Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » As we head into August the impact on holidays becomes the big

1235711

Comments

  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808

    MattW said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.

    She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
    Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).

    But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.

    And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
    Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.

    Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
    It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
    Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.

    Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.

    Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
    100 calories is 100 calories is 100 calories. Whether from broccoli or mint-choc chip ice cream.

    And no one is saying only pay attention to your main meals.

    We are saying your daily calorie intake (including celery at lunch and chocolate biscuits at 3pm) relates to your daily calorie expenditure in that if you intake more than you expend you will put on weight and if you intake less than you expend you will lose weight.
    Yes 100 calories is 100 calories. That's your input.

    But your output is not fixed. If your calories are carbs then your body can process them very easily so you will burn less. If your diet is low-carb then your body works harder to process fats etc so burns more calories.

    According to this research the difference can amount to 250 kcal per day which is a very, very substantial difference: https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20181114/low-carb-diets-may-work-by-boosting-calorie-burn#1
    Your 100 calories can come with or without the other nutrients you need.
    I think it is rabbit where you could eat as much as you ever could - but still die because it lacks basic nutrients.
    I thought it was lettuce, and the rabbit eating it :-)
  • fox327fox327 Posts: 327
    DavidL said:

    Carnyx said:

    DavidL said:

    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    alex_ said:

    IanB2 said:

    IanB2 said:

    felix said:

    So the polling which shows support for the travel ban counts for nought? The mistake made was actually to allow foreign travel too soon. The public knows this which is why the vast majority were not travelling abroad this year. As suual the press opts for the cheap headline blaming the government for acting too quickly, after weeks of whining that they acted too slowly.

    Agreed. I don't give a flying f*ck about public opinion on this anyway. Governing is about doing what is right not what is popular.
    It is remarkable how what is right changes so frequently and quickly.
    In the fast moving environment of a pandemic absolutely it does.
    Not back and forth in the way that government decision making is doing.

    In any event, what we have is ‘honesty box’ quarantine, which people who are generally sensible and who will have travelled taking every precaution will generally observe, and people who are reckless and who have been careless or worse on their holiday will take no notice of whatsoever.

    Germany - which has done much better than us so far - is currently preparing to test everyone returning from areas it considers at risk. Are we doing anything so proactive? Answer on a postcard (no need to write anything on it).
    I just do not understand why the government seems so unwilling to use testing as a tool to better target measures like quarantine etc. So they don’t want to test people on arrival because apparently people may be incubating the virus but not produce positive results for a few days. But what is the risk of this? Are we talking about 1% “false negative”? Or 10%? Or 50%? It shouldn’t matter if a very low % slip through if the overall risk is acceptable - that’s risk management. 2m isn’t a “safe distance” for social distancing, it is relatively safe on the balance of risks.

    And if the risks are unacceptably high for testing on entry, then do testing after, say 4 days. Or what ever period is considered acceptably safe. All is better than 14 days, no testing, and then do what you want. Because there is even a risk then that some percentage will slip through undetected. And that’s even before you factor in non compliance.
    I agree. Testing is a numbers game. If it identifies 80% of those infected allowing them to be isolated this is a very positive result. I have never understood the boffins obsession with 100% accuracy.
    I suppose the counter argument is that a person who has produced a false negative becomes an exponentially greater risk. They will feel free to act with impunity and disregard all safety measures they might otherwise have taken. Although this would still be at personal risk to themselves even not (they perceive) to others.
    Not really, they would still want to socially distance to avoid infection here. This is what was said at the press conferences. A test that was less than 100% reliable was “worse than useless “. I just think that like so many other things they got that wrong. If 80% of cases are isolated early the R rate will fall.
    It's\ not necessarily the boffins (as you implied earlier) who made that judgement about 100% reliabilkity - it could be the pols (or boffins acting as pols).

    I wonder if they are worried about being sued by people in the situation where false positive rater >> actual incidence?

    But I entirely agree with you. People who travel should accept the risk of being quarantined and stop whining, however many of them see Mediterranean holidays as some sort of right.
    It was the Chief Scientific Officer I specifically remembered going on about this. It’s quite possible that politicians did too.

    I have been really surprised by how many people have been booking holidays in August and September. Most have been working on the basis that there is a right to cancel built in but the mindset is curious. The one set of boffins who were spot on in all of this were the behavioural psychologists who predicted fairly precisely how long the majority could cope with or comply with lockdown.
    The scientists and statisticians have been working under political pressure. Some can speak freely and give their honest opinion, but some cannot as it would be the "wrong" advice. The time for objective detached judgements about the crisis has not come yet.

    I suspect a moment of truth could arrive at the end of 2020, when decisions have to be made about the licencing of vaccines. By then the epidemic will probably be past its peak in most countries, and phase III vaccine trials may not longer be viable. Postponing the difficult decisions will achieve little at this stage.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.

    She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
    Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).

    But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.

    And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
    Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.

    Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
    It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
    Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.

    Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.

    Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
    Nope, nope, nope. If you create a daily calorie deficit you will lose weight regardless of what the intake is.

    I'm not saying it's a good way to go about it but it will absolutely work.
    Of course if you create a calorie deficit you will lose weight. How you create that deficit is far more complicated than "eat less" though. Eating better works if it changes how your body reacts.

    Or do you think 100 kcal of sugar or 100 kcal of gin are reacted to exactly the same?
    Again, I'm not making a judgement on whether it's a good way of doing it, just that it will definitely work.
    It will work as long as you can keep the deficit. Since your body is smart and can react, that's easier said than done.
    Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that if your calorie expenditure is higher than calorie intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477
    One thing about consuming more carbs is that in you'll retain more water, so the scales tend to head north in the short term. It's not really 'true' weight gained though, the same as cutting out carbs can lead to quick weight loss in the short term - which is why I suspect people often 'lose' 3 or 4 lbs in the first week of any sort of diet. 3-4 lbs needs a deficit of 11500 - 14,000 calories or so which simply isn't plausible in a week for most people.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.

    She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
    Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).

    But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.

    And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
    Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.

    Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
    It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
    Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.

    Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.

    Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
    Nope, nope, nope. If you create a daily calorie deficit you will lose weight regardless of what the intake is.

    I'm not saying it's a good way to go about it but it will absolutely work.
    Of course if you create a calorie deficit you will lose weight. How you create that deficit is far more complicated than "eat less" though. Eating better works if it changes how your body reacts.

    Or do you think 100 kcal of sugar or 100 kcal of gin are reacted to exactly the same?
    Again, I'm not making a judgement on whether it's a good way of doing it, just that it will definitely work.
    It will work as long as you can keep the deficit. Since your body is smart and can react, that's easier said than done.
    Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that if your calorie expenditure is higher than calorie intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    Of course it is, but its simplistic maths and a truism. What matters more is actually getting that deficit and that's more complicated than "eat less, move more".
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    nichomar said:

    Exercise routines one day calorie intake the next I wonder what tomorrow will bring, favorite yoga positions?

    I have to report a complete lack of panic at the local hospital, no queues of ambulances, no patients on trollies in the corridors just a quiet calm as everyone, staff and patients getting on with business all wearing masks.

    Defecating dog.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 4,447

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.

    She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
    Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).

    But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.

    And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
    Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.

    Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
    It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
    Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.

    Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.

    Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
    100 calories is 100 calories is 100 calories. Whether from broccoli or mint-choc chip ice cream.

    And no one is saying only pay attention to your main meals.

    We are saying your daily calorie intake (including celery at lunch and chocolate biscuits at 3pm) relates to your daily calorie expenditure in that if you intake more than you expend you will put on weight and if you intake less than you expend you will lose weight.
    Yes 100 calories is 100 calories. That's your input.

    But your output is not fixed. If your calories are carbs then your body can process them very easily so you will burn less. If your diet is low-carb then your body works harder to process fats etc so burns more calories.

    According to this research the difference can amount to 250 kcal per day which is a very, very substantial difference: https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20181114/low-carb-diets-may-work-by-boosting-calorie-burn#1
    Philip makes a good point. Although Topping's point is valid as a ball park for measuring calories in, it isn't as simple as that. For instance a Danish experiment showed that dairy products caused a reduced absorption of fat. A pretty simple experiment by testing the fat content of the excrement under different circumstances. There is a similar issue with nuts. If eating whole or part of a nut rather than crushed nuts you don't tend to break it down and a significant amount is excreted with the fat intact.

    So in these cases a percentage of the calories have just passed through you.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,042
    edited July 2020
    Good long read article on Politico:

    Trump’s Biggest Problem Isn’t Wealthy Suburbanites. It’s the White Working Class.
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/07/28/letter-to-washington-scranton-white-working-class-381320
    ...Kathy is a former Democrat turned independent. She voted for Obama twice, then switched to Trump in 2016, convinced that he would “protect the working people, take care of the elderly, take care of the military, take care of the veterans.” Four years later, she wishes she hadn’t.

