The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
Which is precisely why this outreach programme is being trialled. People ignore the health MOT with only a 40% take up. Even if someone knows they are obese and unable to lose weight they may well benefit from having the consequential diabetes, blood pressure and cholesterol treated.
Every week I see new patient with established complications of diabetes due to late diagnosis, often because of no symptoms. Some of them will be permanently disabled as a result.
Then make it so that when someone does need to see a doctor they don't have to wait months because they're all working part time.
Yes, improving retention of NHS staff would help. How could we possibly encourage that?
Allow them free access to the prescription medicine drawer?
Sadly, self prescription is no longer permitted by the GMC.
It used to be quite handy for anti-malarials etc when I was working abroad. Now I have to buy from dodgy online pharmacies like everyone else.
Can't you just pair up with another doctor, and prescribe each other what you need?
The problem is that restrictions on cars do kill high streets. No-one is taking home five bags of groceries on a bicycle, and few on foot.
I think most people do their grocery shopping at supermarkets, which aren't usually on high streets. Our local high street, like many, is dying, not because of any restriction in car use, but because of the massive shift to online retail. The only shops doing well are those providing services, such as restaurants, coffee shops, barbers, nail bars, etc. What we need to do is accept the reality of the situation and make our high streets into pleasant places for people to linger and socialise, and keeping cars away from them is a part of that.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
What measure would you take to make 'healthy eating' (*) affordable for the masses?
From my own non-expert perspective, healthy eating is about three main things: knowledge, skill, and time. You need to know what food is healthy and in what amounts; you need the skill to cook healthily, and the time to do it. (**)
What could the government do to help these in the short and long terms?
(*) However that is defined... (**) I did not say 'money', as it is, given the three above, possible to eat healthily and cheaply.
Better food education in schools would help in the long term.
Regarding affordability, we could take a look at what government did in WWII. With far fewer resources, and with massive import restrictions, they still managed to create the healthiest generation compared to those which preceded, and which followed the war.
The simplest quick intervention would be to legislate to cut the amount of salt in processed food.
A good point. It'd be interesting to see how activity levels have changed between then and now: I vaguely recall there are figures, and they're not as I expected. (*) Ditto calorific intake.
(*) IIRC, that we're about as active now as we were then. Could be wrong though.
My recollection is that calorie consumption has declined, but that activity levels have fallen further. More driving, more office work at desks, lower participation in amateur sport, central heating.
There might also be an effect on the way that we count calories, because some calories are easier to digest than others. I believe this is called bioavailability.
On my travels this year, I see that the Italians and Greeks eat a lot of sugary snacks, too, these days. However, they also still live longer than the UK, because of stronger communities and much healthier food in other parts of their diet, I think, largely.
More that the impact hasn't hit yet. An 80 year old Italian has years of healthy Mediterranean lifestyle under their belt, a 30 something hasn't.
We see the same here. When you go to a place with lots of sprites elderly people (like Rutland) you see people who have always lived healthily. It's a different story on Saffron Lane estate.
I think it is underappreciated how metabolism slows down when we age. A diet and drinking habit sustainable at 25 is just no longer possible at fifty without ballooning weight and BP.
It is very difficult. I'm 59, run 25 or so miles a week on average, eat low carb (no doubt you disapprove Foxy but it stops me both overeating and snacking) and have a BMI of 21. Got a sub-4 marathon last year and I'm in training for Amsterdam in October. I will keep it up as long as I can - but when I started running I still put on weight on a fairly healthy "standard" diet. And poor people can't afford to eat low carb, or even low GI
No, I don't disapprove of a low carbohydrate diet. Indeed my own diet is fairly low carb. Where I think the danger lies is in excessive saturated fat as a substitute, particularly red and cured meats.
Well I cook almost entirely in saturated fat. Plus some olive oil. I don't eat too much beef and lamb as it is expensive, but I do eat quite a bit of pork. Cured meat is bacon a couple of times a week and charcuterie about once a week as I sometimes have a Continental breakfast. I do try to eat oily fish a couple of times a week, especially in the winter, for the Vitamin D. I do eat a fair bit of green veg and salad. My main failing is probably too much protein - but I tell myself that as a runner I need it, especially when I am in training. It would be interesting to have a cholesterol test. I am fairly moderate though - when I cook for myself I aim for 10g per meal, but a couple of times a week I eat out and don't always avoid a moderate amount of carbs, and I do still drink beer (but wine or spirits at home). It seems to work for me without being too restrictive. I wouldn't do Keto - far too restrictive, and some of it seems too much like a religion (surely a few grams of wheat or pulses or rapeseed oil in mayo can't do me any harm?) unless of course I had a few stone to shift, which I don't. But it does seem to keep blood sugar fairly consistent and avoid the need to snack, my midweek bacon and egg breakfast is three rashers of streaky, a tomato and a fried egg, and I don't feel the need to eat before 1pm (and 150g of smoked mackerel will do the same job).
I eat what I like, moderating a little on things like biccies and crisps. I also exercise a lot.
I find dieting, or worrying about weight (e.g. entering everything you eat into some sodding online calculator) to be mentally exhausting. IMV some people do more harm to their mental health from constantly following whatever fad diet is new than their physical health is harmed by the food. Yoyo-ing weight falls and gains cannot do you much good, physically or mentally.
For that reason, I'd like to see much more emphasis put on exercise over diet. We may not all be able to run, but most of us can do *some* extra activity. And that can be mentally uplifting as well as physically helpful.
The problem is that restrictions on cars do kill high streets. No-one is taking home five bags of groceries on a bicycle, and few on foot.
Well, you do see the single blokes who have been banned from driving with big rucksacks of shopping...
I'm not a cyclist, and as a runner you might say I don't need the exercise, but I enjoy walking, and it is good active recovery. I'm about 1 mile from the town centre. I drive if I am doing a big shop, or if I am already in the car (such as coming home from work) but when I have the time I might do my errands on foot, and obviously I walk to the pub (there are no buses in the evening, and a taxi would double the cost of a casual evening out). But a lot of people won't do that - they won't even park on a side street and walk a couple of hundred yards to where they need to be.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Fatness has become such a ridiculous taboo in this country. Mentioning it is almost up there with racial slurs.
The fact is the country is way too obese and it’s making the population unhealthy and unproductive.
There are fat fucks everywhere and it must be costing the country a fortune. I doubt anything Starmer does will change that but at least he's having a go.
I have to say I'm enjoying the new atmos of steely, buttoned-down efficiency. Not a joke in sight, everything clipped to size, nothing lax or loose or (oh god) 'quirky', no self-indulgence, no straining for adulation, no 'look at me' neediness, no attempt to amuse or excite or entertain, no flaky ideology, no pretentious intellectual fetishes. A complete absence of the shit we've become accustomed to in recent years. Instead what we have is what we see. A serious white collar professional with a nice big parliamentary majority looking to fix some problems.
Except the things we'ŕe talking about are gimmicks, not attempts to fix serious problems. Smoking in beer gardens? Tax on private schools? No doubt there is serious stuff going on too. Most of the business of government of any stripe is dull un-headline-worthy grind and chat.
I wouldn't say gimmicks but, yes ok, if the decade of national renewal were to boil down to discouraging bad habits like smoking and private schools that wouldn't merit the moniker.
It's a case of watch this space on stuff like housing, the immigration and asylum system, the courts and prisons, growth relative to our peers, child poverty, NHS outcomes, infrastructure, green energy, the trains, the rivers.
He needs to deliver noticeable improvements in these areas. Preferably in an unentertaining manner but the more important thing is the substance not the style. I'd rather he delivered and entertained than did neither.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
On my travels this year, I see that the Italians and Greeks eat a lot of sugary snacks, too, these days. However, they also still live longer than the UK, because of stronger communities and much healthier food in other parts of their diet, I think, largely.
More that the impact hasn't hit yet. An 80 year old Italian has years of healthy Mediterranean lifestyle under their belt, a 30 something hasn't.
We see the same here. When you go to a place with lots of sprites elderly people (like Rutland) you see people who have always lived healthily. It's a different story on Saffron Lane estate.
I think it is underappreciated how metabolism slows down when we age. A diet and drinking habit sustainable at 25 is just no longer possible at fifty without ballooning weight and BP.
It is very difficult. I'm 59, run 25 or so miles a week on average, eat low carb (no doubt you disapprove Foxy but it stops me both overeating and snacking) and have a BMI of 21. Got a sub-4 marathon last year and I'm in training for Amsterdam in October. I will keep it up as long as I can - but when I started running I still put on weight on a fairly healthy "standard" diet. And poor people can't afford to eat low carb, or even low GI
No, I don't disapprove of a low carbohydrate diet. Indeed my own diet is fairly low carb. Where I think the danger lies is in excessive saturated fat as a substitute, particularly red and cured meats.
Well I cook almost entirely in saturated fat. Plus some olive oil. I don't eat too much beef and lamb as it is expensive, but I do eat quite a bit of pork. Cured meat is bacon a couple of times a week and charcuterie about once a week as I sometimes have a Continental breakfast. I do try to eat oily fish a couple of times a week, especially in the winter, for the Vitamin D. I do eat a fair bit of green veg and salad. My main failing is probably too much protein - but I tell myself that as a runner I need it, especially when I am in training. It would be interesting to have a cholesterol test. I am fairly moderate though - when I cook for myself I aim for 10g per meal, but a couple of times a week I eat out and don't always avoid a moderate amount of carbs, and I do still drink beer (but wine or spirits at home). It seems to work for me without being too restrictive. I wouldn't do Keto - far too restrictive, and some of it seems too much like a religion (surely a few grams of wheat or pulses or rapeseed oil in mayo can't do me any harm?) unless of course I had a few stone to shift, which I don't. But it does seem to keep blood sugar fairly consistent and avoid the need to snack, my midweek bacon and egg breakfast is three rashers of streaky, a tomato and a fried egg, and I don't feel the need to eat before 1pm (and 150g of smoked mackerel will do the same job).
I eat what I like, moderating a little on things like biccies and crisps. I also exercise a lot.
I find dieting, or worrying about weight (e.g. entering everything you eat into some sodding online calculator) to be mentally exhausting. IMV some people do more harm to their mental health from constantly following whatever fad diet is new than their physical health is harmed by the food. Yoyo-ing weight falls and gains cannot do you much good, physically or mentally.
For that reason, I'd like to see much more emphasis put on exercise over diet. We may not all be able to run, but most of us can do *some* extra activity. And that can be mentally uplifting as well as physically helpful.
I don't measure anything (unless it is for a recipe) I just do my thing. It is quite good as I have found out that it is self-stabilising. I will probably lose half a stone during marathon training (I probably lose more fat than that, and put on muscle, I am already starting to look thin about the face). When I stop the heavy training, it will go back on. If I go on holiday, I will put on a few pounds, it drops off in a week or two when I get back. I eat what I want as I don't feel the need to eat unnutricious shit like biscuits or crisps. In fact, I no longer really crave food at all although I do enjoy what I eat.
There is an old runner's saying "you can't outrun a bad diet". While exercise is undoubtedly good, especially for mental health, and human beings evolved to run and walk long distances, if you start off overweight it won't really help. The problem is that a lot of people feel hungry after exercise, or follow nostrums like you need to eat immediate carbs (which is bollocks, most people run a marathon and can still walk and talk afterwards when they have probably depleted their glycogen to zero) and hence put more back in than they use. Or they allow themselves a "treat". You need to work to regulate diet before starting exercise.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
Which is precisely why this outreach programme is being trialled. People ignore the health MOT with only a 40% take up. Even if someone knows they are obese and unable to lose weight they may well benefit from having the consequential diabetes, blood pressure and cholesterol treated.
Every week I see new patient with established complications of diabetes due to late diagnosis, often because of no symptoms. Some of them will be permanently disabled as a result.
Then make it so that when someone does need to see a doctor they don't have to wait months because they're all working part time.
Yes, improving retention of NHS staff would help. How could we possibly encourage that?
Allow them free access to the prescription medicine drawer?
Sadly, self prescription is no longer permitted by the GMC.
It used to be quite handy for anti-malarials etc when I was working abroad. Now I have to buy from dodgy online pharmacies like everyone else.
Can't you just pair up with another doctor, and prescribe each other what you need?
No, that is also not allowed.
As an oldie, I get invited for an annual health check. I wouldn’t think of missing it, because they may find something previously unknown but treatable.
On my travels this year, I see that the Italians and Greeks eat a lot of sugary snacks, too, these days. However, they also still live longer than the UK, because of stronger communities and much healthier food in other parts of their diet, I think, largely.
More that the impact hasn't hit yet. An 80 year old Italian has years of healthy Mediterranean lifestyle under their belt, a 30 something hasn't.
We see the same here. When you go to a place with lots of sprites elderly people (like Rutland) you see people who have always lived healthily. It's a different story on Saffron Lane estate.
I think it is underappreciated how metabolism slows down when we age. A diet and drinking habit sustainable at 25 is just no longer possible at fifty without ballooning weight and BP.
It is very difficult. I'm 59, run 25 or so miles a week on average, eat low carb (no doubt you disapprove Foxy but it stops me both overeating and snacking) and have a BMI of 21. Got a sub-4 marathon last year and I'm in training for Amsterdam in October. I will keep it up as long as I can - but when I started running I still put on weight on a fairly healthy "standard" diet. And poor people can't afford to eat low carb, or even low GI
No, I don't disapprove of a low carbohydrate diet. Indeed my own diet is fairly low carb. Where I think the danger lies is in excessive saturated fat as a substitute, particularly red and cured meats.
Well I cook almost entirely in saturated fat. Plus some olive oil. I don't eat too much beef and lamb as it is expensive, but I do eat quite a bit of pork. Cured meat is bacon a couple of times a week and charcuterie about once a week as I sometimes have a Continental breakfast. I do try to eat oily fish a couple of times a week, especially in the winter, for the Vitamin D. I do eat a fair bit of green veg and salad. My main failing is probably too much protein - but I tell myself that as a runner I need it, especially when I am in training. It would be interesting to have a cholesterol test. I am fairly moderate though - when I cook for myself I aim for 10g per meal, but a couple of times a week I eat out and don't always avoid a moderate amount of carbs, and I do still drink beer (but wine or spirits at home). It seems to work for me without being too restrictive. I wouldn't do Keto - far too restrictive, and some of it seems too much like a religion (surely a few grams of wheat or pulses or rapeseed oil in mayo can't do me any harm?) unless of course I had a few stone to shift, which I don't. But it does seem to keep blood sugar fairly consistent and avoid the need to snack, my midweek bacon and egg breakfast is three rashers of streaky, a tomato and a fried egg, and I don't feel the need to eat before 1pm (and 150g of smoked mackerel will do the same job).
Humans are omnivores with adaptable metabolism that can cope with any diet from vegan to whale blubber. Either can be a healthy diet and we'll adapted to the environment.
A diet needs to be affordable, nutritious and enjoyable, so will vary with individual circumstances, but if someone is developing illness (that is where this conversation started) then they need to make adaptions.
Saturated fat and cured meats don't just affect blood lipids, but also are linked to other health problems such as bowel cancer. Humans only need 60g or so of protein a day, after that it is burnt off in a manner not dissimilar to carbohydrates, being metabolised into glucose and ketone. There is a certain amount of stress to the kidneys from this metabolic acidosis, which can be offset by eating alkali vegetables.
A high protien diet does increase the metabolic rate, and tends to promote saity via reduced endogenous insulin production alongside other gut hormones, but can be unhealthy in other ways.
On my travels this year, I see that the Italians and Greeks eat a lot of sugary snacks, too, these days. However, they also still live longer than the UK, because of stronger communities and much healthier food in other parts of their diet, I think, largely.
More that the impact hasn't hit yet. An 80 year old Italian has years of healthy Mediterranean lifestyle under their belt, a 30 something hasn't.
We see the same here. When you go to a place with lots of sprites elderly people (like Rutland) you see people who have always lived healthily. It's a different story on Saffron Lane estate.
I think it is underappreciated how metabolism slows down when we age. A diet and drinking habit sustainable at 25 is just no longer possible at fifty without ballooning weight and BP.
It is very difficult. I'm 59, run 25 or so miles a week on average, eat low carb (no doubt you disapprove Foxy but it stops me both overeating and snacking) and have a BMI of 21. Got a sub-4 marathon last year and I'm in training for Amsterdam in October. I will keep it up as long as I can - but when I started running I still put on weight on a fairly healthy "standard" diet. And poor people can't afford to eat low carb, or even low GI
No, I don't disapprove of a low carbohydrate diet. Indeed my own diet is fairly low carb. Where I think the danger lies is in excessive saturated fat as a substitute, particularly red and cured meats.
Well I cook almost entirely in saturated fat. Plus some olive oil. I don't eat too much beef and lamb as it is expensive, but I do eat quite a bit of pork. Cured meat is bacon a couple of times a week and charcuterie about once a week as I sometimes have a Continental breakfast. I do try to eat oily fish a couple of times a week, especially in the winter, for the Vitamin D. I do eat a fair bit of green veg and salad. My main failing is probably too much protein - but I tell myself that as a runner I need it, especially when I am in training. It would be interesting to have a cholesterol test. I am fairly moderate though - when I cook for myself I aim for 10g per meal, but a couple of times a week I eat out and don't always avoid a moderate amount of carbs, and I do still drink beer (but wine or spirits at home). It seems to work for me without being too restrictive. I wouldn't do Keto - far too restrictive, and some of it seems too much like a religion (surely a few grams of wheat or pulses or rapeseed oil in mayo can't do me any harm?) unless of course I had a few stone to shift, which I don't. But it does seem to keep blood sugar fairly consistent and avoid the need to snack, my midweek bacon and egg breakfast is three rashers of streaky, a tomato and a fried egg, and I don't feel the need to eat before 1pm (and 150g of smoked mackerel will do the same job).
