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...
Yes. Why not this government?
Some years ago I was waiting for a train run by Southern, when as frequently happened an announcement came it had been cancelled.
The announcer started, ‘This is because...’ but was drowned out by somebody shouting loudly, ‘because you’re shit.’
The same reason applies to this government.
This government has only been in power for months but they seem to keep beating expectations to me.
We were told they couldn't renegotiate the EU exit withdrawal agreement. They did.
We were told they couldn't get Parliament to agree to an early election. They did.
We were told they couldn't win a large election majority. They did.
We were told they couldn't exit the EU smoothly. They did.
We were told they couldn't get a hundred thousand tests. They did.
Not a bad record after a few months. What exactly has gone so badly wrong that they're shit?
You are easily fooled, I have a nice bridge here I could sell you.
No the whining here from people who where formerly known as Remainers comes across as just bitterness. It's as if Scotland had voted Yes, as if we had just seen Scotland leave and everyone here was ranting about how shit Scotland's Prime Minister Salmond is.
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...
Yes. Why not this government?
Some years ago I was waiting for a train run by Southern, when as frequently happened an announcement came it had been cancelled.
The announcer started, ‘This is because...’ but was drowned out by somebody shouting loudly, ‘because you’re shit.’
The same reason applies to this government.
This government has only been in power for months but they seem to keep beating expectations to me.
We were told they couldn't renegotiate the EU exit withdrawal agreement. They did.
We were told they couldn't get Parliament to agree to an early election. They did.
We were told they couldn't win a large election majority. They did.
We were told they couldn't exit the EU smoothly. They did.
We were told they couldn't get a hundred thousand tests. They did.
Not a bad record after a few months. What exactly has gone so badly wrong that they're shit?
You are easily fooled, I have a nice bridge here I could sell you.
No the whining here from people who where formerly known as Remainers comes across as just bitterness. It's as if Scotland had voted Yes, as if we had just seen Scotland leave and everyone here was ranting about how shit Scotland's Prime Minister Salmond is.
As might be expected, the re-opening of some DIY stores and some fast food establishments has drawn people out of lock down.
Trying to use that as a rationale for a mass return to work is interesting - the transport systems in London and elsewhere could not cope and to what extent are companies with offices prepared for social distancing?
Most of the clients with whom I am working have not been happy to hear their offices can only function at 40% capacity to maintain social distancing - the situation is worse in meeting rooms as people tend to sit much closer.
I'm now waiting for some Government minister to tell me it's my patriotic duty to go back to the office even though I can work quite happily at home.
If you can work from home I doubt the government will be asking you to go into the office any time soon.
Or ever. There has long been working from home. That wasn't invented this year.
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
Hancock Test Track & Trace strategy
TEST in the post lets count it
On TRACK to meet a political target even though its not processed
Not a TRACE of integrity
Perhaps you're right, but I'd have marked him as doing ok in this.
It's the weekend, so demand at the drive through sites and in hospitals is lower. Doesn't take a genius to work that out.
What, cos all the peepuls are doing important leisure time stuff?
Possibly childcare? No schools at the weekend, even if you are a health service worker.
People a) collecting samples; b) processing samples; c) collating data, also need days off and these will be enriched for at weekends. This trend is seen across most European countries.
So planned then? Better than lack of demand bullshit I guess.
Probably a combination of the two, actually.
If you work people 7 days a week, you get tired, sloppy people doing a poor job. Not what you want in, say, a testing lab.
Anyone who says "man up" at this point is an idiot. There are plenty of scientific studies into this.
As might be expected, the re-opening of some DIY stores and some fast food establishments has drawn people out of lock down.
Trying to use that as a rationale for a mass return to work is interesting - the transport systems in London and elsewhere could not cope and to what extent are companies with offices prepared for social distancing?
Most of the clients with whom I am working have not been happy to hear their offices can only function at 40% capacity to maintain social distancing - the situation is worse in meeting rooms as people tend to sit much closer.
I'm now waiting for some Government minister to tell me it's my patriotic duty to go back to the office even though I can work quite happily at home.
If you can work from home I doubt the government will be asking you to go into the office any time soon.
Or ever. There has long been working from home. That wasn't invented this year.
For a lot of companies it was invented this year. IBM, for instance, banned it back in 2015...
One day below 100k matters not. There is only an issue is we start to see day after day next week.
How many unprocessed tests counted as tests do you think we have Francis?
What makes you think they haven't been processed yet?
Which ones?
Any of the ones you've been banging on about for days?
All you are quibbling about is a day or two either side. If the ones sent on Thursday were processed today then they should be counted in today's data by your logic but they're not being. After the first day or two this is a moot matter as it cancels out.
One day below 100k matters not. There is only an issue is we start to see day after day next week.
How many unprocessed tests counted as tests do you think we have Francis?
My question is: why does this matter? The boffins analysing the data have access to far more than we do in the public, so missing specimens isn't an issue.
So if we post 5 million tests out tomorrow and only 5,000 are reported as positive overall will we a)Have beaten this?
b) Have any idea whether we have beaten this
c) Need to start a track and trace system to find which tests are where?
Counting a test when its processed just gives us a clear picture of where we are at in terms of Community Spread.
The methodology we have now makes it a lot harder.
You really think they don't keep track of what has been sent, when it was sent, and who it was sent to? Do you think they are doing all their planning based on the numbers we get at the daily briefing, and only those numbers?
Cant stop at what has been sent, when it was sent, and who it was sent to though can we.
You really cant see how moving away from processed tests makes it more difficult?
As might be expected, the re-opening of some DIY stores and some fast food establishments has drawn people out of lock down.
Trying to use that as a rationale for a mass return to work is interesting - the transport systems in London and elsewhere could not cope and to what extent are companies with offices prepared for social distancing?
Most of the clients with whom I am working have not been happy to hear their offices can only function at 40% capacity to maintain social distancing - the situation is worse in meeting rooms as people tend to sit much closer.
I'm now waiting for some Government minister to tell me it's my patriotic duty to go back to the office even though I can work quite happily at home.
If you can work from home I doubt the government will be asking you to go into the office any time soon.
Or ever. There has long been working from home. That wasn't invented this year.
For a lot of companies it was invented this year. IBM, for instance, banned it back in 2015...
As might be expected, the re-opening of some DIY stores and some fast food establishments has drawn people out of lock down.
Trying to use that as a rationale for a mass return to work is interesting - the transport systems in London and elsewhere could not cope and to what extent are companies with offices prepared for social distancing?
Most of the clients with whom I am working have not been happy to hear their offices can only function at 40% capacity to maintain social distancing - the situation is worse in meeting rooms as people tend to sit much closer.
I'm now waiting for some Government minister to tell me it's my patriotic duty to go back to the office even though I can work quite happily at home.
If you can work from home I doubt the government will be asking you to go into the office any time soon.
Or ever. There has long been working from home. That wasn't invented this year.
For a lot of companies it was invented this year. IBM, for instance, banned it back in 2015...
As might be expected, the re-opening of some DIY stores and some fast food establishments has drawn people out of lock down.
Trying to use that as a rationale for a mass return to work is interesting - the transport systems in London and elsewhere could not cope and to what extent are companies with offices prepared for social distancing?
Most of the clients with whom I am working have not been happy to hear their offices can only function at 40% capacity to maintain social distancing - the situation is worse in meeting rooms as people tend to sit much closer.
I'm now waiting for some Government minister to tell me it's my patriotic duty to go back to the office even though I can work quite happily at home.
If you can work from home I doubt the government will be asking you to go into the office any time soon.
Or ever. There has long been working from home. That wasn't invented this year.
For a lot of companies it was invented this year. IBM, for instance, banned it back in 2015...
Allowing the WFH staff to return to the office will be the last measure lifted. Quite possibly after a vaccine has come out.
What are the arguments in favour of a return - save the sandwich shops?
"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.
People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."
The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.
My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.
Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.
Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.
Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).
The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.
When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.
Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.
They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.
Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"
And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.
Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.
A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.
Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos
BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway
Disgusting comment.
People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.
BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.
I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!
Surely cardio is better for losing weight?
Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.
What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.
Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.
Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.
I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!
Well no, you cant exactly do 30 mins on an exercise bike then hit that bag of Haribo. Calories in vs calories out is a fundamental which you can't buck but the question was about the best form of exercise for losing weight.
As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.
As might be expected, the re-opening of some DIY stores and some fast food establishments has drawn people out of lock down.
