One of the problems with "diet" is it is very confusing as to what exactly a healthy diet is. EG is something marked as "fat free" but is full of lots of carbs good or bad for you? A lot of it seems to vary depending upon whom you ask. Simply saying "eat less" or "eat better" isn't that meaningful.
Since locking down I've been trying to deliberately lose weight via changing my diet and have been cutting out almost all most processed carbs and processed meals with a diet bordering on a "keto" diet, though I hate fads. I didn't deliberately go for keto, I just cut out the processed carbs that my diabetic father was told he couldn't eat and that's what I ended up left with. So far its working better than I expected plus my appetite has vanished. I'm no longer hungry anything like the amount I used to be and am sometimes getting to 2pm and thinking "I should probably eat something". Whether that's due to my dietary changes or lack of exercise compared to what I had I'm not sure.
Whether it would be possible to keep up with this post-lockdown I don't know but if it wasn't for lockdown I'd have probably never had the time or inclination to learn more about cooking and diets than I'd ever paid attention to in the past. I've set myself a target of losing a third of my pre-lockdown body weight by November.
Going back to my opening paragraph, it seems there's next to no agreement online as to what is healthy and what is not. EG I'm currently eating 3-5 eggs a day and information online seems to be inconsistent depending upon where you read as to whether that is either very healthy or very dangerous.
There's an immense amount of guff online (as there is on a great many other popular subjects) about diet. But it's really not rocket science: a good variety of fresh fruit and veg, not too much salt and saturated fat, the right total energy intake (enough to balance your daily needs if a healthy weight, a bit less if you could do with losing a few lbs,) and avoiding things to which you know your body reacts poorly or which you've been told to avoid on medical grounds, and most people can't go too far wrong.
In terms of specific foods and nutrients, if in doubt refer to the NHS website. Some foods should only be consumed in limited amounts (there are detailed recommendations for fish, for example,) but no consumption limit is given for eggs.
That's what I was saying about nothing agreeing online - you've highlighted saturated fats but my diet has been exceeding recommended limits on saturated fats a lot recently.
EG for brunch a few times this week I've made hard boiled eggs mashed together with avocado, mayo and hot sauce. Between the eggs, mayo and avocado that one meal alone could exceed my recommended saturated fat amount for the entire day but is OK in calories, is high in nutrition and keeps me full until evening meal. Is that healthy or unhealthy? Its not easy to tell from any rules online.
Sky news showing its great understanding of coronavirus again...just doing a whole bit on R value...claiming the R value stands for re-infection rate....head.....desk.....thud.
I always forget if it's hyperplastic or hypertropic obesity, but when children are overfed they create more adipocytes (fat cells) which then permanently increase their baseline 'fatness', which is not their fault and rather difficult to do much about.
That said, eating more and exercising less, all else being equal, makes one fat. It's not a wild variable unrelated to human behaviour for most people.
I wasn't aware of those interesting issues relating specifically to children. I opine on the topic of obesity from the adult perspective.
The importance of exercise in maintaining a healthy weight is overstated, and it really needs to be approached as something that is beneficial in its own right for maintaining physical and mental wellbeing. Yes, it can and does help by allowing a bit more flexibility in the way of calorific treats, but I'd say the relative importance of a good diet versus plenty of exercise, both to losing excess weight and maintaining health weight, is around about 4:1.
There is an old runner's adage "you can't outrun a bad diet". You burn about 100 calories a mile, and it tends to make you hungry so you just eat more afterwards. However, once you have a stable, healthy weight then regular activity is invaluable in increasing the amount you need to eat.
I have seen many people join my cycling club to lose weight and none ever have. They just keep eating shit and guzzling alcohol so they can't ride into the red with any frequency or duration.
Cycling's rather low-impact as well, so difficult to burn much off at low levels of intensity.
I was overweight as a youth but then started cycling 25 miles a day (12.5 each way) to school and cycling touring in the holidays and day tours at weekends. Weight dropped remarkably.
18 holes of golf twice a week carrying a full bag of clubs is excellent for the waistline.
It's bloody annoying the golf courses are all shut. OK, social distancing and all that, but TBH there's never been the slightest danger of me hitting a shot anywhere near other people unless they're coming down the opposite nine.
You would've thought that golf would've been one of the first activities to be allowed to start up again. It is practically custom-built to accommodate obedience to the 2m rule.
I always forget if it's hyperplastic or hypertropic obesity, but when children are overfed they create more adipocytes (fat cells) which then permanently increase their baseline 'fatness', which is not their fault and rather difficult to do much about.
That said, eating more and exercising less, all else being equal, makes one fat. It's not a wild variable unrelated to human behaviour for most people.
I wasn't aware of those interesting issues relating specifically to children. I opine on the topic of obesity from the adult perspective.
The importance of exercise in maintaining a healthy weight is overstated, and it really needs to be approached as something that is beneficial in its own right for maintaining physical and mental wellbeing. Yes, it can and does help by allowing a bit more flexibility in the way of calorific treats, but I'd say the relative importance of a good diet versus plenty of exercise, both to losing excess weight and maintaining health weight, is around about 4:1.
There is an old runner's adage "you can't outrun a bad diet". You burn about 100 calories a mile, and it tends to make you hungry so you just eat more afterwards. However, once you have a stable, healthy weight then regular activity is invaluable in increasing the amount you need to eat.
I have seen many people join my cycling club to lose weight and none ever have. They just keep eating shit and guzzling alcohol so they can't ride into the red with any frequency or duration.
Cycling's rather low-impact as well, so difficult to burn much off at low levels of intensity.
I was overweight as a youth but then started cycling 25 miles a day (12.5 each way) to school and cycling touring in the holidays and day tours at weekends. Weight dropped remarkably.
18 holes of golf twice a week carrying a full bag of clubs is excellent for the waistline.
It's bloody annoying the golf courses are all shut. OK, social distancing and all that, but TBH there's never been the slightest danger of me hitting a shot anywhere near other people unless they're coming down the opposite nine.
You would've thought that golf would've been one of the first activities to be allowed to start up again. It is practically custom-built to accommodate obedience to the 2m rule.
Everyone and their mother would be dusting off their golf clubs if that happened.
Does anyone know of any single UK media outlet that did not treat the Michael Palin Kitchen Fire story as a serious news item?
Or any that actually contacted him or his agent to Fact Check?
One would hope that paragraphs like this would be a flag to even the thickest professional journalist:
"I sat at my desk, and instead of immediately checking emails or trying to cancel my Sky Premium Auto-Refundable Discount Care Protection Plus All-In Package Policy which I’d purchased in order to get them off the phone..."
"At this point my neighbour, who’s 86 and had a sextuple by-pass last Wednesday, wrenched up the window and pulled me to safety."
A friend of mine has just emailed a CV19 update. He says he's OK, spending lots of time in the garden, and he's fortunate he's got a nice organ to fiddle with.
He did mention a piano as well, but it is not the phrasing I would have chosen.*
*OK, that's a lie. It IS the phrasing I would have chosen, but only to start an awesome thread of double entendres.
I expect his tremulant drawknob swells to great when he applies his fingers to the instrument.
Mr. Rook, interesting snippet I picked up at university.
Fruit and veg aren't terribly expensive. People choose what they eat, and how active they are.
Somewhat ironically, given this conversation, I'd like to gain a little weight.
Whenever there is discussions on weight I try to avoid them as while people won't believe it, sometimes weight is just down to genetics.
Mrs Eek weighs more than me and always has done, yet she eats less than I do but cannot shift weight with the easy that I do. It's often just down to genes.
Males have more lean body mass for the same body weigh as a female which shifts calories more easily.
I've been 11 stone for ever...I can drink, eat and do whatever I want.....I often binge crisps (like 6 packs of walkers or a full box of Pringles) and biscuits and Bombay mix, washing it down with wine...and then have munchies in the middle of the night when I down a can of coke and raid the Bombay mix again and attack the sweet jar.....
I've never deliberately chosen anything based on calories...though do drink semi skinned milk
Is that milk just warmed up, not too hot not too cold. Goldilocks milk in fact?
Mr. Rook, interesting snippet I picked up at university.
Fruit and veg aren't terribly expensive. People choose what they eat, and how active they are.
Somewhat ironically, given this conversation, I'd like to gain a little weight.
Whenever there is discussions on weight I try to avoid them as while people won't believe it, sometimes weight is just down to genetics.
Mrs Eek weighs more than me and always has done, yet she eats less than I do but cannot shift weight with the easy that I do. It's often just down to genes.
Males have more lean body mass for the same body weigh as a female which shifts calories more easily.
I've been 11 stone for ever...I can drink, eat and do whatever I want.....I often binge crisps (like 6 packs of walkers or a full box of Pringles) and biscuits and Bombay mix, washing it down with wine...and then have munchies in the middle of the night when I down a can of coke and raid the Bombay mix again and attack the sweet jar.....
I've never deliberately chosen anything based on calories...though do drink semi skinned milk
Lucky Bastard
TBH, that might not be such a bad comment. There's almost certainly a genetic component to weight gain/loss although whether it's directly genetic or historic epigenetic I don't know. The jury hasn't even retired on that one, let alone still being out! We are, many of us here anyway, the descendants of people who survived the various famine years through the Christian Era. We 'learned' to store food.
Mr. Rook, interesting snippet I picked up at university.
Fruit and veg aren't terribly expensive. People choose what they eat, and how active they are.
Somewhat ironically, given this conversation, I'd like to gain a little weight.
Whenever there is discussions on weight I try to avoid them as while people won't believe it, sometimes weight is just down to genetics.
Mrs Eek weighs more than me and always has done, yet she eats less than I do but cannot shift weight with the easy that I do. It's often just down to genes.
Males have more lean body mass for the same body weigh as a female which shifts calories more easily.
I've been 11 stone for ever...I can drink, eat and do whatever I want.....I often binge crisps (like 6 packs of walkers or a full box of Pringles) and biscuits and Bombay mix, washing it down with wine...and then have munchies in the middle of the night when I down a can of coke and raid the Bombay mix again and attack the sweet jar.....