I eat what I like, moderating a little on things like biccies and crisps. I also exercise a lot.
I find dieting, or worrying about weight (e.g. entering everything you eat into some sodding online calculator) to be mentally exhausting. IMV some people do more harm to their mental health from constantly following whatever fad diet is new than their physical health is harmed by the food. Yoyo-ing weight falls and gains cannot do you much good, physically or mentally.
For that reason, I'd like to see much more emphasis put on exercise over diet. We may not all be able to run, but most of us can do *some* extra activity. And that can be mentally uplifting as well as physically helpful.
I don't measure anything (unless it is for a recipe) I just do my thing. It is quite good as I have found out that it is self-stabilising. I will probably lose half a stone during marathon training (I probably lose more fat than that, and put on muscle, I am already starting to look thin about the face). When I stop the heavy training, it will go back on. If I go on holiday, I will put on a few pounds, it drops off in a week or two when I get back. I eat what I want as I don't feel the need to eat unnutricious shit like biscuits or crisps. In fact, I no longer really crave food at all although I do enjoy what I eat.
There is an old runner's saying "you can't outrun a bad diet". While exercise is undoubtedly good, especially for mental health, and human beings evolved to run and walk long distances, if you start off overweight it won't really help. The problem is that a lot of people feel hungry after exercise, or follow nostrums like you need to eat immediate carbs (which is bollocks, most people run a marathon and can still walk and talk afterwards when they have probably depleted their glycogen to zero) and hence put more back in than they use. Or they allow themselves a "treat". You need to work to regulate diet before starting exercise.
The main advantages of exercise to losing weight are these.
1. Mental health. Exercise improves mental health, and if I'm happier it's easier to make better decisions in relation to food. 2. Motivation. I enjoy walking and cycling, using my body to take me places and see things, and this is easier to do if I don't have excess weight to carry around, and so this gives me a more positive reason to make better decisions around food. 3. Time. I find it hard to walk and eat at the same time, and it's much easier to eat at the same time as sitting down. Reducing the time available to eat in helps.
The first and last reasons are also probably a factor as to why better sleep helps with weight loss. And, perhaps, yet another reason why we should do away with summer time, and stick to GMT.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
That doesn't work for a disabled person who uses a tricycle as a mobility aid.
They need equivalent facilities, as is their legal right and the legal duty of the LHA to provide.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
What the hell are you jibbering on about? I think everybody realises he isn't going to go to the Study in no 10 every time he has to make a decision.
OK he's just started a job as head of government. A job that he will probably be doing for the next 4 or 5 years. If I started a job like that I would also want to make a couple of changes to the offices I moved into, rather than keeping everything exactly the same as my predecessor. He's taken down a picture of Thatcher that he didn't like, who gives a shit? He could take down a picture of Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama, put a framed photo of his mum on his desk, whatever, if it makes him feel more at ease.
Sure, but he didn't need to make it public that he found the picture "unsettling".
Reminds him that he is a Pygmy on the shoulders of a giant
Another worshipper at the shrine of Thatcher.
Whatever you think of her politics, Margaret Thatcher was one of the most important politicians of the 20th Century. The first female PM (perhaps Labour still not having had one is the real embarrassment she causes Starmer?), the winner of three consecutive elections, the vanquisher of an invading army over British territory, the negotiator of various EU opt-outs, visionary on climate change - and the person who slayed the UK's "sick man of Europe" tag. Perhaps Churchill has more to offer, but further back in time. It would still be massively disrespectful to move his portrait though.
Can you imagine if the Tories had moved a portrait of Clement Attlee - because, I don't know - the NHS?
I wouldn't really care. Attlee had a similarly mixed legacy.
I don't despise Thatcher - I voted for her in '83, and would have done so in '79 had I been a year older - but she left behind a long enduring and quite damaging consensus on a number of things, which we're only just starting to move on from.
Many of the failures of the Blair/Brown administrations, for example, can be understood as a failure to address or challenge some of that legacy.
The thing about Thatcher is her legacy has become whatever people want it to be. She wasn’t in power after 1990, and although many people claim to have taken on her mantle, I’m pretty sure that she would have made very different decisions to them. Exactly how she would have approached a lot of matters, we simply won’t know. But too many people hide behind her, rather than forming their own political identities and visions. She was a political titan of the past, whose achievements should be remembered - but we should be leaving her behind and moving into the future now.
Though none of that has any bearing on whether or not she has a painting on a wall somewhere (I am completely ambivalent).
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Fatness has become such a ridiculous taboo in this country. Mentioning it is almost up there with racial slurs.
The fact is the country is way too obese and it’s making the population unhealthy and unproductive.
There are fat fucks everywhere and it must be costing the country a fortune. I doubt anything Starmer does will change that but at least he's having a go.
I have to say I'm enjoying the new atmos of steely, buttoned-down efficiency. Not a joke in sight, everything clipped to size, nothing lax or loose or (oh god) 'quirky', no self-indulgence, no straining for adulation, no 'look at me' neediness, no attempt to amuse or excite or entertain, no flaky ideology, no pretentious intellectual fetishes. A complete absence of the shit we've become accustomed to in recent years. Instead what we have is what we see. A serious white collar professional with a nice big parliamentary majority looking to fix some problems.
Except the things we'ŕe talking about are gimmicks, not attempts to fix serious problems. Smoking in beer gardens? Tax on private schools? No doubt there is serious stuff going on too. Most of the business of government of any stripe is dull un-headline-worthy grind and chat.
I wouldn't say gimmicks but, yes ok, if the decade of national renewal were to boil down to discouraging bad habits like smoking and private schools that wouldn't merit the moniker.
It's a case of watch this space on stuff like housing, the immigration and asylum system, the courts and prisons, growth relative to our peers, child poverty, NHS outcomes, infrastructure, green energy, the trains, the rivers.
He needs to deliver noticeable improvements in these areas. Preferably in an unentertaining manner but the more important thing is the substance not the style. I'd rather he delivered and entertained than did neither.
If the Government published two announcements on the same day, one being a reduction in the number of immigrants and the other being a ban on smoking in pub gardens, you can guess which one our media will headline.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Fatness has become such a ridiculous taboo in this country. Mentioning it is almost up there with racial slurs.
The fact is the country is way too obese and it’s making the population unhealthy and unproductive.
There are fat fucks everywhere and it must be costing the country a fortune. I doubt anything Starmer does will change that but at least he's having a go.
I have to say I'm enjoying the new atmos of steely, buttoned-down efficiency. Not a joke in sight, everything clipped to size, nothing lax or loose or (oh god) 'quirky', no self-indulgence, no straining for adulation, no 'look at me' neediness, no attempt to amuse or excite or entertain, no flaky ideology, no pretentious intellectual fetishes. A complete absence of the shit we've become accustomed to in recent years. Instead what we have is what we see. A serious white collar professional with a nice big parliamentary majority looking to fix some problems.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
What the hell are you jibbering on about? I think everybody realises he isn't going to go to the Study in no 10 every time he has to make a decision.
OK he's just started a job as head of government. A job that he will probably be doing for the next 4 or 5 years. If I started a job like that I would also want to make a couple of changes to the offices I moved into, rather than keeping everything exactly the same as my predecessor. He's taken down a picture of Thatcher that he didn't like, who gives a shit? He could take down a picture of Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama, put a framed photo of his mum on his desk, whatever, if it makes him feel more at ease.
Sure, but he didn't need to make it public that he found the picture "unsettling".
Reminds him that he is a Pygmy on the shoulders of a giant
Another worshipper at the shrine of Thatcher.
Whatever you think of her politics, Margaret Thatcher was one of the most important politicians of the 20th Century. The first female PM (perhaps Labour still not having had one is the real embarrassment she causes Starmer?), the winner of three consecutive elections, the vanquisher of an invading army over British territory, the negotiator of various EU opt-outs, visionary on climate change - and the person who slayed the UK's "sick man of Europe" tag. Perhaps Churchill has more to offer, but further back in time. It would still be massively disrespectful to move his portrait though.
Can you imagine if the Tories had moved a portrait of Clement Attlee - because, I don't know - the NHS?
That's as may be, but the portraits in Downing Street getting so much attention from the main opposition party is a silly season story, and an indicator that they have little substantive to say.
Which will not change until at least New Year, imo.
It will change bedfore that - at the Autumn Budget.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Fatness has become such a ridiculous taboo in this country. Mentioning it is almost up there with racial slurs.
The fact is the country is way too obese and it’s making the population unhealthy and unproductive.
There are fat fucks everywhere and it must be costing the country a fortune. I doubt anything Starmer does will change that but at least he's having a go.
I have to say I'm enjoying the new atmos of steely, buttoned-down efficiency. Not a joke in sight, everything clipped to size, nothing lax or loose or (oh god) 'quirky', no self-indulgence, no straining for adulation, no 'look at me' neediness, no attempt to amuse or excite or entertain, no flaky ideology, no pretentious intellectual fetishes. A complete absence of the shit we've become accustomed to in recent years. Instead what we have is what we see. A serious white collar professional with a nice big parliamentary majority looking to fix some problems.
I can see that, and it is welcome.
But a PM involves many roles, which is why it's such a difficult job. He also needs to be a salesman; and whilst he won the GE by a landslide, I'd argue that was mainly due to the Conservative Party's implosion rather than Starmer selling a great vision for the future.
I'd argue that Blair in 1996-7 did a much better job of selling a vision, and that helped him out massively once he was in power. There will come a time, perhaps soon, perhaps in a few years, where Starmer faces difficult decisions that he needs to sell to the electorate. And I don't think that's something he's skillful at, and I doubt he can learn it.
He might be better off picking someone off his front bench who is a good communicator to the public as a whole to sell the vision. With the knowledge that that person will be at the front of his queue of successors.
I agree with all of this except for the implication that SKS has a vision...
Too difficult for me. Jenrick is arguably a centrist, as is Cleverly.
Nope. Jenrick is attempting to hoover up the unregenerate right wing factionalist vote in the parliamentary party. And then present himself as the rightwing alternative to the membership. Uncannily reminiscent of IDS back in 2001 - an uncharismatic dud who will make zero impact agsinst a towering Labour majority.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Fatness has become such a ridiculous taboo in this country. Mentioning it is almost up there with racial slurs.
The fact is the country is way too obese and it’s making the population unhealthy and unproductive.
There are fat fucks everywhere and it must be costing the country a fortune. I doubt anything Starmer does will change that but at least he's having a go.
I have to say I'm enjoying the new atmos of steely, buttoned-down efficiency. Not a joke in sight, everything clipped to size, nothing lax or loose or (oh god) 'quirky', no self-indulgence, no straining for adulation, no 'look at me' neediness, no attempt to amuse or excite or entertain, no flaky ideology, no pretentious intellectual fetishes. A complete absence of the shit we've become accustomed to in recent years. Instead what we have is what we see. A serious white collar professional with a nice big parliamentary majority looking to fix some problems.
Lol. Strong authoritarian-Dad vibes here.
Apart from on PB, this is not exactly a large pool of support in which to be fishing...
I have some other observations on food, which may be again be related to the under-regulated trends of Britain and the U.S., particularly, since the 1980's, particularly.
I've been travelling to Italy and Greece for over 30 years, and spent some time living on Greece. For many years, one thing was certain about both countries ; the quality of fresh produce, and often restaurant food, was almost always better, but the quality of Supermarket food was worse.
This year I've found far better ready meals in Rome than UK supermarkets, far better organic crisps in Athens than in the U.K, and the list goes on. This year even the hot chocolate is better, more tasty, and more preservative-free from the local Athens supermarket, than what I usually find in London, unless I look in specialist shops.
On my travels this year, I see that the Italians and Greeks eat a lot of sugary snacks, too, these days. However, they also still live longer than the UK, because of stronger communities and much healthier food in other parts of their diet, I think, largely.
More that the impact hasn't hit yet. An 80 year old Italian has years of healthy Mediterranean lifestyle under their belt, a 30 something hasn't.
We see the same here. When you go to a place with lots of sprites elderly people (like Rutland) you see people who have always lived healthily. It's a different story on Saffron Lane estate.
I think it is underappreciated how metabolism slows down when we age. A diet and drinking habit sustainable at 25 is just no longer possible at fifty without ballooning weight and BP.
It is very difficult. I'm 59, run 25 or so miles a week on average, eat low carb (no doubt you disapprove Foxy but it stops me both overeating and snacking) and have a BMI of 21. Got a sub-4 marathon last year and I'm in training for Amsterdam in October. I will keep it up as long as I can - but when I started running I still put on weight on a fairly healthy "standard" diet. And poor people can't afford to eat low carb, or even low GI
No, I don't disapprove of a low carbohydrate diet. Indeed my own diet is fairly low carb. Where I think the danger lies is in excessive saturated fat as a substitute, particularly red and cured meats.
Well I cook almost entirely in saturated fat. Plus some olive oil. I don't eat too much beef and lamb as it is expensive, but I do eat quite a bit of pork. Cured meat is bacon a couple of times a week and charcuterie about once a week as I sometimes have a Continental breakfast. I do try to eat oily fish a couple of times a week, especially in the winter, for the Vitamin D. I do eat a fair bit of green veg and salad. My main failing is probably too much protein - but I tell myself that as a runner I need it, especially when I am in training. It would be interesting to have a cholesterol test. I am fairly moderate though - when I cook for myself I aim for 10g per meal, but a couple of times a week I eat out and don't always avoid a moderate amount of carbs, and I do still drink beer (but wine or spirits at home). It seems to work for me without being too restrictive. I wouldn't do Keto - far too restrictive, and some of it seems too much like a religion (surely a few grams of wheat or pulses or rapeseed oil in mayo can't do me any harm?) unless of course I had a few stone to shift, which I don't. But it does seem to keep blood sugar fairly consistent and avoid the need to snack, my midweek bacon and egg breakfast is three rashers of streaky, a tomato and a fried egg, and I don't feel the need to eat before 1pm (and 150g of smoked mackerel will do the same job).
Humans are omnivores with adaptable metabolism that can cope with any diet from vegan to whale blubber. Either can be a healthy diet and we'll adapted to the environment.
A diet needs to be affordable, nutritious and enjoyable, so will vary with individual circumstances, but if someone is developing illness (that is where this conversation started) then they need to make adaptions.
Saturated fat and cured meats don't just affect blood lipids, but also are linked to other health problems such as bowel cancer. Humans only need 60g or so of protein a day, after that it is burnt off in a manner not dissimilar to carbohydrates, being metabolised into glucose and ketone. There is a certain amount of stress to the kidneys from this metabolic acidosis, which can be offset by eating alkali vegetables.
A high protien diet does increase the metabolic rate, and tends to promote saity via reduced endogenous insulin production alongside other gut hormones, but can be unhealthy in other ways.
The 60g of protein is often quoted, but surely that is just for maintenance. You also need protein to repair damaged muscle after exercise, and to grow new muscle - distance runners don't bulk up but they do create new fast- and medium-twitch fibres which increase muscle density (at least that's how understand it). However that doesn't usually seem to be taken into consideration. And, as you point out, it can be burnt or stored if not required.
And I am sceptical about the value of a lot of studies saying "x is linked to bowel cancer" those people eating lots of x have also been eating lots of y and z. It would be interesting to see a study of, for example, low-carbers who have been eating lots of saturated fat, but little carbohydrate, for the last 40 years.
What I didn't realise is that most people have a lot of sugar sloshing around in the system through digesting their last meal. When it runs out, you get hungry. Of course the normal mammalian response is to burn body fat, indeed this is why you can still walk and talk after running a marathon, and distance running training is partly about training the body to burn fat at higher intensity, as even a skinny person has an almost limitless supply. I suspect the carb-loaded nature of the standard diet means that people have effectively lost the ability to burn body fat when at rest or in moderate exercise. Certainly I used to find that a carby breakfast neccessitated a Snickers bar at around 11am.
I have some other observations on food, which may be again be related to the under-regulated trends of Britain and the U.S., particularly, since the 1980's, particularly.
I've been travelling to Italy and Greece for over 30 years, and spent some time living on Greece. For many years, one thing was certain about both countries ; the quality of fresh produce, and often restaurant food, was almost always better, but the quality of Supermarket food was worse.
This year I've found far better ready meals in Rome than UK supermarkets, far better organic crisps in Athens than in the U.K, and the list goes on. This year even the hot chocolate is better, more tasty, and more preservative-free from the local Athens supermarket, than what I usually find in London, unless I look in specialist shops.
I'm always surprised at how poor the supermarket offering in fruit and veg is in France (about the one European place I bother with le supermarche).
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
What the hell are you jibbering on about? I think everybody realises he isn't going to go to the Study in no 10 every time he has to make a decision.
OK he's just started a job as head of government. A job that he will probably be doing for the next 4 or 5 years. If I started a job like that I would also want to make a couple of changes to the offices I moved into, rather than keeping everything exactly the same as my predecessor. He's taken down a picture of Thatcher that he didn't like, who gives a shit? He could take down a picture of Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama, put a framed photo of his mum on his desk, whatever, if it makes him feel more at ease.
Sure, but he didn't need to make it public that he found the picture "unsettling".
Reminds him that he is a Pygmy on the shoulders of a giant
Another worshipper at the shrine of Thatcher.
Whatever you think of her politics, Margaret Thatcher was one of the most important politicians of the 20th Century. The first female PM (perhaps Labour still not having had one is the real embarrassment she causes Starmer?), the winner of three consecutive elections, the vanquisher of an invading army over British territory, the negotiator of various EU opt-outs, visionary on climate change - and the person who slayed the UK's "sick man of Europe" tag. Perhaps Churchill has more to offer, but further back in time. It would still be massively disrespectful to move his portrait though.