Trying to use that as a rationale for a mass return to work is interesting - the transport systems in London and elsewhere could not cope and to what extent are companies with offices prepared for social distancing?
Most of the clients with whom I am working have not been happy to hear their offices can only function at 40% capacity to maintain social distancing - the situation is worse in meeting rooms as people tend to sit much closer.
I'm now waiting for some Government minister to tell me it's my patriotic duty to go back to the office even though I can work quite happily at home.
If you can work from home I doubt the government will be asking you to go into the office any time soon.
Or ever. There has long been working from home. That wasn't invented this year.
For a lot of companies it was invented this year. IBM, for instance, banned it back in 2015...
Utter Bollox
Nope but I am slightly wrong, it was more recent than that it was 2017
"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.
People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."
The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.
My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.
Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.
Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.
Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).
The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.
When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.
Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.
They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.
Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"
And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.
Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.
A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.
Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos
BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway
Disgusting comment.
People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.
BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.
I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!
Surely cardio is better for losing weight?
I think @southam is being modest. No one "seriously overweight" is doing that exercise set.
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...
Yes. Why not this government?
"WHO urges countries to 'track and trace' every Covid-19 case. Advice comes day after UK decides to stop community tests and only test hospital cases." Published on Friday the 13th. Of March.
Because it was pointless at that sage with the capacity available at the time.
Yes, the management of the expansion of test capacity was absymal for months, throwing away the opportunity to retrieve the situation after a failure to plan for an epidemic. But was it pointless to make no effort to at least ramp up the tracing of contacts, so that they could be warned to isolate? And why did it take until the end of April for the Government just to announce its intention to recruit people to do just that?
No...we had the best plan for a pandemic in the world...shut down, control, track and trace.....
we just ignored it...
the problem is we didn't have a Govt that believed in the power of the state when it was required.... instead we had people who thought we needed to prioritise keeping pubs and airports open....
those few weeks have really fucked us up....now god only knows how and when we come out safely...we are so much on the back foot that our only strategy to see how other countries are doing it....
If shutting down the country every time an an epidemic broke anywhere in the world was part of the plan we would be on roughly the 7th or 8th shutdown so far this century having already locked down for SARS, MERS, Ebola and all the others. Get real.
Sorry...it was control track and trace.....and then lock down if we lost track of immunity transmission....
I don't recall any other virus getting into the UK....so were not even at control, track and trace stage....
A curio from the data is that, of the Pillar I tests (tests performed in hospital), 383 of the positive tests from England were from 7-12 April. A small fraction of this is reallocation of specimen date but suggests a decent batch of the tests were substantially backdated for some reason.
For @SandyRentool , https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/, shows the number of positive tests by date of sample being taken (not quite hospital admissions as it seems to include NHS staff where sampling was done in a hospital). The positive news is that the positive tests by date of sample collection is declining steadily week-on-week, so will likely fall to under 2,000 per day and perhaps nearer 1,000 by the end of the week.
One day below 100k matters not. There is only an issue is we start to see day after day next week.
How many unprocessed tests counted as tests do you think we have Francis?
My question is: why does this matter? The boffins analysing the data have access to far more than we do in the public, so missing specimens isn't an issue.
So if we post 5 million tests out tomorrow and only 5,000 are reported as positive overall will we a)Have beaten this?
b) Have any idea whether we have beaten this
c) Need to start a track and trace system to find which tests are where?
Counting a test when its processed just gives us a clear picture of where we are at in terms of Community Spread.
The methodology we have now makes it a lot harder.
You really think they don't keep track of what has been sent, when it was sent, and who it was sent to? Do you think they are doing all their planning based on the numbers we get at the daily briefing, and only those numbers?
Cant stop at what has been sent, when it was sent, and who it was sent to though can we.
You really cant see how moving away from processed tests makes it more difficult?
Its not really worth us continuing to debate this
Are you seriously suggesting they don't track when the samples are returned or analysed?
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...
Yes. Why not this government?
"WHO urges countries to 'track and trace' every Covid-19 case. Advice comes day after UK decides to stop community tests and only test hospital cases." Published on Friday the 13th. Of March.
Because it was pointless at that sage with the capacity available at the time.
Yes, the management of the expansion of test capacity was absymal for months, throwing away the opportunity to retrieve the situation after a failure to plan for an epidemic. But was it pointless to make no effort to at least ramp up the tracing of contacts, so that they could be warned to isolate? And why did it take until the end of April for the Government just to announce its intention to recruit people to do just that?
No...we had the best plan for a pandemic in the world...shut down, control, track and trace.....
we just ignored it...
the problem is we didn't have a Govt that believed in the power of the state when it was required.... instead we had people who thought we needed to prioritise keeping pubs and airports open....
those few weeks have really fucked us up....now god only knows how and when we come out safely...we are so much on the back foot that our only strategy to see how other countries are doing it....
If shutting down the country every time an an epidemic broke anywhere in the world was part of the plan we would be on roughly the 7th or 8th shutdown so far this century having already locked down for SARS, MERS, Ebola and all the others. Get real.
Sorry...it was control track and trace.....and then lock down if we lost track of immunity transmission....
I don't recall any other virus getting into the UK....so were not even at control, track and trace stage....
I started cardio with a skipping rope yesterday. After only 10 minutes yesterday, I’ve got muscles sore today I didn’t even know I had. I highly recommend.
Skipping requires coordination I'm not sure I have ! I did get a rope in case the lockdown was more severe but I'm dreadful at it.
As might be expected, the re-opening of some DIY stores and some fast food establishments has drawn people out of lock down.
Trying to use that as a rationale for a mass return to work is interesting - the transport systems in London and elsewhere could not cope and to what extent are companies with offices prepared for social distancing?
Most of the clients with whom I am working have not been happy to hear their offices can only function at 40% capacity to maintain social distancing - the situation is worse in meeting rooms as people tend to sit much closer.
I'm now waiting for some Government minister to tell me it's my patriotic duty to go back to the office even though I can work quite happily at home.
If you can work from home I doubt the government will be asking you to go into the office any time soon.
Or ever. There has long been working from home. That wasn't invented this year.
For a lot of companies it was invented this year. IBM, for instance, banned it back in 2015...
Utter Bollox
Nope but I am slightly wrong, it was more recent than that it was 2017
"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.
People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."
The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.
My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.
Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.
Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.
Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).
The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.
When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.
Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.
They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.
Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"
And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.
Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.
A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.
Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos
BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway
Disgusting comment.
People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.
BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.
I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!
Surely cardio is better for losing weight?
Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.
What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.
Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.
Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.
I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!
Well no, you cant exactly do 30 mins on an exercise bike then hit that bag of Haribo. Calories in vs calories out is a fundamental which you can't buck but the question was about the best form of exercise for losing weight.
As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.
Yeah, as a runner I burn an average of 3000 calories a day, it does make food choices easier
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.
The standard deviation on the 'average' Basal Metabolic Rate is enourmas. Someone at the high end of two standard deviations requires approx a full dinner more than someone on the low end of two standard deviations.
Those figures are good but he's looking at only half the picture. By focusing only on hospital deaths, he's exaggerating the pace of decline.
From today's Observer, Page 8: "Care home owners are still warning that the sector is some way off a peak in cases, unlike the country as a whole."
If you follow him on twitter you will find he does.
Fair enough, I take your word that he does. But the trend in the graphs which I was commenting on didn't.
No, but he looks at all the data. And i believe peak deaths outside hospitals looks about 20th April.
It looks like care home residents and staff are effectively a separate cohort regardless of nationality. The numbers lag other domestic cohorts, then hit heavy and hard. This must be one aspect (of many) of any post pandemic analysis and whilst there are many trying to second guess the result of that analysis with the incomplete and uncorrelated current data, that second guess cannot hope to carry the weight of a proper analysis of correlated and substantial post event data.
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...
Yes. Why not this government?
"WHO urges countries to 'track and trace' every Covid-19 case. Advice comes day after UK decides to stop community tests and only test hospital cases." Published on Friday the 13th. Of March.
Because it was pointless at that sage with the capacity available at the time.
Yes, the management of the expansion of test capacity was absymal for months, throwing away the opportunity to retrieve the situation after a failure to plan for an epidemic. But was it pointless to make no effort to at least ramp up the tracing of contacts, so that they could be warned to isolate? And why did it take until the end of April for the Government just to announce its intention to recruit people to do just that?