I've never deliberately chosen anything based on calories...though do drink semi skinned milk
Some individuals are just genetically fortunate. That Horizon documentary the Beeb put out a couple of weeks back about the energy content of food included research suggesting that there was a significant genetic component to individuals' propensity to become fat.
That said, personal experience suggests that there aren't that many people who are genuinely able to get away with eating whatever they like without consequence.
I had a beer belly towards the last year of Uni....but that took a lot of effort, and because I got loads of free pints because people couldn't believe I could down a full pint in less that 2 seconds....and bought them for me...
My elder sister also can do the same....god knows where that talent comes from...
I see they are trailing this contact tracing app on the Isle of Wight...David Icke will definitely think it was chosen so the government could try and spy on him.
Sky news showing its great understanding of coronavirus again...just doing a whole bit on R value...claiming the R value stands for re-infection rate....head.....desk.....thud.
You've been doing a lot of that lately. On this occasion it's fully justified. Was it Beth Rigby by any chance?
One of the problems with "diet" is it is very confusing as to what exactly a healthy diet is. EG is something marked as "fat free" but is full of lots of carbs good or bad for you? A lot of it seems to vary depending upon whom you ask. Simply saying "eat less" or "eat better" isn't that meaningful.
Since locking down I've been trying to deliberately lose weight via changing my diet and have been cutting out almost all most processed carbs and processed meals with a diet bordering on a "keto" diet, though I hate fads. I didn't deliberately go for keto, I just cut out the processed carbs that my diabetic father was told he couldn't eat and that's what I ended up left with. So far its working better than I expected plus my appetite has vanished. I'm no longer hungry anything like the amount I used to be and am sometimes getting to 2pm and thinking "I should probably eat something". Whether that's due to my dietary changes or lack of exercise compared to what I had I'm not sure.
Whether it would be possible to keep up with this post-lockdown I don't know but if it wasn't for lockdown I'd have probably never had the time or inclination to learn more about cooking and diets than I'd ever paid attention to in the past. I've set myself a target of losing a third of my pre-lockdown body weight by November.
Going back to my opening paragraph, it seems there's next to no agreement online as to what is healthy and what is not. EG I'm currently eating 3-5 eggs a day and information online seems to be inconsistent depending upon where you read as to whether that is either very healthy or very dangerous.
There's an immense amount of guff online (as there is on a great many other popular subjects) about diet. But it's really not rocket science: a good variety of fresh fruit and veg, not too much salt and saturated fat, the right total energy intake (enough to balance your daily needs if a healthy weight, a bit less if you could do with losing a few lbs,) and avoiding things to which you know your body reacts poorly or which you've been told to avoid on medical grounds, and most people can't go too far wrong.
In terms of specific foods and nutrients, if in doubt refer to the NHS website. Some foods should only be consumed in limited amounts (there are detailed recommendations for fish, for example,) but no consumption limit is given for eggs.
That's what I was saying about nothing agreeing online - you've highlighted saturated fats but my diet has been exceeding recommended limits on saturated fats a lot recently.
EG for brunch a few times this week I've made hard boiled eggs mashed together with avocado, mayo and hot sauce. Between the eggs, mayo and avocado that one meal alone could exceed my recommended saturated fat amount for the entire day but is OK in calories, is high in nutrition and keeps me full until evening meal. Is that healthy or unhealthy? Its not easy to tell from any rules online.
One theory is that diets of the sort "omit foods of type x" work in the short term for any value of x because if your body relies on a mixture of fats/protein/carbs/whatever, if you drop e.g. carbs, the body takes time to adjust to making up the shortfall from e.g. protein.
One of the problems with "diet" is it is very confusing as to what exactly a healthy diet is. EG is something marked as "fat free" but is full of lots of carbs good or bad for you? A lot of it seems to vary depending upon whom you ask. Simply saying "eat less" or "eat better" isn't that meaningful.
Since locking down I've been trying to deliberately lose weight via changing my diet and have been cutting out almost all most processed carbs and processed meals with a diet bordering on a "keto" diet, though I hate fads. I didn't deliberately go for keto, I just cut out the processed carbs that my diabetic father was told he couldn't eat and that's what I ended up left with. So far its working better than I expected plus my appetite has vanished. I'm no longer hungry anything like the amount I used to be and am sometimes getting to 2pm and thinking "I should probably eat something". Whether that's due to my dietary changes or lack of exercise compared to what I had I'm not sure.
Whether it would be possible to keep up with this post-lockdown I don't know but if it wasn't for lockdown I'd have probably never had the time or inclination to learn more about cooking and diets than I'd ever paid attention to in the past. I've set myself a target of losing a third of my pre-lockdown body weight by November.
Going back to my opening paragraph, it seems there's next to no agreement online as to what is healthy and what is not. EG I'm currently eating 3-5 eggs a day and information online seems to be inconsistent depending upon where you read as to whether that is either very healthy or very dangerous.
There's an immense amount of guff online (as there is on a great many other popular subjects) about diet. But it's really not rocket science: a good variety of fresh fruit and veg, not too much salt and saturated fat, the right total energy intake (enough to balance your daily needs if a healthy weight, a bit less if you could do with losing a few lbs,) and avoiding things to which you know your body reacts poorly or which you've been told to avoid on medical grounds, and most people can't go too far wrong.
In terms of specific foods and nutrients, if in doubt refer to the NHS website. Some foods should only be consumed in limited amounts (there are detailed recommendations for fish, for example,) but no consumption limit is given for eggs.
That's what I was saying about nothing agreeing online - you've highlighted saturated fats but my diet has been exceeding recommended limits on saturated fats a lot recently.
EG for brunch a few times this week I've made hard boiled eggs mashed together with avocado, mayo and hot sauce. Between the eggs, mayo and avocado that one meal alone could exceed my recommended saturated fat amount for the entire day but is OK in calories, is high in nutrition and keeps me full until evening meal. Is that healthy or unhealthy? Its not easy to tell from any rules online.
Some information on saturated (and various other) fats can be found here:
A friend of mine has just emailed a CV19 update. He says he's OK, spending lots of time in the garden, and he's fortunate he's got a nice organ to fiddle with.
He did mention a piano as well, but it is not the phrasing I would have chosen.*
*OK, that's a lie. It IS the phrasing I would have chosen, but only to start an awesome thread of double entendres.
I expect his tremulant drawknob swells to great when he applies his fingers to the instrument.
He doesn't have an eight foot horn though. The best he can manage is a 16 foot contra oboe.
On the other hand, I'm still a couple of stone ahead of when I was a teenager and could touch my spine through my stomach (not recommended, incidentally).
Most honours are given on ministerial advice and candidates have to be vetted by the honours scrutiny committee, that's presumably why he will have to wait 'til June.
But can't the Queen hand out a KCVO or even a GCVO off her own bat, without asking the government?
Most honours are given on ministerial advice and candidates have to be vetted by the honours scrutiny committee, that's presumably why he will have to wait 'til June.
But can't the Queen hand out a KCVO or even a GCVO off her own bat, without asking the government?
I think she could. She could even give him a dukedom without the government interfering.
Most honours are given on ministerial advice and candidates have to be vetted by the honours scrutiny committee, that's presumably why he will have to wait 'til June.
But can't the Queen hand out a KCVO or even a GCVO off her own bat, without asking the government?
It would be a bit of a stretch: the Royal Victorian Order is only given for services to the monarchy.
One of the problems with "diet" is it is very confusing as to what exactly a healthy diet is. EG is something marked as "fat free" but is full of lots of carbs good or bad for you? A lot of it seems to vary depending upon whom you ask. Simply saying "eat less" or "eat better" isn't that meaningful.
Since locking down I've been trying to deliberately lose weight via changing my diet and have been cutting out almost all most processed carbs and processed meals with a diet bordering on a "keto" diet, though I hate fads. I didn't deliberately go for keto, I just cut out the processed carbs that my diabetic father was told he couldn't eat and that's what I ended up left with. So far its working better than I expected plus my appetite has vanished. I'm no longer hungry anything like the amount I used to be and am sometimes getting to 2pm and thinking "I should probably eat something". Whether that's due to my dietary changes or lack of exercise compared to what I had I'm not sure.
Whether it would be possible to keep up with this post-lockdown I don't know but if it wasn't for lockdown I'd have probably never had the time or inclination to learn more about cooking and diets than I'd ever paid attention to in the past. I've set myself a target of losing a third of my pre-lockdown body weight by November.
Going back to my opening paragraph, it seems there's next to no agreement online as to what is healthy and what is not. EG I'm currently eating 3-5 eggs a day and information online seems to be inconsistent depending upon where you read as to whether that is either very healthy or very dangerous.
There's an immense amount of guff online (as there is on a great many other popular subjects) about diet. But it's really not rocket science: a good variety of fresh fruit and veg, not too much salt and saturated fat, the right total energy intake (enough to balance your daily needs if a healthy weight, a bit less if you could do with losing a few lbs,) and avoiding things to which you know your body reacts poorly or which you've been told to avoid on medical grounds, and most people can't go too far wrong.
In terms of specific foods and nutrients, if in doubt refer to the NHS website. Some foods should only be consumed in limited amounts (there are detailed recommendations for fish, for example,) but no consumption limit is given for eggs.
That's what I was saying about nothing agreeing online - you've highlighted saturated fats but my diet has been exceeding recommended limits on saturated fats a lot recently.
EG for brunch a few times this week I've made hard boiled eggs mashed together with avocado, mayo and hot sauce. Between the eggs, mayo and avocado that one meal alone could exceed my recommended saturated fat amount for the entire day but is OK in calories, is high in nutrition and keeps me full until evening meal. Is that healthy or unhealthy? Its not easy to tell from any rules online.
One theory is that diets of the sort "omit foods of type x" work in the short term for any value of x because if your body relies on a mixture of fats/protein/carbs/whatever, if you drop e.g. carbs, the body takes time to adjust to making up the shortfall from e.g. protein.