    “Don’t get me wrong, he’s done some good stuff. But lately he’s just been ticking me off,” Kathy said. She works on the facilities staff at the local hospital, Commonwealth Health Regional, and has been dismayed at the president’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

    “He’s not taking the virus serious enough. He keeps saying it’ll go away, and that’s not true,” Kathy said. “We need someone to fix this country right now, because it’s a mess. I don’t really like Biden, either. I don’t like how extreme the Democrats are with abortion nowadays. But he’s been around a long time, he seems to know the system, so maybe he can get things back on track. I don’t know. This country is out of whack, and Trump doesn’t seem to care. I’m getting sick of him, you know?”

    I asked Kathy if she’s certain that she’ll vote.

    “Yeah, I most likely will,” she replied. “And if I do, it won’t be for Trump.”...


    It sounds as though there will be a lot of people that neither campaign is likely to reach...

    ...“I’m not real happy with my party these days,” said Bill, a custodian with the Scranton Public Schools. “They’re too far to the left for me at this point. The older I get, the more to the right I find myself.” He stops suddenly. “Trust me, I’m no Trumper. I think the Republicans are insane. But I don’t like the guy Democrats are putting up, either.”

    Why not? “I could have voted for Buttigieg; I liked him. Maybe even Bernie. But the party wanted Biden. And he’s just too old. I don’t think he’s got Alzheimer’s or anything like that, but he does say the damnedest things. I don’t know. I could have voted for him at one point—when he was younger. But I’ll probably wind up sitting this one out too. He’s just too old. And there’s no way in hell I could vote for Trump.”...


    Though how do you even make sense of 'they're too far to the left' and 'I could have voted maybe even Bernie', and Biden's just too old, but 'maybe Bernie'... ?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554
    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.

    She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
    Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).

    But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.

    And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
    Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.

    Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
    It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
    Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.

    Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.

    Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
    Nope, nope, nope. If you create a daily calorie deficit you will lose weight regardless of what the intake is.

    I'm not saying it's a good way to go about it but it will absolutely work.
    Of course if you create a calorie deficit you will lose weight. How you create that deficit is far more complicated than "eat less" though. Eating better works if it changes how your body reacts.

    Or do you think 100 kcal of sugar or 100 kcal of gin are reacted to exactly the same?
    Again, I'm not making a judgement on whether it's a good way of doing it, just that it will definitely work.
    It will work as long as you can keep the deficit. Since your body is smart and can react, that's easier said than done.
    Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that if your calorie expenditure is higher than calorie intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    But it's not weight loss advice. If more people come into a room than leave it, the numbers of people in the room will increase. That doesn't help you to remove them, let them in, explain how they got there etc.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.

    She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
    Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).

    But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.

    And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
    Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.

    Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
    It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
    Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.

    Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.

    Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
    Nope, nope, nope. If you create a daily calorie deficit you will lose weight regardless of what the intake is.

    I'm not saying it's a good way to go about it but it will absolutely work.
    Of course if you create a calorie deficit you will lose weight. How you create that deficit is far more complicated than "eat less" though. Eating better works if it changes how your body reacts.

    Or do you think 100 kcal of sugar or 100 kcal of gin are reacted to exactly the same?
    Again, I'm not making a judgement on whether it's a good way of doing it, just that it will definitely work.
    It will work as long as you can keep the deficit. Since your body is smart and can react, that's easier said than done.
    Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that if your calorie expenditure is higher than calorie intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    But it's not weight loss advice. If more people come into a room than leave it, the numbers of people in the room will increase. That doesn't help you to remove them, let them in, explain how they got there etc.
    If more people leave a room than enter the number of people in the room will go down. It's maths.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    kjh said:

    TOPPING said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.

    She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
    Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).

    But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.

    And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
    Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.

    Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
    It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
    Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.

    Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.

    Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
    100 calories is 100 calories is 100 calories. Whether from broccoli or mint-choc chip ice cream.

    And no one is saying only pay attention to your main meals.

    We are saying your daily calorie intake (including celery at lunch and chocolate biscuits at 3pm) relates to your daily calorie expenditure in that if you intake more than you expend you will put on weight and if you intake less than you expend you will lose weight.
    Yes 100 calories is 100 calories. That's your input.

    But your output is not fixed. If your calories are carbs then your body can process them very easily so you will burn less. If your diet is low-carb then your body works harder to process fats etc so burns more calories.

    According to this research the difference can amount to 250 kcal per day which is a very, very substantial difference: https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20181114/low-carb-diets-may-work-by-boosting-calorie-burn#1
    Philip makes a good point. Although Topping's point is valid as a ball park for measuring calories in, it isn't as simple as that. For instance a Danish experiment showed that dairy products caused a reduced absorption of fat. A pretty simple experiment by testing the fat content of the excrement under different circumstances. There is a similar issue with nuts. If eating whole or part of a nut rather than crushed nuts you don't tend to break it down and a significant amount is excreted with the fat intact.

    So in these cases a percentage of the calories have just passed through you.
    Like fiber.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,979
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.

    She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
    Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).

    But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.

    And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
    Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.

    Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
    It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
    Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.

    Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.

    Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
    Nope, nope, nope. If you create a daily calorie deficit you will lose weight regardless of what the intake is.

    I'm not saying it's a good way to go about it but it will absolutely work.
    Of course if you create a calorie deficit you will lose weight. How you create that deficit is far more complicated than "eat less" though. Eating better works if it changes how your body reacts.

    Or do you think 100 kcal of sugar or 100 kcal of gin are reacted to exactly the same?
    Again, I'm not making a judgement on whether it's a good way of doing it, just that it will definitely work.
    It will work as long as you can keep the deficit. Since your body is smart and can react, that's easier said than done.
    Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that if your calorie expenditure is higher than calorie intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    But it's not weight loss advice. If more people come into a room than leave it, the numbers of people in the room will increase. That doesn't help you to remove them, let them in, explain how they got there etc.
    If more people leave a room than enter the number of people in the room will go down. It's maths.
    For one iteration it is true. Life is many thousands of iterations.

    Those eating a healthier mix of calories in their calorie in = calorie out have the advantage over those eating an unhealthy mix of calories but still balancing for subsequent iterations, so they are not the same or equally beneficial at all.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.

    She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
    Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).

    But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.

    And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
    Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.

    Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
    It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
    Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.

    Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.

    Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
    Nope, nope, nope. If you create a daily calorie deficit you will lose weight regardless of what the intake is.

    I'm not saying it's a good way to go about it but it will absolutely work.
    Of course if you create a calorie deficit you will lose weight. How you create that deficit is far more complicated than "eat less" though. Eating better works if it changes how your body reacts.

    Or do you think 100 kcal of sugar or 100 kcal of gin are reacted to exactly the same?
    Again, I'm not making a judgement on whether it's a good way of doing it, just that it will definitely work.
    It will work as long as you can keep the deficit. Since your body is smart and can react, that's easier said than done.
    Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that if your calorie expenditure is higher than calorie intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    But it's not weight loss advice. If more people come into a room than leave it, the numbers of people in the room will increase. That doesn't help you to remove them, let them in, explain how they got there etc.
    If more people leave a room than enter the number of people in the room will go down. It's maths.
    Quite so, but that's the what, not the how and certainly not the why.

    In other words, a person could drop their caloric intake, they could burn 300 more calories on the exercise bike a day, and they could still maintain or even increase their fat reserves, based upon metabolism, types of foods consumed, times when food is consumed, hormones (of which insulin is the biggie) etc. etc. etc. Because whilst we have absolute control over calorie input, we do not have the same control over the calorie output.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,858
    edited July 2020
    Cyclefree said:


    As for the healthiness of the meals, all her meals are cooked from fresh: there are vegetarian and fish options and a salad is always offered. And from time to time she does Special Food nights eg Greek offering where she gets in a Greek chef to do a whole menu. Very popular and successful. Unlike some other pubs nearby she does not buy in ready-made meals.

    It is perfectly possible to eat out and eat healthily as part of an overall sensible diet. Plus if you’ve been working on a farm or building site all day - as many do around here - you will certainly have burned off more calories than you will be consuming.

    To tackle obesity it’s the hidden sugar in so much processed food and indeed the eating of processed food which needs to be stopped or substantially reduced.

    I forget where, but remember a quote (maybe apocryphal) about sugar in homes and the presence of an actual bag of sugar being a good predictor or lower weight in the home - because having sugar meant the people actually did their own cooking/baking and that was generally healthier than buying in cakes and ready meals.