No...we had the best plan for a pandemic in the world...shut down, control, track and trace.....
we just ignored it...
the problem is we didn't have a Govt that believed in the power of the state when it was required.... instead we had people who thought we needed to prioritise keeping pubs and airports open....
those few weeks have really fucked us up....now god only knows how and when we come out safely...we are so much on the back foot that our only strategy to see how other countries are doing it....
If shutting down the country every time an an epidemic broke anywhere in the world was part of the plan we would be on roughly the 7th or 8th shutdown so far this century having already locked down for SARS, MERS, Ebola and all the others. Get real.
Sorry...it was control track and trace.....and then lock down if we lost track of immunity transmission....
I don't recall any other virus getting into the UK....so were not even at control, track and trace stage....
we were rated the best prepared in the world....
[Citation Needed]
I've never seen anything that said we were meant to jump straight from track and trace to an immediate lockdown. It wouldn't even make sense, if this was less deadly then a Swedish route would make far more sense - and the jury is still out on whether we or Sweden have done the right thing, there isn't a case of one-size-fits-all.
Those figures are good but he's looking at only half the picture. By focusing only on hospital deaths, he's exaggerating the pace of decline.
From today's Observer, Page 8: "Care home owners are still warning that the sector is some way off a peak in cases, unlike the country as a whole."
If you follow him on twitter you will find he does.
Fair enough, I take your word that he does. But the trend in the graphs which I was commenting on didn't.
No, but he looks at all the data. And i believe peak deaths outside hospitals looks about 20th April.
It looks like care home residents and staff are effectively a separate cohort regardless of nationality. The numbers lag other domestic cohorts, then hit heavy and hard. This must be one aspect (of many) of any post pandemic analysis and whilst there are many trying to second guess the result of that analysis with the incomplete and uncorrelated current data, that second guess cannot hope to carry the weight of a proper analysis of correlated and substantial post event data.
One day below 100k matters not. There is only an issue is we start to see day after day next week.
How many unprocessed tests counted as tests do you think we have Francis?
What makes you think they haven't been processed yet?
Which ones?
Any of the ones you've been banging on about for days?
All you are quibbling about is a day or two either side. If the ones sent on Thursday were processed today then they should be counted in today's data by your logic but they're not being. After the first day or two this is a moot matter as it cancels out.
I havent been banging on about testing for days
Not even for Weeks.
I have been banging on about our rubbish level of testing for a couple of months and we are still miles behind all the other major players in this.
On topic, Captain Tom Moore certainly deserves an honour.
Re Lloyd’s Insurance the single best essay on this is by Julian Barnes, originally published in the New Yorker but can be found in his “Letters from London”. And there is this - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/ask-not-for-whom-the-bell-tolls/ - from yours truly.
I started cardio with a skipping rope yesterday. After only 10 minutes yesterday, I’ve got muscles sore today I didn’t even know I had. I highly recommend.
Skipping requires coordination I'm not sure I have ! I did get a rope in case the lockdown was more severe but I'm dreadful at it.
Ahem if I may...the biggest mistake people make is to let their arms drift out from their bodies thus shortening the rope and that's why it gets caught up in your feet all the time. Consciously keep your arms close to your sides and your skipping will be transformed.
It's great exercise. Best skipping song, since you asked? Hey Ya by Outkast. Keep up with that and you've arrived.
"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.
People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."
The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.
My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.
Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.
Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.
Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).
The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.
When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.
Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.
They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.
Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"
And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.
Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.
A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.
Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos
BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway
Disgusting comment.
People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.
BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.
I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!
Surely cardio is better for losing weight?
Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.
What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.
Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.
Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.
I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!
Well no, you cant exactly do 30 mins on an exercise bike then hit that bag of Haribo. Calories in vs calories out is a fundamental which you can't buck but the question was about the best form of exercise for losing weight.
As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.
Yeah, as a runner I burn an average of 3000 calories a day, it does make food choices easier
I started cardio with a skipping rope yesterday. After only 10 minutes yesterday, I’ve got muscles sore today I didn’t even know I had. I highly recommend.
Skipping requires coordination I'm not sure I have ! I did get a rope in case the lockdown was more severe but I'm dreadful at it.
Ahem if I may...the biggest mistake people make is to let their arms drift out from their bodies thus shortening the rope and that's why it gets caught up in your feet all the time. Consciously keep your arms close to your sides and your skipping will be transformed.
It's great exercise. Best skipping song, since you asked? Hey Ya by Outkast. Keep up with that and you've arrived.
I wonder if the weekend has something to do with it?
Na, not possible.
Come on, any objective analysis would now accept that we only got over the 100k for the day by including 40k postal kits that hadn't even been retuned let alone processed.
70-80,000 is actually very good given the slow start but Hancock shot himself in the foot by promising 100k by the end of the month then shot himself in the other one by fiddling the results to get to the target. The whole problem has been self-inflicted.
I started cardio with a skipping rope yesterday. After only 10 minutes yesterday, I’ve got muscles sore today I didn’t even know I had. I highly recommend.
Skipping requires coordination I'm not sure I have ! I did get a rope in case the lockdown was more severe but I'm dreadful at it.
Ahem if I may...the biggest mistake people make is to let their arms drift out from their bodies thus shortening the rope and that's why it gets caught up in your feet all the time. Consciously keep your arms close to your sides and your skipping will be transformed.
It's great exercise. Best skipping song, since you asked? Hey Ya by Outkast. Keep up with that and you've arrived.
"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.
People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."
The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.
My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.
Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.
Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.
Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).
The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.
When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.
Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.
They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.
Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"
And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.
Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.
A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.
Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos
BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway
Disgusting comment.
People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.
BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.
I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!
Surely cardio is better for losing weight?
Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.
What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.
Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.
Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.
I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!
Well no, you cant exactly do 30 mins on an exercise bike then hit that bag of Haribo. Calories in vs calories out is a fundamental which you can't buck but the question was about the best form of exercise for losing weight.
As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.
Yeah, as a runner I burn an average of 3000 calories a day, it does make food choices easier
Wow that is a lot of running isn't it?
That is based on what my running watch tells me... I run 30-40 miles a week and it tends to elevate your metabolic rate when you're not running. As well as the calorific burn, the body has to do repair and maintenance. And I try to get out for a walk on non-running days and (used to) go to the gym. But yes it provides a good cushion to eat well and have a few pints
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
Hancock Test Track & Trace strategy
TEST in the post lets count it
On TRACK to meet a political target even though its not processed
Not a TRACE of integrity
He will probably try to get away with counting them a second time when they do finally get processed. We shall have to watch the wording very carefully over the next few days!
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
Hancock Test Track & Trace strategy
TEST in the post lets count it
On TRACK to meet a political target even though its not processed
Not a TRACE of integrity
He will probably try to get away with counting them a second time when they do finally get processed. We shall have to watch the wording very carefully over the next few days!
"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.
People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."
The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.
My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.
Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.
Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.
Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).
The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.
When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.
Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.
They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.
Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"
And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.
Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.
A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.
Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos
BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway
Disgusting comment.
People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.
BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.
I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!
Surely cardio is better for losing weight?
Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.
What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.
Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.
Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.
I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!
Well no, you cant exactly do 30 mins on an exercise bike then hit that bag of Haribo. Calories in vs calories out is a fundamental which you can't buck but the question was about the best form of exercise for losing weight.
As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.
Yeah, as a runner I burn an average of 3000 calories a day, it does make food choices easier
Wow that is a lot of running isn't it?
That is based on what my running watch tells me... I run 30-40 miles a week and it tends to elevate your metabolic rate when you're not running. As well as the calorific burn, the body has to do repair and maintenance. And I try to get out for a walk on non-running days and (used to) go to the gym. But yes it provides a good cushion to eat well and have a few pints
Oh I see yes absolutely. 3,000 calories in total per day that makes sense for some reason I read it that your running burned 3,000 extra calories a day = 5-6,000 calories per day in total!
Isn't the drop in tests at the weekend going to be a long term issue because since a lot of them are posted out and Royal Mail have stopped the Saturday service and there's not a Sunday service?
One question I have regarding exercise and calories is if the calories burnt during exercise are on top of your basal metabolic rate or in place of it?
IE if over a day your base rate is burning 2400 calories per day that averages about 100 per hour over the day. If during an hour you burn say 400 calories while exercising is that 2800 calories you'd need that day (2400+400) or is it 2700 (2400+400-100)?
"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.
People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."
The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.
My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.
Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.
Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.
Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).
The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.
When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.
Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.
They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.
Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"
And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.
Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.
A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.
Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos
BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway
Disgusting comment.
People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.
BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.
I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!