The difference is, your body does not need carbs. It simply uses them for energy, and can quite happily use fat (or protein). As Philip has found out, if you rely largely on fat for fuel, you eat less, it is more satiating, and you don't feel hungry. This is thought to be because it doesn't trigger insulin release and therefore blood-sugar swings.
I always forget if it's hyperplastic or hypertropic obesity, but when children are overfed they create more adipocytes (fat cells) which then permanently increase their baseline 'fatness', which is not their fault and rather difficult to do much about.
That said, eating more and exercising less, all else being equal, makes one fat. It's not a wild variable unrelated to human behaviour for most people.
I wasn't aware of those interesting issues relating specifically to children. I opine on the topic of obesity from the adult perspective.
The importance of exercise in maintaining a healthy weight is overstated, and it really needs to be approached as something that is beneficial in its own right for maintaining physical and mental wellbeing. Yes, it can and does help by allowing a bit more flexibility in the way of calorific treats, but I'd say the relative importance of a good diet versus plenty of exercise, both to losing excess weight and maintaining health weight, is around about 4:1.
There is an old runner's adage "you can't outrun a bad diet". You burn about 100 calories a mile, and it tends to make you hungry so you just eat more afterwards. However, once you have a stable, healthy weight then regular activity is invaluable in increasing the amount you need to eat.
I have seen many people join my cycling club to lose weight and none ever have. They just keep eating shit and guzzling alcohol so they can't ride into the red with any frequency or duration.
Cycling's rather low-impact as well, so difficult to burn much off at low levels of intensity.
I was overweight as a youth but then started cycling 25 miles a day (12.5 each way) to school and cycling touring in the holidays and day tours at weekends. Weight dropped remarkably.
18 holes of golf twice a week carrying a full bag of clubs is excellent for the waistline.
It's bloody annoying the golf courses are all shut. OK, social distancing and all that, but TBH there's never been the slightest danger of me hitting a shot anywhere near other people unless they're coming down the opposite nine.
Also, if anyone stands within 2 metres of me when I am teeing off they'll be at great risk of an early death from collision with a fast moving metal object.
Mr. Gate, question ye not the word of the prophet Donald.
For Donald looked upon his works, and saw that they were good. And that the Bidenites and the Clintonites and the Bernites loathed him. But great again had America been made, and Donald the prophet's heart was comforted by the contemplation of his own magnificence.
Edited extra bit: as an aside, presents would be easier to pick if people had sensible interests such as classical history.
One of the problems with "diet" is it is very confusing as to what exactly a healthy diet is. EG is something marked as "fat free" but is full of lots of carbs good or bad for you? A lot of it seems to vary depending upon whom you ask. Simply saying "eat less" or "eat better" isn't that meaningful.
Since locking down I've been trying to deliberately lose weight via changing my diet and have been cutting out almost all most processed carbs and processed meals with a diet bordering on a "keto" diet, though I hate fads. I didn't deliberately go for keto, I just cut out the processed carbs that my diabetic father was told he couldn't eat and that's what I ended up left with. So far its working better than I expected plus my appetite has vanished. I'm no longer hungry anything like the amount I used to be and am sometimes getting to 2pm and thinking "I should probably eat something". Whether that's due to my dietary changes or lack of exercise compared to what I had I'm not sure.
Whether it would be possible to keep up with this post-lockdown I don't know but if it wasn't for lockdown I'd have probably never had the time or inclination to learn more about cooking and diets than I'd ever paid attention to in the past. I've set myself a target of losing a third of my pre-lockdown body weight by November.
Going back to my opening paragraph, it seems there's next to no agreement online as to what is healthy and what is not. EG I'm currently eating 3-5 eggs a day and information online seems to be inconsistent depending upon where you read as to whether that is either very healthy or very dangerous.
There's an immense amount of guff online (as there is on a great many other popular subjects) about diet. But it's really not rocket science: a good variety of fresh fruit and veg, not too much salt and saturated fat, the right total energy intake (enough to balance your daily needs if a healthy weight, a bit less if you could do with losing a few lbs,) and avoiding things to which you know your body reacts poorly or which you've been told to avoid on medical grounds, and most people can't go too far wrong.
In terms of specific foods and nutrients, if in doubt refer to the NHS website. Some foods should only be consumed in limited amounts (there are detailed recommendations for fish, for example,) but no consumption limit is given for eggs.
That's what I was saying about nothing agreeing online - you've highlighted saturated fats but my diet has been exceeding recommended limits on saturated fats a lot recently.
EG for brunch a few times this week I've made hard boiled eggs mashed together with avocado, mayo and hot sauce. Between the eggs, mayo and avocado that one meal alone could exceed my recommended saturated fat amount for the entire day but is OK in calories, is high in nutrition and keeps me full until evening meal. Is that healthy or unhealthy? Its not easy to tell from any rules online.
One theory is that diets of the sort "omit foods of type x" work in the short term for any value of x because if your body relies on a mixture of fats/protein/carbs/whatever, if you drop e.g. carbs, the body takes time to adjust to making up the shortfall from e.g. protein.
The difference is, your body does not need carbs. It simply uses them for energy, and can quite happily use fat (or protein). As Philip has found out, if you rely largely on fat for fuel, you eat less, it is more satiating, and you don't feel hungry. This is thought to be because it doesn't trigger insulin release and therefore blood-sugar swings.
Interesting. Have you got sources for that? Sounds like the "Atkins diet". Asking for a Type 2 friend.
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A knighthood for Colonel Tom Moore?
During this pandemic one of the most uplifting moments has been the now promoted Colonel Tom Moore raising millions for the NHS at age of 99 now 100. He’s been an inspiration to us all as evidenced by the thirty million plus pounds raised and him becoming the oldest person to feature in a UK number one single.
So far thanks to the furlough scheme jobs haven't been badly affected. Yet all the signs are there of the coming storm - a few enterprising businesses have used this as an opportunity to shut down unwanted high street operations, and then we have the BA announcement, but other than that people are slightly bemused at getting most of their pay for none of the work. Can't last.
when the money runs out, thats when we will see tough arguments being made. So far the government is doing its hardest to claim its had a good war, and its chanters are happy to sing along. But when the government is ordering people back to work - "some of you will die and we're sorry that we can do nothing about it" - thats when this gets interesting.
My business spent a full working day across a few days having hideous virtual SMT discussions about how to manage the factory staff and how to manage production shifts in one/more people fell ill/died. It was genuinely hard and a couple of members clearly couldn't cope with the implications of what we were taking about. Take that same argument, this time its the government telling people there is no cure, they might die, but go back to your slave lives because we need to profit from you. It won't go down well. Many will yearn for the old life and comply. Others will have no choice. Many will do so grudgingly, glaringly, warily..
.
Indeed - to use examples Boris and Colonel Tom are familiar with, we’re past the Phoney War, look like we’ve survived the Blitz but now have to hunker down for three years of privation and restriction before final victory, Then we can work out how to rebuild society - I look forward to the equivalent of the Beveridge Report
One of the problems with "diet" is it is very confusing as to what exactly a healthy diet is. EG is something marked as "fat free" but is full of lots of carbs good or bad for you? A lot of it seems to vary depending upon whom you ask. Simply saying "eat less" or "eat better" isn't that meaningful.
Since locking down I've been trying to deliberately lose weight via changing my diet and have been cutting out almost all most processed carbs and processed meals with a diet bordering on a "keto" diet, though I hate fads. I didn't deliberately go for keto, I just cut out the processed carbs that my diabetic father was told he couldn't eat and that's what I ended up left with. So far its working better than I expected plus my appetite has vanished. I'm no longer hungry anything like the amount I used to be and am sometimes getting to 2pm and thinking "I should probably eat something". Whether that's due to my dietary changes or lack of exercise compared to what I had I'm not sure.
Whether it would be possible to keep up with this post-lockdown I don't know but if it wasn't for lockdown I'd have probably never had the time or inclination to learn more about cooking and diets than I'd ever paid attention to in the past. I've set myself a target of losing a third of my pre-lockdown body weight by November.
Going back to my opening paragraph, it seems there's next to no agreement online as to what is healthy and what is not. EG I'm currently eating 3-5 eggs a day and information online seems to be inconsistent depending upon where you read as to whether that is either very healthy or very dangerous.
There's an immense amount of guff online (as there is on a great many other popular subjects) about diet. But it's really not rocket science: a good variety of fresh fruit and veg, not too much salt and saturated fat, the right total energy intake (enough to balance your daily needs if a healthy weight, a bit less if you could do with losing a few lbs,) and avoiding things to which you know your body reacts poorly or which you've been told to avoid on medical grounds, and most people can't go too far wrong.
In terms of specific foods and nutrients, if in doubt refer to the NHS website. Some foods should only be consumed in limited amounts (there are detailed recommendations for fish, for example,) but no consumption limit is given for eggs.
That's what I was saying about nothing agreeing online - you've highlighted saturated fats but my diet has been exceeding recommended limits on saturated fats a lot recently.
EG for brunch a few times this week I've made hard boiled eggs mashed together with avocado, mayo and hot sauce. Between the eggs, mayo and avocado that one meal alone could exceed my recommended saturated fat amount for the entire day but is OK in calories, is high in nutrition and keeps me full until evening meal. Is that healthy or unhealthy? Its not easy to tell from any rules online.
One theory is that diets of the sort "omit foods of type x" work in the short term for any value of x because if your body relies on a mixture of fats/protein/carbs/whatever, if you drop e.g. carbs, the body takes time to adjust to making up the shortfall from e.g. protein.
The difference is, your body does not need carbs. It simply uses them for energy, and can quite happily use fat (or protein). As Philip has found out, if you rely largely on fat for fuel, you eat less, it is more satiating, and you don't feel hungry. This is thought to be because it doesn't trigger insulin release and therefore blood-sugar swings.
Interesting. Have you got sources for that? Sounds like the "Atkins diet". Asking for a Type 2 friend.