    Also, comparing the sugar content of fat-free and normal fat variants of foods, such as yoghurts, can be quite an eye opener.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,460
    On topic: maybe the government should have created a longer watchlist of countries under review on quarantine. That way the public could have a bit more information for forward planning of holidays. Going from no restrictions to fortnight quarantine overnight with no official heads up is I think something people are justified in feeling aggrieved at. I mean, it was obvious to me that booking a foreign holiday right now was pretty risky (hence three weeks in Scotland for us) but not everyone has the time or background knowledge to interpret epidemiological evidence themselves and some might reasonably have thought that Spain was now ok (especially the Balaerics and Canaries).
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    kjh said:



    Philip makes a good point. Although Topping's point is valid as a ball park for measuring calories in, it isn't as simple as that. For instance a Danish experiment showed that dairy products caused a reduced absorption of fat. A pretty simple experiment by testing the fat content of the excrement under different circumstances. There is a similar issue with nuts. If eating whole or part of a nut rather than crushed nuts you don't tend to break it down and a significant amount is excreted with the fat intact.

    So in these cases a percentage of the calories have just passed through you.

    Like fiber.
    This still fits with the "calories in, calories out" formulation (it's just another kind of "out"), but it's another way in which that model can be useless and misleading while technically being accurate.

    Any diet plan that doesn't take compliance- and therefore hunger- into account is woefully incomplete. Eating the right kind of calories has to take primary focus. Only once that's sorted should you think about eating the right number of calories- and by then you may find that's taken care of itself.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477
    Selebian said:



    Also, comparing the sugar content of fat-free and normal fat variants of foods, such as yoghurts, can be quite an eye opener.

    Nobody ever, ever, ever needs or wants fat free yoghurt. It's an abomination.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.

    She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
    Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).

    But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.

    And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
    Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.

    Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
    It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
    Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.

    Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.

    Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
    Nope, nope, nope. If you create a daily calorie deficit you will lose weight regardless of what the intake is.

    I'm not saying it's a good way to go about it but it will absolutely work.
    Of course if you create a calorie deficit you will lose weight. How you create that deficit is far more complicated than "eat less" though. Eating better works if it changes how your body reacts.

    Or do you think 100 kcal of sugar or 100 kcal of gin are reacted to exactly the same?
    Again, I'm not making a judgement on whether it's a good way of doing it, just that it will definitely work.
    It will work as long as you can keep the deficit. Since your body is smart and can react, that's easier said than done.
    Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that if your calorie expenditure is higher than calorie intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    But it's not weight loss advice. If more people come into a room than leave it, the numbers of people in the room will increase. That doesn't help you to remove them, let them in, explain how they got there etc.
    If more people leave a room than enter the number of people in the room will go down. It's maths.
    Quite so, but that's the what, not the how and certainly not the why.

    In other words, a person could drop their caloric intake, they could burn 300 more calories on the exercise bike a day, and they could still maintain or even increase their fat reserves, based upon metabolism, types of foods consumed, times when food is consumed, hormones (of which insulin is the biggie) etc. etc. etc. Because whilst we have absolute control over calorie input, we do not have the same control over the calorie output.
    Again, I'm not talking about the how or the why. Ultimately every weight loss method needs to have a calorie deficit. Whether you achieve that with basic calorie counting and adding a 30 minute run to your daily routine or something a little bit more advanced, both will result in weight loss over an extended period.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,523
    edited July 2020
    How have the Boris haters not used this meme yet? Or is it Sir Keir and his love/hate/not sure relationship w the BLM?

    https://twitter.com/ajarrodkimber/status/1288039920213401601?s=20
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859

    On topic: maybe the government should have created a longer watchlist of countries under review on quarantine. That way the public could have a bit more information for forward planning of holidays. Going from no restrictions to fortnight quarantine overnight with no official heads up is I think something people are justified in feeling aggrieved at. I mean, it was obvious to me that booking a foreign holiday right now was pretty risky (hence three weeks in Scotland for us) but not everyone has the time or background knowledge to interpret epidemiological evidence themselves and some might reasonably have thought that Spain was now ok (especially the Balaerics and Canaries).

    Yes, a proper traffic light system would be good. Red is "no go", amber "book at your own risk" and green is "go ahead". Spain should never really have been green, it should always have been amber.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
    Very interestingly, a 'don't be such a greedy pig - eat less, exercise more and eat more veg' diet was given a mass experiment in WW2. Verdicts on the health of this diet are mixed, but there's some evidence that it actually puts on weight. There was a programme with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins where they ate a WW2 diet for a period (I think a week?) and both put on weight. I think it was probably a switch over to carbs (from fats and proteins) that was largely responsible.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
    Very interestingly, a 'don't be such a greedy pig - eat less, exercise more and eat more veg' diet was given a mass experiment in WW2. Verdicts on the health of this diet are mixed, but there's some evidence that it actually puts on weight. There was a programme with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins where they ate a WW2 diet for a period (I think a week?) and both put on weight. I think it was probably a switch over to carbs (from fats and proteins) that was largely responsible.
    It's here - good watch, although it's not about nutrition - that only comes at the end and is very brief with no real conclusions drawn:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOE0VP0EZ0M
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 6,910
    edited July 2020
    MaxPB said:

    On topic: maybe the government should have created a longer watchlist of countries under review on quarantine. That way the public could have a bit more information for forward planning of holidays. Going from no restrictions to fortnight quarantine overnight with no official heads up is I think something people are justified in feeling aggrieved at. I mean, it was obvious to me that booking a foreign holiday right now was pretty risky (hence three weeks in Scotland for us) but not everyone has the time or background knowledge to interpret epidemiological evidence themselves and some might reasonably have thought that Spain was now ok (especially the Balaerics and Canaries).

    Yes, a proper traffic light system would be good. Red is "no go", amber "book at your own risk" and green is "go ahead". Spain should never really have been green, it should always have been amber.
    Book ahead how long in advance though? I mean FFS Scotland only took Spain off the quarantine list last week!
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
    Very interestingly, a 'don't be such a greedy pig - eat less, exercise more and eat more veg' diet was given a mass experiment in WW2. Verdicts on the health of this diet are mixed, but there's some evidence that it actually puts on weight. There was a programme with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins where they ate a WW2 diet for a period (I think a week?) and both put on weight. I think it was probably a switch over to carbs (from fats and proteins) that was largely responsible.
    I wonder what the results would have been sans modern central heating, given wartime fuel shortages? That is another factor - metabolism for primary thermogenetic purposes.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,195

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
    Very interestingly, a 'don't be such a greedy pig - eat less, exercise more and eat more veg' diet was given a mass experiment in WW2. Verdicts on the health of this diet are mixed, but there's some evidence that it actually puts on weight. There was a programme with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins where they ate a WW2 diet for a period (I think a week?) and both put on weight. I think it was probably a switch over to carbs (from fats and proteins) that was largely responsible.
    It is worth noting that a considerable portion of the population was undernourished in the pre war world. Cheap food hadn't appeared yet, in the modern sense.

    Part of the design of the WWII ration (as far as they could with the knowledge of the day) was to *increase* the food groups they *thought were good* - to build up the poorer classes.

    This was based on the experience from WWI - where non trivial numbers of conscripts had to be rejected as unfit due to poor physical condition.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,811
    MaxPB said:

    On topic: maybe the government should have created a longer watchlist of countries under review on quarantine. That way the public could have a bit more information for forward planning of holidays. Going from no restrictions to fortnight quarantine overnight with no official heads up is I think something people are justified in feeling aggrieved at. I mean, it was obvious to me that booking a foreign holiday right now was pretty risky (hence three weeks in Scotland for us) but not everyone has the time or background knowledge to interpret epidemiological evidence themselves and some might reasonably have thought that Spain was now ok (especially the Balaerics and Canaries).

    Yes, a proper traffic light system would be good. Red is "no go", amber "book at your own risk" and green is "go ahead". Spain should never really have been green, it should always have been amber.
    Something which people aren't talking about is the amount of holiday which people at work will have been building up. I've taken really no days holiday this year so far, and still have well over 20 days to take.

    I'm beginning to be pressured (as with everyone at my work) to consider taking them, but I don't really want to. Obviously some people have jumped at the chance of a summer holiday in Spain and the like on the basis that they 'have' to take holiday, and don;t want to just hang around at home (especially if you're working from home already!).

    It's only going to get worse, and could be a big issue for lots of firms. I can already see I'm going to be very busy this year and could easilt run though my work to December without a good time for a break.

    Of course i 'do' need a break, and will take at least a week soon, but then I still over 3 other weeks to take off.... for what?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477
    MaxPB said:

    On topic: maybe the government should have created a longer watchlist of countries under review on quarantine. That way the public could have a bit more information for forward planning of holidays. Going from no restrictions to fortnight quarantine overnight with no official heads up is I think something people are justified in feeling aggrieved at. I mean, it was obvious to me that booking a foreign holiday right now was pretty risky (hence three weeks in Scotland for us) but not everyone has the time or background knowledge to interpret epidemiological evidence themselves and some might reasonably have thought that Spain was now ok (especially the Balaerics and Canaries).

    Yes, a proper traffic light system would be good. Red is "no go", amber "book at your own risk" and green is "go ahead". Spain should never really have been green, it should always have been amber.
    USA, Russia, Iran, Sweden, anywhere in South America - Red

    Ireland (CTA) - Always green

    Should anywhere else in Europe be green ? Denmark, Norway perhaps ?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    TOPPING said:

    eek said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.