Surely cardio is better for losing weight?
Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.
What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.
Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.
Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.
I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!
Well no, you cant exactly do 30 mins on an exercise bike then hit that bag of Haribo. Calories in vs calories out is a fundamental which you can't buck but the question was about the best form of exercise for losing weight.
As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.
Yeah, as a runner I burn an average of 3000 calories a day, it does make food choices easier
Wow that is a lot of running isn't it?
Depends on his weight, height and age. But yes for most people a 3000 calorie average is serious mileage, for me it'd be 40 miles a week I think - more than that for most people.
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
Hancock Test Track & Trace strategy
TEST in the post lets count it
On TRACK to meet a political target even though its not processed
Not a TRACE of integrity
He will probably try to get away with counting them a second time when they do finally get processed. We shall have to watch the wording very carefully over the next few days!
I think that is very unlikely.
I know but I'm pretty sure they would if they thought they could get away with it.
One question I have regarding exercise and calories is if the calories burnt during exercise are on top of your basal metabolic rate or in place of it?
IE if over a day your base rate is burning 2400 calories per day that averages about 100 per hour over the day. If during an hour you burn say 400 calories while exercising is that 2800 calories you'd need that day (2400+400) or is it 2700 (2400+400-100)?
Does that make sense?
You have a resting metabolic rate, on top of which you have your baseline activity level. If you then do exercise on top of your normal baseline, not instead of it, then the activity calories add to both
Edit. So if your baseline is 2100, and your normal activities add 800 over your 16 hours out of bed (50 per hour), then you do one hour at 250, I'd say you are at 2100+800-50+250
I would describe myself as "chubby". I have a belly and some excess fat in other places but I am not obese and enjoy both food and exercise. What I've struggled with recently is keeping a routine for exercise - have tried to go for a <5k run/brisk walk every weekday morning and have been doing m daily dozen push ups sit ups squats lunges before lunch. Plus out on the bike a couple of times a week doing <30k.
I need to do more. Some days its not working, some days its easy. I also need to eat less snacky goodness and lay off the pop. But when you're struggling with the "new normal" or "old depression" its not easy. I could go see the doctor and get pills. But they have other problems at the moment. And I've managed to avoid pills this long I think I can keep kicking the pill bottle down the road.
Isn't the drop in tests at the weekend going to be a long term issue because since a lot of them are posted out and Royal Mail have stopped the Saturday service and there's not a Sunday service?
No comment on that.
The statistics that ultimately matter in terms of health outcomes are deaths, or the lack of them.
The ones the government would like you to focus on instead are tests, and they've added in a bit of controversy there just to make sure you do.
Isn't the drop in tests at the weekend going to be a long term issue because since a lot of them are posted out and Royal Mail have stopped the Saturday service and there's not a Sunday service?
The original revelation on this was that they were including test kits that they had agreed to send out, but hadn't actually dropped into a post box yet, so that shouldn't be a problem.
It seems obvious that they made a big effort to hit the target which isn't yet sustainable. I wouldn't worry much unless they're failing to do enough tests by the second week of May - but I don't know how many tests they need and I don't trust them now that they've shown they're prepared to fiddle the numbers.
I would describe myself as "chubby". I have a belly and some excess fat in other places but I am not obese and enjoy both food and exercise. What I've struggled with recently is keeping a routine for exercise - have tried to go for a <5k run/brisk walk every weekday morning and have been doing m daily dozen push ups sit ups squats lunges before lunch. Plus out on the bike a couple of times a week doing <30k.
I need to do more. Some days its not working, some days its easy. I also need to eat less snacky goodness and lay off the pop. But when you're struggling with the "new normal" or "old depression" its not easy. I could go see the doctor and get pills. But they have other problems at the moment. And I've managed to avoid pills this long I think I can keep kicking the pill bottle down the road.</p>
I bought a Peloton just before the lockdown started. Best 2k I've ever spent, health wise. Someone, even if they're only on a screen, nagging you to just do a bit more exercise is excellent right now.
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan · 11m UPDATE: On medical advice, and out of an abundance of caution for a mild symptom that arose in past 48hrs, I’ve had a test for COVID-19 and so won’t be working on @GMB until I get the result back, which should be tomorrow.
Isn't the drop in tests at the weekend going to be a long term issue because since a lot of them are posted out and Royal Mail have stopped the Saturday service and there's not a Sunday service?
The original revelation on this was that they were including test kits that they had agreed to send out, but hadn't actually dropped into a post box yet, so that shouldn't be a problem.
It seems obvious that they made a big effort to hit the target which isn't yet sustainable. I wouldn't worry much unless they're failing to do enough tests by the second week of May - but I don't know how many tests they need and I don't trust them now that they've shown they're prepared to fiddle the numbers.
Except that it was confirmed that original revelation wasn't true. They were counted only if they had actually been sent out - and they were sent out via a same day courier.
Incidentally it shows how much Amazon has leapfrogged the Royal Mail in logistics that they are the preferred courier.
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan · 11m UPDATE: On medical advice, and out of an abundance of caution for a mild symptom that arose in past 48hrs, I’ve had a test for COVID-19 and so won’t be working on @GMB until I get the result back, which should be tomorrow.
"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.
People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."
The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.
My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.
Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.
Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.
Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).
The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.
When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.
Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.
They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.
Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"
And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.
Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.
A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.
Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos
BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway
Disgusting comment.
People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.
BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.
I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!
Surely cardio is better for losing weight?
Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.
What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.
Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.
Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.
I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!
Well no, you cant exactly do 30 mins on an exercise bike then hit that bag of Haribo. Calories in vs calories out is a fundamental which you can't buck but the question was about the best form of exercise for losing weight.
As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.
Yeah, as a runner I burn an average of 3000 calories a day, it does make food choices easier
Wow that is a lot of running isn't it?
That is based on what my running watch tells me... I run 30-40 miles a week and it tends to elevate your metabolic rate when you're not running. As well as the calorific burn, the body has to do repair and maintenance. And I try to get out for a walk on non-running days and (used to) go to the gym. But yes it provides a good cushion to eat well and have a few pints
During the 2015 GE our kitchen was being rebuilt and I was spending all day canvassing/delivering - 15-20m a day walking. Fry up at the local cafe, no lunch, then fish and chips or an indian. With a few beers. Still lost half a stone in two weeks.
I would describe myself as "chubby". I have a belly and some excess fat in other places but I am not obese and enjoy both food and exercise. What I've struggled with recently is keeping a routine for exercise - have tried to go for a <5k run/brisk walk every weekday morning and have been doing m daily dozen push ups sit ups squats lunges before lunch. Plus out on the bike a couple of times a week doing <30k.
I need to do more. Some days its not working, some days its easy. I also need to eat less snacky goodness and lay off the pop. But when you're struggling with the "new normal" or "old depression" its not easy. I could go see the doctor and get pills. But they have other problems at the moment. And I've managed to avoid pills this long I think I can keep kicking the pill bottle down the road.</p>
I bought a Peloton just before the lockdown started. Best 2k I've ever spent, health wise. Someone, even if they're only on a screen, nagging you to just do a bit more exercise is excellent right now.
Thats why I like the gym. There are Other People. I don't know who they are but there's always that bit of eyeball to eyeball when tired that makes you do more. So a 5k run then onto the rower or the bike or the bloody stair climbing machine. Followed by the hydro pool or steam room if something is aching.
FPT @ TSE "(He doesn't expect a vaccine and but expects lots of new mutations of Covid-19.)"
On what basis and with what expertise does he predict no vaccine and lots of mutations? Or is this just more uninformed fearmongering?
There is plenty of justified fear without adding baseless stuff to it.
His speciality finance/banking area is the medicine/pharma sector.
It is based on talks with those who work in the sector.
You know the vaccine trial protocols, there's a fear that if we do get a vaccine we rush it out and there's complications down the line.
He's also basing it on disreputable leaders running key countries in this pandemic, the worry that China won't give us the full details lest it damages China.
Trump is working on what's best for him and his electoral chances which is an awful place for us all to be in.
The science so far seems pretty clear that the N protein is very stable and that there have so far been no mutations seen to the S protein and the binding domain. So the consensus seems to be that the mutation rate is low.
The Oxford vaccine is based on a well-characterized adenovirus backbone, known to be safe in relative terms, and has worked well in monkeys. That is no guarantee that it will work in humans, but is very promising. There are tens of other vaccine programmes underway around the world.