There's quite a lot of stuff on the internet Try Diet Doctor, or search for Tim Noakes. People have put Type 2 into remission and that's starting to get some mainstream medical support
On topic. He deserves it. Will be interesting to see if the usual parade of time servers, sycophants, donors and no marks get their gongs too. Trump is becoming dangerous. A significant number of his followers believe his Presidency is fulfilling prophecy. And presages the End.Times Hopefully he hasn't gone so far. But I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Most honours are given on ministerial advice and candidates have to be vetted by the honours scrutiny committee, that's presumably why he will have to wait 'til June.
But can't the Queen hand out a KCVO or even a GCVO off her own bat, without asking the government?
I think she could. She could even give him a dukedom without the government interfering.
I am reminded of the time that Blair was minded to go with Prince Charles idea - get rid of the civil list, restore the revenue of the crown estates to the crown... until someone pointed out that what you would end up with was a Crown completely independent of parliament. And protected by modern human rights legislation....
If only you total, utter, mind bendingly incompetent losers hadn't tried to impeach him, you might now be credibly pursuing declaring him mentally incapacitated, because he self-evidently is.
Instead, you shot your bolt and doubled down by picking Joe Biden to face him.
The Republicans own Trump. But you don't deserve any sympathy even though you're led by somebody who is starting to make President Deschanel look positively sane. You messed up spectacularly at every turn.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Sunday that there was "enormous evidence" that the coronavirus pandemic originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China.
"There is enormous evidence that this is where it began," he said on ABC's "This Week."
One of the problems with "diet" is it is very confusing as to what exactly a healthy diet is. EG is something marked as "fat free" but is full of lots of carbs good or bad for you? A lot of it seems to vary depending upon whom you ask. Simply saying "eat less" or "eat better" isn't that meaningful.
Since locking down I've been trying to deliberately lose weight via changing my diet and have been cutting out almost all most processed carbs and processed meals with a diet bordering on a "keto" diet, though I hate fads. I didn't deliberately go for keto, I just cut out the processed carbs that my diabetic father was told he couldn't eat and that's what I ended up left with. So far its working better than I expected plus my appetite has vanished. I'm no longer hungry anything like the amount I used to be and am sometimes getting to 2pm and thinking "I should probably eat something". Whether that's due to my dietary changes or lack of exercise compared to what I had I'm not sure.
Whether it would be possible to keep up with this post-lockdown I don't know but if it wasn't for lockdown I'd have probably never had the time or inclination to learn more about cooking and diets than I'd ever paid attention to in the past. I've set myself a target of losing a third of my pre-lockdown body weight by November.
Going back to my opening paragraph, it seems there's next to no agreement online as to what is healthy and what is not. EG I'm currently eating 3-5 eggs a day and information online seems to be inconsistent depending upon where you read as to whether that is either very healthy or very dangerous.
There's an immense amount of guff online (as there is on a great many other popular subjects) about diet. But it's really not rocket science: a good variety of fresh fruit and veg, not too much salt and saturated fat, the right total energy intake (enough to balance your daily needs if a healthy weight, a bit less if you could do with losing a few lbs,) and avoiding things to which you know your body reacts poorly or which you've been told to avoid on medical grounds, and most people can't go too far wrong.
In terms of specific foods and nutrients, if in doubt refer to the NHS website. Some foods should only be consumed in limited amounts (there are detailed recommendations for fish, for example,) but no consumption limit is given for eggs.
That's what I was saying about nothing agreeing online - you've highlighted saturated fats but my diet has been exceeding recommended limits on saturated fats a lot recently.
EG for brunch a few times this week I've made hard boiled eggs mashed together with avocado, mayo and hot sauce. Between the eggs, mayo and avocado that one meal alone could exceed my recommended saturated fat amount for the entire day but is OK in calories, is high in nutrition and keeps me full until evening meal. Is that healthy or unhealthy? Its not easy to tell from any rules online.
One theory is that diets of the sort "omit foods of type x" work in the short term for any value of x because if your body relies on a mixture of fats/protein/carbs/whatever, if you drop e.g. carbs, the body takes time to adjust to making up the shortfall from e.g. protein.
The difference is, your body does not need carbs. It simply uses them for energy, and can quite happily use fat (or protein). As Philip has found out, if you rely largely on fat for fuel, you eat less, it is more satiating, and you don't feel hungry. This is thought to be because it doesn't trigger insulin release and therefore blood-sugar swings.
Interesting. Have you got sources for that? Sounds like the "Atkins diet". Asking for a Type 2 friend.
There's quite a lot of stuff on the internet Try Diet Doctor, or search for Tim Noakes. People have put Type 2 into remission and that's starting to get some mainstream medical support
These days there are quite a few people diagnosed Type 2 who manage to drive it into remission for at least a time by adopting sensible diets.
IME the NHS is still not really up to speed with low or moderate carb diets, though dieticians will talk about it if asked. They are unlikely to recommend. Whether that is actually "would like to but it is not the orthodoxy" I cannot comment on - @Foxy would know the policy better.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Sunday that there was "enormous evidence" that the coronavirus pandemic originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China.
"There is enormous evidence that this is where it began," he said on ABC's "This Week."
What did Garak say about coincidences again? The fact the market is just over the road from a research lab that was looking into coronaviruses makes it very suspicious.
On topic. He deserves it. Will be interesting to see if the usual parade of time servers, sycophants, donors and no marks get their gongs too. Trump is becoming dangerous. A significant number of his followers believe his Presidency is fulfilling prophecy. And presages the End.Times Hopefully he hasn't gone so far. But I wouldn't be at all surprised.
There are more folk who think like that than I find altogether comfortable. An American GP who I've been in touch with (through games) for many years, who always seemed very calm and level-headed, reveals that he and his wife joined a remote valley community 20 years ago to prepare for End Times, and feel their expectation has now started to come to pass. He expects it to become much worse, and is musing on his ability to hunt game and chop firewood.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Sunday that there was "enormous evidence" that the coronavirus pandemic originated in a laboratory in Wuhan, China.
"There is enormous evidence that this is where it began," he said on ABC's "This Week."
What did Garak say about coincidences again? The fact the market is just over the road from a research lab that was looking into coronaviruses makes it very suspicious.
I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't trust coincidences.
Grant Shapps has come up with the helpful suggestion of staggering working hours. Whether he genuinely believes there is a "rush hour" any more I don't know but in my part of London the underground is busy from 6am to 9am heading into town.
MY guesstimate is the tube could run at 15% of normal passenger levels and that would allow reasonable social distancing but a lot more people use it. Re-opening construction sites will increase passenger numbers let alone other sectors which can't be governed by home working.
Currently on National Rail trains are running up and down the lines empty or nearly empty so there is capacity available but looking at the trains coming into Waterloo or Victoria of a morning and you see the social distancing issues.
London buses are now free and I'm told some of them are running pretty full as it is a useful way of those who either don't care about or believe they have no choice but to break the lock down are using them. Car traffic is around 40% of normal but has crept up slightly in the past week.
Public transport is the Big Problem. Not everyone drives to work. Yet on a bus or train you cannot separate yourself out enough for the powers that be to deem it safe, and without public transport people can't be ordered back to work and the economy can't attempt a restart.
The suggestion of a 1m spacing - would that make enough of a difference?
I fully support Colonel Tom being knighted and hope it will be included in the Queens birthday honours in June
I have posted on the difficulties my son in law and sister are dealing with over the care of their parents. Their Father (87) is in poor health experiencing multiple falls, often several a day, has a permanent catheter, and is confused. Each time he falls the paramedics stabilise him and leave him in his own home under the care of his daily carers. His wife has been in a nursing home for the last six months with dementia
After his fall on friday his GP carried out a review of his health and with the help of social services have managed to place him in a care home early this next week subject to him passing the covid test he took on friday
Their crisis seems to be nearing resolution but of course neither my son in law or his sister have not been allowed to visit the home he is due to go to, and of course they have not visited their mother since January
The realisation that when he leaves home to go to the nursing home they will not see him or their Mother again for months, even if at all, is highly emotional and upsetting to all the family
Just another anecdote of how dreadful this disease is across families and loved ones both her and worldwide
Grant Shapps has come up with the helpful suggestion of staggering working hours. Whether he genuinely believes there is a "rush hour" any more I don't know but in my part of London the underground is busy from 6am to 9am heading into town.
MY guesstimate is the tube could run at 15% of normal passenger levels and that would allow reasonable social distancing but a lot more people use it. Re-opening construction sites will increase passenger numbers let alone other sectors which can't be governed by home working.
Currently on National Rail trains are running up and down the lines empty or nearly empty so there is capacity available but looking at the trains coming into Waterloo or Victoria of a morning and you see the social distancing issues.
London buses are now free and I'm told some of them are running pretty full as it is a useful way of those who either don't care about or believe they have no choice but to break the lock down are using them. Car traffic is around 40% of normal but has crept up slightly in the past week.
Public transport is the Big Problem. Not everyone drives to work. Yet on a bus or train you cannot separate yourself out enough for the powers that be to deem it safe, and without public transport people can't be ordered back to work and the economy can't attempt a restart.
The suggestion of a 1m spacing - would that make enough of a difference?
Suddenly a bus that sat 60 people now sits 15 or if in couples 20. It's still not going to work.
However most buses around here seem to have zero people on them so I wonder why Arriva are still running them.
Most honours are given on ministerial advice and candidates have to be vetted by the honours scrutiny committee, that's presumably why he will have to wait 'til June.
But can't the Queen hand out a KCVO or even a GCVO off her own bat, without asking the government?
It would be a bit of a stretch: the Royal Victorian Order is only given for services to the monarchy.
I thought that was how Jimmy Savile got his knighthood, but I've checked and he only had an ordinary Knighthood here but he did get a personal knighthood from Pope John Paul II a KCSG. and he must have put that after his name.