    She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
    Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).

    But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.

    And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
    Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.

    Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
    It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
    Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.

    Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.

    Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
    Nope, nope, nope. If you create a daily calorie deficit you will lose weight regardless of what the intake is.

    I'm not saying it's a good way to go about it but it will absolutely work.
    Of course if you create a calorie deficit you will lose weight. How you create that deficit is far more complicated than "eat less" though. Eating better works if it changes how your body reacts.

    Or do you think 100 kcal of sugar or 100 kcal of gin are reacted to exactly the same?
    Again, I'm not making a judgement on whether it's a good way of doing it, just that it will definitely work.
    It will work as long as you can keep the deficit. Since your body is smart and can react, that's easier said than done.
    Sure, but it doesn't change the fact that if your calorie expenditure is higher than calorie intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
    But it's not weight loss advice. If more people come into a room than leave it, the numbers of people in the room will increase. That doesn't help you to remove them, let them in, explain how they got there etc.
    If more people leave a room than enter the number of people in the room will go down. It's maths.
    Quite so, but that's the what, not the how and certainly not the why.

    In other words, a person could drop their caloric intake, they could burn 300 more calories on the exercise bike a day, and they could still maintain or even increase their fat reserves, based upon metabolism, types of foods consumed, times when food is consumed, hormones (of which insulin is the biggie) etc. etc. etc. Because whilst we have absolute control over calorie input, we do not have the same control over the calorie output.
    Again, I'm not talking about the how or the why. Ultimately every weight loss method needs to have a calorie deficit. Whether you achieve that with basic calorie counting and adding a 30 minute run to your daily routine or something a little bit more advanced, both will result in weight loss over an extended period.
    But again, you're conflating the basic facts of what is happening with an effective diet method. Telling someone who wants to lose weight to 'have a caloric deficit' is just telling them 'lose weight'. It's just a basic description of what's happening.

    'What's the best way for me to lose weight?'

    - 'Lose weight'.

    That makes no sense.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,523
    edited July 2020
    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    On topic: maybe the government should have created a longer watchlist of countries under review on quarantine. That way the public could have a bit more information for forward planning of holidays. Going from no restrictions to fortnight quarantine overnight with no official heads up is I think something people are justified in feeling aggrieved at. I mean, it was obvious to me that booking a foreign holiday right now was pretty risky (hence three weeks in Scotland for us) but not everyone has the time or background knowledge to interpret epidemiological evidence themselves and some might reasonably have thought that Spain was now ok (especially the Balaerics and Canaries).

    Yes, a proper traffic light system would be good. Red is "no go", amber "book at your own risk" and green is "go ahead". Spain should never really have been green, it should always have been amber.
    USA, Russia, Iran, Sweden, anywhere in South America - Red

    Ireland (CTA) - Always green

    Should anywhere else in Europe be green ? Denmark, Norway perhaps ?
    What's going on with Ireland @Barnesian ? My girlfriend's Grandmother lives in Cork, and the family haven't been able to see her for a long while due to the virus.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,979

    MaxPB said:

    On topic: maybe the government should have created a longer watchlist of countries under review on quarantine. That way the public could have a bit more information for forward planning of holidays. Going from no restrictions to fortnight quarantine overnight with no official heads up is I think something people are justified in feeling aggrieved at. I mean, it was obvious to me that booking a foreign holiday right now was pretty risky (hence three weeks in Scotland for us) but not everyone has the time or background knowledge to interpret epidemiological evidence themselves and some might reasonably have thought that Spain was now ok (especially the Balaerics and Canaries).

    Yes, a proper traffic light system would be good. Red is "no go", amber "book at your own risk" and green is "go ahead". Spain should never really have been green, it should always have been amber.
    Something which people aren't talking about is the amount of holiday which people at work will have been building up. I've taken really no days holiday this year so far, and still have well over 20 days to take.

    I'm beginning to be pressured (as with everyone at my work) to consider taking them, but I don't really want to. Obviously some people have jumped at the chance of a summer holiday in Spain and the like on the basis that they 'have' to take holiday, and don;t want to just hang around at home (especially if you're working from home already!).

    It's only going to get worse, and could be a big issue for lots of firms. I can already see I'm going to be very busy this year and could easilt run though my work to December without a good time for a break.

    Of course i 'do' need a break, and will take at least a week soon, but then I still over 3 other weeks to take off.... for what?
    3 weeks full time should be enough to get your post count up to 10k.......
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834
    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
    Very interestingly, a 'don't be such a greedy pig - eat less, exercise more and eat more veg' diet was given a mass experiment in WW2. Verdicts on the health of this diet are mixed, but there's some evidence that it actually puts on weight. There was a programme with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins where they ate a WW2 diet for a period (I think a week?) and both put on weight. I think it was probably a switch over to carbs (from fats and proteins) that was largely responsible.
    I wonder what the results would have been sans modern central heating, given wartime fuel shortages? That is another factor - metabolism for primary thermogenetic purposes.
    You can find out, because they 'lived' as WW2 people too. :)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
    Very interestingly, a 'don't be such a greedy pig - eat less, exercise more and eat more veg' diet was given a mass experiment in WW2. Verdicts on the health of this diet are mixed, but there's some evidence that it actually puts on weight. There was a programme with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins where they ate a WW2 diet for a period (I think a week?) and both put on weight. I think it was probably a switch over to carbs (from fats and proteins) that was largely responsible.
    It is worth noting that a considerable portion of the population was undernourished in the pre war world. Cheap food hadn't appeared yet, in the modern sense.

    Part of the design of the WWII ration (as far as they could with the knowledge of the day) was to *increase* the food groups they *thought were good* - to build up the poorer classes.

    This was based on the experience from WWI - where non trivial numbers of conscripts had to be rejected as unfit due to poor physical condition.
    That's like the story about why Popeye eats spinach.

    I think its a shame Popeye isn't around anymore, I loved it when I was young and it definitely made me more partial to spinach. I made a reference to Popeye while talking to my daughter the other day and she had no idea whom I was talking about.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    Braithwaite has been both Anderson's and Broad's 500th wicket. Weird.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,523
    30 odd years later, the Labour party kicked these workers where it hurts, then called them racist for complaining about it

    ...and they still do now

    https://twitter.com/EnglishRadical/status/1288010229137973248?s=20
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
    Very interestingly, a 'don't be such a greedy pig - eat less, exercise more and eat more veg' diet was given a mass experiment in WW2. Verdicts on the health of this diet are mixed, but there's some evidence that it actually puts on weight. There was a programme with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins where they ate a WW2 diet for a period (I think a week?) and both put on weight. I think it was probably a switch over to carbs (from fats and proteins) that was largely responsible.
    It is worth noting that a considerable portion of the population was undernourished in the pre war world. Cheap food hadn't appeared yet, in the modern sense.

    Part of the design of the WWII ration (as far as they could with the knowledge of the day) was to *increase* the food groups they *thought were good* - to build up the poorer classes.

    This was based on the experience from WWI - where non trivial numbers of conscripts had to be rejected as unfit due to poor physical condition.
    Yes, it should definitely be remembered that all was not rosy in the garden before WW2. However, the paucity of cheese, butter, mik, eggs, under rationing really shocks me. And undoubtedly led to issues - the most visible being dental.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 6,910
    edited July 2020

    MaxPB said:

    On topic: maybe the government should have created a longer watchlist of countries under review on quarantine. That way the public could have a bit more information for forward planning of holidays. Going from no restrictions to fortnight quarantine overnight with no official heads up is I think something people are justified in feeling aggrieved at. I mean, it was obvious to me that booking a foreign holiday right now was pretty risky (hence three weeks in Scotland for us) but not everyone has the time or background knowledge to interpret epidemiological evidence themselves and some might reasonably have thought that Spain was now ok (especially the Balaerics and Canaries).

    Yes, a proper traffic light system would be good. Red is "no go", amber "book at your own risk" and green is "go ahead". Spain should never really have been green, it should always have been amber.
    Something which people aren't talking about is the amount of holiday which people at work will have been building up. I've taken really no days holiday this year so far, and still have well over 20 days to take.

    I'm beginning to be pressured (as with everyone at my work) to consider taking them, but I don't really want to. Obviously some people have jumped at the chance of a summer holiday in Spain and the like on the basis that they 'have' to take holiday, and don;t want to just hang around at home (especially if you're working from home already!).

    It's only going to get worse, and could be a big issue for lots of firms. I can already see I'm going to be very busy this year and could easilt run though my work to December without a good time for a break.

    Of course i 'do' need a break, and will take at least a week soon, but then I still over 3 other weeks to take off.... for what?
    Not least - workers in the NHS!!!