You'd have to be extremely pessimistic, given what is know about the virus' proteins, to believe that the global scientific community will fail at all 3 of vaccine, antivirals, and treatments. China does have a role to play in this, given the size of their scientific community and their prowess in genomics, but the world is no longer reliant on them for data or samples.
There’s also dendritic cell vaccines in development. Sure they have disadvantages but efficacy isn’t one of them
I would describe myself as "chubby". I have a belly and some excess fat in other places but I am not obese and enjoy both food and exercise. What I've struggled with recently is keeping a routine for exercise - have tried to go for a <5k run/brisk walk every weekday morning and have been doing m daily dozen push ups sit ups squats lunges before lunch. Plus out on the bike a couple of times a week doing <30k.
I need to do more. Some days its not working, some days its easy. I also need to eat less snacky goodness and lay off the pop. But when you're struggling with the "new normal" or "old depression" its not easy. I could go see the doctor and get pills. But they have other problems at the moment. And I've managed to avoid pills this long I think I can keep kicking the pill bottle down the road.</p>
I bought a Peloton just before the lockdown started. Best 2k I've ever spent, health wise. Someone, even if they're only on a screen, nagging you to just do a bit more exercise is excellent right now.
Thats why I like the gym. There are Other People. I don't know who they are but there's always that bit of eyeball to eyeball when tired that makes you do more. So a 5k run then onto the rower or the bike or the bloody stair climbing machine. Followed by the hydro pool or steam room if something is aching.
I miss the gym.
I found it so much of a faff - 15 minutes to get there, 5 minutes to get changed, 45 minute workout, then a 5 minute shower, 5 minute to get changed, 15 minutes back. So 45m faff for a 45 minute working.
With the peloton there is no travel, no faff, and I'm still motivated.
Have gone from doing 20m classes to 45m classes in a month. I feel so much fitter. BMI says I'm not overweight, but I'm a stone heavier than when I left Uni 12 years ago, and I feel it.
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.
"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.
People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."
The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.
My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.
Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.
Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.
Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).
The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.
When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.
Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.
They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.
Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"
And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.
Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.
A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.
Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos
BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway
Disgusting comment.
People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.
BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.
I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!
Surely cardio is better for losing weight?
Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.
What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.
Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.
Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.
I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!
Well no, you cant exactly do 30 mins on an exercise bike then hit that bag of Haribo. Calories in vs calories out is a fundamental which you can't buck but the question was about the best form of exercise for losing weight.
As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.
Yeah, as a runner I burn an average of 3000 calories a day, it does make food choices easier
Wow that is a lot of running isn't it?
That is based on what my running watch tells me... I run 30-40 miles a week and it tends to elevate your metabolic rate when you're not running. As well as the calorific burn, the body has to do repair and maintenance. And I try to get out for a walk on non-running days and (used to) go to the gym. But yes it provides a good cushion to eat well and have a few pints
During the 2015 GE our kitchen was being rebuilt and I was spending all day canvassing/delivering - 15-20m a day walking. Fry up at the local cafe, no lunch, then fish and chips or an indian. With a few beers. Still lost half a stone in two weeks.
15-20m would be the length of some garden paths. Do you mean km?
One question I have regarding exercise and calories is if the calories burnt during exercise are on top of your basal metabolic rate or in place of it?
IE if over a day your base rate is burning 2400 calories per day that averages about 100 per hour over the day. If during an hour you burn say 400 calories while exercising is that 2800 calories you'd need that day (2400+400) or is it 2700 (2400+400-100)?
Does that make sense?
You have a resting metabolic rate, on top of which you have your baseline activity level. If you then do exercise on top of your normal baseline, not instead of it, then the activity calories add to both
Edit. So if your baseline is 2100, and your normal activities add 800 over your 16 hours out of bed (50 per hour), then you do one hour at 250, I'd say you are at 2100+800-50+250
So the activity calories are gross not net then?
I'm guessing int hat example your net baseline is 2900 - and then then your 250 calories nets out at a 200 calorie difference (250-50). Shows even more how little exercise makes up for a bad diet - if you eat a Mars Bar containing 230 calories you can't run until you've burnt 230 calories as some of those calories your treadmill/watch says you've burnt are your basal ones you'd have burnt even sitting on the couch right?
"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.
People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."
The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.
My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.
Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.
Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.
Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).
The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.
When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.
Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.
They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.
Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"
And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.
Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.
A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.
Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos
BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway
Disgusting comment.
People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.
BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.
I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!
Surely cardio is better for losing weight?
Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.
What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.
Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.
Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.
I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!
Well no, you cant exactly do 30 mins on an exercise bike then hit that bag of Haribo. Calories in vs calories out is a fundamental which you can't buck but the question was about the best form of exercise for losing weight.
As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.
Yeah, as a runner I burn an average of 3000 calories a day, it does make food choices easier
Wow that is a lot of running isn't it?
That is based on what my running watch tells me... I run 30-40 miles a week and it tends to elevate your metabolic rate when you're not running. As well as the calorific burn, the body has to do repair and maintenance. And I try to get out for a walk on non-running days and (used to) go to the gym. But yes it provides a good cushion to eat well and have a few pints
During the 2015 GE our kitchen was being rebuilt and I was spending all day canvassing/delivering - 15-20m a day walking. Fry up at the local cafe, no lunch, then fish and chips or an indian. With a few beers. Still lost half a stone in two weeks.
15-20m would be the length of some garden paths. Do you mean km?
You teachers and your metric system. I assume they mean miles!
"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.
People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."
The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.
My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.
Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.
Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.
Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).
The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.
When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.
Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.
They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.
Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"
And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.
Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.
A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.
Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos
BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway
Disgusting comment.
People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.
BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.
I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!
Surely cardio is better for losing weight?
Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.
What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.
Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.
Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.
I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!
Well no, you cant exactly do 30 mins on an exercise bike then hit that bag of Haribo. Calories in vs calories out is a fundamental which you can't buck but the question was about the best form of exercise for losing weight.
As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.
Yeah, as a runner I burn an average of 3000 calories a day, it does make food choices easier
Wow that is a lot of running isn't it?
That is based on what my running watch tells me... I run 30-40 miles a week and it tends to elevate your metabolic rate when you're not running. As well as the calorific burn, the body has to do repair and maintenance. And I try to get out for a walk on non-running days and (used to) go to the gym. But yes it provides a good cushion to eat well and have a few pints
During the 2015 GE our kitchen was being rebuilt and I was spending all day canvassing/delivering - 15-20m a day walking. Fry up at the local cafe, no lunch, then fish and chips or an indian. With a few beers. Still lost half a stone in two weeks.
15-20m would be the length of some garden paths. Do you mean km?
"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.
People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."
The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.
My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.
Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.
Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.
Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).
The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.
When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.
Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.
They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.
Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"
And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.
Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.
A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.
Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos
BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway
Disgusting comment.
People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.
BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.
I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!
Surely cardio is better for losing weight?
Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.
What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.
Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.
Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.
I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!
Well no, you cant exactly do 30 mins on an exercise bike then hit that bag of Haribo. Calories in vs calories out is a fundamental which you can't buck but the question was about the best form of exercise for losing weight.
As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.
Yeah, as a runner I burn an average of 3000 calories a day, it does make food choices easier
Wow that is a lot of running isn't it?
That is based on what my running watch tells me... I run 30-40 miles a week and it tends to elevate your metabolic rate when you're not running. As well as the calorific burn, the body has to do repair and maintenance. And I try to get out for a walk on non-running days and (used to) go to the gym. But yes it provides a good cushion to eat well and have a few pints
During the 2015 GE our kitchen was being rebuilt and I was spending all day canvassing/delivering - 15-20m a day walking. Fry up at the local cafe, no lunch, then fish and chips or an indian. With a few beers. Still lost half a stone in two weeks.
15-20m would be the length of some garden paths. Do you mean km?
You teachers and your metric system. I assume they mean miles!
So have I been seriously underestimating the social distancing requirements of 2m then?
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan · 11m UPDATE: On medical advice, and out of an abundance of caution for a mild symptom that arose in past 48hrs, I’ve had a test for COVID-19 and so won’t be working on @GMB until I get the result back, which should be tomorrow.
Hot, sweaty and shortage of breath....i reckon if his outbursts on GMB are anything to go by, it has more to do with the state of constant outrage he is in.
"Pregnant women, people over the age of 70 and those with certain health conditions should consider the advice "particularly important", he (the PM) said.
People in at-risk groups will be asked within days to stay home for 12 weeks."
The natural assumption was that at risk groups were the above categories, yet those groups were defined differently but only by the following week.