If only you total, utter, mind bendingly incompetent losers hadn't tried to impeach him, you might now be credibly pursuing declaring him mentally incapacitated, because he self-evidently is.
Instead, you shot your bolt and doubled down by picking Joe Biden to face him.
The Republicans own Trump. But you don't deserve any sympathy even though you're led by somebody who is starting to make President Deschanel look positively sane. You messed up spectacularly at every turn.
Sincerely yours
The very disgruntled rest of the planet.
Sometimes I wonder if the Dems. haven't already realised that a Trump second term is optimal to prevent civil war, hence no-hoper Biden as the presumptive nominee.
Trump will unleash fire and brimstone should he be defeated in November. The occupation of the Michigan Statehouse is a sign of things to come should defeat come to pass.
Gove is so much better at this kind of stuff than the likes of Raab.
Raab cannot lie as easily , he has a smidgeon of conscience, Gove on the other hand makes Boris look truthful and that is very hard indeed. The lying slimeball of Slimeballs.
Gove is so much better at this kind of stuff than the likes of Raab.
Raab cannot lie as easily , he has a smidgeon of conscience, Gove on the other hand makes Boris look truthful and that is very hard indeed. The lying slimeball of Slimeballs.
Mr G, again I must protest at your wanton slandering of slimeballs.
One of the problems with "diet" is it is very confusing as to what exactly a healthy diet is. EG is something marked as "fat free" but is full of lots of carbs good or bad for you? A lot of it seems to vary depending upon whom you ask. Simply saying "eat less" or "eat better" isn't that meaningful.
Since locking down I've been trying to deliberately lose weight via changing my diet and have been cutting out almost all most processed carbs and processed meals with a diet bordering on a "keto" diet, though I hate fads. I didn't deliberately go for keto, I just cut out the processed carbs that my diabetic father was told he couldn't eat and that's what I ended up left with. So far its working better than I expected plus my appetite has vanished. I'm no longer hungry anything like the amount I used to be and am sometimes getting to 2pm and thinking "I should probably eat something". Whether that's due to my dietary changes or lack of exercise compared to what I had I'm not sure.
Whether it would be possible to keep up with this post-lockdown I don't know but if it wasn't for lockdown I'd have probably never had the time or inclination to learn more about cooking and diets than I'd ever paid attention to in the past. I've set myself a target of losing a third of my pre-lockdown body weight by November.
Going back to my opening paragraph, it seems there's next to no agreement online as to what is healthy and what is not. EG I'm currently eating 3-5 eggs a day and information online seems to be inconsistent depending upon where you read as to whether that is either very healthy or very dangerous.
There's an immense amount of guff online (as there is on a great many other popular subjects) about diet. But it's really not rocket science: a good variety of fresh fruit and veg, not too much salt and saturated fat, the right total energy intake (enough to balance your daily needs if a healthy weight, a bit less if you could do with losing a few lbs,) and avoiding things to which you know your body reacts poorly or which you've been told to avoid on medical grounds, and most people can't go too far wrong.
In terms of specific foods and nutrients, if in doubt refer to the NHS website. Some foods should only be consumed in limited amounts (there are detailed recommendations for fish, for example,) but no consumption limit is given for eggs.
That's what I was saying about nothing agreeing online - you've highlighted saturated fats but my diet has been exceeding recommended limits on saturated fats a lot recently.
EG for brunch a few times this week I've made hard boiled eggs mashed together with avocado, mayo and hot sauce. Between the eggs, mayo and avocado that one meal alone could exceed my recommended saturated fat amount for the entire day but is OK in calories, is high in nutrition and keeps me full until evening meal. Is that healthy or unhealthy? Its not easy to tell from any rules online.
One theory is that diets of the sort "omit foods of type x" work in the short term for any value of x because if your body relies on a mixture of fats/protein/carbs/whatever, if you drop e.g. carbs, the body takes time to adjust to making up the shortfall from e.g. protein.
The difference is, your body does not need carbs. It simply uses them for energy, and can quite happily use fat (or protein). As Philip has found out, if you rely largely on fat for fuel, you eat less, it is more satiating, and you don't feel hungry. This is thought to be because it doesn't trigger insulin release and therefore blood-sugar swings.
Interesting. Have you got sources for that? Sounds like the "Atkins diet". Asking for a Type 2 friend.
From what I've read online from a variety of sources a high-fat, low-carb diet like I've been trying recently works because when you eat sugary/carb based food your body creates insulin to turn the carb into glucose but then after the carbs have been dealt with the insulin is still in the blood which causing cravings for more, which is why you can be hungry again not that long after eating. Either way whether its dropping the carbs or just watching what I eat my appetite is down now.
I'm not deliberately trying to follow this diet (I don't like fads) but its what I'm currently doing and its working for now. Diabetes UK has an article about it: https://www.diabetes.co.uk/keto/
Grant Shapps has come up with the helpful suggestion of staggering working hours. Whether he genuinely believes there is a "rush hour" any more I don't know but in my part of London the underground is busy from 6am to 9am heading into town.
MY guesstimate is the tube could run at 15% of normal passenger levels and that would allow reasonable social distancing but a lot more people use it. Re-opening construction sites will increase passenger numbers let alone other sectors which can't be governed by home working.
Currently on National Rail trains are running up and down the lines empty or nearly empty so there is capacity available but looking at the trains coming into Waterloo or Victoria of a morning and you see the social distancing issues.
London buses are now free and I'm told some of them are running pretty full as it is a useful way of those who either don't care about or believe they have no choice but to break the lock down are using them. Car traffic is around 40% of normal but has crept up slightly in the past week.
Public transport is the Big Problem. Not everyone drives to work. Yet on a bus or train you cannot separate yourself out enough for the powers that be to deem it safe, and without public transport people can't be ordered back to work and the economy can't attempt a restart.
The suggestion of a 1m spacing - would that make enough of a difference?
I strongly suspect that WFH will be maintained for the foreseeable future. The effect on companies directly involved is survivable, for the most part. The shops in the business district - such as central London - may be wiped out, though.
Grant Shapps has come up with the helpful suggestion of staggering working hours. Whether he genuinely believes there is a "rush hour" any more I don't know but in my part of London the underground is busy from 6am to 9am heading into town.
MY guesstimate is the tube could run at 15% of normal passenger levels and that would allow reasonable social distancing but a lot more people use it. Re-opening construction sites will increase passenger numbers let alone other sectors which can't be governed by home working.
Currently on National Rail trains are running up and down the lines empty or nearly empty so there is capacity available but looking at the trains coming into Waterloo or Victoria of a morning and you see the social distancing issues.
London buses are now free and I'm told some of them are running pretty full as it is a useful way of those who either don't care about or believe they have no choice but to break the lock down are using them. Car traffic is around 40% of normal but has crept up slightly in the past week.
Public transport is the Big Problem. Not everyone drives to work. Yet on a bus or train you cannot separate yourself out enough for the powers that be to deem it safe, and without public transport people can't be ordered back to work and the economy can't attempt a restart.
The suggestion of a 1m spacing - would that make enough of a difference?
Suddenly a bus that sat 60 people now sits 15 or if in couples 20. It's still not going to work.
However most buses around here seem to have zero people on them so I wonder why Arriva are still running them.
Well then we're fucked. They can't transport people to work safely which means we can't go back to work. So unless we see a sudden drop in infection rates / the virus mutates to safe then we will face fun choices: 1. Government says "you have to go back to work regardless of the risk. We're cutting off your support" 2. Government says "we said whatever it takes and we meant it. Its Not Safe to have a full return to work or a full resumption in our Schools. Here's an endless supply of cash to keep you at home"
Gove is so much better at this kind of stuff than the likes of Raab.
Raab cannot lie as easily , he has a smidgeon of conscience, Gove on the other hand makes Boris look truthful and that is very hard indeed. The lying slimeball of Slimeballs.
On topic. He deserves it. Will be interesting to see if the usual parade of time servers, sycophants, donors and no marks get their gongs too. Trump is becoming dangerous. A significant number of his followers believe his Presidency is fulfilling prophecy. And presages the End.Times Hopefully he hasn't gone so far. But I wouldn't be at all surprised.
There are more folk who think like that than I find altogether comfortable. An American GP who I've been in touch with (through games) for many years, who always seemed very calm and level-headed, reveals that he and his wife joined a remote valley community 20 years ago to prepare for End Times, and feel their expectation has now started to come to pass. He expects it to become much worse, and is musing on his ability to hunt game and chop firewood.
The US is indeed scary. I read and watched "The Handmaid's Tale" for the first time this year. One part of the story that stretched credulity was the scenario whereby Gilead came about through a semi-military coup by a secret society of religious cultists. Yet the experience of Trump suggests that there could be a far more plausible semi-constitutional route to a similar end, whereby a populist demagogic president finds it politically expedient to give them their head, to such an extent that they eventually become unstoppable. (cf. also von Papen in 1932). Perhaps it's time for Margaret Attwood to write a revised version where Gilead arises out of Trump's attempt to change the constitution to allow a 3rd term. She for good measure could reference in a global pandemic in 2020 that decimated fertility. (*) It wouldn't really require too much suspension of disbelief.
Gove is so much better at this kind of stuff than the likes of Raab.
Raab cannot lie as easily , he has a smidgeon of conscience, Gove on the other hand makes Boris look truthful and that is very hard indeed. The lying slimeball of Slimeballs.
Oh Malc.. been.eating rotten turnips again...
That being true, there are quite a number of us eating turnips! Gove is a weasel.
Grant Shapps has come up with the helpful suggestion of staggering working hours. Whether he genuinely believes there is a "rush hour" any more I don't know but in my part of London the underground is busy from 6am to 9am heading into town.
MY guesstimate is the tube could run at 15% of normal passenger levels and that would allow reasonable social distancing but a lot more people use it. Re-opening construction sites will increase passenger numbers let alone other sectors which can't be governed by home working.
Currently on National Rail trains are running up and down the lines empty or nearly empty so there is capacity available but looking at the trains coming into Waterloo or Victoria of a morning and you see the social distancing issues.