    There is at least a possibility that a lot of them could get caught up in the quarantine rules, which will make it a lot harder to use the brief respite to clear the backlog before the winter.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    isam said:

    30 odd years later, the Labour party kicked these workers where it hurts, then called them racist for complaining about it

    ...and they still do now

    https://twitter.com/EnglishRadical/status/1288010229137973248?s=20

    Casual labour was the precursor of the gig economy. The leaders of those dock workers must be spinning in their grave at the idea that millions now live with that uncertainty.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,232
    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
    Very interestingly, a 'don't be such a greedy pig - eat less, exercise more and eat more veg' diet was given a mass experiment in WW2. Verdicts on the health of this diet are mixed, but there's some evidence that it actually puts on weight. There was a programme with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins where they ate a WW2 diet for a period (I think a week?) and both put on weight. I think it was probably a switch over to carbs (from fats and proteins) that was largely responsible.
    I wonder what the results would have been sans modern central heating, given wartime fuel shortages? That is another factor - metabolism for primary thermogenetic purposes.
    I guess new work patterns with extra shifts would change dietary requirements. Also stress - fear of defeat, bombing, loved ones dying or imprisoned on a foreign field. Perhaps Giles Coren worrying about where the next vehicle for the betterment of Giles Coren was coming from fulfilled that element.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,195

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
    Very interestingly, a 'don't be such a greedy pig - eat less, exercise more and eat more veg' diet was given a mass experiment in WW2. Verdicts on the health of this diet are mixed, but there's some evidence that it actually puts on weight. There was a programme with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins where they ate a WW2 diet for a period (I think a week?) and both put on weight. I think it was probably a switch over to carbs (from fats and proteins) that was largely responsible.
    It is worth noting that a considerable portion of the population was undernourished in the pre war world. Cheap food hadn't appeared yet, in the modern sense.

    Part of the design of the WWII ration (as far as they could with the knowledge of the day) was to *increase* the food groups they *thought were good* - to build up the poorer classes.

    This was based on the experience from WWI - where non trivial numbers of conscripts had to be rejected as unfit due to poor physical condition.
    Yes, it should definitely be remembered that all was not rosy in the garden before WW2. However, the paucity of cheese, butter, mik, eggs, under rationing really shocks me. And undoubtedly led to issues - the most visible being dental.
    Yup - Chamberlin had a whole program of stuff he wanted to do, including universal health insurance. Then re-armament kicked up a notch... re-armament started in 1932, and by 1936/7 was of the "spend all money you can on expanding the arms industry"
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,008
    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    On topic: maybe the government should have created a longer watchlist of countries under review on quarantine. That way the public could have a bit more information for forward planning of holidays. Going from no restrictions to fortnight quarantine overnight with no official heads up is I think something people are justified in feeling aggrieved at. I mean, it was obvious to me that booking a foreign holiday right now was pretty risky (hence three weeks in Scotland for us) but not everyone has the time or background knowledge to interpret epidemiological evidence themselves and some might reasonably have thought that Spain was now ok (especially the Balaerics and Canaries).

    Yes, a proper traffic light system would be good. Red is "no go", amber "book at your own risk" and green is "go ahead". Spain should never really have been green, it should always have been amber.
    USA, Russia, Iran, Sweden, anywhere in South America - Red

    Ireland (CTA) - Always green

    Should anywhere else in Europe be green ? Denmark, Norway perhaps ?
    What's going on with Ireland @Barnesian ? My girlfriend's Grandmother lives in Cork, and the family haven't been able to see her for a long while due to the virus.
    My wife died in Ireland while on holiday in Galway nearly two years ago. She built a house near Craughwell. It is in 20 acres and very isolated, and I imagine, very overgrown. Her car is still there. I haven't managed to obtain probate yet after much trying so I'm going to see a solicitor (after my 14 days self isolation are up) and also do some mowing, strimming, chain sawing etc at my wife's house while I'm there by myself.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,554
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Care home 19
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Elsewhere 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Home 30
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Hospice 3
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Hospital 23
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Other communal establishment 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Care home 1
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Elsewhere 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Home 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Hospice 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Hospital 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Other communal establishment 0

    Some interesting data to add to the PHE/ONS debate. From the ONS stats, in week 29 Wiltshire saw 19 care home deaths from all causes and 1 with Covid (by ONS rules). It must surely be possible that many of those 19 have at some stage tested positive for Covid (even if only asymptomatically), and by PHE methods, would be Covid deaths, even if that is not the main cause of death.

    This is not to revise the 45000 deaths, but to illustrate the current genuine Covid deaths is probably a fair bit lower than the PHE count.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    edited July 2020
    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    30 odd years later, the Labour party kicked these workers where it hurts, then called them racist for complaining about it

    ...and they still do now

    https://twitter.com/EnglishRadical/status/1288010229137973248?s=20

    Casual labour was the precursor of the gig economy. The leaders of those dock workers must be spinning in their grave at the idea that millions now live with that uncertainty.
    And somehow investors' returns are considered their reward for taking risks while workers are the ones living in genuine precarity.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
    Very interestingly, a 'don't be such a greedy pig - eat less, exercise more and eat more veg' diet was given a mass experiment in WW2. Verdicts on the health of this diet are mixed, but there's some evidence that it actually puts on weight. There was a programme with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins where they ate a WW2 diet for a period (I think a week?) and both put on weight. I think it was probably a switch over to carbs (from fats and proteins) that was largely responsible.
    I wonder what the results would have been sans modern central heating, given wartime fuel shortages? That is another factor - metabolism for primary thermogenetic purposes.
    I guess new work patterns with extra shifts would change dietary requirements. Also stress - fear of defeat, bombing, loved ones dying or imprisoned on a foreign field. Perhaps Giles Coren worrying about where the next vehicle for the betterment of Giles Coren was coming from fulfilled that element.
    :lol:

    I believe they did 'war work' on the show too.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,953
    isam said:

    30 odd years later, the Labour party kicked these workers where it hurts, then called them racist for complaining about it

    ...and they still do now

    twitter.com/EnglishRadical/status/1288010229137973248?s=20

    Are you serious? I mean really...?????

    This is a perfect example of what was wrong with Britain in the early 70s. Trade Unions dictating to the govt and the Courts and threatening to bring the country to its knees.

    The "Pentonville Five" were locked up for breaking the law.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,008
    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    On topic: maybe the government should have created a longer watchlist of countries under review on quarantine. That way the public could have a bit more information for forward planning of holidays. Going from no restrictions to fortnight quarantine overnight with no official heads up is I think something people are justified in feeling aggrieved at. I mean, it was obvious to me that booking a foreign holiday right now was pretty risky (hence three weeks in Scotland for us) but not everyone has the time or background knowledge to interpret epidemiological evidence themselves and some might reasonably have thought that Spain was now ok (especially the Balaerics and Canaries).

    Yes, a proper traffic light system would be good. Red is "no go", amber "book at your own risk" and green is "go ahead". Spain should never really have been green, it should always have been amber.
    USA, Russia, Iran, Sweden, anywhere in South America - Red

    Ireland (CTA) - Always green

    Should anywhere else in Europe be green ? Denmark, Norway perhaps ?
    What's going on with Ireland @Barnesian ? My girlfriend's Grandmother lives in Cork, and the family haven't been able to see her for a long while due to the virus.
    Sorry. I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking about my trip.

    Your girlfriend's family can go and see their grandmother in Cork but will have to self-isolate there for 14 days. Coming back to the UK is not a problem. No self-isolation on return.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859

    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Care home 19
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Elsewhere 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Home 30
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Hospice 3
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Hospital 23
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Other communal establishment 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Care home 1
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Elsewhere 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Home 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Hospice 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Hospital 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Other communal establishment 0

    Some interesting data to add to the PHE/ONS debate. From the ONS stats, in week 29 Wiltshire saw 19 care home deaths from all causes and 1 with Covid (by ONS rules). It must surely be possible that many of those 19 have at some stage tested positive for Covid (even if only asymptomatically), and by PHE methods, would be Covid deaths, even if that is not the main cause of death.

    This is not to revise the 45000 deaths, but to illustrate the current genuine Covid deaths is probably a fair bit lower than the PHE count.

    Yes, I've put the daily reduction in and I think we're probably at about 20 deaths per day at the moment not 30.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
    Very interestingly, a 'don't be such a greedy pig - eat less, exercise more and eat more veg' diet was given a mass experiment in WW2. Verdicts on the health of this diet are mixed, but there's some evidence that it actually puts on weight. There was a programme with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins where they ate a WW2 diet for a period (I think a week?) and both put on weight. I think it was probably a switch over to carbs (from fats and proteins) that was largely responsible.
    I wonder what the results would have been sans modern central heating, given wartime fuel shortages? That is another factor - metabolism for primary thermogenetic purposes.
    I guess new work patterns with extra shifts would change dietary requirements. Also stress - fear of defeat, bombing, loved ones dying or imprisoned on a foreign field. Perhaps Giles Coren worrying about where the next vehicle for the betterment of Giles Coren was coming from fulfilled that element.
    :lol:

    I believe they did 'war work' on the show too.
    What, 10 hours on a turret lathe? Mind' you'd get subsidised dinner in the canteen anyway. And bread wasn't rationed. Must have a look.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,523
    edited July 2020

    isam said:

    30 odd years later, the Labour party kicked these workers where it hurts, then called them racist for complaining about it

    ...and they still do now

    twitter.com/EnglishRadical/status/1288010229137973248?s=20

    Are you serious? I mean really...?????