My parents think they need to shelter for 12 weeks, presumably on that basis, and clearly they werent alone in that misunderstanding.
Those are two separate sentences, and classes of people.
Yes I can see that now, but specifying the first group one week before specifying the second group has clearly caused mass confusion, hence the Sunday Times article.
Little harm done by it as everyone is on lockdown now, but poor communication in explaining this from the govt (it has generally been good imo).
The formatting of a BBC article is hardly the fault of the government, the same with a times article. The advice is clearly stated on HMGs website. Those who needed the specific advice to stay at home for 12 weeks were each informed individually by letter.
When the formal advice came it was different to what had been trailed the week before. Fewer people were told to shield. However this change was not pointed out explicitly, so people who had paid more attention to the first announcement will have assumed that the initial criteria applied.
Wasn't the advice always that the most vulnerable would be the ones asked to shelter? I don't think they ever lumped all over-70s into that category.
They did include all over 70s in the pre announcement, but this changed by the time it was implemented.
Yes, I was worried it might apply to everyone who gets a flu jab on medical grounds, but for that group it became "follow social distancing especially stringently"
And the ridiculousness of basing it on influenza when we have seen how utterly different it is in its effect is still not being addressed. The lists have become a joke, bearing no real connection to the reality of this virus.
Research is being done, for example the growing realisation that pre-diabetics and the overweight (even people with a BMI as low as 30) can be at risk. A BMI of 40 and you're brown bread. In my case I'm hoping a cardiology appointment can give me an all-clear although how long it will take to organise one I don't know. I could probably afford to pay for a private consultation, but not for an angiogram if one is called for.
A BMI of 30 is the threshold at which "normal" folk (i.e. most people, except for muscular athletes for whom BMI is a very poor measure) transition from being merely overweight to obese. So 30 is not a low value; it's simply that the average person in the UK is now overweight, so it may not seem as excessive as it actually is. 40 is very obese and, based on my limited layman's knowledge, I would've thought there would be a good argument for getting anyone in that category to shield.
Or let Darwin do his work with the fatsos
BMI of 40 is ridiculous. This person does not want to live anyway
Disgusting comment.
People can be overweight not because of not wanting to live, but simply due to enjoying life a bit too much. Enjoying food too much.
BMI 40 may not be good for you, but that equates to about 18 stone for the average man - a lot and an unhealthy amount sure but not absurdly overweight to the point of can't live.
I am seriously overweight and it is all down to alcohol and eating. I have enjoyed getting to where I am immensely. That said, I am also doing 65 press ups and sit ups every other day, as well as 75 squats and lounges. It is a horrific way to spend 20 minutes, but I think it helps!
Surely cardio is better for losing weight?
Its a mix, resistance training of any kind (body weight, weights, or bands or whatever don't matter) is just as important because they help maintain muscle mass which is very important for helping the body burn calories especially as people get older.
What may be considered standard cardio works because its burning calories but needs to be graded with increased work to keep knocking the fat off. That intensity can be seen in two ways, length of work and/or intensity. The problem with that after a while is doesn't help the muscle mass.
Both combined are better than a focus on one. The problem with exercise is so much of if is about 'the shortcut', every form claims its better calorie burning in a shorter time of effort. To keep it simple just mixing things up and doing whatever it is to sufficient intensity (i.e. you got to have pushed it a a bit, whatever your fitness) is the basic rule to work by.
Reducing calorie intake is the way to lose weight. Exercise has a host of benefits, but isn't the primary route to shedding pounds.
I've lost half a stone since going into lockdown. Primarily due to less snacking, particularly chocolate. And no Greggs!
Well no, you cant exactly do 30 mins on an exercise bike then hit that bag of Haribo. Calories in vs calories out is a fundamental which you can't buck but the question was about the best form of exercise for losing weight.
As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.
Yeah, as a runner I burn an average of 3000 calories a day, it does make food choices easier
Wow that is a lot of running isn't it?
That is based on what my running watch tells me... I run 30-40 miles a week and it tends to elevate your metabolic rate when you're not running. As well as the calorific burn, the body has to do repair and maintenance. And I try to get out for a walk on non-running days and (used to) go to the gym. But yes it provides a good cushion to eat well and have a few pints
During the 2015 GE our kitchen was being rebuilt and I was spending all day canvassing/delivering - 15-20m a day walking. Fry up at the local cafe, no lunch, then fish and chips or an indian. With a few beers. Still lost half a stone in two weeks.
15-20m would be the length of some garden paths. Do you mean km?
You teachers and your metric system. I assume they mean miles!
So have I been seriously underestimating the social distancing requirements of 2m then?
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan · 11m UPDATE: On medical advice, and out of an abundance of caution for a mild symptom that arose in past 48hrs, I’ve had a test for COVID-19 and so won’t be working on @GMB until I get the result back, which should be tomorrow.
One question I have regarding exercise and calories is if the calories burnt during exercise are on top of your basal metabolic rate or in place of it?
IE if over a day your base rate is burning 2400 calories per day that averages about 100 per hour over the day. If during an hour you burn say 400 calories while exercising is that 2800 calories you'd need that day (2400+400) or is it 2700 (2400+400-100)?
Does that make sense?
It depends how you count it. I think the 100 kcal/mile generally quoted for running is actually about 30 bmr and 70 extra. But then you continue to burn them afterwards during the recovery and repair phase. Gym machines might do either calculation
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan · 11m UPDATE: On medical advice, and out of an abundance of caution for a mild symptom that arose in past 48hrs, I’ve had a test for COVID-19 and so won’t be working on @GMB until I get the result back, which should be tomorrow.
No rush, Piers....
He fills a useful niche, I suspect. He is Piers Morgan so none of us have to be.
I don't really see what this is intended to accomplish. Scientific views will not be unanimous, and political responses to any advice will not be unanimous, and we already know there are plenty of people, scientific and otherwise, who take different views from both the government and its advisers, here and in other countries, some of who have taken different measures. How does a 'rival' committee produce any further clarity of approach, or additional weight that should be given to a particular view?
They are going to livestream that they disagree with the current position. Did we not know people, including eminent people, disagree?
During the 2015 GE our kitchen was being rebuilt and I was spending all day canvassing/delivering - 15-20m a day walking. Fry up at the local cafe, no lunch, then fish and chips or an indian. With a few beers. Still lost half a stone in two weeks.
No idea how many miles I walked around Torbay in 2015. So much of it is steps. Nothing worse than walking 80 steps up to house to find it had a LibDem triangle in their porch!
I did calculate one day that I'd done the same number of steps as walking up and down the Empire State building - and back up!
I think the people in this country have had enough of experts with organisations from acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan · 11m UPDATE: On medical advice, and out of an abundance of caution for a mild symptom that arose in past 48hrs, I’ve had a test for COVID-19 and so won’t be working on @GMB until I get the result back, which should be tomorrow.
No rush, Piers....
He fills a useful niche, I suspect. He is Piers Morgan so none of us have to be.
I don't really see what this is intended to accomplish. Scientific views will not be unanimous, and political responses to any advice will not be unanimous, and we already know there are plenty of people, scientific and otherwise, who take different views from both the government and its advisers, here and in other countries, some of who have taken different measures. How does a 'rival' committee produce any further clarity of approach, or additional weight that should be given to a particular view?
They are going to livestream that they disagree with the current position. Did we not know people, including eminent people, disagree?
I think their grand plan is that they'll be more believable by showing their workings to the public and having no Dominic Cummings about.
One question I have regarding exercise and calories is if the calories burnt during exercise are on top of your basal metabolic rate or in place of it?
IE if over a day your base rate is burning 2400 calories per day that averages about 100 per hour over the day. If during an hour you burn say 400 calories while exercising is that 2800 calories you'd need that day (2400+400) or is it 2700 (2400+400-100)?
Does that make sense?
You have a resting metabolic rate, on top of which you have your baseline activity level. If you then do exercise on top of your normal baseline, not instead of it, then the activity calories add to both
Edit. So if your baseline is 2100, and your normal activities add 800 over your 16 hours out of bed (50 per hour), then you do one hour at 250, I'd say you are at 2100+800-50+250
So the activity calories are gross not net then?
I'm guessing int hat example your net baseline is 2900 - and then then your 250 calories nets out at a 200 calorie difference (250-50). Shows even more how little exercise makes up for a bad diet - if you eat a Mars Bar containing 230 calories you can't run until you've burnt 230 calories as some of those calories your treadmill/watch says you've burnt are your basal ones you'd have burnt even sitting on the couch right?