Can you imagine if the Tories had moved a portrait of Clement Attlee - because, I don't know - the NHS?
Were a Tory PM to remove a picture of Attlee, Wilson or Blair there would be no media interest whatsoever. The PM would be perfectly entitled so to do.
At the height of Blair I was doing some consultancy work at a big employer in Barry. The guy I was doing the work for had a personally signed photo of Thatcher on his office wall. I thought it was a piss take, but it wasn't. Prior to my first joining PB circa 2005 I didn't realise such people existed. I would think myself very odd if I plastered pictures of non-Conservative Prime Ministers of bygone days all over my walls.
I have some other observations on food, which may be again be related to the under-regulated trends of Britain and the U.S., particularly, since the 1980's, particularly.
I've been travelling to Italy and Greece for over 30 years, and spent some time living on Greece. For many years, one thing was certain about both countries ; the quality of fresh produce, and often restaurant food, was almost always better, but the quality of Supermarket food was worse.
This year I've found far better ready meals in Rome than UK supermarkets, far better organic crisps in Athens than in the U.K, and the list goes on. This year even the hot chocolate is better, more tasty, and more preservative-free from the local Athens supermarket, than what I usually find in London, unless I look in specialist shops.
I'm always surprised at how poor the supermarket offering in fruit and veg is in France (about the one European place I bother with le supermarche).
Ours is 10x better even in smaller stores.
But French towns have better markets In which to buy fresh food.
I have some other observations on food, which may be again be related to the under-regulated trends of Britain and the U.S., particularly, since the 1980's, particularly.
I've been travelling to Italy and Greece for over 30 years, and spent some time living on Greece. For many years, one thing was certain about both countries ; the quality of fresh produce, and often restaurant food, was almost always better, but the quality of Supermarket food was worse.
This year I've found far better ready meals in Rome than UK supermarkets, far better organic crisps in Athens than in the U.K, and the list goes on. This year even the hot chocolate is better, more tasty, and more preservative-free from the local Athens supermarket, than what I usually find in London, unless I look in specialist shops.
I'm always surprised at how poor the supermarket offering in fruit and veg is in France (about the one European place I bother with le supermarche).
Ours is 10x better even in smaller stores.
But French towns have better markets In which to buy fresh food.
Oh I agree the markets are fab. We're very lucky to have a great market in our village. On a par I'd say - albeit with less competition.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
What the hell are you jibbering on about? I think everybody realises he isn't going to go to the Study in no 10 every time he has to make a decision.
OK he's just started a job as head of government. A job that he will probably be doing for the next 4 or 5 years. If I started a job like that I would also want to make a couple of changes to the offices I moved into, rather than keeping everything exactly the same as my predecessor. He's taken down a picture of Thatcher that he didn't like, who gives a shit? He could take down a picture of Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama, put a framed photo of his mum on his desk, whatever, if it makes him feel more at ease.
Sure, but he didn't need to make it public that he found the picture "unsettling".
Reminds him that he is a Pygmy on the shoulders of a giant
Another worshipper at the shrine of Thatcher.
Whatever you think of her politics, Margaret Thatcher was one of the most important politicians of the 20th Century. The first female PM (perhaps Labour still not having had one is the real embarrassment she causes Starmer?), the winner of three consecutive elections, the vanquisher of an invading army over British territory, the negotiator of various EU opt-outs, visionary on climate change - and the person who slayed the UK's "sick man of Europe" tag. Perhaps Churchill has more to offer, but further back in time. It would still be massively disrespectful to move his portrait though.
Can you imagine if the Tories had moved a portrait of Clement Attlee - because, I don't know - the NHS?
Were a Tory PM to remove a picture of Attlee, Wilson or Blair there would be no media interest whatsoever. The PM would be perfectly entitled so to do.
At the height of Blair I was doing some consultancy work at a big employer in Barry. The guy I was doing the work for had a personally signed photo of Thatcher on his office wall. I thought it was a piss take, but it wasn't. Prior to my first joining PB circa 2005 I didn't realise such people existed. I would think myself very odd if I plastered pictures of non-Conservative Prime Ministers of bygone days all over my walls.
In my biz, sales of signed Thatcher and Churchill outsell every single other PM put together.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
And how much is one of those, Robert?
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
Donald Trump has threatened to imprison Mark Zuckerberg if the Facebook founder does "anything illegal" to influence the upcoming presidential election
On my travels this year, I see that the Italians and Greeks eat a lot of sugary snacks, too, these days. However, they also still live longer than the UK, because of stronger communities and much healthier food in other parts of their diet, I think, largely.
More that the impact hasn't hit yet. An 80 year old Italian has years of healthy Mediterranean lifestyle under their belt, a 30 something hasn't.
We see the same here. When you go to a place with lots of sprites elderly people (like Rutland) you see people who have always lived healthily. It's a different story on Saffron Lane estate.
I think it is underappreciated how metabolism slows down when we age. A diet and drinking habit sustainable at 25 is just no longer possible at fifty without ballooning weight and BP.
It is very difficult. I'm 59, run 25 or so miles a week on average, eat low carb (no doubt you disapprove Foxy but it stops me both overeating and snacking) and have a BMI of 21. Got a sub-4 marathon last year and I'm in training for Amsterdam in October. I will keep it up as long as I can - but when I started running I still put on weight on a fairly healthy "standard" diet. And poor people can't afford to eat low carb, or even low GI
No, I don't disapprove of a low carbohydrate diet. Indeed my own diet is fairly low carb. Where I think the danger lies is in excessive saturated fat as a substitute, particularly red and cured meats.
Well I cook almost entirely in saturated fat. Plus some olive oil. I don't eat too much beef and lamb as it is expensive, but I do eat quite a bit of pork. Cured meat is bacon a couple of times a week and charcuterie about once a week as I sometimes have a Continental breakfast. I do try to eat oily fish a couple of times a week, especially in the winter, for the Vitamin D. I do eat a fair bit of green veg and salad. My main failing is probably too much protein - but I tell myself that as a runner I need it, especially when I am in training. It would be interesting to have a cholesterol test. I am fairly moderate though - when I cook for myself I aim for 10g per meal, but a couple of times a week I eat out and don't always avoid a moderate amount of carbs, and I do still drink beer (but wine or spirits at home). It seems to work for me without being too restrictive. I wouldn't do Keto - far too restrictive, and some of it seems too much like a religion (surely a few grams of wheat or pulses or rapeseed oil in mayo can't do me any harm?) unless of course I had a few stone to shift, which I don't. But it does seem to keep blood sugar fairly consistent and avoid the need to snack, my midweek bacon and egg breakfast is three rashers of streaky, a tomato and a fried egg, and I don't feel the need to eat before 1pm (and 150g of smoked mackerel will do the same job).
Humans are omnivores with adaptable metabolism that can cope with any diet from vegan to whale blubber. Either can be a healthy diet and we'll adapted to the environment.
A diet needs to be affordable, nutritious and enjoyable, so will vary with individual circumstances, but if someone is developing illness (that is where this conversation started) then they need to make adaptions.
Saturated fat and cured meats don't just affect blood lipids, but also are linked to other health problems such as bowel cancer. Humans only need 60g or so of protein a day, after that it is burnt off in a manner not dissimilar to carbohydrates, being metabolised into glucose and ketone. There is a certain amount of stress to the kidneys from this metabolic acidosis, which can be offset by eating alkali vegetables.
A high protien diet does increase the metabolic rate, and tends to promote saity via reduced endogenous insulin production alongside other gut hormones, but can be unhealthy in other ways.
The 60g of protein is often quoted, but surely that is just for maintenance. You also need protein to repair damaged muscle after exercise, and to grow new muscle - distance runners don't bulk up but they do create new fast- and medium-twitch fibres which increase muscle density (at least that's how understand it). However that doesn't usually seem to be taken into consideration. And, as you point out, it can be burnt or stored if not required.
And I am sceptical about the value of a lot of studies saying "x is linked to bowel cancer" those people eating lots of x have also been eating lots of y and z. It would be interesting to see a study of, for example, low-carbers who have been eating lots of saturated fat, but little carbohydrate, for the last 40 years.
What I didn't realise is that most people have a lot of sugar sloshing around in the system through digesting their last meal. When it runs out, you get hungry. Of course the normal mammalian response is to burn body fat, indeed this is why you can still walk and talk after running a marathon, and distance running training is partly about training the body to burn fat at higher intensity, as even a skinny person has an almost limitless supply. I suspect the carb-loaded nature of the standard diet means that people have effectively lost the ability to burn body fat when at rest or in moderate exercise. Certainly I used to find that a carby breakfast neccessitated a Snickers bar at around 11am.
I once tried to eat a couple of Snickers (well, for us oldies, Marathon...) bar whilst running a marathon-distance run.
It did not end well, for stomach or guts. I found it blooming hard to even swallow the chocolate whilst running.
(In my defence, I had hit a low-energy time and had forgotten my gels. And the best thing the small village shop had was choccie bars.)
Donald Trump has threatened to imprison Mark Zuckerberg if the Facebook founder does "anything illegal" to influence the upcoming presidential election
Did you not see the retweet of top Democrats plus Bill Gates and others in orange jump suits? The man is beyond March Hare mad.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
What the hell are you jibbering on about? I think everybody realises he isn't going to go to the Study in no 10 every time he has to make a decision.
OK he's just started a job as head of government. A job that he will probably be doing for the next 4 or 5 years. If I started a job like that I would also want to make a couple of changes to the offices I moved into, rather than keeping everything exactly the same as my predecessor. He's taken down a picture of Thatcher that he didn't like, who gives a shit? He could take down a picture of Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama, put a framed photo of his mum on his desk, whatever, if it makes him feel more at ease.
Sure, but he didn't need to make it public that he found the picture "unsettling".
Reminds him that he is a Pygmy on the shoulders of a giant
Another worshipper at the shrine of Thatcher.
Whatever you think of her politics, Margaret Thatcher was one of the most important politicians of the 20th Century. The first female PM (perhaps Labour still not having had one is the real embarrassment she causes Starmer?), the winner of three consecutive elections, the vanquisher of an invading army over British territory, the negotiator of various EU opt-outs, visionary on climate change - and the person who slayed the UK's "sick man of Europe" tag. Perhaps Churchill has more to offer, but further back in time. It would still be massively disrespectful to move his portrait though.
Can you imagine if the Tories had moved a portrait of Clement Attlee - because, I don't know - the NHS?
You write as if Labour had sort to remove all trace of Thatcher from history. Starmer’s moved a painting in one private meeting room. Don’t be such a snowflake.
A staple complaint on pb.com has been that Johnson missed an opportunity during the pandemic to encourage the country to get into shape, and that a bit of money spent on prevention would be a lot cheaper than a fortune spent later on treatment.
I've no idea if what is proposed is the right way to go about things (sounds like it is a screening questionnaire, rather than physical appointments) but it's evidence that someone is asking the right questions and trying something new.
It's one of the better signs in the early days of Keir.
We have a major problem with obesity in Britain, diabetes, and blood pressure. Going out casefinding is a way of getting people to engage, particularly groups like midfle aged men in deprived areas rather shy of health issues.
We have a real problem with reducing healthy life expectancy in this country:
"For the three aggregated years 2020–22, although male life expectancy was 78.8 years, average healthy male life expectancy was only 62.4 years – ie, 16.4 of those years (21%) would have been spent in poor health. Female life expectancy was 82.8 years, of which 20.1 years (24%) would have been spent in poor health. Although females live an average of four years longer than males, they spend a higher proportion and more years of their lives in poor health.
Moreover, healthy life expectancy in England in 2020–22 was lower than in 2011–13, when the data series began, falling by 0.8 years in males and 1.2 years in females during that time. So not only has life expectancy stalled, but males and females spend more years in poor health. "
What do you think of the idea that we need not merely to divert resources away from hospitals into primary care but, ideally, that some of the health budget needs moving out of the existing structures of the NHS altogether and into a disease prevention organisation?
Cancer screening programmes notwithstanding, almost all healthcare seems to be structured around people presenting when already ill and the expensive interventions then needed to try to fix them. If more attention were paid to simple preemptive measures, such as setting up facilities in community centres or supermarkets to do quick and cheap screening for common health conditions, a lot of issues that leave people seriously ill or permanently disabled (imposing heavy burdens on the state that it's ill equipped to cope with) could simply be prevented.
One particular case in point is hypertension - typically asymptomatic but liable to cause catastrophic issues if left untreated. There are probably millions of people at risk of heart disease, stroke and God alone knows what else who could be kept healthy with cheap pills, but aren't being medicated because the healthcare system is geared up to deal with serious problems after they occur, rather than preventing them. There has to be space for a cheap win here, you would've thought.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
What the hell are you jibbering on about? I think everybody realises he isn't going to go to the Study in no 10 every time he has to make a decision.
OK he's just started a job as head of government. A job that he will probably be doing for the next 4 or 5 years. If I started a job like that I would also want to make a couple of changes to the offices I moved into, rather than keeping everything exactly the same as my predecessor. He's taken down a picture of Thatcher that he didn't like, who gives a shit? He could take down a picture of Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama, put a framed photo of his mum on his desk, whatever, if it makes him feel more at ease.
Sure, but he didn't need to make it public that he found the picture "unsettling".
Reminds him that he is a Pygmy on the shoulders of a giant
Another worshipper at the shrine of Thatcher.
Whatever you think of her politics, Margaret Thatcher was one of the most important politicians of the 20th Century. The first female PM (perhaps Labour still not having had one is the real embarrassment she causes Starmer?), the winner of three consecutive elections, the vanquisher of an invading army over British territory, the negotiator of various EU opt-outs, visionary on climate change - and the person who slayed the UK's "sick man of Europe" tag. Perhaps Churchill has more to offer, but further back in time. It would still be massively disrespectful to move his portrait though.
Can you imagine if the Tories had moved a portrait of Clement Attlee - because, I don't know - the NHS?
You write as if Labour had sort to remove all trace of Thatcher from history. Starmer’s moved a painting in one private meeting room. Don’t be such a snowflake.
It's not so much that he's done it as that he's advertised that he's done it.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
And how much is one of those, Robert?
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
You can get one for £1,500. Still very expensive for a bike, particularly compared to what the Dutch pay.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
What the hell are you jibbering on about? I think everybody realises he isn't going to go to the Study in no 10 every time he has to make a decision.
OK he's just started a job as head of government. A job that he will probably be doing for the next 4 or 5 years. If I started a job like that I would also want to make a couple of changes to the offices I moved into, rather than keeping everything exactly the same as my predecessor. He's taken down a picture of Thatcher that he didn't like, who gives a shit? He could take down a picture of Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama, put a framed photo of his mum on his desk, whatever, if it makes him feel more at ease.
Sure, but he didn't need to make it public that he found the picture "unsettling".
Reminds him that he is a Pygmy on the shoulders of a giant
Another worshipper at the shrine of Thatcher.
Whatever you think of her politics, Margaret Thatcher was one of the most important politicians of the 20th Century. The first female PM (perhaps Labour still not having had one is the real embarrassment she causes Starmer?), the winner of three consecutive elections, the vanquisher of an invading army over British territory, the negotiator of various EU opt-outs, visionary on climate change - and the person who slayed the UK's "sick man of Europe" tag. Perhaps Churchill has more to offer, but further back in time. It would still be massively disrespectful to move his portrait though.
Can you imagine if the Tories had moved a portrait of Clement Attlee - because, I don't know - the NHS?
Were a Tory PM to remove a picture of Attlee, Wilson or Blair there would be no media interest whatsoever. The PM would be perfectly entitled so to do.
At the height of Blair I was doing some consultancy work at a big employer in Barry. The guy I was doing the work for had a personally signed photo of Thatcher on his office wall. I thought it was a piss take, but it wasn't. Prior to my first joining PB circa 2005 I didn't realise such people existed. I would think myself very odd if I plastered pictures of non-Conservative Prime Ministers of bygone days all over my walls.
In my biz, sales of signed Thatcher and Churchill outsell every single other PM put together.
I expect the type of people that value a signed photo of a PM tend towards that a certain end of the political spectrum.
That being said if anyone wants to pick up a framed,signed 1980s photo of Neil Kinnock you know where to come.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
And how much is one of those, Robert?
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
You can get one for £1,500. Still very expensive for a bike, particularly compared to what the Dutch pay.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
Your very own railway carriage for bicycle storage? My, that really is decadent. Where is the carriage parked?
On my travels this year, I see that the Italians and Greeks eat a lot of sugary snacks, too, these days. However, they also still live longer than the UK, because of stronger communities and much healthier food in other parts of their diet, I think, largely.
More that the impact hasn't hit yet. An 80 year old Italian has years of healthy Mediterranean lifestyle under their belt, a 30 something hasn't.
We see the same here. When you go to a place with lots of sprites elderly people (like Rutland) you see people who have always lived healthily. It's a different story on Saffron Lane estate.
I think it is underappreciated how metabolism slows down when we age. A diet and drinking habit sustainable at 25 is just no longer possible at fifty without ballooning weight and BP.
It is very difficult. I'm 59, run 25 or so miles a week on average, eat low carb (no doubt you disapprove Foxy but it stops me both overeating and snacking) and have a BMI of 21. Got a sub-4 marathon last year and I'm in training for Amsterdam in October. I will keep it up as long as I can - but when I started running I still put on weight on a fairly healthy "standard" diet. And poor people can't afford to eat low carb, or even low GI
No, I don't disapprove of a low carbohydrate diet. Indeed my own diet is fairly low carb. Where I think the danger lies is in excessive saturated fat as a substitute, particularly red and cured meats.