London buses are now free and I'm told some of them are running pretty full as it is a useful way of those who either don't care about or believe they have no choice but to break the lock down are using them. Car traffic is around 40% of normal but has crept up slightly in the past week.
Public transport is the Big Problem. Not everyone drives to work. Yet on a bus or train you cannot separate yourself out enough for the powers that be to deem it safe, and without public transport people can't be ordered back to work and the economy can't attempt a restart.
The suggestion of a 1m spacing - would that make enough of a difference?
Suddenly a bus that sat 60 people now sits 15 or if in couples 20. It's still not going to work.
However most buses around here seem to have zero people on them so I wonder why Arriva are still running them.
Well then we're fucked. They can't transport people to work safely which means we can't go back to work. So unless we see a sudden drop in infection rates / the virus mutates to safe then we will face fun choices: 1. Government says "you have to go back to work regardless of the risk. We're cutting off your support" 2. Government says "we said whatever it takes and we meant it. Its Not Safe to have a full return to work or a full resumption in our Schools. Here's an endless supply of cash to keep you at home"
Why would it need to be endless?
With sufficient test, track and trace it should be possible to replace lockdown with containment.
Gove is so much better at this kind of stuff than the likes of Raab.
Raab cannot lie as easily , he has a smidgeon of conscience, Gove on the other hand makes Boris look truthful and that is very hard indeed. The lying slimeball of Slimeballs.
One of the problems with "diet" is it is very confusing as to what exactly a healthy diet is. EG is something marked as "fat free" but is full of lots of carbs good or bad for you? A lot of it seems to vary depending upon whom you ask. Simply saying "eat less" or "eat better" isn't that meaningful.
Since locking down I've been trying to deliberately lose weight via changing my diet and have been cutting out almost all most processed carbs and processed meals with a diet bordering on a "keto" diet, though I hate fads. I didn't deliberately go for keto, I just cut out the processed carbs that my diabetic father was told he couldn't eat and that's what I ended up left with. So far its working better than I expected plus my appetite has vanished. I'm no longer hungry anything like the amount I used to be and am sometimes getting to 2pm and thinking "I should probably eat something". Whether that's due to my dietary changes or lack of exercise compared to what I had I'm not sure.
Whether it would be possible to keep up with this post-lockdown I don't know but if it wasn't for lockdown I'd have probably never had the time or inclination to learn more about cooking and diets than I'd ever paid attention to in the past. I've set myself a target of losing a third of my pre-lockdown body weight by November.
Going back to my opening paragraph, it seems there's next to no agreement online as to what is healthy and what is not. EG I'm currently eating 3-5 eggs a day and information online seems to be inconsistent depending upon where you read as to whether that is either very healthy or very dangerous.
There's an immense amount of guff online (as there is on a great many other popular subjects) about diet. But it's really not rocket science: a good variety of fresh fruit and veg, not too much salt and saturated fat, the right total energy intake (enough to balance your daily needs if a healthy weight, a bit less if you could do with losing a few lbs,) and avoiding things to which you know your body reacts poorly or which you've been told to avoid on medical grounds, and most people can't go too far wrong.
In terms of specific foods and nutrients, if in doubt refer to the NHS website. Some foods should only be consumed in limited amounts (there are detailed recommendations for fish, for example,) but no consumption limit is given for eggs.
That's what I was saying about nothing agreeing online - you've highlighted saturated fats but my diet has been exceeding recommended limits on saturated fats a lot recently.
EG for brunch a few times this week I've made hard boiled eggs mashed together with avocado, mayo and hot sauce. Between the eggs, mayo and avocado that one meal alone could exceed my recommended saturated fat amount for the entire day but is OK in calories, is high in nutrition and keeps me full until evening meal. Is that healthy or unhealthy? Its not easy to tell from any rules online.
One theory is that diets of the sort "omit foods of type x" work in the short term for any value of x because if your body relies on a mixture of fats/protein/carbs/whatever, if you drop e.g. carbs, the body takes time to adjust to making up the shortfall from e.g. protein.
The difference is, your body does not need carbs. It simply uses them for energy, and can quite happily use fat (or protein). As Philip has found out, if you rely largely on fat for fuel, you eat less, it is more satiating, and you don't feel hungry. This is thought to be because it doesn't trigger insulin release and therefore blood-sugar swings.
Interesting. Have you got sources for that? Sounds like the "Atkins diet". Asking for a Type 2 friend.
From what I've read online from a variety of sources a high-fat, low-carb diet like I've been trying recently works because when you eat sugary/carb based food your body creates insulin to turn the carb into glucose but then after the carbs have been dealt with the insulin is still in the blood which causing cravings for more, which is why you can be hungry again not that long after eating. Either way whether its dropping the carbs or just watching what I eat my appetite is down now.
I'm not deliberately trying to follow this diet (I don't like fads) but its what I'm currently doing and its working for now. Diabetes UK has an article about it: https://www.diabetes.co.uk/keto/
Yeah, and two things. You want whatever carbs you're eating to be slow burn (low glycaemic index) in order to avoid insulin spikes, and you want to eat foods (proteins, fats) that reduce ghrelin, the body's hormone that modulates hunger.
"In some ways [in the outbreak in china was never] there was never any exponential growth. From the minute I started looking at it, there were never any two days that exactly the same growth rate, and they were getting slower. The growth was always sub-exponential."
On topic. He deserves it. Will be interesting to see if the usual parade of time servers, sycophants, donors and no marks get their gongs too. Trump is becoming dangerous. A significant number of his followers believe his Presidency is fulfilling prophecy. And presages the End.Times Hopefully he hasn't gone so far. But I wouldn't be at all surprised.
There are more folk who think like that than I find altogether comfortable. An American GP who I've been in touch with (through games) for many years, who always seemed very calm and level-headed, reveals that he and his wife joined a remote valley community 20 years ago to prepare for End Times, and feel their expectation has now started to come to pass. He expects it to become much worse, and is musing on his ability to hunt game and chop firewood.
America was founded on fruitcakes and loons escaping Europe.....
The only problem is that not all of the batshit crazies got away...a few unfortunately stayed, since thrived and inexplicably (thanks to David Cameron thinking he could control the fuckers) are now running the country...,
On topic. He deserves it. Will be interesting to see if the usual parade of time servers, sycophants, donors and no marks get their gongs too. Trump is becoming dangerous. A significant number of his followers believe his Presidency is fulfilling prophecy. And presages the End.Times Hopefully he hasn't gone so far. But I wouldn't be at all surprised.
There are more folk who think like that than I find altogether comfortable. An American GP who I've been in touch with (through games) for many years, who always seemed very calm and level-headed, reveals that he and his wife joined a remote valley community 20 years ago to prepare for End Times, and feel their expectation has now started to come to pass. He expects it to become much worse, and is musing on his ability to hunt game and chop firewood.
America was founded on fruitcakes and loons escaping Europe.....
The only problem is that not all of the batshit crazies got away...a few unfortunately stayed, since thrived and inexplicably (thanks to David Cameron thinking he could control the fuckers) are now running the country...,
David Cameron is responsible for the current political situation in the US?
Grant Shapps has come up with the helpful suggestion of staggering working hours. Whether he genuinely believes there is a "rush hour" any more I don't know but in my part of London the underground is busy from 6am to 9am heading into town.
MY guesstimate is the tube could run at 15% of normal passenger levels and that would allow reasonable social distancing but a lot more people use it. Re-opening construction sites will increase passenger numbers let alone other sectors which can't be governed by home working.
Currently on National Rail trains are running up and down the lines empty or nearly empty so there is capacity available but looking at the trains coming into Waterloo or Victoria of a morning and you see the social distancing issues.
London buses are now free and I'm told some of them are running pretty full as it is a useful way of those who either don't care about or believe they have no choice but to break the lock down are using them. Car traffic is around 40% of normal but has crept up slightly in the past week.
Public transport is the Big Problem. Not everyone drives to work. Yet on a bus or train you cannot separate yourself out enough for the powers that be to deem it safe, and without public transport people can't be ordered back to work and the economy can't attempt a restart.
The suggestion of a 1m spacing - would that make enough of a difference?
Suddenly a bus that sat 60 people now sits 15 or if in couples 20. It's still not going to work.
However most buses around here seem to have zero people on them so I wonder why Arriva are still running them.
Well then we're fucked. They can't transport people to work safely which means we can't go back to work. So unless we see a sudden drop in infection rates / the virus mutates to safe then we will face fun choices: 1. Government says "you have to go back to work regardless of the risk. We're cutting off your support" 2. Government says "we said whatever it takes and we meant it. Its Not Safe to have a full return to work or a full resumption in our Schools. Here's an endless supply of cash to keep you at home"
Why would it need to be endless?
With sufficient test, track and trace it should be possible to replace lockdown with containment.
This government are going to organise test track and trace? This government...
Grant Shapps has come up with the helpful suggestion of staggering working hours. Whether he genuinely believes there is a "rush hour" any more I don't know but in my part of London the underground is busy from 6am to 9am heading into town.
MY guesstimate is the tube could run at 15% of normal passenger levels and that would allow reasonable social distancing but a lot more people use it. Re-opening construction sites will increase passenger numbers let alone other sectors which can't be governed by home working.
Currently on National Rail trains are running up and down the lines empty or nearly empty so there is capacity available but looking at the trains coming into Waterloo or Victoria of a morning and you see the social distancing issues.
London buses are now free and I'm told some of them are running pretty full as it is a useful way of those who either don't care about or believe they have no choice but to break the lock down are using them. Car traffic is around 40% of normal but has crept up slightly in the past week.
Public transport is the Big Problem. Not everyone drives to work. Yet on a bus or train you cannot separate yourself out enough for the powers that be to deem it safe, and without public transport people can't be ordered back to work and the economy can't attempt a restart.
The suggestion of a 1m spacing - would that make enough of a difference?
Suddenly a bus that sat 60 people now sits 15 or if in couples 20. It's still not going to work.