Not quite but almost. The resting metabolic rate is what your body does to survive - repair cell damage, feed cells, keep the brain going, digest food and the like. It is what you would burn regardless of your activity level, i.e. sitting on the couch. It is increased by anaerobic activity, and decreased by dieting without exercise.
So for your Mars bar example, you don't have to pro rate and subtract any of your resting metabolic rate from the calculation. What you net out is the average of your activity-related calorie burn only, not any of the resting metabolism.
During the 2015 GE our kitchen was being rebuilt and I was spending all day canvassing/delivering - 15-20m a day walking. Fry up at the local cafe, no lunch, then fish and chips or an indian. With a few beers. Still lost half a stone in two weeks.
No idea how many miles I walked around Torbay in 2015. So much of it is steps. Nothing worse than walking 80 steps up to house to find it had a LibDem triangle in their porch!
I did calculate one day that I'd done the same number of steps as walking up and down the Empire State building - and back up!
The worst day was eve of poll - walked 27m and then realised I'd missed the bus home. Another 3m before a takeaway pizza.
But it was well worth it when the results came in....
I think the people in this country have had enough of experts with organisations from acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.
Yes, very amusing, but what about a 'rival SAGE Committee' helps? Pretty sure experts have given their views on these matters before.
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan · 11m UPDATE: On medical advice, and out of an abundance of caution for a mild symptom that arose in past 48hrs, I’ve had a test for COVID-19 and so won’t be working on @GMB until I get the result back, which should be tomorrow.
No rush, Piers....
He fills a useful niche, I suspect. He is Piers Morgan so none of us have to be.
I don't really see what this is intended to accomplish. Scientific views will not be unanimous, and political responses to any advice will not be unanimous, and we already know there are plenty of people, scientific and otherwise, who take different views from both the government and its advisers, here and in other countries, some of who have taken different measures. How does a 'rival' committee produce any further clarity of approach, or additional weight that should be given to a particular view?
They are going to livestream that they disagree with the current position. Did we not know people, including eminent people, disagree?
I think their grand plan is that they'll be more believable by showing their workings to the public and having no Dominic Cummings about.
Yet without all the data...its not how peer review works in science.
I think the people in this country have had enough of experts with organisations from acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.
Yes, very amusing, but what about a 'rival SAGE Committee' helps? Pretty sure experts have given their views on these matters before.
They can say well look at the numbers, our absolute death numbers are really bad. Ditto compare our cumulative number of tests to say Germany who are really good at this.
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan · 11m UPDATE: On medical advice, and out of an abundance of caution for a mild symptom that arose in past 48hrs, I’ve had a test for COVID-19 and so won’t be working on @GMB until I get the result back, which should be tomorrow.
No rush, Piers....
He fills a useful niche, I suspect. He is Piers Morgan so none of us have to be.
I don't really see what this is intended to accomplish. Scientific views will not be unanimous, and political responses to any advice will not be unanimous, and we already know there are plenty of people, scientific and otherwise, who take different views from both the government and its advisers, here and in other countries, some of who have taken different measures. How does a 'rival' committee produce any further clarity of approach, or additional weight that should be given to a particular view?
They are going to livestream that they disagree with the current position. Did we not know people, including eminent people, disagree?
I think their grand plan is that they'll be more believable by showing their workings to the public and having no Dominic Cummings about.
A stunt, then. Stunts can be effective. But someone wetting the bed because Dominic Cummings said something would find something else to wet themselves about. And you'd think live streaming meetings would make people stop calling out things as not being open and transparent, but I can say from experience it really doesn't. If people don't like the decision, or the decision makers, they the medium of transmission be it live steam, minutes or leaked anonymous comment to a journalist, does not make a huge difference.
Hopefully they will add some value to things. But is that even the motivation.
Piers Morgan @piersmorgan · 11m UPDATE: On medical advice, and out of an abundance of caution for a mild symptom that arose in past 48hrs, I’ve had a test for COVID-19 and so won’t be working on @GMB until I get the result back, which should be tomorrow.
No rush, Piers....
He fills a useful niche, I suspect. He is Piers Morgan so none of us have to be.
I don't really see what this is intended to accomplish. Scientific views will not be unanimous, and political responses to any advice will not be unanimous, and we already know there are plenty of people, scientific and otherwise, who take different views from both the government and its advisers, here and in other countries, some of who have taken different measures. How does a 'rival' committee produce any further clarity of approach, or additional weight that should be given to a particular view?
They are going to livestream that they disagree with the current position. Did we not know people, including eminent people, disagree?
I think their grand plan is that they'll be more believable by showing their workings to the public and having no Dominic Cummings about.
Yet without all the data...its not how peer review works in science.
To quote Zack from The Big Bang Theory
'That’s what I love about science, there’s no one right answer.'
Re basal metabolic rate: for a few years it was on the GCSE Physics syllabus. I used to tell my students that the resting rate was for just sitting there not doing anything, not even digesting food. Sitting watching TV produces a LOWER rate...
I think the people in this country have had enough of experts with organisations from acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.
Yes, very amusing, but what about a 'rival SAGE Committee' helps? Pretty sure experts have given their views on these matters before.
They can say well look at the numbers, our absolute death numbers are really bad. Ditto compare our cumulative number of tests to say Germany who are really good at this.
Not an answer to the question. People, including scientists, have already said that. Why say it again in this form? What about it is more effective in getting out their message, without confusing matters?
I think the people in this country have had enough of experts with organisations from acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong.
Yes, very amusing, but what about a 'rival SAGE Committee' helps? Pretty sure experts have given their views on these matters before.
They can say well look at the numbers, our absolute death numbers are really bad. Ditto compare our cumulative number of tests to say Germany who are really good at this.
Not an answer to the question. People, including scientists, have already said that. Why say it again in this form? What about it is more effective in getting out their message, without confusing matters?
Nothing about a rival SAGE committee helps.
I'm just trying to explain why it is happening, you make a big thing about experts who get it wrong and this is what happens.
We've heard this in South Africa, Germany, Ireland and elsewhere. "Positive meetings" mean nothing if the Government advice actively excludes it happening quickly.
One thing is for certain the media will hang on every word this rival lot say. They will be the word of god, especially if they disagree with the government scentists.
Its turns it into politics, and the whole point of Witty and Vallance is to take politics out of it.
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?
We've heard this in South Africa, Germany, Ireland and elsewhere. "Positive meetings" mean nothing if the Government advice actively excludes it happening quickly.
I've come to the acceptance the sports I really love*, cricket and football will not have fans there until we have a vaccine.
*I love rugby union and F1 but I don't go to those that often.
I think F1 and sports that involve lots of international travel are buggered .
FPT @ TSE "(He doesn't expect a vaccine and but expects lots of new mutations of Covid-19.)"
On what basis and with what expertise does he predict no vaccine and lots of mutations? Or is this just more uninformed fearmongering?
There is plenty of justified fear without adding baseless stuff to it.
His speciality finance/banking area is the medicine/pharma sector.
It is based on talks with those who work in the sector.
You know the vaccine trial protocols, there's a fear that if we do get a vaccine we rush it out and there's complications down the line.
He's also basing it on disreputable leaders running key countries in this pandemic, the worry that China won't give us the full details lest it damages China.
Trump is working on what's best for him and his electoral chances which is an awful place for us all to be in.
The science so far seems pretty clear that the N protein is very stable and that there have so far been no mutations seen to the S protein and the binding domain. So the consensus seems to be that the mutation rate is low.
The Oxford vaccine is based on a well-characterized adenovirus backbone, known to be safe in relative terms, and has worked well in monkeys. That is no guarantee that it will work in humans, but is very promising. There are tens of other vaccine programmes underway around the world.
You'd have to be extremely pessimistic, given what is know about the virus' proteins, to believe that the global scientific community will fail at all 3 of vaccine, antivirals, and treatments. China does have a role to play in this, given the size of their scientific community and their prowess in genomics, but the world is no longer reliant on them for data or samples.
There’s also dendritic cell vaccines in development. Sure they have disadvantages but efficacy isn’t one of them
This draft paper lists 78 separate vaccine efforts across 19 different countries using 9 different technological approaches to find a vaccine. It is dated 10 April, and it is a measure of how fast things are moving that it feels dated.