Well I cook almost entirely in saturated fat. Plus some olive oil. I don't eat too much beef and lamb as it is expensive, but I do eat quite a bit of pork. Cured meat is bacon a couple of times a week and charcuterie about once a week as I sometimes have a Continental breakfast. I do try to eat oily fish a couple of times a week, especially in the winter, for the Vitamin D. I do eat a fair bit of green veg and salad. My main failing is probably too much protein - but I tell myself that as a runner I need it, especially when I am in training. It would be interesting to have a cholesterol test. I am fairly moderate though - when I cook for myself I aim for 10g per meal, but a couple of times a week I eat out and don't always avoid a moderate amount of carbs, and I do still drink beer (but wine or spirits at home). It seems to work for me without being too restrictive. I wouldn't do Keto - far too restrictive, and some of it seems too much like a religion (surely a few grams of wheat or pulses or rapeseed oil in mayo can't do me any harm?) unless of course I had a few stone to shift, which I don't. But it does seem to keep blood sugar fairly consistent and avoid the need to snack, my midweek bacon and egg breakfast is three rashers of streaky, a tomato and a fried egg, and I don't feel the need to eat before 1pm (and 150g of smoked mackerel will do the same job).
Humans are omnivores with adaptable metabolism that can cope with any diet from vegan to whale blubber. Either can be a healthy diet and we'll adapted to the environment..
While that's true, evolution didn't, and can't do much to make that true for healthy old age on a population level, since it acts largely through survival only through reproductive years (though there's probably a species survival advantage in having odd outliers who can cope with various types of diet into healthy old age).
Which is borne out by things tending to go to shit, once past middle age.
On my travels this year, I see that the Italians and Greeks eat a lot of sugary snacks, too, these days. However, they also still live longer than the UK, because of stronger communities and much healthier food in other parts of their diet, I think, largely.
More that the impact hasn't hit yet. An 80 year old Italian has years of healthy Mediterranean lifestyle under their belt, a 30 something hasn't.
We see the same here. When you go to a place with lots of sprites elderly people (like Rutland) you see people who have always lived healthily. It's a different story on Saffron Lane estate.
I think it is underappreciated how metabolism slows down when we age. A diet and drinking habit sustainable at 25 is just no longer possible at fifty without ballooning weight and BP.
It is very difficult. I'm 59, run 25 or so miles a week on average, eat low carb (no doubt you disapprove Foxy but it stops me both overeating and snacking) and have a BMI of 21. Got a sub-4 marathon last year and I'm in training for Amsterdam in October. I will keep it up as long as I can - but when I started running I still put on weight on a fairly healthy "standard" diet. And poor people can't afford to eat low carb, or even low GI
No, I don't disapprove of a low carbohydrate diet. Indeed my own diet is fairly low carb. Where I think the danger lies is in excessive saturated fat as a substitute, particularly red and cured meats.
Well I cook almost entirely in saturated fat. Plus some olive oil. I don't eat too much beef and lamb as it is expensive, but I do eat quite a bit of pork. Cured meat is bacon a couple of times a week and charcuterie about once a week as I sometimes have a Continental breakfast. I do try to eat oily fish a couple of times a week, especially in the winter, for the Vitamin D. I do eat a fair bit of green veg and salad. My main failing is probably too much protein - but I tell myself that as a runner I need it, especially when I am in training. It would be interesting to have a cholesterol test. I am fairly moderate though - when I cook for myself I aim for 10g per meal, but a couple of times a week I eat out and don't always avoid a moderate amount of carbs, and I do still drink beer (but wine or spirits at home). It seems to work for me without being too restrictive. I wouldn't do Keto - far too restrictive, and some of it seems too much like a religion (surely a few grams of wheat or pulses or rapeseed oil in mayo can't do me any harm?) unless of course I had a few stone to shift, which I don't. But it does seem to keep blood sugar fairly consistent and avoid the need to snack, my midweek bacon and egg breakfast is three rashers of streaky, a tomato and a fried egg, and I don't feel the need to eat before 1pm (and 150g of smoked mackerel will do the same job).
Humans are omnivores with adaptable metabolism that can cope with any diet from vegan to whale blubber. Either can be a healthy diet and we'll adapted to the environment.
A diet needs to be affordable, nutritious and enjoyable, so will vary with individual circumstances, but if someone is developing illness (that is where this conversation started) then they need to make adaptions.
Saturated fat and cured meats don't just affect blood lipids, but also are linked to other health problems such as bowel cancer. Humans only need 60g or so of protein a day, after that it is burnt off in a manner not dissimilar to carbohydrates, being metabolised into glucose and ketone. There is a certain amount of stress to the kidneys from this metabolic acidosis, which can be offset by eating alkali vegetables.
A high protien diet does increase the metabolic rate, and tends to promote saity via reduced endogenous insulin production alongside other gut hormones, but can be unhealthy in other ways.
The 60g of protein is often quoted, but surely that is just for maintenance. You also need protein to repair damaged muscle after exercise, and to grow new muscle - distance runners don't bulk up but they do create new fast- and medium-twitch fibres which increase muscle density (at least that's how understand it). However that doesn't usually seem to be taken into consideration. And, as you point out, it can be burnt or stored if not required.
And I am sceptical about the value of a lot of studies saying "x is linked to bowel cancer" those people eating lots of x have also been eating lots of y and z. It would be interesting to see a study of, for example, low-carbers who have been eating lots of saturated fat, but little carbohydrate, for the last 40 years.
What I didn't realise is that most people have a lot of sugar sloshing around in the system through digesting their last meal. When it runs out, you get hungry. Of course the normal mammalian response is to burn body fat, indeed this is why you can still walk and talk after running a marathon, and distance running training is partly about training the body to burn fat at higher intensity, as even a skinny person has an almost limitless supply. I suspect the carb-loaded nature of the standard diet means that people have effectively lost the ability to burn body fat when at rest or in moderate exercise. Certainly I used to find that a carby breakfast neccessitated a Snickers bar at around 11am.
I once tried to eat a couple of Snickers (well, for us oldies, Marathon...) bar whilst running a marathon-distance run.
It did not end well, for stomach or guts. I found it blooming hard to even swallow the chocolate whilst running.
(In my defence, I had hit a low-energy time and had forgotten my gels. And the best thing the small village shop had was choccie bars.)
I've not long started a Half Marathon programme, and have just started trialing gels. I bought a couple of Wiggle's own brand caffeine gels for pennies when they went bust to make up enough for free delivery and I'm not really that keen, horrible texture, and far too sweet for me now. SIS aren't much better in my opinion. Any recommendations? I've heard the Kendal Mintcake stuff is pretty good, but again probably too sweet.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
And how much is one of those, Robert?
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
The saddle is junk, should be thrown out of the train window and replaced with a Fizik Vento Argo Carbon.
Wheels are 7/10 but will do if you're not a Watts Monster.
I have some other observations on food, which may be again be related to the under-regulated trends of Britain and the U.S., particularly, since the 1980's, particularly.
I've been travelling to Italy and Greece for over 30 years, and spent some time living on Greece. For many years, one thing was certain about both countries ; the quality of fresh produce, and often restaurant food, was almost always better, but the quality of Supermarket food was worse.
This year I've found far better ready meals in Rome than UK supermarkets, far better organic crisps in Athens than in the U.K, and the list goes on. This year even the hot chocolate is better, more tasty, and more preservative-free from the local Athens supermarket, than what I usually find in London, unless I look in specialist shops.
I'm always surprised at how poor the supermarket offering in fruit and veg is in France (about the one European place I bother with le supermarche).
Ours is 10x better even in smaller stores.
But French towns have better markets In which to buy fresh food.
That's true. Their markets are fantastic, straight out of Zola's novels.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
And how much is one of those, Robert?
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
You can get one for £1,500. Still very expensive for a bike, particularly compared to what the Dutch pay.
(But rather cheaper than a second car).
Robert has the electric one.
But he was making a point about storage. It's a good one, and to my eye there are loads more Bromptons whizzing about compared with 10 years ago.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
What the hell are you jibbering on about? I think everybody realises he isn't going to go to the Study in no 10 every time he has to make a decision.
OK he's just started a job as head of government. A job that he will probably be doing for the next 4 or 5 years. If I started a job like that I would also want to make a couple of changes to the offices I moved into, rather than keeping everything exactly the same as my predecessor. He's taken down a picture of Thatcher that he didn't like, who gives a shit? He could take down a picture of Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama, put a framed photo of his mum on his desk, whatever, if it makes him feel more at ease.
Sure, but he didn't need to make it public that he found the picture "unsettling".
Reminds him that he is a Pygmy on the shoulders of a giant
Another worshipper at the shrine of Thatcher.
Whatever you think of her politics, Margaret Thatcher was one of the most important politicians of the 20th Century. The first female PM (perhaps Labour still not having had one is the real embarrassment she causes Starmer?), the winner of three consecutive elections, the vanquisher of an invading army over British territory, the negotiator of various EU opt-outs, visionary on climate change - and the person who slayed the UK's "sick man of Europe" tag. Perhaps Churchill has more to offer, but further back in time. It would still be massively disrespectful to move his portrait though.
Can you imagine if the Tories had moved a portrait of Clement Attlee - because, I don't know - the NHS?
Were a Tory PM to remove a picture of Attlee, Wilson or Blair there would be no media interest whatsoever. The PM would be perfectly entitled so to do.
At the height of Blair I was doing some consultancy work at a big employer in Barry. The guy I was doing the work for had a personally signed photo of Thatcher on his office wall. I thought it was a piss take, but it wasn't. Prior to my first joining PB circa 2005 I didn't realise such people existed. I would think myself very odd if I plastered pictures of non-Conservative Prime Ministers of bygone days all over my walls.
In my biz, sales of signed Thatcher and Churchill outsell every single other PM put together.
I expect the type of people that value a signed photo of a PM tend towards that a certain end of the political spectrum.
That being said if anyone wants to pick up a framed,signed 1980s photo of Neil Kinnock you know where to come.
Give me fifty quid and I'll take it off your hands.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
And how much is one of those, Robert?
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
You can get one for £1,500. Still very expensive for a bike, particularly compared to what the Dutch pay.
(But rather cheaper than a second car).
Robert has the electric one.
But he was making a point about storage. It's a good one, and to my eye there are loads more Bromptons whizzing about compared with 10 years ago.
Goodness, they are up to 90,000 a year, from 40,000 in 2013 and 6,000 in 2002.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
What the hell are you jibbering on about? I think everybody realises he isn't going to go to the Study in no 10 every time he has to make a decision.
OK he's just started a job as head of government. A job that he will probably be doing for the next 4 or 5 years. If I started a job like that I would also want to make a couple of changes to the offices I moved into, rather than keeping everything exactly the same as my predecessor. He's taken down a picture of Thatcher that he didn't like, who gives a shit? He could take down a picture of Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama, put a framed photo of his mum on his desk, whatever, if it makes him feel more at ease.
Sure, but he didn't need to make it public that he found the picture "unsettling".
Reminds him that he is a Pygmy on the shoulders of a giant
Another worshipper at the shrine of Thatcher.
Whatever you think of her politics, Margaret Thatcher was one of the most important politicians of the 20th Century. The first female PM (perhaps Labour still not having had one is the real embarrassment she causes Starmer?), the winner of three consecutive elections, the vanquisher of an invading army over British territory, the negotiator of various EU opt-outs, visionary on climate change - and the person who slayed the UK's "sick man of Europe" tag. Perhaps Churchill has more to offer, but further back in time. It would still be massively disrespectful to move his portrait though.
Can you imagine if the Tories had moved a portrait of Clement Attlee - because, I don't know - the NHS?
Were a Tory PM to remove a picture of Attlee, Wilson or Blair there would be no media interest whatsoever. The PM would be perfectly entitled so to do.
At the height of Blair I was doing some consultancy work at a big employer in Barry. The guy I was doing the work for had a personally signed photo of Thatcher on his office wall. I thought it was a piss take, but it wasn't. Prior to my first joining PB circa 2005 I didn't realise such people existed. I would think myself very odd if I plastered pictures of non-Conservative Prime Ministers of bygone days all over my walls.
In my biz, sales of signed Thatcher and Churchill outsell every single other PM put together.
I expect the type of people that value a signed photo of a PM tend towards that a certain end of the political spectrum.
That being said if anyone wants to pick up a framed,signed 1980s photo of Neil Kinnock you know where to come.
Give me fifty quid and I'll take it off your hands.
A staple complaint on pb.com has been that Johnson missed an opportunity during the pandemic to encourage the country to get into shape, and that a bit of money spent on prevention would be a lot cheaper than a fortune spent later on treatment.
I've no idea if what is proposed is the right way to go about things (sounds like it is a screening questionnaire, rather than physical appointments) but it's evidence that someone is asking the right questions and trying something new.
It's one of the better signs in the early days of Keir.
We have a major problem with obesity in Britain, diabetes, and blood pressure. Going out casefinding is a way of getting people to engage, particularly groups like midfle aged men in deprived areas rather shy of health issues.
We have a real problem with reducing healthy life expectancy in this country:
"For the three aggregated years 2020–22, although male life expectancy was 78.8 years, average healthy male life expectancy was only 62.4 years – ie, 16.4 of those years (21%) would have been spent in poor health. Female life expectancy was 82.8 years, of which 20.1 years (24%) would have been spent in poor health. Although females live an average of four years longer than males, they spend a higher proportion and more years of their lives in poor health.
Moreover, healthy life expectancy in England in 2020–22 was lower than in 2011–13, when the data series began, falling by 0.8 years in males and 1.2 years in females during that time. So not only has life expectancy stalled, but males and females spend more years in poor health. "
What do you think of the idea that we need not merely to divert resources away from hospitals into primary care but, ideally, that some of the health budget needs moving out of the existing structures of the NHS altogether and into a disease prevention organisation?
Cancer screening programmes notwithstanding, almost all healthcare seems to be structured around people presenting when already ill and the expensive interventions then needed to try to fix them. If more attention were paid to simple preemptive measures, such as setting up facilities in community centres or supermarkets to do quick and cheap screening for common health conditions, a lot of issues that leave people seriously ill or permanently disabled (imposing heavy burdens on the state that it's ill equipped to cope with) could simply be prevented.
One particular case in point is hypertension - typically asymptomatic but liable to cause catastrophic issues if left untreated. There are probably millions of people at risk of heart disease, stroke and God alone knows what else who could be kept healthy with cheap pills, but aren't being medicated because the healthcare system is geared up to deal with serious problems after they occur, rather than preventing them. There has to be space for a cheap win here, you would've thought.
Yes, hypertension strikes close to home for me. I only discovered last year I had high blood pressure (150/100) after voluntarily participating in a mass heath study. Medication (and, I think, an improved lifestyle) has brought it down to 124/83 - still a bit on the high side, but a lot less risky than before - with no apparent side effects. It would be good to get it below 120/80.
I'd advise anyone who hasn't checked their BP recently to do so!
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
Individuals bear responsibility for their actions as well - the industry doesn’t have “full” responsibility
To quote the great MJ Hibbett, in Do More, Eat Less:
To put the blame on agencies outside won't help, Not to take responsibility for our self
Trump: Some people don't eat bacon anymore. This was caused by their horrible energy. Wind. They want wind all over the place. When it doesn't blow, we have a problem. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1829317258302423293
On my travels this year, I see that the Italians and Greeks eat a lot of sugary snacks, too, these days. However, they also still live longer than the UK, because of stronger communities and much healthier food in other parts of their diet, I think, largely.
More that the impact hasn't hit yet. An 80 year old Italian has years of healthy Mediterranean lifestyle under their belt, a 30 something hasn't.
We see the same here. When you go to a place with lots of spritly elderly people (like Rutland) you see people who have always lived healthily. It's a different story on Saffron Lane estate.
I think it is underappreciated how metabolism slows down when we age. A diet and drinking habit sustainable at 25 is just no longer possible at fifty without ballooning weight and BP.
I think you could be right. There a quite a few fatter people visible about in the aforementioned big Greek and Italian cities, but I didn't see any much larger folk in rural Calabria or the the Dodecanese Islands in Greece.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Fatness has become such a ridiculous taboo in this country. Mentioning it is almost up there with racial slurs.
The fact is the country is way too obese and it’s making the population unhealthy and unproductive.
There are fat fucks everywhere and it must be costing the country a fortune. I doubt anything Starmer does will change that but at least he's having a go.
I have to say I'm enjoying the new atmos of steely, buttoned-down efficiency. Not a joke in sight, everything clipped to size, nothing lax or loose or (oh god) 'quirky', no self-indulgence, no straining for adulation, no 'look at me' neediness, no attempt to amuse or excite or entertain, no flaky ideology, no pretentious intellectual fetishes. A complete absence of the shit we've become accustomed to in recent years. Instead what we have is what we see. A serious white collar professional with a nice big parliamentary majority looking to fix some problems.
Two out of three ain't bad...
And don't be sad because it's too early to judge on that 3rd one. Yes the vibes are good but we'll have to see.
The erstwhile minister for common sense and digging holes. How dare people suggest that (mis)quoting arguably the best known poem about the genesis of the Holocaust in response to a suggested smoking ban is in any way equating the Holocaust to suggesting a smoking ban. Ridiculous!
No, partly because one of my diminishing pleasures is a cigar and a drink on a warm summer evening, but also because I think it’s the worst kind of virtual signalling, ie fcking pointless.
However when the original smoking ban in pubs came in I was initially in favour of some sort of opt-in licence for landlords but the incessant whining of the smoking lobby put me right off. The efforts of the fragrantly thick Esther might have a similar effect.
Typical anti-vaxxer rhetoric. It would save lives, like seatbelts, but no - you don't want the government interfering.
Jeez
There is a difference between the government cajoling and enforcing.