However most buses around here seem to have zero people on them so I wonder why Arriva are still running them.
More of them need pushbikes. Reportedly up fourfold, but from a very low base.
And we need some 2020s rather than 1970s infrastructure to let them be used.
On topic. He deserves it. Will be interesting to see if the usual parade of time servers, sycophants, donors and no marks get their gongs too. Trump is becoming dangerous. A significant number of his followers believe his Presidency is fulfilling prophecy. And presages the End.Times Hopefully he hasn't gone so far. But I wouldn't be at all surprised.
There are more folk who think like that than I find altogether comfortable. An American GP who I've been in touch with (through games) for many years, who always seemed very calm and level-headed, reveals that he and his wife joined a remote valley community 20 years ago to prepare for End Times, and feel their expectation has now started to come to pass. He expects it to become much worse, and is musing on his ability to hunt game and chop firewood.
The US is indeed scary. I read and watched "The Handmaid's Tale" for the first time this year. One part of the story that stretched credulity was the scenario whereby Gilead came about through a semi-military coup by a secret society of religious cultists. Yet the experience of Trump suggests that there could be a far more plausible semi-constitutional route to a similar end, whereby a populist demagogic president finds it politically expedient to give them their head, to such an extent that they eventually become unstoppable. (cf. also von Papen in 1932). Perhaps it's time for Margaret Attwood to write a revised version where Gilead arises out of Trump's attempt to change the constitution to allow a 3rd term. She for good measure could reference in a global pandemic in 2020 that decimated fertility. (*) It wouldn't really require too much suspension of disbelief.
Grant Shapps has come up with the helpful suggestion of staggering working hours. Whether he genuinely believes there is a "rush hour" any more I don't know but in my part of London the underground is busy from 6am to 9am heading into town.
MY guesstimate is the tube could run at 15% of normal passenger levels and that would allow reasonable social distancing but a lot more people use it. Re-opening construction sites will increase passenger numbers let alone other sectors which can't be governed by home working.
Currently on National Rail trains are running up and down the lines empty or nearly empty so there is capacity available but looking at the trains coming into Waterloo or Victoria of a morning and you see the social distancing issues.
London buses are now free and I'm told some of them are running pretty full as it is a useful way of those who either don't care about or believe they have no choice but to break the lock down are using them. Car traffic is around 40% of normal but has crept up slightly in the past week.
Public transport is the Big Problem. Not everyone drives to work. Yet on a bus or train you cannot separate yourself out enough for the powers that be to deem it safe, and without public transport people can't be ordered back to work and the economy can't attempt a restart.
The suggestion of a 1m spacing - would that make enough of a difference?
Suddenly a bus that sat 60 people now sits 15 or if in couples 20. It's still not going to work.
However most buses around here seem to have zero people on them so I wonder why Arriva are still running them.
Well then we're fucked. They can't transport people to work safely which means we can't go back to work. So unless we see a sudden drop in infection rates / the virus mutates to safe then we will face fun choices: 1. Government says "you have to go back to work regardless of the risk. We're cutting off your support" 2. Government says "we said whatever it takes and we meant it. Its Not Safe to have a full return to work or a full resumption in our Schools. Here's an endless supply of cash to keep you at home"
Why would it need to be endless?
With sufficient test, track and trace it should be possible to replace lockdown with containment.
This government are going to organise test track and trace? This government...
Grant Shapps has come up with the helpful suggestion of staggering working hours. Whether he genuinely believes there is a "rush hour" any more I don't know but in my part of London the underground is busy from 6am to 9am heading into town.
MY guesstimate is the tube could run at 15% of normal passenger levels and that would allow reasonable social distancing but a lot more people use it. Re-opening construction sites will increase passenger numbers let alone other sectors which can't be governed by home working.
Currently on National Rail trains are running up and down the lines empty or nearly empty so there is capacity available but looking at the trains coming into Waterloo or Victoria of a morning and you see the social distancing issues.
London buses are now free and I'm told some of them are running pretty full as it is a useful way of those who either don't care about or believe they have no choice but to break the lock down are using them. Car traffic is around 40% of normal but has crept up slightly in the past week.
Public transport is the Big Problem. Not everyone drives to work. Yet on a bus or train you cannot separate yourself out enough for the powers that be to deem it safe, and without public transport people can't be ordered back to work and the economy can't attempt a restart.
The suggestion of a 1m spacing - would that make enough of a difference?
I will be back on the tube as soon as lockdown ends, even with a face mask.
Public transport is still running and if you are under 50 you should be back at work, even if you catch Covid you have near zero chance of dying from it.
It is over 70s who should be more cautious about travelling on public transport
One of the problems with "diet" is it is very confusing as to what exactly a healthy diet is. EG is something marked as "fat free" but is full of lots of carbs good or bad for you? A lot of it seems to vary depending upon whom you ask. Simply saying "eat less" or "eat better" isn't that meaningful.
Since locking down I've been trying to deliberately lose weight via changing my diet and have been cutting out almost all most processed carbs and processed meals with a diet bordering on a "keto" diet, though I hate fads. I didn't deliberately go for keto, I just cut out the processed carbs that my diabetic father was told he couldn't eat and that's what I ended up left with. So far its working better than I expected plus my appetite has vanished. I'm no longer hungry anything like the amount I used to be and am sometimes getting to 2pm and thinking "I should probably eat something". Whether that's due to my dietary changes or lack of exercise compared to what I had I'm not sure.
Whether it would be possible to keep up with this post-lockdown I don't know but if it wasn't for lockdown I'd have probably never had the time or inclination to learn more about cooking and diets than I'd ever paid attention to in the past. I've set myself a target of losing a third of my pre-lockdown body weight by November.
Going back to my opening paragraph, it seems there's next to no agreement online as to what is healthy and what is not. EG I'm currently eating 3-5 eggs a day and information online seems to be inconsistent depending upon where you read as to whether that is either very healthy or very dangerous.
There's an immense amount of guff online (as there is on a great many other popular subjects) about diet. But it's really not rocket science: a good variety of fresh fruit and veg, not too much salt and saturated fat, the right total energy intake (enough to balance your daily needs if a healthy weight, a bit less if you could do with losing a few lbs,) and avoiding things to which you know your body reacts poorly or which you've been told to avoid on medical grounds, and most people can't go too far wrong.
In terms of specific foods and nutrients, if in doubt refer to the NHS website. Some foods should only be consumed in limited amounts (there are detailed recommendations for fish, for example,) but no consumption limit is given for eggs.
That's what I was saying about nothing agreeing online - you've highlighted saturated fats but my diet has been exceeding recommended limits on saturated fats a lot recently.
EG for brunch a few times this week I've made hard boiled eggs mashed together with avocado, mayo and hot sauce. Between the eggs, mayo and avocado that one meal alone could exceed my recommended saturated fat amount for the entire day but is OK in calories, is high in nutrition and keeps me full until evening meal. Is that healthy or unhealthy? Its not easy to tell from any rules online.
One theory is that diets of the sort "omit foods of type x" work in the short term for any value of x because if your body relies on a mixture of fats/protein/carbs/whatever, if you drop e.g. carbs, the body takes time to adjust to making up the shortfall from e.g. protein.
The difference is, your body does not need carbs. It simply uses them for energy, and can quite happily use fat (or protein). As Philip has found out, if you rely largely on fat for fuel, you eat less, it is more satiating, and you don't feel hungry. This is thought to be because it doesn't trigger insulin release and therefore blood-sugar swings.
Interesting. Have you got sources for that? Sounds like the "Atkins diet". Asking for a Type 2 friend.
From what I've read online from a variety of sources a high-fat, low-carb diet like I've been trying recently works because when you eat sugary/carb based food your body creates insulin to turn the carb into glucose but then after the carbs have been dealt with the insulin is still in the blood which causing cravings for more, which is why you can be hungry again not that long after eating. Either way whether its dropping the carbs or just watching what I eat my appetite is down now.
I'm not deliberately trying to follow this diet (I don't like fads) but its what I'm currently doing and its working for now. Diabetes UK has an article about it: https://www.diabetes.co.uk/keto/
Yeah, and two things. You want whatever carbs you're eating to be slow burn (low glycaemic index) in order to avoid insulin spikes, and you want to eat foods (proteins, fats) that reduce ghrelin, the body's hormone that modulates hunger.
And you want to make sure you get enough fibre too.
Gove is so much better at this kind of stuff than the likes of Raab.
Raab cannot lie as easily , he has a smidgeon of conscience, Gove on the other hand makes Boris look truthful and that is very hard indeed. The lying slimeball of Slimeballs.
Oh Malc.. been.eating rotten turnips again...
That being true, there are quite a number of us eating turnips! Gove is a weasel.
Some seriously inappropriate language there, sir. What have weasels ever done to you?
On topic. He deserves it. Will be interesting to see if the usual parade of time servers, sycophants, donors and no marks get their gongs too. Trump is becoming dangerous. A significant number of his followers believe his Presidency is fulfilling prophecy. And presages the End.Times Hopefully he hasn't gone so far. But I wouldn't be at all surprised.
There are more folk who think like that than I find altogether comfortable. An American GP who I've been in touch with (through games) for many years, who always seemed very calm and level-headed, reveals that he and his wife joined a remote valley community 20 years ago to prepare for End Times, and feel their expectation has now started to come to pass. He expects it to become much worse, and is musing on his ability to hunt game and chop firewood.
America was founded on fruitcakes and loons escaping Europe.....
The only problem is that not all of the batshit crazies got away...a few unfortunately stayed, since thrived and inexplicably (thanks to David Cameron thinking he could control the fuckers) are now running the country...,
David Cameron is responsible for the current political situation in the US?
No...he's just responsible for letting these fuckwit crazies take over the Tory party...
Never underestimate a virus..the fruitcakes and loons... a case in point...
Now we have these tossers ruining the country causing bedlam and countless deaths at this moment in time....
Gove is so much better at this kind of stuff than the likes of Raab.
