats
Some are trashing monuments
Others, jotting down notes
Ev’rybody’s in despair
Every girl's a boy
But when Misis Kwin gets here
Ev’rybody’s gonna jump for joy
Come all without, come all within
You’ll not see nothing like our Misis Kwin
Comatose?
Strange times!
Not sure if the people checking out are getting a refund too, probably not but they can usually use the facilities all day so are missing out too. If they are getting 17% that is generous, but zero would be harsh.
Of course the right decision if they were worried about staffing was to close the facilities but keep the lodges and check in open.
They will have giant plates or bowls of food and then express shock that they are still fat “but I’m not eating really unhealthy food” they cry without realising they are eating enough for four people in the evening so not only too much food but no time to burn it off as they are also too full to do anything but have a food coma on the sofa afterwards.
So if the gov have to do anything they need to really start hammering home portion sizes to people - when the ready meal says “serves 4” it generally means it unless you are working physically all day or exercising a lot.
I am in the same boat - poor control, love food and drink, greedy, call it what you will but it means I am constantly fighting against my nature to keep control of my weight.
We just need to persuade the US to become UK subjects again (they might as well, they’re gagging for royalty) and maybe one of the massive stans, and we’ll be BACK
I'm also speaking from a position of great ignorance, having never been to CenterParcs. Although I did once visit a CP knock-off with the glorious name of Sandy Balls.
Different people with different hormones absolutely can react to food differently. And hormones also affect people's appetites etc too, so some people that get accused of being 'greedy' are genuinely feeling hungry when they eat, while others who find they don't struggle with weight don't find themselves hungry as often.
Changing which foods you eat can affect your hormones too, which makes the whole thing much more complicated than the simplistic answers some put forwards.
They've been spouting this nationalistic/fascist crap since the start of the invasion.
And if he didn't believe it, then his behaviour would be even more deranged than it is.
An interesting update on that during last night's TV debate
https://mobile.twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1569870269191229440
Its disgraceful, and I quite like Centreparcs and have stayed their regularly but this is really off-putting.
17% clearly nowhere near enough for actually getting booted out as per the original plan.
Of course its not perfect, diet drinks are definitely much worse than water anyway so the substitute is not always great either, but it is a clear small bit of progress.
It takes a strange mind to see the UK now, in the midst of a cost of living crisis, a proxy war, coming out of the misery of Covid, with intergenerational unfairness at record levels, and think what we really should focus on is reducing taxes on the most sugary version of Coca Cola.
In essence it the formula is correct and is useful as a guide, but i) the food industry measures calories by "burning" the food and measuring how much extra energy is created. How many calories are ingested by a human body will differ between food types and body types.
ii) it is extremely difficult to know what the calories out value actually is. There is a lot more to it than just, how many steps a person does in a day, how many minutes cycled, kilos lifted etc. The same amount of activity for two people can give very different "calories out" values.
JRM should be prosecuted for unlawful misuse of public funds - Misconduct in Public Office.
Just as he is now no longer the Prince of Wales, that may no longer be accurate
#BREAKING Shooting breaks out between Kyrgyz, Tajik border guards: Russian agencies
https://mobile.twitter.com/guyelster/status/1569910038268985345
100% Non Woke
Thats, kinda not a good name.
I suppose people have been telling themselves that “he is too smart to believe in that”. But this is what they’ve been saying for years and years. And behaving to match - hence bombing Chechnya flat to save it.
https://enormo-haddock.blogspot.com/2022/09/epl-and-serie-thoughts_14.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm0hOex4psA&t=165s
A nano-Moog is roughly equivalent to a fart in a hurricane.
Not one popular with food manufacturers of course. Their profit is in selling processing and convenience.
Ironically, since this escalated, Corporate will probably fire some of them for fucking up.
Ultimately it will come down to policy differences and how the economy is perceived
I would say JRM is the biggest error of Truss's choices so far
Bringing back imperial measurements is utterly absurd
They make no other obvious changes to their diet. Or so they say
Prince Charles Wrong To Criticise Vladimir Putin, Says Nigel Farage
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/21/ukip-nigel-farage-prince-charles-hitler_n_5363536.html
I was just making a comment about how complex the whole issue of obesity is. Simple answers don't tend to work for people and just saying "cut fatty foods" etc doesn't necessarily work, nor does simply saying "eat less" that tends to mean people get hungry and then snack on sugar or carb-heavy snacks between meals.
For me as someone who has always struggled with my weight, when I deliberately make an effort to eat more nutritious food, then I am not as hungry between meals and snack less, and control my weight better. Putting more veg on the plate and fewer carbs makes a big difference, more than simply saying "eat less" or "eat fewer fats".
Replacing "diet" or "low fat" food options with full-fat foods works well for me too. Butter, cheese and other dairy options for instance can be high in fats, but work very well as part of a balanced, nutritious meal and just cutting out fats doesn't work well for me at least.
I wonder if it is because they are a bitterly divided, sadly violent country, and there is no way they could agree on any other system….
It also gives them a strong link with prosperous strong Australia next door
When someone criticises me for smoking, as people do, I don’t have a strop or cry but agree saying “yes it’s grim and stupid and will stop”.
If however you tell someone they should eat less and lose weight as it’s bad for them then it tends to get a slightly less accepting reception.
I often ask for 681 grams of mince in our butcher....
The Empire is far too modern.
What do they call them in the US? Genuinely interested.
There is a lot of concensus by those who work in this area, and the know that detail is a lot more nuanced than "fat=bad". Differences in opinions are quite small, but these tend to get amplified by media reporting and the food industry.
Getting good advice accross to everyone is not easy, partly because some are only prepared to listen to very simple guidelines, and others want much more detail.
My mum is a staunch defender of imperial units. Also a Francophobe. I'm not sure whether she's thought about the etymology of 'avoirdupois'...
I mean, if you are looking for families that directly benefitted from slavery, it would be hard to find better examples than the various Royal Families of Europe, especially the UK Royal Family.
So, I don't for one moment believe that Charles & Co seriously entertain financially compensating the peoples who enriched them.
The "wokeness" is to obscure their culpability.
The "wokeness' is to tarnish the whole population of the UK with collective guilt for slavery, when it was largely a ruling elite who benefitted.
Not fail safe but pretty decent as a measure. Beige food is the killer.
My wife usually doles out the meals and I get a slightly larger helping than my wife does. I think this is generally the case - that the male eats more than the female. Calorie recommendations seem to imply this. My wife is only 73% of my weight (or I am 137% of hers if you like). I assume the practice in our house is common country-wide?
So why in restaurants are orders served of the same quantity of food regardless of whether the diner is male or female?
I don't ask for any weight, since I don't go to a butcher, I just grab whatever appropriate sized pack exists on the shelf at the supermarket. .