I'm all for the government persuading people to have vaccinations and to stop smoking altogether. But I'm suspicious of legal enforcement of taking soft drugs, lock down, seatbelts etc and wouldn't want it extended to legal enforcement of vaccination. I'm totally in favour of hard persuasion. But it is up to individual adults what they do with their bodies as long as their actions don't materially harm others.
Vaccination was de facto a legal requirement if you wanted to take part in normal social activity outside your home. And don't get me started on what they told us we could or couldn't do inside our home - I only received approval last week to take down the mandated picture of Jacob Rees-Mogg.
We have a special secret room where we keep our Jacob Rees-Mogg memorabilia. It's important to keep the old ways alive.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
And how much is one of those, Robert?
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
You can get one for £1,500. Still very expensive for a bike, particularly compared to what the Dutch pay.
(But rather cheaper than a second car).
Robert has the electric one.
But he was making a point about storage. It's a good one, and to my eye there are loads more Bromptons whizzing about compared with 10 years ago.
There are loads and loads and loads more electric bikes whizzing around than 10 years ago. Than five years ago. Than last year. Boris, Uber, Forest et al.
It is super noticeable how many are now on the roads.
On my travels this year, I see that the Italians and Greeks eat a lot of sugary snacks, too, these days. However, they also still live longer than the UK, because of stronger communities and much healthier food in other parts of their diet, I think, largely.
More that the impact hasn't hit yet. An 80 year old Italian has years of healthy Mediterranean lifestyle under their belt, a 30 something hasn't.
We see the same here. When you go to a place with lots of sprites elderly people (like Rutland) you see people who have always lived healthily. It's a different story on Saffron Lane estate.
I think it is underappreciated how metabolism slows down when we age. A diet and drinking habit sustainable at 25 is just no longer possible at fifty without ballooning weight and BP.
It is very difficult. I'm 59, run 25 or so miles a week on average, eat low carb (no doubt you disapprove Foxy but it stops me both overeating and snacking) and have a BMI of 21. Got a sub-4 marathon last year and I'm in training for Amsterdam in October. I will keep it up as long as I can - but when I started running I still put on weight on a fairly healthy "standard" diet. And poor people can't afford to eat low carb, or even low GI
No, I don't disapprove of a low carbohydrate diet. Indeed my own diet is fairly low carb. Where I think the danger lies is in excessive saturated fat as a substitute, particularly red and cured meats.
Well I cook almost entirely in saturated fat. Plus some olive oil. I don't eat too much beef and lamb as it is expensive, but I do eat quite a bit of pork. Cured meat is bacon a couple of times a week and charcuterie about once a week as I sometimes have a Continental breakfast. I do try to eat oily fish a couple of times a week, especially in the winter, for the Vitamin D. I do eat a fair bit of green veg and salad. My main failing is probably too much protein - but I tell myself that as a runner I need it, especially when I am in training. It would be interesting to have a cholesterol test. I am fairly moderate though - when I cook for myself I aim for 10g per meal, but a couple of times a week I eat out and don't always avoid a moderate amount of carbs, and I do still drink beer (but wine or spirits at home). It seems to work for me without being too restrictive. I wouldn't do Keto - far too restrictive, and some of it seems too much like a religion (surely a few grams of wheat or pulses or rapeseed oil in mayo can't do me any harm?) unless of course I had a few stone to shift, which I don't. But it does seem to keep blood sugar fairly consistent and avoid the need to snack, my midweek bacon and egg breakfast is three rashers of streaky, a tomato and a fried egg, and I don't feel the need to eat before 1pm (and 150g of smoked mackerel will do the same job).
Humans are omnivores with adaptable metabolism that can cope with any diet from vegan to whale blubber. Either can be a healthy diet and we'll adapted to the environment.
A diet needs to be affordable, nutritious and enjoyable, so will vary with individual circumstances, but if someone is developing illness (that is where this conversation started) then they need to make adaptions.
Saturated fat and cured meats don't just affect blood lipids, but also are linked to other health problems such as bowel cancer. Humans only need 60g or so of protein a day, after that it is burnt off in a manner not dissimilar to carbohydrates, being metabolised into glucose and ketone. There is a certain amount of stress to the kidneys from this metabolic acidosis, which can be offset by eating alkali vegetables.
A high protien diet does increase the metabolic rate, and tends to promote saity via reduced endogenous insulin production alongside other gut hormones, but can be unhealthy in other ways.
The 60g of protein is often quoted, but surely that is just for maintenance. You also need protein to repair damaged muscle after exercise, and to grow new muscle - distance runners don't bulk up but they do create new fast- and medium-twitch fibres which increase muscle density (at least that's how understand it). However that doesn't usually seem to be taken into consideration. And, as you point out, it can be burnt or stored if not required.
And I am sceptical about the value of a lot of studies saying "x is linked to bowel cancer" those people eating lots of x have also been eating lots of y and z. It would be interesting to see a study of, for example, low-carbers who have been eating lots of saturated fat, but little carbohydrate, for the last 40 years.
What I didn't realise is that most people have a lot of sugar sloshing around in the system through digesting their last meal. When it runs out, you get hungry. Of course the normal mammalian response is to burn body fat, indeed this is why you can still walk and talk after running a marathon, and distance running training is partly about training the body to burn fat at higher intensity, as even a skinny person has an almost limitless supply. I suspect the carb-loaded nature of the standard diet means that people have effectively lost the ability to burn body fat when at rest or in moderate exercise. Certainly I used to find that a carby breakfast neccessitated a Snickers bar at around 11am.
I once tried to eat a couple of Snickers (well, for us oldies, Marathon...) bar whilst running a marathon-distance run.
It did not end well, for stomach or guts. I found it blooming hard to even swallow the chocolate whilst running.
(In my defence, I had hit a low-energy time and had forgotten my gels. And the best thing the small village shop had was choccie bars.)
I've not long started a Half Marathon programme, and have just started trialing gels. I bought a couple of Wiggle's own brand caffeine gels for pennies when they went bust to make up enough for free delivery and I'm not really that keen, horrible texture, and far too sweet for me now. SIS aren't much better in my opinion. Any recommendations? I've heard the Kendal Mintcake stuff is pretty good, but again probably too sweet.
Not tried Kendal mint cake for running, but love it on long-distance hikes - as long as I have enough water to wash the sweetness out my mouth. For running/triathlon I mainly use SIS, which have the advantage of being sold in the local supermarket. Some flavours I love (orange, tropical - yum. ); others I hate (pineapple).
I've also tried mixing my own. Honey/Lemon/blueberries blended in a mix with loads of water was yummy, but the problem was finding a convenient container for it whilst running. The gels come in such handy packs, especially as they fit in the loops in my tribelt and running pack. It's also a load of faff, but might be worth you looking into, given the extortionate price of gels.
Has Starmer really removed Thatcher's portrait from the Thatcher room at No. 10 because he found it 'unsettling' ?
Aw, bless. We cant have his little feelings hurtied, can we? I wonder what else he'll find 'unsettling'?
He really is going to be a poor PM.
He might turn out to be a poor PM but fuck me you need something more than him slightly adjusting his work environment to suit himself. Get a fucking grip.
I'm laughing at him. It's hilarious.
He is PM. He will, sadly, have to make really important decisions; sometimes life-and-death decisions. He needs to be tough, as do all PMs. Yet he finds a portrait of a massively successful (although controversial) predecessor 'unsettling'.
He needs to get a grip.
If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive.
It's definitely you that needs to get a grip, he's only taken a picture off a wall in a room that none of us will ever see, he's not thrown the statue of Churchill into the Thames.
"If I had to make life and death decisions I'd probably want to do it in an environment that I found conducive."
He doesn't get that choice. He might have to make the decision whilst on holiday; or on a foreign visit, or at three o'clock in the morning. Or whilst on the toilet, if it is urgent enough.
It's fairly pathetic of him. Although I do wonder if it is an utterly deliberate move on his part, as an easy piece of red meat thrown to the left.
What the hell are you jibbering on about? I think everybody realises he isn't going to go to the Study in no 10 every time he has to make a decision.
OK he's just started a job as head of government. A job that he will probably be doing for the next 4 or 5 years. If I started a job like that I would also want to make a couple of changes to the offices I moved into, rather than keeping everything exactly the same as my predecessor. He's taken down a picture of Thatcher that he didn't like, who gives a shit? He could take down a picture of Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama, put a framed photo of his mum on his desk, whatever, if it makes him feel more at ease.
Sure, but he didn't need to make it public that he found the picture "unsettling".
Reminds him that he is a Pygmy on the shoulders of a giant
Another worshipper at the shrine of Thatcher.
Whatever you think of her politics, Margaret Thatcher was one of the most important politicians of the 20th Century. The first female PM (perhaps Labour still not having had one is the real embarrassment she causes Starmer?), the winner of three consecutive elections, the vanquisher of an invading army over British territory, the negotiator of various EU opt-outs, visionary on climate change - and the person who slayed the UK's "sick man of Europe" tag. Perhaps Churchill has more to offer, but further back in time. It would still be massively disrespectful to move his portrait though.
Can you imagine if the Tories had moved a portrait of Clement Attlee - because, I don't know - the NHS?
Were a Tory PM to remove a picture of Attlee, Wilson or Blair there would be no media interest whatsoever. The PM would be perfectly entitled so to do.
At the height of Blair I was doing some consultancy work at a big employer in Barry. The guy I was doing the work for had a personally signed photo of Thatcher on his office wall. I thought it was a piss take, but it wasn't. Prior to my first joining PB circa 2005 I didn't realise such people existed. I would think myself very odd if I plastered pictures of non-Conservative Prime Ministers of bygone days all over my walls.
In my biz, sales of signed Thatcher and Churchill outsell every single other PM put together.
I expect the type of people that value a signed photo of a PM tend towards that a certain end of the political spectrum.
That being said if anyone wants to pick up a framed,signed 1980s photo of Neil Kinnock you know where to come.
Give me fifty quid and I'll take it off your hands.
The erstwhile minister for common sense and digging holes. How dare people suggest that (mis)quoting arguably the best known poem about the genesis of the Holocaust in response to a suggested smoking ban is in any way equating the Holocaust to suggesting a smoking ban. Ridiculous!
No, partly because one of my diminishing pleasures is a cigar and a drink on a warm summer evening, but also because I think it’s the worst kind of virtual signalling, ie fcking pointless.
However when the original smoking ban in pubs came in I was initially in favour of some sort of opt-in licence for landlords but the incessant whining of the smoking lobby put me right off. The efforts of the fragrantly thick Esther might have a similar effect.
Typical anti-vaxxer rhetoric. It would save lives, like seatbelts, but no - you don't want the government interfering.
Jeez
There is a difference between the government cajoling and enforcing.
I'm all for the government persuading people to have vaccinations and to stop smoking altogether. But I'm suspicious of legal enforcement of taking soft drugs, lock down, seatbelts etc and wouldn't want it extended to legal enforcement of vaccination. I'm totally in favour of hard persuasion. But it is up to individual adults what they do with their bodies as long as their actions don't materially harm others.
Vaccination was de facto a legal requirement if you wanted to take part in normal social activity outside your home. And don't get me started on what they told us we could or couldn't do inside our home - I only received approval last week to take down the mandated picture of Jacob Rees-Mogg.
We have a special secret room where we keep our Jacob Rees-Mogg memorabilia. It's important to keep the old ways alive.
But do you know the correct incantations? And do you do it (you know, the special ritual involving the you-know-what) widdershins, as any true Moggite should?
I cannot stand those who do it clockwise. Splitters.
Of course the one area where French supermarkets are a joy is in the wine section. Even the lowliest Spar-equivalent teeny tiny one has the most amazing selection of wines, and each at a few euros. Very young, mind, but they are the ones that know what they are doing.
Plus the charcuterie selection is 1,000 times better than even our most flashy waitrose.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Fatness has become such a ridiculous taboo in this country. Mentioning it is almost up there with racial slurs.
The fact is the country is way too obese and it’s making the population unhealthy and unproductive.
There are fat fucks everywhere and it must be costing the country a fortune. I doubt anything Starmer does will change that but at least he's having a go.
I have to say I'm enjoying the new atmos of steely, buttoned-down efficiency. Not a joke in sight, everything clipped to size, nothing lax or loose or (oh god) 'quirky', no self-indulgence, no straining for adulation, no 'look at me' neediness, no attempt to amuse or excite or entertain, no flaky ideology, no pretentious intellectual fetishes. A complete absence of the shit we've become accustomed to in recent years. Instead what we have is what we see. A serious white collar professional with a nice big parliamentary majority looking to fix some problems.
Lol. Strong authoritarian-Dad vibes here.
Apart from on PB, this is not exactly a large pool of support in which to be fishing...
Well, he did win 411 seats and drove the Tory vote share and seat count to pretty much the lowest ever. Starmer must have something going for him.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Fatness has become such a ridiculous taboo in this country. Mentioning it is almost up there with racial slurs.
The fact is the country is way too obese and it’s making the population unhealthy and unproductive.
There are fat fucks everywhere and it must be costing the country a fortune. I doubt anything Starmer does will change that but at least he's having a go.
I have to say I'm enjoying the new atmos of steely, buttoned-down efficiency. Not a joke in sight, everything clipped to size, nothing lax or loose or (oh god) 'quirky', no self-indulgence, no straining for adulation, no 'look at me' neediness, no attempt to amuse or excite or entertain, no flaky ideology, no pretentious intellectual fetishes. A complete absence of the shit we've become accustomed to in recent years. Instead what we have is what we see. A serious white collar professional with a nice big parliamentary majority looking to fix some problems.
Lol. Strong authoritarian-Dad vibes here.
Apart from on PB, this is not exactly a large pool of support in which to be fishing...
I'm older than him so I wouldn't say he's giving me any Dad vibes. He more reminds me of my Maths Prof younger brother - who I'm slightly in awe of when once it was the other way around. I taught him binary and gave him his first car.
On my travels this year, I see that the Italians and Greeks eat a lot of sugary snacks, too, these days. However, they also still live longer than the UK, because of stronger communities and much healthier food in other parts of their diet, I think, largely.
More that the impact hasn't hit yet. An 80 year old Italian has years of healthy Mediterranean lifestyle under their belt, a 30 something hasn't.
We see the same here. When you go to a place with lots of sprites elderly people (like Rutland) you see people who have always lived healthily. It's a different story on Saffron Lane estate.
I think it is underappreciated how metabolism slows down when we age. A diet and drinking habit sustainable at 25 is just no longer possible at fifty without ballooning weight and BP.
It is very difficult. I'm 59, run 25 or so miles a week on average, eat low carb (no doubt you disapprove Foxy but it stops me both overeating and snacking) and have a BMI of 21. Got a sub-4 marathon last year and I'm in training for Amsterdam in October. I will keep it up as long as I can - but when I started running I still put on weight on a fairly healthy "standard" diet. And poor people can't afford to eat low carb, or even low GI
No, I don't disapprove of a low carbohydrate diet. Indeed my own diet is fairly low carb. Where I think the danger lies is in excessive saturated fat as a substitute, particularly red and cured meats.
Well I cook almost entirely in saturated fat. Plus some olive oil. I don't eat too much beef and lamb as it is expensive, but I do eat quite a bit of pork. Cured meat is bacon a couple of times a week and charcuterie about once a week as I sometimes have a Continental breakfast. I do try to eat oily fish a couple of times a week, especially in the winter, for the Vitamin D. I do eat a fair bit of green veg and salad. My main failing is probably too much protein - but I tell myself that as a runner I need it, especially when I am in training. It would be interesting to have a cholesterol test. I am fairly moderate though - when I cook for myself I aim for 10g per meal, but a couple of times a week I eat out and don't always avoid a moderate amount of carbs, and I do still drink beer (but wine or spirits at home). It seems to work for me without being too restrictive. I wouldn't do Keto - far too restrictive, and some of it seems too much like a religion (surely a few grams of wheat or pulses or rapeseed oil in mayo can't do me any harm?) unless of course I had a few stone to shift, which I don't. But it does seem to keep blood sugar fairly consistent and avoid the need to snack, my midweek bacon and egg breakfast is three rashers of streaky, a tomato and a fried egg, and I don't feel the need to eat before 1pm (and 150g of smoked mackerel will do the same job).
Humans are omnivores with adaptable metabolism that can cope with any diet from vegan to whale blubber. Either can be a healthy diet and we'll adapted to the environment.
A diet needs to be affordable, nutritious and enjoyable, so will vary with individual circumstances, but if someone is developing illness (that is where this conversation started) then they need to make adaptions.
Saturated fat and cured meats don't just affect blood lipids, but also are linked to other health problems such as bowel cancer. Humans only need 60g or so of protein a day, after that it is burnt off in a manner not dissimilar to carbohydrates, being metabolised into glucose and ketone. There is a certain amount of stress to the kidneys from this metabolic acidosis, which can be offset by eating alkali vegetables.
A high protien diet does increase the metabolic rate, and tends to promote saity via reduced endogenous insulin production alongside other gut hormones, but can be unhealthy in other ways.
The 60g of protein is often quoted, but surely that is just for maintenance. You also need protein to repair damaged muscle after exercise, and to grow new muscle - distance runners don't bulk up but they do create new fast- and medium-twitch fibres which increase muscle density (at least that's how understand it). However that doesn't usually seem to be taken into consideration. And, as you point out, it can be burnt or stored if not required.
And I am sceptical about the value of a lot of studies saying "x is linked to bowel cancer" those people eating lots of x have also been eating lots of y and z. It would be interesting to see a study of, for example, low-carbers who have been eating lots of saturated fat, but little carbohydrate, for the last 40 years.