    This is a perfect example of what was wrong with Britain in the early 70s. Trade Unions dictating to the govt and the Courts and threatening to bring the country to its knees.

    The "Pentonville Five" were locked up for breaking the law.
    Of course I am serious, I mean really, yes I am!

    The Labour Party went from supporting this kind of action, to importing hundreds of thousands of people to undercut the wages of the people on marches like this.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406

    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Care home 19
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Elsewhere 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Home 30
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Hospice 3
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Hospital 23
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Other communal establishment 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Care home 1
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Elsewhere 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Home 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Hospice 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Hospital 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Other communal establishment 0

    Some interesting data to add to the PHE/ONS debate. From the ONS stats, in week 29 Wiltshire saw 19 care home deaths from all causes and 1 with Covid (by ONS rules). It must surely be possible that many of those 19 have at some stage tested positive for Covid (even if only asymptomatically), and by PHE methods, would be Covid deaths, even if that is not the main cause of death.

    This is not to revise the 45000 deaths, but to illustrate the current genuine Covid deaths is probably a fair bit lower than the PHE count.

    I 100% agree. That's my theory too, since the news broke about the flaw in the PHE data I strongly suspect much of the current "community" deaths will be in reality natural causes care home deaths.

    Excess deaths are negative and have been for quite some time yet PHE are still counting many hundreds of deaths per week from COVID. Its illogical.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460
    isam said:

    kinabalu said:


    eek said:

    I won't be at all surprised if the government don't swiftly rescind the Spain thing following the obvious pressure from the entire travel sector about how many people they are about to make redundant. Contradiction and hypocrisy to do so? Perhaps, but as they're making it up every day with no clue what they did previous days (cf eat half price burgers / don't eat burgers) it fits the pattern of behaviour.

    If the "quarantine" was actually quarantine then perhaps they had a point. As it is if someone is even there at the airport to collect your form the authorities appear to spend zero enforcing it as them calling on you and you not being there is fine for a whole host of reasons. As with so much of their stuff it is nonsense on stilts.

    That would require the Government to admit that they made a mistake. And as with Cummings when forced to choose between admitting they made a mistake and doubling down the Government will double down.
    So if we all need to lose weight and the government is announcing a stack of anti-obesity measures from August including the plan to scrap buy one get one free on food, was not buy one burger get one free in August a mistake...? Or just the usual disorganised chaos.
    QTWAIN.

    Not a mistake. The industry is devastated at the minute. And while going out it's entirely possible to think about what you order and choose a healthier option and not a supersized meal with sugary drinks.

    The key to having a healthy weight is to make smart choices ... it is categorically NOT to never go out!
    I know you are on the libertarian end of the spectrum and I respect that. Which means that you know as well as I do what people are in most cases likely to be eating. It is not "sneering condescension" to point out that half price burgers in McDonalds paid for by the government is a direct contradiction to "stop eating burgers" said by the government. Yes its a fine balance between jobs and health. They don't attempt a balance or nuance. Its "eat burgers / don't eat burgers" in the same breath.
    No hypocrisy. It's half price anything but be careful and don't overeat.

    One meal does not obesity cause. A lifetime of smart choices is required to keep healthy.

    The government should not be saying all or nothing. Education and moderation are key, what is wrong with that?
    Philip. "Be careful and don't overeat". In McDonalds. On Half Price Big Macs. With restaurants specifically reopened to allow people to do so.

    Come on. You know what McDonalds punters are in there for. Its not for a salad bowl.
    How often do you eat at McDonald's? I do, do you with your sneering pretensions?

    If you actually eat their nobody puts a gun against your head and forces you to buy a meal with large fries and large sugary Coke.

    When we go we get out children chicken nuggets with carrot sticks instead of fries in their happy meal. I tend to get a burger and side salad instead of fries and Coke Zero.

    Personal choice and responsibilities are things for people to learn.
    You are clearly their average consumer.
    Perhaps. There is a very snobbish attitude on this site sometimes that people here are "too good" for McDonalds, KFC etc and their customers. Its not big and its not clever.

    More than one things can be true at the same time at the moment two things are true.
    1: The hospitality industry has been devastated by the virus and the government mandated social distancing and lockdown and needs support to get back on its feet.
    2: Obesity is an issue and people need to try and make smart choices.

    The government is trying to tackle both truths. No hypocrisy.
    McDonalds have actually done a lot to offer healthier meals than 10-20 years ago. And healthier fast food joints like Leon have become more popular too.
    Indeed. You can tell by some posts here those who are going based off preconceptions of what McDonalds is, versus customers who actually go there and know what it really is.

    I worked there while a student at uni 20 years ago when Supersize meals were still an option and Supersize Me came out as a movie. The menu then, compared to the menu now, is completely different. Supersize options were dropped immediately when that movie came out and carrots sticks, fruit bags, salads, grilled chicken and far more other options have long been introduced too. Its entirely possible to have a fully healthy meal at McDonalds now in a way that wasn't possible 20 years ago.
    This is true. You can play Macs safely if you keep your wits about you. I, for example, never have fries unless it's with a single burger, and even then it's small fries. So if I'm doing a Big Mac that is all I'm doing. A Big Mac. And no puddings obviously.

    Others get it all wrong. I've seen it many times, heard people ordering in ways that make no sense at all -

    "Quarterpounder with cheese, large fries, apple pie, please ... and a diet coke."

    I mean, c'mon.
    Lucozade... light

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQM-OTVUMHs
    lol - exactly - and that's a very good bit where they get stuck in the hallway with their big fat bellies.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,195
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
    Very interestingly, a 'don't be such a greedy pig - eat less, exercise more and eat more veg' diet was given a mass experiment in WW2. Verdicts on the health of this diet are mixed, but there's some evidence that it actually puts on weight. There was a programme with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins where they ate a WW2 diet for a period (I think a week?) and both put on weight. I think it was probably a switch over to carbs (from fats and proteins) that was largely responsible.
    I wonder what the results would have been sans modern central heating, given wartime fuel shortages? That is another factor - metabolism for primary thermogenetic purposes.
    I guess new work patterns with extra shifts would change dietary requirements. Also stress - fear of defeat, bombing, loved ones dying or imprisoned on a foreign field. Perhaps Giles Coren worrying about where the next vehicle for the betterment of Giles Coren was coming from fulfilled that element.
    :lol:

    I believe they did 'war work' on the show too.
    What, 10 hours on a turret lathe? Mind' you'd get subsidised dinner in the canteen anyway. And bread wasn't rationed. Must have a look.
    10 hours on a turret lathe would have been a "prime" job. 10 hours in a coal mine, doing hand work, on the other hand.....
  • isamisam Posts: 38,523
    Barnesian said:

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    On topic: maybe the government should have created a longer watchlist of countries under review on quarantine. That way the public could have a bit more information for forward planning of holidays. Going from no restrictions to fortnight quarantine overnight with no official heads up is I think something people are justified in feeling aggrieved at. I mean, it was obvious to me that booking a foreign holiday right now was pretty risky (hence three weeks in Scotland for us) but not everyone has the time or background knowledge to interpret epidemiological evidence themselves and some might reasonably have thought that Spain was now ok (especially the Balaerics and Canaries).

    Yes, a proper traffic light system would be good. Red is "no go", amber "book at your own risk" and green is "go ahead". Spain should never really have been green, it should always have been amber.
    USA, Russia, Iran, Sweden, anywhere in South America - Red

    Ireland (CTA) - Always green

    Should anywhere else in Europe be green ? Denmark, Norway perhaps ?
    What's going on with Ireland @Barnesian ? My girlfriend's Grandmother lives in Cork, and the family haven't been able to see her for a long while due to the virus.
    Sorry. I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking about my trip.

    Your girlfriend's family can go and see their grandmother in Cork but will have to self-isolate there for 14 days. Coming back to the UK is not a problem. No self-isolation on return.

    No worries, thanks for the reply/advice and sorry to hear of your loss.
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 2,450
    Selebian said:

    Cyclefree said:


    As for the healthiness of the meals, all her meals are cooked from fresh: there are vegetarian and fish options and a salad is always offered. And from time to time she does Special Food nights eg Greek offering where she gets in a Greek chef to do a whole menu. Very popular and successful. Unlike some other pubs nearby she does not buy in ready-made meals.