Raab cannot lie as easily , he has a smidgeon of conscience, Gove on the other hand makes Boris look truthful and that is very hard indeed. The lying slimeball of Slimeballs.
Oh Malc.. been.eating rotten turnips again...
That being true, there are quite a number of us eating turnips! Gove is a weasel.
Some seriously inappropriate language there, sir. What have weasels ever done to you?
Gove is so much better at this kind of stuff than the likes of Raab.
Raab cannot lie as easily , he has a smidgeon of conscience, Gove on the other hand makes Boris look truthful and that is very hard indeed. The lying slimeball of Slimeballs.
Hey malc, I recall that you like a panzer. This is good with the sound turned up.
Gove is so much better at this kind of stuff than the likes of Raab.
Raab cannot lie as easily , he has a smidgeon of conscience, Gove on the other hand makes Boris look truthful and that is very hard indeed. The lying slimeball of Slimeballs.
Oh Malc.. been.eating rotten turnips again...
That being true, there are quite a number of us eating turnips! Gove is a weasel.
Some seriously inappropriate language there, sir. What have weasels ever done to you?
Grant Shapps has come up with the helpful suggestion of staggering working hours. Whether he genuinely believes there is a "rush hour" any more I don't know but in my part of London the underground is busy from 6am to 9am heading into town.
MY guesstimate is the tube could run at 15% of normal passenger levels and that would allow reasonable social distancing but a lot more people use it. Re-opening construction sites will increase passenger numbers let alone other sectors which can't be governed by home working.
Currently on National Rail trains are running up and down the lines empty or nearly empty so there is capacity available but looking at the trains coming into Waterloo or Victoria of a morning and you see the social distancing issues.
London buses are now free and I'm told some of them are running pretty full as it is a useful way of those who either don't care about or believe they have no choice but to break the lock down are using them. Car traffic is around 40% of normal but has crept up slightly in the past week.
Public transport is the Big Problem. Not everyone drives to work. Yet on a bus or train you cannot separate yourself out enough for the powers that be to deem it safe, and without public transport people can't be ordered back to work and the economy can't attempt a restart.
The suggestion of a 1m spacing - would that make enough of a difference?
Suddenly a bus that sat 60 people now sits 15 or if in couples 20. It's still not going to work.
However most buses around here seem to have zero people on them so I wonder why Arriva are still running them.
Well then we're fucked. They can't transport people to work safely which means we can't go back to work. So unless we see a sudden drop in infection rates / the virus mutates to safe then we will face fun choices: 1. Government says "you have to go back to work regardless of the risk. We're cutting off your support" 2. Government says "we said whatever it takes and we meant it. Its Not Safe to have a full return to work or a full resumption in our Schools. Here's an endless supply of cash to keep you at home"
Why would it need to be endless?
With sufficient test, track and trace it should be possible to replace lockdown with containment.
This government are going to organise test track and trace? This government...
It is already under trial in the Isle of Wight
No, it will be under trial on the Isle of Wight later this week.
On topic. He deserves it. Will be interesting to see if the usual parade of time servers, sycophants, donors and no marks get their gongs too. Trump is becoming dangerous. A significant number of his followers believe his Presidency is fulfilling prophecy. And presages the End.Times Hopefully he hasn't gone so far. But I wouldn't be at all surprised.
There are more folk who think like that than I find altogether comfortable. An American GP who I've been in touch with (through games) for many years, who always seemed very calm and level-headed, reveals that he and his wife joined a remote valley community 20 years ago to prepare for End Times, and feel their expectation has now started to come to pass. He expects it to become much worse, and is musing on his ability to hunt game and chop firewood.
America was founded on fruitcakes and loons escaping Europe.....
The only problem is that not all of the batshit crazies got away...a few unfortunately stayed, since thrived and inexplicably (thanks to David Cameron thinking he could control the fuckers) are now running the country...,
David Cameron is responsible for the current political situation in the US?
No...he's just responsible for letting these fuckwit crazies take over the Tory party...
Never underestimate a virus..the fruitcakes and loons... a case in point...
Now we have these tossers ruining the country causing bedlam and countless deaths at this moment in time....
last time I looked it was a virus - but hey, haters gotta hate.
Comments
EG for brunch a few times this week I've made hard boiled eggs mashed together with avocado, mayo and hot sauce. Between the eggs, mayo and avocado that one meal alone could exceed my recommended saturated fat amount for the entire day but is OK in calories, is high in nutrition and keeps me full until evening meal. Is that healthy or unhealthy? Its not easy to tell from any rules online.
Or any that actually contacted him or his agent to Fact Check?
One would hope that paragraphs like this would be a flag to even the thickest professional journalist:
"I sat at my desk, and instead of immediately checking emails or trying to cancel my Sky Premium Auto-Refundable Discount Care Protection Plus All-In Package Policy which I’d purchased in order to get them off the phone..."
"At this point my neighbour, who’s 86 and had a sextuple by-pass last Wednesday, wrenched up the window and pulled me to safety."
https://www.idler.co.uk/article/michael-palin-my-struggle-to-take-it-easy/
We are, many of us here anyway, the descendants of people who survived the various famine years through the Christian Era. We 'learned' to store food.
My elder sister also can do the same....god knows where that talent comes from...
David Icke will do what? Dream confusedly maybe.
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/different-fats-nutrition/
Again, I think it's a matter of having most things in moderation.
On the other hand, I'm still a couple of stone ahead of when I was a teenager and could touch my spine through my stomach (not recommended, incidentally).
But can't the Queen hand out a KCVO or even a GCVO off her own bat, without asking the government?
I am not really sure we need the Sunday ones, or even the Saturday ones, now. The situation isnt rapidly evolving, everybody knows the drill.
For Donald looked upon his works, and saw that they were good. And that the Bidenites and the Clintonites and the Bernites loathed him. But great again had America been made, and Donald the prophet's heart was comforted by the contemplation of his own magnificence.
Edited extra bit: as an aside, presents would be easier to pick if people had sensible interests such as classical history.
We liked heavy rock!!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8282033/Third-Russian-doctor-plunges-coronavirus-hospital-window.html
ooops - clumsy!
Try Diet Doctor, or search for Tim Noakes. People have put Type 2 into remission and that's starting to get some mainstream medical support
Trump is becoming dangerous. A significant number of his followers believe his Presidency is fulfilling prophecy. And presages the End.Times
Hopefully he hasn't gone so far.
But I wouldn't be at all surprised.
I used to work with a woman who was known as BJ
Yep - that's why she was known as that.....
I also worked with a woman who was known as Martini.......
Ha, who says Insurance is boring
If only you total, utter, mind bendingly incompetent losers hadn't tried to impeach him, you might now be credibly pursuing declaring him mentally incapacitated, because he self-evidently is.
Instead, you shot your bolt and doubled down by picking Joe Biden to face him.
The Republicans own Trump. But you don't deserve any sympathy even though you're led by somebody who is starting to make President Deschanel look positively sane. You messed up spectacularly at every turn.
Sincerely yours
The very disgruntled rest of the planet.
With a hundred and ten corona tests close at hand
🎵
"There is enormous evidence that this is where it began," he said on ABC's "This Week."
https://www.diabetes.co.uk/diet-basics.html
And is quite well attested.
These days there are quite a few people diagnosed Type 2 who manage to drive it into remission for at least a time by adopting sensible diets.
IME the NHS is still not really up to speed with low or moderate carb diets, though dieticians will talk about it if asked. They are unlikely to recommend. Whether that is actually "would like to but it is not the orthodoxy" I cannot comment on - @Foxy would know the policy better.
The suggestion of a 1m spacing - would that make enough of a difference?
I have posted on the difficulties my son in law and sister are dealing with over the care of their parents. Their Father (87) is in poor health experiencing multiple falls, often several a day, has a permanent catheter, and is confused. Each time he falls the paramedics stabilise him and leave him in his own home under the care of his daily carers. His wife has been in a nursing home for the last six months with dementia
After his fall on friday his GP carried out a review of his health and with the help of social services have managed to place him in a care home early this next week subject to him passing the covid test he took on friday
Their crisis seems to be nearing resolution but of course neither my son in law or his sister have not been allowed to visit the home he is due to go to, and of course they have not visited their mother since January
The realisation that when he leaves home to go to the nursing home they will not see him or their Mother again for months, even if at all, is highly emotional and upsetting to all the family
Just another anecdote of how dreadful this disease is across families and loved ones both her and worldwide
However most buses around here seem to have zero people on them so I wonder why Arriva are still running them.
Trump will unleash fire and brimstone should he be defeated in November. The occupation of the Michigan Statehouse is a sign of things to come should defeat come to pass.
I'm not deliberately trying to follow this diet (I don't like fads) but its what I'm currently doing and its working for now. Diabetes UK has an article about it: https://www.diabetes.co.uk/keto/
1. Government says "you have to go back to work regardless of the risk. We're cutting off your support"
2. Government says "we said whatever it takes and we meant it. Its Not Safe to have a full return to work or a full resumption in our Schools. Here's an endless supply of cash to keep you at home"
(*) EDIT
I have just had an email from Bristol Airport offering me discounted parking. An excellent discount of 12% is to be applied!
With sufficient test, track and trace it should be possible to replace lockdown with containment.
Na, not possible.
America was founded on fruitcakes and loons escaping Europe.....
The only problem is that not all of the batshit crazies got away...a few unfortunately stayed, since thrived and inexplicably (thanks to David Cameron thinking he could control the fuckers) are now running the country...,
And we need some 2020s rather than 1970s infrastructure to let them be used.
Public transport is still running and if you are under 50 you should be back at work, even if you catch Covid you have near zero chance of dying from it.
It is over 70s who should be more cautious about travelling on public transport
Never underestimate a virus..the fruitcakes and loons... a case in point...
Now we have these tossers ruining the country causing bedlam and countless deaths at this moment in time....
https://twitter.com/klaasm67/status/1256833490257154048?s=20
But to Gove? Pur-lease...