What I didn't realise is that most people have a lot of sugar sloshing around in the system through digesting their last meal. When it runs out, you get hungry. Of course the normal mammalian response is to burn body fat, indeed this is why you can still walk and talk after running a marathon, and distance running training is partly about training the body to burn fat at higher intensity, as even a skinny person has an almost limitless supply. I suspect the carb-loaded nature of the standard diet means that people have effectively lost the ability to burn body fat when at rest or in moderate exercise. Certainly I used to find that a carby breakfast neccessitated a Snickers bar at around 11am.
I once tried to eat a couple of Snickers (well, for us oldies, Marathon...) bar whilst running a marathon-distance run.
It did not end well, for stomach or guts. I found it blooming hard to even swallow the chocolate whilst running.
(In my defence, I had hit a low-energy time and had forgotten my gels. And the best thing the small village shop had was choccie bars.)
I've not long started a Half Marathon programme, and have just started trialing gels. I bought a couple of Wiggle's own brand caffeine gels for pennies when they went bust to make up enough for free delivery and I'm not really that keen, horrible texture, and far too sweet for me now. SIS aren't much better in my opinion. Any recommendations? I've heard the Kendal Mintcake stuff is pretty good, but again probably too sweet.
Not tried Kendal mint cake for running, but love it on long-distance hikes - as long as I have enough water to wash the sweetness out my mouth. For running/triathlon I mainly use SIS, which have the advantage of being sold in the local supermarket. Some flavours I love (orange, tropical - yum. ); others I hate (pineapple).
I've also tried mixing my own. Honey/Lemon/blueberries blended in a mix with loads of water was yummy, but the problem was finding a convenient container for it whilst running. The gels come in such handy packs, especially as they fit in the loops in my tribelt and running pack. It's also a load of faff, but might be worth you looking into, given the extortionate price of gels.
Anyone want to buy a load of pineapple SIS gels?
Could be nice squirted on pizza. Kendal do gels as well now. I made my own electrolyte drink only this week. Not bad, but it'll be better when I can find a better way to flavour it rather than squash
The erstwhile minister for common sense and digging holes. How dare people suggest that (mis)quoting arguably the best known poem about the genesis of the Holocaust in response to a suggested smoking ban is in any way equating the Holocaust to suggesting a smoking ban. Ridiculous!
No, partly because one of my diminishing pleasures is a cigar and a drink on a warm summer evening, but also because I think it’s the worst kind of virtual signalling, ie fcking pointless.
However when the original smoking ban in pubs came in I was initially in favour of some sort of opt-in licence for landlords but the incessant whining of the smoking lobby put me right off. The efforts of the fragrantly thick Esther might have a similar effect.
Well in the spirit of cutting down on incessant whining, why don't you just state your opinion, which I agree with, instead of resorting to silly equivocating and Tory bashing?
McVey's point may be clumsy, but it is nevertheless a point worth making that freedom is valueless if we are happy to disapply it to people, things, or habits that we find less than pleasant. And it is logical that we should be wary of binning the freedoms of others, lest things we actually do value get shitcanned based on the nanny-state precedents set. You love and appreciate a good single malt - what if someone (as arguably the SNP already has) decides to make that their whipping boy du jour?
Of course the one area where French supermarkets are a joy is in the wine section. Even the lowliest Spar-equivalent teeny tiny one has the most amazing selection of wines, and each at a few euros. Very young, mind, but they are the ones that know what they are doing.
Plus the charcuterie selection is 1,000 times better than even our most flashy waitrose.
Also French motorway service-station-type places. Some really not bad food at all, depending, also, on which part of the country you're in.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Fatness has become such a ridiculous taboo in this country. Mentioning it is almost up there with racial slurs.
The fact is the country is way too obese and it’s making the population unhealthy and unproductive.
There are fat fucks everywhere and it must be costing the country a fortune. I doubt anything Starmer does will change that but at least he's having a go.
I have to say I'm enjoying the new atmos of steely, buttoned-down efficiency. Not a joke in sight, everything clipped to size, nothing lax or loose or (oh god) 'quirky', no self-indulgence, no straining for adulation, no 'look at me' neediness, no attempt to amuse or excite or entertain, no flaky ideology, no pretentious intellectual fetishes. A complete absence of the shit we've become accustomed to in recent years. Instead what we have is what we see. A serious white collar professional with a nice big parliamentary majority looking to fix some problems.
Lol. Strong authoritarian-Dad vibes here.
Apart from on PB, this is not exactly a large pool of support in which to be fishing...
I'm older than him so I wouldn't say he's giving me any Dad vibes. He more reminds me of my Maths Prof younger brother - who I'm slightly in awe of when once it was the other way around. I taught him binary and gave him his first car.
If it was an (Austin) 1100 you could combine the binary and driving tuition.
I have a little sympathy for Esther McVey on this one. The "They came for and I did nothing" meme has been used as a joke since year dot. Perhaps best to retire it.
Of course the one area where French supermarkets are a joy is in the wine section. Even the lowliest Spar-equivalent teeny tiny one has the most amazing selection of wines, and each at a few euros. Very young, mind, but they are the ones that know what they are doing.
Plus the charcuterie selection is 1,000 times better than even our most flashy waitrose.
Also French motorway service-station-type places. Some really not bad food at all, depending, also, on which part of the country you're in.
French services seem to vary between a Michelin-starred restaurant with a fantastic wine list, that just happens to have a few pumps attached, to a pokey petrol station with a hole-in-the-ground toilet that gets cleaned once a week at best, with no way of distinguishing them from each other until you actually pull in.
On my travels this year, I see that the Italians and Greeks eat a lot of sugary snacks, too, these days. However, they also still live longer than the UK, because of stronger communities and much healthier food in other parts of their diet, I think, largely.
More that the impact hasn't hit yet. An 80 year old Italian has years of healthy Mediterranean lifestyle under their belt, a 30 something hasn't.
We see the same here. When you go to a place with lots of sprites elderly people (like Rutland) you see people who have always lived healthily. It's a different story on Saffron Lane estate.
I think it is underappreciated how metabolism slows down when we age. A diet and drinking habit sustainable at 25 is just no longer possible at fifty without ballooning weight and BP.
It is very difficult. I'm 59, run 25 or so miles a week on average, eat low carb (no doubt you disapprove Foxy but it stops me both overeating and snacking) and have a BMI of 21. Got a sub-4 marathon last year and I'm in training for Amsterdam in October. I will keep it up as long as I can - but when I started running I still put on weight on a fairly healthy "standard" diet. And poor people can't afford to eat low carb, or even low GI
No, I don't disapprove of a low carbohydrate diet. Indeed my own diet is fairly low carb. Where I think the danger lies is in excessive saturated fat as a substitute, particularly red and cured meats.
Well I cook almost entirely in saturated fat. Plus some olive oil. I don't eat too much beef and lamb as it is expensive, but I do eat quite a bit of pork. Cured meat is bacon a couple of times a week and charcuterie about once a week as I sometimes have a Continental breakfast. I do try to eat oily fish a couple of times a week, especially in the winter, for the Vitamin D. I do eat a fair bit of green veg and salad. My main failing is probably too much protein - but I tell myself that as a runner I need it, especially when I am in training. It would be interesting to have a cholesterol test. I am fairly moderate though - when I cook for myself I aim for 10g per meal, but a couple of times a week I eat out and don't always avoid a moderate amount of carbs, and I do still drink beer (but wine or spirits at home). It seems to work for me without being too restrictive. I wouldn't do Keto - far too restrictive, and some of it seems too much like a religion (surely a few grams of wheat or pulses or rapeseed oil in mayo can't do me any harm?) unless of course I had a few stone to shift, which I don't. But it does seem to keep blood sugar fairly consistent and avoid the need to snack, my midweek bacon and egg breakfast is three rashers of streaky, a tomato and a fried egg, and I don't feel the need to eat before 1pm (and 150g of smoked mackerel will do the same job).
I eat what I like, moderating a little on things like biccies and crisps. I also exercise a lot.
I find dieting, or worrying about weight (e.g. entering everything you eat into some sodding online calculator) to be mentally exhausting. IMV some people do more harm to their mental health from constantly following whatever fad diet is new than their physical health is harmed by the food. Yoyo-ing weight falls and gains cannot do you much good, physically or mentally.
For that reason, I'd like to see much more emphasis put on exercise over diet. We may not all be able to run, but most of us can do *some* extra activity. And that can be mentally uplifting as well as physically helpful.
I don't measure anything (unless it is for a recipe) I just do my thing. It is quite good as I have found out that it is self-stabilising. I will probably lose half a stone during marathon training (I probably lose more fat than that, and put on muscle, I am already starting to look thin about the face). When I stop the heavy training, it will go back on. If I go on holiday, I will put on a few pounds, it drops off in a week or two when I get back. I eat what I want as I don't feel the need to eat unnutricious shit like biscuits or crisps. In fact, I no longer really crave food at all although I do enjoy what I eat.
There is an old runner's saying "you can't outrun a bad diet". While exercise is undoubtedly good, especially for mental health, and human beings evolved to run and walk long distances, if you start off overweight it won't really help. The problem is that a lot of people feel hungry after exercise, or follow nostrums like you need to eat immediate carbs (which is bollocks, most people run a marathon and can still walk and talk afterwards when they have probably depleted their glycogen to zero) and hence put more back in than they use. Or they allow themselves a "treat". You need to work to regulate diet before starting exercise.
While it's hard to outrun a bad diet, I think you can almost certainly outcycle one. Before I came to London, I was doing four or five 30 mile rides a week with 1,000+ vertical meters. My powermeter told me I was burning something like 1,800 calories on these rides (albeit I'd usually eat a banana and a nut bar on them), and I just ate what I wanted and still the weight came off. Indeed, the fitter I became, the easier shifting the weight became, as I'd cycle further and harder in my two hours on the bike.
On my travels this year, I see that the Italians and Greeks eat a lot of sugary snacks, too, these days. However, they also still live longer than the UK, because of stronger communities and much healthier food in other parts of their diet, I think, largely.
More that the impact hasn't hit yet. An 80 year old Italian has years of healthy Mediterranean lifestyle under their belt, a 30 something hasn't.
We see the same here. When you go to a place with lots of sprites elderly people (like Rutland) you see people who have always lived healthily. It's a different story on Saffron Lane estate.
I think it is underappreciated how metabolism slows down when we age. A diet and drinking habit sustainable at 25 is just no longer possible at fifty without ballooning weight and BP.
It is very difficult. I'm 59, run 25 or so miles a week on average, eat low carb (no doubt you disapprove Foxy but it stops me both overeating and snacking) and have a BMI of 21. Got a sub-4 marathon last year and I'm in training for Amsterdam in October. I will keep it up as long as I can - but when I started running I still put on weight on a fairly healthy "standard" diet. And poor people can't afford to eat low carb, or even low GI
No, I don't disapprove of a low carbohydrate diet. Indeed my own diet is fairly low carb. Where I think the danger lies is in excessive saturated fat as a substitute, particularly red and cured meats.
Well I cook almost entirely in saturated fat. Plus some olive oil. I don't eat too much beef and lamb as it is expensive, but I do eat quite a bit of pork. Cured meat is bacon a couple of times a week and charcuterie about once a week as I sometimes have a Continental breakfast. I do try to eat oily fish a couple of times a week, especially in the winter, for the Vitamin D. I do eat a fair bit of green veg and salad. My main failing is probably too much protein - but I tell myself that as a runner I need it, especially when I am in training. It would be interesting to have a cholesterol test. I am fairly moderate though - when I cook for myself I aim for 10g per meal, but a couple of times a week I eat out and don't always avoid a moderate amount of carbs, and I do still drink beer (but wine or spirits at home). It seems to work for me without being too restrictive. I wouldn't do Keto - far too restrictive, and some of it seems too much like a religion (surely a few grams of wheat or pulses or rapeseed oil in mayo can't do me any harm?) unless of course I had a few stone to shift, which I don't. But it does seem to keep blood sugar fairly consistent and avoid the need to snack, my midweek bacon and egg breakfast is three rashers of streaky, a tomato and a fried egg, and I don't feel the need to eat before 1pm (and 150g of smoked mackerel will do the same job).
Humans are omnivores with adaptable metabolism that can cope with any diet from vegan to whale blubber. Either can be a healthy diet and we'll adapted to the environment.
A diet needs to be affordable, nutritious and enjoyable, so will vary with individual circumstances, but if someone is developing illness (that is where this conversation started) then they need to make adaptions.
Saturated fat and cured meats don't just affect blood lipids, but also are linked to other health problems such as bowel cancer. Humans only need 60g or so of protein a day, after that it is burnt off in a manner not dissimilar to carbohydrates, being metabolised into glucose and ketone. There is a certain amount of stress to the kidneys from this metabolic acidosis, which can be offset by eating alkali vegetables.
A high protien diet does increase the metabolic rate, and tends to promote saity via reduced endogenous insulin production alongside other gut hormones, but can be unhealthy in other ways.
The 60g of protein is often quoted, but surely that is just for maintenance. You also need protein to repair damaged muscle after exercise, and to grow new muscle - distance runners don't bulk up but they do create new fast- and medium-twitch fibres which increase muscle density (at least that's how understand it). However that doesn't usually seem to be taken into consideration. And, as you point out, it can be burnt or stored if not required.
And I am sceptical about the value of a lot of studies saying "x is linked to bowel cancer" those people eating lots of x have also been eating lots of y and z. It would be interesting to see a study of, for example, low-carbers who have been eating lots of saturated fat, but little carbohydrate, for the last 40 years.
What I didn't realise is that most people have a lot of sugar sloshing around in the system through digesting their last meal. When it runs out, you get hungry. Of course the normal mammalian response is to burn body fat, indeed this is why you can still walk and talk after running a marathon, and distance running training is partly about training the body to burn fat at higher intensity, as even a skinny person has an almost limitless supply. I suspect the carb-loaded nature of the standard diet means that people have effectively lost the ability to burn body fat when at rest or in moderate exercise. Certainly I used to find that a carby breakfast neccessitated a Snickers bar at around 11am.
I once tried to eat a couple of Snickers (well, for us oldies, Marathon...) bar whilst running a marathon-distance run.
It did not end well, for stomach or guts. I found it blooming hard to even swallow the chocolate whilst running.
(In my defence, I had hit a low-energy time and had forgotten my gels. And the best thing the small village shop had was choccie bars.)
I've not long started a Half Marathon programme, and have just started trialing gels. I bought a couple of Wiggle's own brand caffeine gels for pennies when they went bust to make up enough for free delivery and I'm not really that keen, horrible texture, and far too sweet for me now. SIS aren't much better in my opinion. Any recommendations? I've heard the Kendal Mintcake stuff is pretty good, but again probably too sweet.
Not tried Kendal mint cake for running, but love it on long-distance hikes - as long as I have enough water to wash the sweetness out my mouth. For running/triathlon I mainly use SIS, which have the advantage of being sold in the local supermarket. Some flavours I love (orange, tropical - yum. ); others I hate (pineapple).
I've also tried mixing my own. Honey/Lemon/blueberries blended in a mix with loads of water was yummy, but the problem was finding a convenient container for it whilst running. The gels come in such handy packs, especially as they fit in the loops in my tribelt and running pack. It's also a load of faff, but might be worth you looking into, given the extortionate price of gels.
Anyone want to buy a load of pineapple SIS gels?
Could be nice squirted on pizza. Kendal do gels as well now. I made my own electrolyte drink only this week. Not bad, but it'll be better when I can find a better way to flavour it rather than squash
The erstwhile minister for common sense and digging holes. How dare people suggest that (mis)quoting arguably the best known poem about the genesis of the Holocaust in response to a suggested smoking ban is in any way equating the Holocaust to suggesting a smoking ban. Ridiculous!
No, partly because one of my diminishing pleasures is a cigar and a drink on a warm summer evening, but also because I think it’s the worst kind of virtual signalling, ie fcking pointless.
However when the original smoking ban in pubs came in I was initially in favour of some sort of opt-in licence for landlords but the incessant whining of the smoking lobby put me right off. The efforts of the fragrantly thick Esther might have a similar effect.
Well in the spirit of cutting down on incessant whining, why don't you just state your opinion, which I agree with, instead of resorting to silly equivocating and Tory bashing?
McVey's point may be clumsy, but it is nevertheless a point worth making that freedom is valueless if we are happy to disapply it to people, things, or habits that we find less than pleasant. And it is logical that we should be wary of binning the freedoms of others, lest things we actually do value get shitcanned based on the nanny-state precedents set. You love and appreciate a good single malt - what if someone (as arguably the SNP already has) decides to make that their whipping boy du jour?
Weren’t you objecting to the freedom to unveil a banner showing a picture of a lettuce behind Liz Truss?
Of course the one area where French supermarkets are a joy is in the wine section. Even the lowliest Spar-equivalent teeny tiny one has the most amazing selection of wines, and each at a few euros. Very young, mind, but they are the ones that know what they are doing.
Plus the charcuterie selection is 1,000 times better than even our most flashy waitrose.
Also French motorway service-station-type places. Some really not bad food at all, depending, also, on which part of the country you're in.
French services seem to vary between a Michelin-starred restaurant with a fantastic wine list, that just happens to have a few pumps attached, to a pokey petrol station with a hole-in-the-ground toilet that gets cleaned once a week at best, with no way of distinguishing them from each other until you actually pull in.
Exactly so. I hit one of the more unfortunate-style ones somewhere in Brittany last year, and one of the better ones somewhere around mid-France. There's still gold here and there.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
And how much is one of those, Robert?
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
Well, you don't actually *need* the titanium one. A used regular Brompton in good nick is about £600-800. And it will hold its value incredibly well, and need only modest maintenance.
I couldn't imagine living in London without a Brompton. I'd certainly give up my car before it, because I use it all the time.
The erstwhile minister for common sense and digging holes. How dare people suggest that (mis)quoting arguably the best known poem about the genesis of the Holocaust in response to a suggested smoking ban is in any way equating the Holocaust to suggesting a smoking ban. Ridiculous!