    It is perfectly possible to eat out and eat healthily as part of an overall sensible diet. Plus if you’ve been working on a farm or building site all day - as many do around here - you will certainly have burned off more calories than you will be consuming.

    To tackle obesity it’s the hidden sugar in so much processed food and indeed the eating of processed food which needs to be stopped or substantially reduced.

    I forget where, but remember a quote (maybe apocryphal) about sugar in homes and the presence of an actual bag of sugar being a good predictor or lower weight in the home - because having sugar meant the people actually did their own cooking/baking and that was generally healthier than buying in cakes and ready meals.

    Also, comparing the sugar content of fat-free and normal fat variants of foods, such as yoghurts, can be quite an eye opener.
    A sachet of instant Nescafe Gold Skinny Latte contains more calories (74) than a sachet of instant Nescafe Gold Caramel Latte (69).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,526
    Pulpstar said:

    Selebian said:



    Also, comparing the sugar content of fat-free and normal fat variants of foods, such as yoghurts, can be quite an eye opener.

    Nobody ever, ever, ever needs or wants fat free yoghurt. It's an abomination.
    Careful, that's Skyr Starmer you're dissing there.....
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280

    DavidL said:

    isam said:

    30 odd years later, the Labour party kicked these workers where it hurts, then called them racist for complaining about it

    ...and they still do now

    https://twitter.com/EnglishRadical/status/1288010229137973248?s=20

    Casual labour was the precursor of the gig economy. The leaders of those dock workers must be spinning in their grave at the idea that millions now live with that uncertainty.
    And somehow investors' returns are considered their reward for taking risks while workers are the ones living in genuine precarity.
    Investors do take risks but the key difference is that they can spread their risk over a number of different enterprises and one of those going pear shaped is not particularly material to their standard of living. A gig or casual worker is like an investor who has put all of his eggs in one basket and bet his house on it to boot.

    Pushing risk, such as demand on any particular day, down the foodchain to those at the bottom is in my opinion deeply immoral and economically foolish. It is foolish because it artificially reduces the consumption of those workers because they will struggle to get a mortgage, a car loan or borrow for a holiday (if they are allowed); they are more likely to become dependent upon the State and may well fall outwith the tax band altogether. The morality speaks for itself.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834
    Barnesian said:

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    On topic: maybe the government should have created a longer watchlist of countries under review on quarantine. That way the public could have a bit more information for forward planning of holidays. Going from no restrictions to fortnight quarantine overnight with no official heads up is I think something people are justified in feeling aggrieved at. I mean, it was obvious to me that booking a foreign holiday right now was pretty risky (hence three weeks in Scotland for us) but not everyone has the time or background knowledge to interpret epidemiological evidence themselves and some might reasonably have thought that Spain was now ok (especially the Balaerics and Canaries).

    Yes, a proper traffic light system would be good. Red is "no go", amber "book at your own risk" and green is "go ahead". Spain should never really have been green, it should always have been amber.
    USA, Russia, Iran, Sweden, anywhere in South America - Red

    Ireland (CTA) - Always green

    Should anywhere else in Europe be green ? Denmark, Norway perhaps ?
    What's going on with Ireland @Barnesian ? My girlfriend's Grandmother lives in Cork, and the family haven't been able to see her for a long while due to the virus.
    My wife died in Ireland while on holiday in Galway nearly two years ago. She built a house near Craughwell. It is in 20 acres and very isolated, and I imagine, very overgrown. Her car is still there. I haven't managed to obtain probate yet after much trying so I'm going to see a solicitor (after my 14 days self isolation are up) and also do some mowing, strimming, chain sawing etc at my wife's house while I'm there by myself.
    I am really sorry to hear that, must have been (and be) awful.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    DavidL said:

    Braithwaite has been both Anderson's and Broad's 500th wicket. Weird.

    One of the all time greats and a well deserved haul. We've been lucky to have him and Anderson at the same time, a bit like the Aussies having McGrath and Warne at the same time.

    Its interesting that all the 500-club of bowlers are from the modern* era, I can only guess despite the introduction of ODIs and T20s that there are more Tests now than in the past?

    * I'm defining modern as 90s+ which is when I started following cricket. Your mileage may vary.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    edited July 2020

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
    Very interestingly, a 'don't be such a greedy pig - eat less, exercise more and eat more veg' diet was given a mass experiment in WW2. Verdicts on the health of this diet are mixed, but there's some evidence that it actually puts on weight. There was a programme with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins where they ate a WW2 diet for a period (I think a week?) and both put on weight. I think it was probably a switch over to carbs (from fats and proteins) that was largely responsible.
    I wonder what the results would have been sans modern central heating, given wartime fuel shortages? That is another factor - metabolism for primary thermogenetic purposes.
    I guess new work patterns with extra shifts would change dietary requirements. Also stress - fear of defeat, bombing, loved ones dying or imprisoned on a foreign field. Perhaps Giles Coren worrying about where the next vehicle for the betterment of Giles Coren was coming from fulfilled that element.
    :lol:

    I believe they did 'war work' on the show too.
    What, 10 hours on a turret lathe? Mind' you'd get subsidised dinner in the canteen anyway. And bread wasn't rationed. Must have a look.
    10 hours on a turret lathe would have been a "prime" job. 10 hours in a coal mine, doing hand work, on the other hand.....
    Indeed, or on the farms in winter.

    This reminds me that the authorities introduced 'British Restaurants' during the war to make sure people had access to a reasonable and cheap cooked meal. Also to help level up feeding, at a very difficult time for many families, as rationing was also intended to do (as has been noted by another poster today). Might be meat and veg, and a pudding as well i f you wanted. My grandfather's shop was converted to one!
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
    Very interestingly, a 'don't be such a greedy pig - eat less, exercise more and eat more veg' diet was given a mass experiment in WW2. Verdicts on the health of this diet are mixed, but there's some evidence that it actually puts on weight. There was a programme with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins where they ate a WW2 diet for a period (I think a week?) and both put on weight. I think it was probably a switch over to carbs (from fats and proteins) that was largely responsible.
    I wonder what the results would have been sans modern central heating, given wartime fuel shortages? That is another factor - metabolism for primary thermogenetic purposes.
    I guess new work patterns with extra shifts would change dietary requirements. Also stress - fear of defeat, bombing, loved ones dying or imprisoned on a foreign field. Perhaps Giles Coren worrying about where the next vehicle for the betterment of Giles Coren was coming from fulfilled that element.
    :lol:

    I believe they did 'war work' on the show too.
    What, 10 hours on a turret lathe? Mind' you'd get subsidised dinner in the canteen anyway. And bread wasn't rationed. Must have a look.
    A bit of ARP fire watching from memory. :lol:
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,008

    Barnesian said:

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    On topic: maybe the government should have created a longer watchlist of countries under review on quarantine. That way the public could have a bit more information for forward planning of holidays. Going from no restrictions to fortnight quarantine overnight with no official heads up is I think something people are justified in feeling aggrieved at. I mean, it was obvious to me that booking a foreign holiday right now was pretty risky (hence three weeks in Scotland for us) but not everyone has the time or background knowledge to interpret epidemiological evidence themselves and some might reasonably have thought that Spain was now ok (especially the Balaerics and Canaries).

    Yes, a proper traffic light system would be good. Red is "no go", amber "book at your own risk" and green is "go ahead". Spain should never really have been green, it should always have been amber.
    USA, Russia, Iran, Sweden, anywhere in South America - Red

    Ireland (CTA) - Always green

    Should anywhere else in Europe be green ? Denmark, Norway perhaps ?
    What's going on with Ireland @Barnesian ? My girlfriend's Grandmother lives in Cork, and the family haven't been able to see her for a long while due to the virus.
    My wife died in Ireland while on holiday in Galway nearly two years ago. She built a house near Craughwell. It is in 20 acres and very isolated, and I imagine, very overgrown. Her car is still there. I haven't managed to obtain probate yet after much trying so I'm going to see a solicitor (after my 14 days self isolation are up) and also do some mowing, strimming, chain sawing etc at my wife's house while I'm there by myself.
    I am really sorry to hear that, must have been (and be) awful.
    Thanks LG
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 14,834

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
    Very interestingly, a 'don't be such a greedy pig - eat less, exercise more and eat more veg' diet was given a mass experiment in WW2. Verdicts on the health of this diet are mixed, but there's some evidence that it actually puts on weight. There was a programme with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins where they ate a WW2 diet for a period (I think a week?) and both put on weight. I think it was probably a switch over to carbs (from fats and proteins) that was largely responsible.
    It is worth noting that a considerable portion of the population was undernourished in the pre war world. Cheap food hadn't appeared yet, in the modern sense.

    Part of the design of the WWII ration (as far as they could with the knowledge of the day) was to *increase* the food groups they *thought were good* - to build up the poorer classes.