"Being fat triggers a 'troublesome' immune response to Covid-19, scientists fear as government SAGE committee investigates why obesity raises the risk of death
Scientists advising Government ministers are exploring the link with obesity Obesity raises the risk of dying from coronavirus by nearly 40%, NHS data shows Scientists have warned of a potential dysfunctional immune system Fat cells may harbour vital immune cells reducing availability"
FPT @ TSE "(He doesn't expect a vaccine and but expects lots of new mutations of Covid-19.)"
On what basis and with what expertise does he predict no vaccine and lots of mutations? Or is this just more uninformed fearmongering?
There is plenty of justified fear without adding baseless stuff to it.
His speciality finance/banking area is the medicine/pharma sector.
It is based on talks with those who work in the sector.
You know the vaccine trial protocols, there's a fear that if we do get a vaccine we rush it out and there's complications down the line.
He's also basing it on disreputable leaders running key countries in this pandemic, the worry that China won't give us the full details lest it damages China.
Trump is working on what's best for him and his electoral chances which is an awful place for us all to be in.
The science so far seems pretty clear that the N protein is very stable and that there have so far been no mutations seen to the S protein and the binding domain. So the consensus seems to be that the mutation rate is low.
The Oxford vaccine is based on a well-characterized adenovirus backbone, known to be safe in relative terms, and has worked well in monkeys. That is no guarantee that it will work in humans, but is very promising. There are tens of other vaccine programmes underway around the world.
You'd have to be extremely pessimistic, given what is know about the virus' proteins, to believe that the global scientific community will fail at all 3 of vaccine, antivirals, and treatments. China does have a role to play in this, given the size of their scientific community and their prowess in genomics, but the world is no longer reliant on them for data or samples.
There’s also dendritic cell vaccines in development. Sure they have disadvantages but efficacy isn’t one of them
This draft paper lists 78 separate vaccine efforts across 19 different countries using 9 different technological approaches to find a vaccine. It is dated 10 April, and it is a measure of how fast things are moving that it feels dated.
Comments
Anyone who says "man up" at this point is an idiot. There are plenty of scientific studies into this.
All you are quibbling about is a day or two either side. If the ones sent on Thursday were processed today then they should be counted in today's data by your logic but they're not being. After the first day or two this is a moot matter as it cancels out.
You really cant see how moving away from processed tests makes it more difficult?
Its not really worth us continuing to debate this
What are the arguments in favour of a return - save the sandwich shops?
As someone who is fortunate to consume between 3200-3500 calories a day but due to aspects of my job and my training can get away with it, I'm also very aware of how easy it is for people to get caught up in whats best exercise when sometimes its just better to start.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/09/ibm_workfromhome_cull_companywide/
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/11/when-working-from-home-doesnt-work/540660/
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882882/2020-05-03_COVID-19_Press_Conference_Data__5_.xlsx
it is in there, I can get a graph but from a non-gov.uk website
EDIT - think I misread, only got the total hospital patients data there.
I don't recall any other virus getting into the UK....so were not even at control, track and trace stage....
we were rated the best prepared in the world....
For @SandyRentool , https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/, shows the number of positive tests by date of sample being taken (not quite hospital admissions as it seems to include NHS staff where sampling was done in a hospital). The positive news is that the positive tests by date of sample collection is declining steadily week-on-week, so will likely fall to under 2,000 per day and perhaps nearer 1,000 by the end of the week.
I wonder of there are PL Omaha HiLo games these days.
I did get a rope in case the lockdown was more severe but I'm dreadful at it.
I've never seen anything that said we were meant to jump straight from track and trace to an immediate lockdown. It wouldn't even make sense, if this was less deadly then a Swedish route would make far more sense - and the jury is still out on whether we or Sweden have done the right thing, there isn't a case of one-size-fits-all.
Not even for Weeks.
I have been banging on about our rubbish level of testing for a couple of months and we are still miles behind all the other major players in this.
Re Lloyd’s Insurance the single best essay on this is by Julian Barnes, originally published in the New Yorker but can be found in his “Letters from London”. And there is this - https://barry-walsh.co.uk/ask-not-for-whom-the-bell-tolls/ - from yours truly.
The Barnes essay is here - https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1993/09/20/the-deficit-millionaires.
It's great exercise. Best skipping song, since you asked? Hey Ya by Outkast. Keep up with that and you've arrived.
Still no intention to get a rope though!
70-80,000 is actually very good given the slow start but Hancock shot himself in the foot by promising 100k by the end of the month then shot himself in the other one by fiddling the results to get to the target. The whole problem has been self-inflicted.
IE if over a day your base rate is burning 2400 calories per day that averages about 100 per hour over the day. If during an hour you burn say 400 calories while exercising is that 2800 calories you'd need that day (2400+400) or is it 2700 (2400+400-100)?
Does that make sense?
Edit. So if your baseline is 2100, and your normal activities add 800 over your 16 hours out of bed (50 per hour), then you do one hour at 250, I'd say you are at 2100+800-50+250
I need to do more. Some days its not working, some days its easy. I also need to eat less snacky goodness and lay off the pop. But when you're struggling with the "new normal" or "old depression" its not easy. I could go see the doctor and get pills. But they have other problems at the moment. And I've managed to avoid pills this long I think I can keep kicking the pill bottle down the road.
The statistics that ultimately matter in terms of health outcomes are deaths, or the lack of them.
The ones the government would like you to focus on instead are tests, and they've added in a bit of controversy there just to make sure you do.
It seems obvious that they made a big effort to hit the target which isn't yet sustainable. I wouldn't worry much unless they're failing to do enough tests by the second week of May - but I don't know how many tests they need and I don't trust them now that they've shown they're prepared to fiddle the numbers.
Piers Morgan
@piersmorgan
· 11m
UPDATE: On medical advice, and out of an abundance of caution for a mild symptom that arose in past 48hrs, I’ve had a test for COVID-19 and so won’t be working on @GMB until I get the result back, which should be tomorrow.
Incidentally it shows how much Amazon has leapfrogged the Royal Mail in logistics that they are the preferred courier.
I miss the gym.
With the peloton there is no travel, no faff, and I'm still motivated.
Have gone from doing 20m classes to 45m classes in a month. I feel so much fitter. BMI says I'm not overweight, but I'm a stone heavier than when I left Uni 12 years ago, and I feel it.
I'm guessing int hat example your net baseline is 2900 - and then then your 250 calories nets out at a 200 calorie difference (250-50). Shows even more how little exercise makes up for a bad diet - if you eat a Mars Bar containing 230 calories you can't run until you've burnt 230 calories as some of those calories your treadmill/watch says you've burnt are your basal ones you'd have burnt even sitting on the couch right?
They are going to livestream that they disagree with the current position. Did we not know people, including eminent people, disagree?
I did calculate one day that I'd done the same number of steps as walking up and down the Empire State building - and back up!
What happens if they start recommending lifting the lockdown, and the public hear SAGE, lockdown lifted....
So for your Mars bar example, you don't have to pro rate and subtract any of your resting metabolic rate from the calculation. What you net out is the average of your activity-related calorie burn only, not any of the resting metabolism.
But it was well worth it when the results came in....
Anyone who dies from listening to their 'advice' will result in murder charges for them.
Hopefully they will add some value to things. But is that even the motivation.
'That’s what I love about science, there’s no one right answer.'
I'm just trying to explain why it is happening, you make a big thing about experts who get it wrong and this is what happens.
https://www.racingpost.com/news/coronavirus/racing-working-towards-may-15-resumption-date-following-positive-meetings/433013
We've heard this in South Africa, Germany, Ireland and elsewhere. "Positive meetings" mean nothing if the Government advice actively excludes it happening quickly.
Its turns it into politics, and the whole point of Witty and Vallance is to take politics out of it.
How do I embed twitter? confused...
*I love rugby union and F1 but I don't go to those that often.
I think F1 and sports that involve lots of international travel are buggered .
Dug up as a book of gold in New England
https://ravikollimd.com/resources/COVID/The COVID-19 vaccine development landscape.pdf
Scientists advising Government ministers are exploring the link with obesity
Obesity raises the risk of dying from coronavirus by nearly 40%, NHS data shows
Scientists have warned of a potential dysfunctional immune system
Fat cells may harbour vital immune cells reducing availability"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8281831/Being-fat-triggers-troublesome-immune-response-Covid-19-scientists-fear-SAGE-investigates.html
Then just paste the link.
SkyBet used to have PL Omaha HiLo tables, although I don't think they were ever as popular as HoldEm, and I haven't been round that way in a while.