No, partly because one of my diminishing pleasures is a cigar and a drink on a warm summer evening, but also because I think it’s the worst kind of virtual signalling, ie fcking pointless.
However when the original smoking ban in pubs came in I was initially in favour of some sort of opt-in licence for landlords but the incessant whining of the smoking lobby put me right off. The efforts of the fragrantly thick Esther might have a similar effect.
Typical anti-vaxxer rhetoric. It would save lives, like seatbelts, but no - you don't want the government interfering.
Jeez
There is a difference between the government cajoling and enforcing.
I'm all for the government persuading people to have vaccinations and to stop smoking altogether. But I'm suspicious of legal enforcement of taking soft drugs, lock down, seatbelts etc and wouldn't want it extended to legal enforcement of vaccination. I'm totally in favour of hard persuasion. But it is up to individual adults what they do with their bodies as long as their actions don't materially harm others.
Vaccination was de facto a legal requirement if you wanted to take part in normal social activity outside your home. And don't get me started on what they told us we could or couldn't do inside our home - I only received approval last week to take down the mandated picture of Jacob Rees-Mogg.
We have a special secret room where we keep our Jacob Rees-Mogg memorabilia. It's important to keep the old ways alive.
Yes. Starmer takes down the Thatcher picture, which, lets face it, is grim. He should show he's not petty by replacing it with a Theresa May Strong and Stable mug.
The erstwhile minister for common sense and digging holes. How dare people suggest that (mis)quoting arguably the best known poem about the genesis of the Holocaust in response to a suggested smoking ban is in any way equating the Holocaust to suggesting a smoking ban. Ridiculous!
No, partly because one of my diminishing pleasures is a cigar and a drink on a warm summer evening, but also because I think it’s the worst kind of virtual signalling, ie fcking pointless.
However when the original smoking ban in pubs came in I was initially in favour of some sort of opt-in licence for landlords but the incessant whining of the smoking lobby put me right off. The efforts of the fragrantly thick Esther might have a similar effect.
Typical anti-vaxxer rhetoric. It would save lives, like seatbelts, but no - you don't want the government interfering.
Jeez
There is a difference between the government cajoling and enforcing.
I'm all for the government persuading people to have vaccinations and to stop smoking altogether. But I'm suspicious of legal enforcement of taking soft drugs, lock down, seatbelts etc and wouldn't want it extended to legal enforcement of vaccination. I'm totally in favour of hard persuasion. But it is up to individual adults what they do with their bodies as long as their actions don't materially harm others.
Vaccination was de facto a legal requirement if you wanted to take part in normal social activity outside your home. And don't get me started on what they told us we could or couldn't do inside our home - I only received approval last week to take down the mandated picture of Jacob Rees-Mogg.
We have a special secret room where we keep our Jacob Rees-Mogg memorabilia. It's important to keep the old ways alive.
Yes. Starmer takes down the Thatcher picture, which, lets face it, is grim. He should show he's not petty by replacing it with a Theresa May Strong and Stable mug.
I'd rather he put up a picture of the other Teresa May.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
And how much is one of those, Robert?
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
You can get one for £1,500. Still very expensive for a bike, particularly compared to what the Dutch pay.
Crypto, which isn’t a big industry in terms of employment or output (even if you posit, for the sake of argument, that what it produces is actually worth something), accounts for almost half of corporate spending on political action committees this cycle.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
And how much is one of those, Robert?
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
The saddle is junk, should be thrown out of the train window and replaced with a Fizik Vento Argo Carbon.
Wheels are 7/10 but will do if you're not a Watts Monster.
I swapped the base saddle for a Ryet 3D printed one, the pedals for some Wellgo dual platform SPD ones, and added the Ergon grips to give me another set of hand positions on long rides.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
That doesn't work for a disabled person who uses a tricycle as a mobility aid.
They need equivalent facilities, as is their legal right and the legal duty of the LHA to provide.
Or just possibly, someone should engineer a folding trike in the style of a Brompton.... Hmmm... Could be an interesting challenge. Doable, I think.
This smoking nonsense is all of a piece with SKSs performance throughout COVID: find some illiberal controlling bollox the Tories have thought up and crank it up 150%. There's a lot of talk of Tory denial but the truth is the left is in denial about the fact that he simply isn't very good.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
And how much is one of those, Robert?
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
You can get one for £1,500. Still very expensive for a bike, particularly compared to what the Dutch pay.
(But rather cheaper than a second car).
Robert has the electric one.
But he was making a point about storage. It's a good one, and to my eye there are loads more Bromptons whizzing about compared with 10 years ago.
Goodness, they are up to 90,000 a year, from 40,000 in 2013 and 6,000 in 2002.
I was with OGH this morning, and said that one of my few regrets was not getting a Brompton earlier. The ability to have a bike that rides reasonably well, and folds down small enough to be carried as airplane hand luggage is incredible.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
And how much is one of those, Robert?
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
You can get one for £1,500. Still very expensive for a bike, particularly compared to what the Dutch pay.
(But rather cheaper than a second car).
Robert has the electric one.
That's the titanium non-electric one.
I recalled wrong then, sorry!
Yes they’re great if you live in London or commute there.
The erstwhile minister for common sense and digging holes. How dare people suggest that (mis)quoting arguably the best known poem about the genesis of the Holocaust in response to a suggested smoking ban is in any way equating the Holocaust to suggesting a smoking ban. Ridiculous!
No, partly because one of my diminishing pleasures is a cigar and a drink on a warm summer evening, but also because I think it’s the worst kind of virtual signalling, ie fcking pointless.
However when the original smoking ban in pubs came in I was initially in favour of some sort of opt-in licence for landlords but the incessant whining of the smoking lobby put me right off. The efforts of the fragrantly thick Esther might have a similar effect.
Typical anti-vaxxer rhetoric. It would save lives, like seatbelts, but no - you don't want the government interfering.
Jeez
There is a difference between the government cajoling and enforcing.
I'm all for the government persuading people to have vaccinations and to stop smoking altogether. But I'm suspicious of legal enforcement of taking soft drugs, lock down, seatbelts etc and wouldn't want it extended to legal enforcement of vaccination. I'm totally in favour of hard persuasion. But it is up to individual adults what they do with their bodies as long as their actions don't materially harm others.
Vaccination was de facto a legal requirement if you wanted to take part in normal social activity outside your home. And don't get me started on what they told us we could or couldn't do inside our home - I only received approval last week to take down the mandated picture of Jacob Rees-Mogg.
We have a special secret room where we keep our Jacob Rees-Mogg memorabilia. It's important to keep the old ways alive.
Yes. Starmer takes down the Thatcher picture, which, lets face it, is grim. He should show he's not petty by replacing it with a Theresa May Strong and Stable mug.
They should hang the picture in the toilet next to the Cabinet room.
Where it will do good service.
The whole world knows nothing will make a Lefty sh*t quicker than the sight of Margaret Thatcher.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Fatness has become such a ridiculous taboo in this country. Mentioning it is almost up there with racial slurs.
The fact is the country is way too obese and it’s making the population unhealthy and unproductive.
There are fat fucks everywhere and it must be costing the country a fortune. I doubt anything Starmer does will change that but at least he's having a go.
I have to say I'm enjoying the new atmos of steely, buttoned-down efficiency. Not a joke in sight, everything clipped to size, nothing lax or loose or (oh god) 'quirky', no self-indulgence, no straining for adulation, no 'look at me' neediness, no attempt to amuse or excite or entertain, no flaky ideology, no pretentious intellectual fetishes. A complete absence of the shit we've become accustomed to in recent years. Instead what we have is what we see. A serious white collar professional with a nice big parliamentary majority looking to fix some problems.
Two out of three ain't bad...
And don't be sad because it's too early to judge on that 3rd one. Yes the vibes are good but we'll have to see.
The vibes are fiddling around the edges with picayune nonsense...
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
And how much is one of those, Robert?
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
You can get one for £1,500. Still very expensive for a bike, particularly compared to what the Dutch pay.
(But rather cheaper than a second car).
Robert has the electric one.
That's the titanium non-electric one.
I recalled wrong then, sorry!
Yes they’re great if you live in London or commute there.
There's quite a few Bromptons appearing on trains out to the countryside on nice weekends.
I've also heard that there is a thing for taking them on overseas holiday to explore on.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
And how much is one of those, Robert?
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
You can get one for £1,500. Still very expensive for a bike, particularly compared to what the Dutch pay.
(But rather cheaper than a second car).
Robert has the electric one.
But he was making a point about storage. It's a good one, and to my eye there are loads more Bromptons whizzing about compared with 10 years ago.
Goodness, they are up to 90,000 a year, from 40,000 in 2013 and 6,000 in 2002.
I was with OGH this morning, and said that one of my few regrets was not getting a Brompton earlier. The ability to have a bike that rides reasonably well, and folds down small enough to be carried as airplane hand luggage is incredible.
The Times headline seems to imply its forced on workers and that they’ll be fat shamed in front of their colleagues.
It’s voluntary . The Times I’ve found over the last year seems to do a lot headlines which seek to mislead .
"Employers to have signed up include Jaguar Land Rover, where 4,500 staff from the boardroom to the factory floor will get the checks within months at its Solihull base."
I read that as voluntary at the employer level. Kid Starver teams up with the head capitalists to fat shame The Workers. He really is hilariously useless.
"More than 16 million people are eligible for an NHS health check, but data shows that only about 40% of those invited complete one."
Reaching people via their workplace - inviting them to complete a voluntary health questionnaire on company time - might be a way of improving that sort of response rate, and help to head off health problems at an earlier stage.
It's not going to be forcing people up on stage to face the calipers in front of all their colleagues. Some of the reactions to this very modest trial scheme are completely unhinged.
In my experience, people who are fat know they are fat, and being told yet again that they need to lose weight won't help.
If I were to get a letter inviting me for "an NHS health check", I'd probably just bin it because it strikes me as a waste of time when I know it takes literally months to get an appointment when I want one.
I would just say that it could be the most important thing you do
I had my dvt in October last year and was admitted to hospital as a medical emergency and underwent an immediate ultra sound
That ultrasound found a massive dvt in my left thigh but also an undetected aneurysm that can often be fatal
As a result my aneurysm is monitored yearly and if necessary the surgeon will operate
Blood pressure, pulse and oxygen tests can be lifesavers and to be honest there is no need to fat shame anyone
But that last is all that will happen - people will be told to lose weight/drink less/give up smoking, as appropriate, and not a jot more.
Fatness has become such a ridiculous taboo in this country. Mentioning it is almost up there with racial slurs.
The fact is the country is way too obese and it’s making the population unhealthy and unproductive.
There are fat fucks everywhere and it must be costing the country a fortune. I doubt anything Starmer does will change that but at least he's having a go.
I have to say I'm enjoying the new atmos of steely, buttoned-down efficiency. Not a joke in sight, everything clipped to size, nothing lax or loose or (oh god) 'quirky', no self-indulgence, no straining for adulation, no 'look at me' neediness, no attempt to amuse or excite or entertain, no flaky ideology, no pretentious intellectual fetishes. A complete absence of the shit we've become accustomed to in recent years. Instead what we have is what we see. A serious white collar professional with a nice big parliamentary majority looking to fix some problems.
Lol. Strong authoritarian-Dad vibes here.
Apart from on PB, this is not exactly a large pool of support in which to be fishing...
Well, he did win 411 seats and drove the Tory vote share and seat count to pretty much the lowest ever. Starmer must have something going for him.
Being the default option when the incumbents needed to be replaced. The next election will be a referendum on him...
On my travels this year, I see that the Italians and Greeks eat a lot of sugary snacks, too, these days. However, they also still live longer than the UK, because of stronger communities and much healthier food in other parts of their diet, I think, largely.
More that the impact hasn't hit yet. An 80 year old Italian has years of healthy Mediterranean lifestyle under their belt, a 30 something hasn't.
We see the same here. When you go to a place with lots of sprites elderly people (like Rutland) you see people who have always lived healthily. It's a different story on Saffron Lane estate.
I think it is underappreciated how metabolism slows down when we age. A diet and drinking habit sustainable at 25 is just no longer possible at fifty without ballooning weight and BP.
It is very difficult. I'm 59, run 25 or so miles a week on average, eat low carb (no doubt you disapprove Foxy but it stops me both overeating and snacking) and have a BMI of 21. Got a sub-4 marathon last year and I'm in training for Amsterdam in October. I will keep it up as long as I can - but when I started running I still put on weight on a fairly healthy "standard" diet. And poor people can't afford to eat low carb, or even low GI
No, I don't disapprove of a low carbohydrate diet. Indeed my own diet is fairly low carb. Where I think the danger lies is in excessive saturated fat as a substitute, particularly red and cured meats.
Well I cook almost entirely in saturated fat. Plus some olive oil. I don't eat too much beef and lamb as it is expensive, but I do eat quite a bit of pork. Cured meat is bacon a couple of times a week and charcuterie about once a week as I sometimes have a Continental breakfast. I do try to eat oily fish a couple of times a week, especially in the winter, for the Vitamin D. I do eat a fair bit of green veg and salad. My main failing is probably too much protein - but I tell myself that as a runner I need it, especially when I am in training. It would be interesting to have a cholesterol test. I am fairly moderate though - when I cook for myself I aim for 10g per meal, but a couple of times a week I eat out and don't always avoid a moderate amount of carbs, and I do still drink beer (but wine or spirits at home). It seems to work for me without being too restrictive. I wouldn't do Keto - far too restrictive, and some of it seems too much like a religion (surely a few grams of wheat or pulses or rapeseed oil in mayo can't do me any harm?) unless of course I had a few stone to shift, which I don't. But it does seem to keep blood sugar fairly consistent and avoid the need to snack, my midweek bacon and egg breakfast is three rashers of streaky, a tomato and a fried egg, and I don't feel the need to eat before 1pm (and 150g of smoked mackerel will do the same job).
Humans are omnivores with adaptable metabolism that can cope with any diet from vegan to whale blubber. Either can be a healthy diet and we'll adapted to the environment.
A diet needs to be affordable, nutritious and enjoyable, so will vary with individual circumstances, but if someone is developing illness (that is where this conversation started) then they need to make adaptions.
Saturated fat and cured meats don't just affect blood lipids, but also are linked to other health problems such as bowel cancer. Humans only need 60g or so of protein a day, after that it is burnt off in a manner not dissimilar to carbohydrates, being metabolised into glucose and ketone. There is a certain amount of stress to the kidneys from this metabolic acidosis, which can be offset by eating alkali vegetables.
A high protien diet does increase the metabolic rate, and tends to promote saity via reduced endogenous insulin production alongside other gut hormones, but can be unhealthy in other ways.
The 60g of protein is often quoted, but surely that is just for maintenance. You also need protein to repair damaged muscle after exercise, and to grow new muscle - distance runners don't bulk up but they do create new fast- and medium-twitch fibres which increase muscle density (at least that's how understand it). However that doesn't usually seem to be taken into consideration. And, as you point out, it can be burnt or stored if not required.
And I am sceptical about the value of a lot of studies saying "x is linked to bowel cancer" those people eating lots of x have also been eating lots of y and z. It would be interesting to see a study of, for example, low-carbers who have been eating lots of saturated fat, but little carbohydrate, for the last 40 years.
What I didn't realise is that most people have a lot of sugar sloshing around in the system through digesting their last meal. When it runs out, you get hungry. Of course the normal mammalian response is to burn body fat, indeed this is why you can still walk and talk after running a marathon, and distance running training is partly about training the body to burn fat at higher intensity, as even a skinny person has an almost limitless supply. I suspect the carb-loaded nature of the standard diet means that people have effectively lost the ability to burn body fat when at rest or in moderate exercise. Certainly I used to find that a carby breakfast neccessitated a Snickers bar at around 11am.
I once tried to eat a couple of Snickers (well, for us oldies, Marathon...) bar whilst running a marathon-distance run.
It did not end well, for stomach or guts. I found it blooming hard to even swallow the chocolate whilst running.
(In my defence, I had hit a low-energy time and had forgotten my gels. And the best thing the small village shop had was choccie bars.)
I've not long started a Half Marathon programme, and have just started trialing gels.
Gels are bullshit and consuming one feels like a clown jizzing in your mouth.
Just chuck some sugar in your water if you're bonking.
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
And how much is one of those, Robert?
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
You can get one for £1,500. Still very expensive for a bike, particularly compared to what the Dutch pay.
(But rather cheaper than a second car).
Robert has the electric one.
But he was making a point about storage. It's a good one, and to my eye there are loads more Bromptons whizzing about compared with 10 years ago.
Goodness, they are up to 90,000 a year, from 40,000 in 2013 and 6,000 in 2002.
I was with OGH this morning, and said that one of my few regrets was not getting a Brompton earlier. The ability to have a bike that rides reasonably well, and folds down small enough to be carried as airplane hand luggage is incredible.
People tour on them with trailers and everything. I'm scared that if I get one I'll become a full on cult member.
Of course the one area where French supermarkets are a joy is in the wine section. Even the lowliest Spar-equivalent teeny tiny one has the most amazing selection of wines, and each at a few euros. Very young, mind, but they are the ones that know what they are doing.
Plus the charcuterie selection is 1,000 times better than even our most flashy waitrose.
Also French motorway service-station-type places. Some really not bad food at all, depending, also, on which part of the country you're in.
I must have been in the wrong part of the country, after two pathetic Aires we headed off the motorway and into a small town to find dinner...
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
And how much is one of those, Robert?
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
You can get one for £1,500. Still very expensive for a bike, particularly compared to what the Dutch pay.
(But rather cheaper than a second car).
Robert has the electric one.
But he was making a point about storage. It's a good one, and to my eye there are loads more Bromptons whizzing about compared with 10 years ago.
Goodness, they are up to 90,000 a year, from 40,000 in 2013 and 6,000 in 2002.
I was with OGH this morning, and said that one of my few regrets was not getting a Brompton earlier. The ability to have a bike that rides reasonably well, and folds down small enough to be carried as airplane hand luggage is incredible.
People tour on them with trailers and everything. I'm scared that if I get one I'll become a full on cult member.
On my travels this year, I see that the Italians and Greeks eat a lot of sugary snacks, too, these days. However, they also still live longer than the UK, because of stronger communities and much healthier food in other parts of their diet, I think, largely.
More that the impact hasn't hit yet. An 80 year old Italian has years of healthy Mediterranean lifestyle under their belt, a 30 something hasn't.
We see the same here. When you go to a place with lots of sprites elderly people (like Rutland) you see people who have always lived healthily. It's a different story on Saffron Lane estate.
I think it is underappreciated how metabolism slows down when we age. A diet and drinking habit sustainable at 25 is just no longer possible at fifty without ballooning weight and BP.
It is very difficult. I'm 59, run 25 or so miles a week on average, eat low carb (no doubt you disapprove Foxy but it stops me both overeating and snacking) and have a BMI of 21. Got a sub-4 marathon last year and I'm in training for Amsterdam in October. I will keep it up as long as I can - but when I started running I still put on weight on a fairly healthy "standard" diet. And poor people can't afford to eat low carb, or even low GI
No, I don't disapprove of a low carbohydrate diet. Indeed my own diet is fairly low carb. Where I think the danger lies is in excessive saturated fat as a substitute, particularly red and cured meats.
Well I cook almost entirely in saturated fat. Plus some olive oil. I don't eat too much beef and lamb as it is expensive, but I do eat quite a bit of pork. Cured meat is bacon a couple of times a week and charcuterie about once a week as I sometimes have a Continental breakfast. I do try to eat oily fish a couple of times a week, especially in the winter, for the Vitamin D. I do eat a fair bit of green veg and salad. My main failing is probably too much protein - but I tell myself that as a runner I need it, especially when I am in training. It would be interesting to have a cholesterol test. I am fairly moderate though - when I cook for myself I aim for 10g per meal, but a couple of times a week I eat out and don't always avoid a moderate amount of carbs, and I do still drink beer (but wine or spirits at home). It seems to work for me without being too restrictive. I wouldn't do Keto - far too restrictive, and some of it seems too much like a religion (surely a few grams of wheat or pulses or rapeseed oil in mayo can't do me any harm?) unless of course I had a few stone to shift, which I don't. But it does seem to keep blood sugar fairly consistent and avoid the need to snack, my midweek bacon and egg breakfast is three rashers of streaky, a tomato and a fried egg, and I don't feel the need to eat before 1pm (and 150g of smoked mackerel will do the same job).
Humans are omnivores with adaptable metabolism that can cope with any diet from vegan to whale blubber. Either can be a healthy diet and we'll adapted to the environment.
A diet needs to be affordable, nutritious and enjoyable, so will vary with individual circumstances, but if someone is developing illness (that is where this conversation started) then they need to make adaptions.
Saturated fat and cured meats don't just affect blood lipids, but also are linked to other health problems such as bowel cancer. Humans only need 60g or so of protein a day, after that it is burnt off in a manner not dissimilar to carbohydrates, being metabolised into glucose and ketone. There is a certain amount of stress to the kidneys from this metabolic acidosis, which can be offset by eating alkali vegetables.
A high protien diet does increase the metabolic rate, and tends to promote saity via reduced endogenous insulin production alongside other gut hormones, but can be unhealthy in other ways.
The 60g of protein is often quoted, but surely that is just for maintenance. You also need protein to repair damaged muscle after exercise, and to grow new muscle - distance runners don't bulk up but they do create new fast- and medium-twitch fibres which increase muscle density (at least that's how understand it). However that doesn't usually seem to be taken into consideration. And, as you point out, it can be burnt or stored if not required.
And I am sceptical about the value of a lot of studies saying "x is linked to bowel cancer" those people eating lots of x have also been eating lots of y and z. It would be interesting to see a study of, for example, low-carbers who have been eating lots of saturated fat, but little carbohydrate, for the last 40 years.
What I didn't realise is that most people have a lot of sugar sloshing around in the system through digesting their last meal. When it runs out, you get hungry. Of course the normal mammalian response is to burn body fat, indeed this is why you can still walk and talk after running a marathon, and distance running training is partly about training the body to burn fat at higher intensity, as even a skinny person has an almost limitless supply. I suspect the carb-loaded nature of the standard diet means that people have effectively lost the ability to burn body fat when at rest or in moderate exercise. Certainly I used to find that a carby breakfast neccessitated a Snickers bar at around 11am.
I once tried to eat a couple of Snickers (well, for us oldies, Marathon...) bar whilst running a marathon-distance run.
It did not end well, for stomach or guts. I found it blooming hard to even swallow the chocolate whilst running.
(In my defence, I had hit a low-energy time and had forgotten my gels. And the best thing the small village shop had was choccie bars.)
I've not long started a Half Marathon programme, and have just started trialing gels.
Gels are bullshit and consuming one feels like a clown jizzing in your mouth.
Just chuck some sugar in your water if you're bonking.
To be fair, I've never had a clown jizz in my mouth, so I bow to your superior knowledge...
Considering that ultra processed foods make up about 60% of calories consumed in this country and that percentage increases for children and people in poorer areas, the UK government has to do something to make the population aware that their food choices are killing them. The "food" industry bears full responsibility for the obesity epidemic, and are as evil as the tobacco companies. Sadly, we're too far down the hole to make healthy eating affordable for the masses, so we're fucked.
I understand the book about UPF is very good, but I think oversimplifying the concept misses the point. It is not the case that the less processing you do to something the better it is for you. Vegetables' goodness is often better absorbed when the vegetable is cooked. The fat soluble vitamins in many vegetables needs to be accompanied by fat - hence we put butter on our carrots and dressing on our salad. Cabbage is better for you when fermented. These are all food processes.
I absolutely agree with you. Processed food is more than acceptable. Humans have Processed food for thousands of years and without it, humans wouldn't be at the top of the tree now. All food is Processed in some way. What I'm arguing against is the industrial manufacture of food using unheard of and often poorly regulated chemicals and fats, gums and sweeteners. Those are the ones that suppress and overide the body's natural systems.
I saw an interesting map recently: the UK consumption of sugar is on the low side compared to European averages. Clearly this is just one measure, but I'd always thought this quite a good proxy for quality of diet.
My guess is that a big part of our problem is lifestyle, and car-dependency. You don't see many fatties in Denmark or the Netherlands. But it's only a guess, and no doubt the answer is complex.
The Dutch are particularly interesting, as one of the few countries that rival us in terms of unhealthy traditional diet.
You can get away with it if you do enough cycling.
Dutch cycling culture is quite interesting. It is quite different from ours. It is almost all on knackered old bikes at speeds barely more than running pace. Which, in generalised journey cost terms - taking into account the cost of time, the cost of your bike, the faff time in getting it out and securing it (which is much lower in a bike which costs £100 than £1000, because you care about it less), the time taken to shower after cycling really fast, etc - works out rather better.
Old maids, mist, holy communion, isn't it? Quite a lot of cycling is like that, even in the UK. But it doesn't help the debate that the more visible manifestations are clad in lycra and aggressively going fast. (Because in too many places, aggression is the only way to survive.)
Huge numbers of people in the UK do not cycle or walk because they perceive the roads to be a dangerous environment, where they will be threatened, bullied and abused. The figures are startling.
In urban areas I think storage is at least as big an issue too. There are only 2,400 secure cycle storage spots in Edinburgh, for about 300,000 people living in flats.
You need one of these:
And how much is one of those, Robert?
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
You can get one for £1,500. Still very expensive for a bike, particularly compared to what the Dutch pay.
(But rather cheaper than a second car).
Robert has the electric one.
That's the titanium non-electric one.
I recalled wrong then, sorry!
Yes they’re great if you live in London or commute there.
No, your memory is good.
I initially got the electric one, but as I got fitter and more into cycling, I realized I didn't need it.
As I'd organized to do London-to-Brighton, and wanted a bike I could take with me everywhere so I could cycle when on business trips, I decided to invest in the titanium one.
I have absolutely no regrets. In fact, I think it's my favourite ever purchase.
Comments
There might also be an effect on the way that we count calories, because some calories are easier to digest than others. I believe this is called bioavailability.
I find dieting, or worrying about weight (e.g. entering everything you eat into some sodding online calculator) to be mentally exhausting. IMV some people do more harm to their mental health from constantly following whatever fad diet is new than their physical health is harmed by the food. Yoyo-ing weight falls and gains cannot do you much good, physically or mentally.
For that reason, I'd like to see much more emphasis put on exercise over diet. We may not all be able to run, but most of us can do *some* extra activity. And that can be mentally uplifting as well as physically helpful.
I'm not a cyclist, and as a runner you might say I don't need the exercise, but I enjoy walking, and it is good active recovery. I'm about 1 mile from the town centre. I drive if I am doing a big shop, or if I am already in the car (such as coming home from work) but when I have the time I might do my errands on foot, and obviously I walk to the pub (there are no buses in the evening, and a taxi would double the cost of a casual evening out). But a lot of people won't do that - they won't even park on a side street and walk a couple of hundred yards to where they need to be.
How things do change...
It's a case of watch this space on stuff like housing, the immigration and asylum system, the courts and prisons, growth relative to our peers, child poverty, NHS outcomes, infrastructure, green energy, the trains, the rivers.
He needs to deliver noticeable improvements in these areas. Preferably in an unentertaining manner but the more important thing is the substance not the style. I'd rather he delivered and entertained than did neither.
There is an old runner's saying "you can't outrun a bad diet". While exercise is undoubtedly good, especially for mental health, and human beings evolved to run and walk long distances, if you start off overweight it won't really help. The problem is that a lot of people feel hungry after exercise, or follow nostrums like you need to eat immediate carbs (which is bollocks, most people run a marathon and can still walk and talk afterwards when they have probably depleted their glycogen to zero) and hence put more back in than they use. Or they allow themselves a "treat". You need to work to regulate diet before starting exercise.
A diet needs to be affordable, nutritious and enjoyable, so will vary with individual circumstances, but if someone is developing illness (that is where this conversation started) then they need to make adaptions.
Saturated fat and cured meats don't just affect blood lipids, but also are linked to other health problems such as bowel cancer. Humans only need 60g or so of protein a day, after that it is burnt off in a manner not dissimilar to carbohydrates, being metabolised into glucose and ketone. There is a certain amount of stress to the kidneys from this metabolic acidosis, which can be offset by eating alkali vegetables.
A high protien diet does increase the metabolic rate, and tends to promote saity via reduced endogenous insulin production alongside other gut hormones, but can be unhealthy in other ways.
1. Mental health. Exercise improves mental health, and if I'm happier it's easier to make better decisions in relation to food.
2. Motivation. I enjoy walking and cycling, using my body to take me places and see things, and this is easier to do if I don't have excess weight to carry around, and so this gives me a more positive reason to make better decisions around food.
3. Time. I find it hard to walk and eat at the same time, and it's much easier to eat at the same time as sitting down. Reducing the time available to eat in helps.
The first and last reasons are also probably a factor as to why better sleep helps with weight loss. And, perhaps, yet another reason why we should do away with summer time, and stick to GMT.
They need equivalent facilities, as is their legal right and the legal duty of the LHA to provide.
Though none of that has any bearing on whether or not she has a painting on a wall somewhere (I am completely ambivalent).
Apart from on PB, this is not exactly a large pool of support in which to be fishing...
I've been travelling to Italy and Greece for over 30 years, and spent some time living on Greece. For many years, one thing was certain about both countries ; the quality of fresh produce, and often restaurant food, was almost always better, but the quality of Supermarket food was worse.
This year I've found far better ready meals in Rome than UK supermarkets, far better organic crisps in Athens than in the U.K, and the list goes on. This year even the hot chocolate is better, more tasty, and more preservative-free from the local Athens supermarket, than what I usually find in London, unless I look in specialist shops.
And I am sceptical about the value of a lot of studies saying "x is linked to bowel cancer" those people eating lots of x have also been eating lots of y and z. It would be interesting to see a study of, for example, low-carbers who have been eating lots of saturated fat, but little carbohydrate, for the last 40 years.
What I didn't realise is that most people have a lot of sugar sloshing around in the system through digesting their last meal. When it runs out, you get hungry. Of course the normal mammalian response is to burn body fat, indeed this is why you can still walk and talk after running a marathon, and distance running training is partly about training the body to burn fat at higher intensity, as even a skinny person has an almost limitless supply. I suspect the carb-loaded nature of the standard diet means that people have effectively lost the ability to burn body fat when at rest or in moderate exercise. Certainly I used to find that a carby breakfast neccessitated a Snickers bar at around 11am.
Ours is 10x better even in smaller stores.
At the height of Blair I was doing some consultancy work at a big employer in Barry. The guy I was doing the work for had a personally signed photo of Thatcher on his office wall. I thought it was a piss take, but it wasn't. Prior to my first joining PB circa 2005 I didn't realise such people existed. I would think myself very odd if I plastered pictures of non-Conservative Prime Ministers of bygone days all over my walls.
Last time I looked it was closer to four grand than three.
Donald Trump has threatened to imprison Mark Zuckerberg if the Facebook founder does "anything illegal" to influence the upcoming presidential election
It did not end well, for stomach or guts. I found it blooming hard to even swallow the chocolate whilst running.
(In my defence, I had hit a low-energy time and had forgotten my gels. And the best thing the small village shop had was choccie bars.)
England reviewed for a catch behind and it was so far away from the bat the third umpire didn’t even need ultra edge.
Ollie Pope should resign.
Cancer screening programmes notwithstanding, almost all healthcare seems to be structured around people presenting when already ill and the expensive interventions then needed to try to fix them. If more attention were paid to simple preemptive measures, such as setting up facilities in community centres or supermarkets to do quick and cheap screening for common health conditions, a lot of issues that leave people seriously ill or permanently disabled (imposing heavy burdens on the state that it's ill equipped to cope with) could simply be prevented.
One particular case in point is hypertension - typically asymptomatic but liable to cause catastrophic issues if left untreated. There are probably millions of people at risk of heart disease, stroke and God alone knows what else who could be kept healthy with cheap pills, but aren't being medicated because the healthcare system is geared up to deal with serious problems after they occur, rather than preventing them. There has to be space for a cheap win here, you would've thought.
(But rather cheaper than a second car).
That being said if anyone wants to pick up a framed,signed 1980s photo of Neil Kinnock you know where to come.
Which is borne out by things tending to go to shit, once past middle age.
Any recommendations? I've heard the Kendal Mintcake stuff is pretty good, but again probably too sweet.
Wheels are 7/10 but will do if you're not a Watts Monster.
I'd advise anyone who hasn't checked their BP recently to do so!
Same place as the safety car yesterday.
To put the blame on agencies outside won't help,
Not to take responsibility for our self
The song is well worth a listen: https://www.mjhibbett.com/songs/song.php?filename=domoreeatless
https://news.sky.com/story/esther-mcveys-smoking-ban-tweet-labelled-repugnant-by-jewish-group-13205684
Trump: Some people don't eat bacon anymore. This was caused by their horrible energy. Wind. They want wind all over the place. When it doesn't blow, we have a problem.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1829317258302423293
It is super noticeable how many are now on the roads.
Plus the black phone-snatching ones.
I've also tried mixing my own. Honey/Lemon/blueberries blended in a mix with loads of water was yummy, but the problem was finding a convenient container for it whilst running. The gels come in such handy packs, especially as they fit in the loops in my tribelt and running pack. It's also a load of faff, but might be worth you looking into, given the extortionate price of gels.
Anyone want to buy a load of pineapple SIS gels?
I cannot stand those who do it clockwise. Splitters.
Plus the charcuterie selection is 1,000 times better than even our most flashy waitrose.
Kendal do gels as well now. I made my own electrolyte drink only this week. Not bad, but it'll be better when I can find a better way to flavour it rather than squash
McVey's point may be clumsy, but it is nevertheless a point worth making that freedom is valueless if we are happy to disapply it to people, things, or habits that we find less than pleasant. And it is logical that we should be wary of binning the freedoms of others, lest things we actually do value get shitcanned based on the nanny-state precedents set. You love and appreciate a good single malt - what if someone (as arguably the SNP already has) decides to make that their whipping boy du jour?
F1 is easy to measure, because they have a “live” clock in the corner of the screen.
(fx, checks:)
Oh, they do! https://www.kendalmint.co.uk/collections/energy-gel .
Sadly, I'd want a mixed flavour assortment to see which I like, and they're currently out of stock.
I hit one of the more unfortunate-style ones somewhere in Brittany last year, and one of the better ones somewhere around mid-France. There's still gold here and there.
I couldn't imagine living in London without a Brompton. I'd certainly give up my car before it, because I use it all the time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/29/opinion/cryptocurrency-election.html
Yes they’re great if you live in London or commute there.
Where it will do good service.
The whole world knows nothing will make a Lefty sh*t quicker than the sight of Margaret Thatcher.
I've also heard that there is a thing for taking them on overseas holiday to explore on.
Just chuck some sugar in your water if you're bonking.
https://trib.al/DVt65IE"
https://x.com/MailOnline/status/1829282056913707274
I initially got the electric one, but as I got fitter and more into cycling, I realized I didn't need it.
As I'd organized to do London-to-Brighton, and wanted a bike I could take with me everywhere so I could cycle when on business trips, I decided to invest in the titanium one.
I have absolutely no regrets. In fact, I think it's my favourite ever purchase.