    This was based on the experience from WWI - where non trivial numbers of conscripts had to be rejected as unfit due to poor physical condition.
    Yes, it should definitely be remembered that all was not rosy in the garden before WW2. However, the paucity of cheese, butter, mik, eggs, under rationing really shocks me. And undoubtedly led to issues - the most visible being dental.
    Yup - Chamberlin had a whole program of stuff he wanted to do, including universal health insurance. Then re-armament kicked up a notch... re-armament started in 1932, and by 1936/7 was of the "spend all money you can on expanding the arms industry"
    I don't know anything about food supplies in WW2, but it does surprise me a bit how dairy had to be rationed so strictly. I would have supposed that was mostly domestically produced at the time. Getting into WW2 was catastrophic (if the right thing to do). Getting into WW1 was just catastrophic.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,219
    Cyclefree said:

    Went out for lunch on Sunday at a notable local restaurant, which is trying to get going again. Asked the owner, whom we know slightly, whether or not she was going to join the 'Eat Out' scheme. It was n't she said, worth it for her; most of her business was at weekends. I remarked that it seemed rather more suitable for Wetherspoons and other 'friends of Boris' and she agreed.

    Our favourite restaurant is part of the scheme and opening up Mondays and Tuesday for it. They suspect that with most people working from home it's irrelevant what day of the week they are open.



    Substantial extra staff costs though. Wonder what Ms Cyclefree and her daughter think off it.

    In response (blockquote mess - SORRY):-

    Daughter has signed up for the scheme. She provides food Wednesday to Sunday and is closed Monday. She is going to offer food on Tuesday for this scheme and will redeploy staff. She has worked out a 3-course menu costing ca. £19-20 to take advantage of the offer. Her main concern is to make sure that offering it on Tuesday does not cannibalise her takings on other days. At the moment there are enough tourists around and as it is for August only that should be ok.

    As for the healthiness of the meals, all her meals are cooked from fresh: there are vegetarian and fish options and a salad is always offered. And from time to time she does Special Food nights eg Greek offering where she gets in a Greek chef to do a whole menu. Very popular and successful. Unlike some other pubs nearby she does not buy in ready-made meals.

    It is perfectly possible to eat out and eat healthily as part of an overall sensible diet. Plus if you’ve been working on a farm or building site all day - as many do around here - you will certainly have burned off more calories than you will be consuming.

    To tackle obesity it’s the hidden sugar in so much processed food and indeed the eating of processed food which needs to be stopped or substantially reduced.

    It sounds great. One thing I love about rural Northern pubs is that the owners seem to assume you've just walked twenty miles to get there, or been working on the land or down a quarry for six hours, and serve portions accordingly.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    Windies lose Hope
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280

    Windies lose Hope

    So people other than Broad are allowed to take wickets? Or is it only if Broad does the catching?
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 6,910

    DavidL said:

    Braithwaite has been both Anderson's and Broad's 500th wicket. Weird.

    One of the all time greats and a well deserved haul. We've been lucky to have him and Anderson at the same time, a bit like the Aussies having McGrath and Warne at the same time.

    Its interesting that all the 500-club of bowlers are from the modern* era, I can only guess despite the introduction of ODIs and T20s that there are more Tests now than in the past?

    * I'm defining modern as 90s+ which is when I started following cricket. Your mileage may vary.
    Probably. But also far greater longevity (for fast bowlers particularly) because of how little first class cricket they play.
  • Beibheirli_CBeibheirli_C Posts: 4,953
    isam said:

    isam said:

    30 odd years later, the Labour party kicked these workers where it hurts, then called them racist for complaining about it

    ...and they still do now

    twitter.com/EnglishRadical/status/1288010229137973248?s=20

    Are you serious? I mean really...?????

    This is a perfect example of what was wrong with Britain in the early 70s. Trade Unions dictating to the govt and the Courts and threatening to bring the country to its knees.

    The "Pentonville Five" were locked up for breaking the law.
    Of course I am serious, I mean really, yes I am!

    The Labour Party went from supporting this kind of action, to importing hundreds of thousands of people to undercut the wages of the people on marches like this.

    I remember this stuff from the 70s. The Labour Party was full of the then equivalent of Corbynites (anti-semitism would not matter back then) and the "Loony Left". It was unworkable. You could get nothing done because of strike disruption and when you did get it done, it was overpriced and under-spec and usually shoddily made.

    Modern Labour may have gone too far, but that does not excuse the near Marxist Labour from back then.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,875

    Selebian said:

    Cyclefree said:


    As for the healthiness of the meals, all her meals are cooked from fresh: there are vegetarian and fish options and a salad is always offered. And from time to time she does Special Food nights eg Greek offering where she gets in a Greek chef to do a whole menu. Very popular and successful. Unlike some other pubs nearby she does not buy in ready-made meals.

    It is perfectly possible to eat out and eat healthily as part of an overall sensible diet. Plus if you’ve been working on a farm or building site all day - as many do around here - you will certainly have burned off more calories than you will be consuming.

    To tackle obesity it’s the hidden sugar in so much processed food and indeed the eating of processed food which needs to be stopped or substantially reduced.

    I forget where, but remember a quote (maybe apocryphal) about sugar in homes and the presence of an actual bag of sugar being a good predictor or lower weight in the home - because having sugar meant the people actually did their own cooking/baking and that was generally healthier than buying in cakes and ready meals.

    Also, comparing the sugar content of fat-free and normal fat variants of foods, such as yoghurts, can be quite an eye opener.
    A sachet of instant Nescafe Gold Skinny Latte contains more calories (74) than a sachet of instant Nescafe Gold Caramel Latte (69).
    I don’t much like sugar or sweet things generally, apart from fruit. And I don’t eat processed food. But I adore bread and pasta and cheese.

    Which is why my body shape is more Sophia Loren than Gwyneth Paltrow .....

    On which note I had better be off on a walk and socially distancing from my fridge.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 6,910
    Fred Trueman: 67 test matches. 536 other first class matches
    Stuart Broad: 140 tests. 84 other first class matches
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,979
    edited July 2020

    DavidL said:

    Braithwaite has been both Anderson's and Broad's 500th wicket. Weird.

    One of the all time greats and a well deserved haul. We've been lucky to have him and Anderson at the same time, a bit like the Aussies having McGrath and Warne at the same time.

    Its interesting that all the 500-club of bowlers are from the modern* era, I can only guess despite the introduction of ODIs and T20s that there are more Tests now than in the past?

    * I'm defining modern as 90s+ which is when I started following cricket. Your mileage may vary.
    England tests by decade:

    1880 29
    1890 32
    1900 38
    1910 21
    1920 48
    1930 72
    1940 32
    1950 83
    1960 100
    1970 95
    1980 104
    1990 107
    2000 129
    2010 126

    Note in the modern era England play a lot more than everyone else. Also more weaker teams like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland can help inflate records.

    McGrath and Warne a class apart as could deliver on such a variety of wickets. Broad and Anderson a match in English conditions but not in Australia or the sub continent.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,195
    edited July 2020
    MaxPB said:

    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Care home 19
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Elsewhere 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Home 30
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Hospice 3
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Hospital 23
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Other communal establishment 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Care home 1
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Elsewhere 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Home 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Hospice 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Hospital 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Other communal establishment 0

    Some interesting data to add to the PHE/ONS debate. From the ONS stats, in week 29 Wiltshire saw 19 care home deaths from all causes and 1 with Covid (by ONS rules). It must surely be possible that many of those 19 have at some stage tested positive for Covid (even if only asymptomatically), and by PHE methods, would be Covid deaths, even if that is not the main cause of death.

    This is not to revise the 45000 deaths, but to illustrate the current genuine Covid deaths is probably a fair bit lower than the PHE count.

    Yes, I've put the daily reduction in and I think we're probably at about 20 deaths per day at the moment not 30.
    I just did some maths -

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales/2020/publishedweek292020.xlsx

    Says that 306 people died of COVID in all settings - week end 17th July (week 29)

    PHE via https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/

    Say that 442 people died of COVID in all settings between 11th July and 17th July inclusive.

    What am I doing wrong?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,526
    edited July 2020

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
    Very interestingly, a 'don't be such a greedy pig - eat less, exercise more and eat more veg' diet was given a mass experiment in WW2. Verdicts on the health of this diet are mixed, but there's some evidence that it actually puts on weight. There was a programme with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins where they ate a WW2 diet for a period (I think a week?) and both put on weight. I think it was probably a switch over to carbs (from fats and proteins) that was largely responsible.
    It is worth noting that a considerable portion of the population was undernourished in the pre war world. Cheap food hadn't appeared yet, in the modern sense.

    Part of the design of the WWII ration (as far as they could with the knowledge of the day) was to *increase* the food groups they *thought were good* - to build up the poorer classes.

    This was based on the experience from WWI - where non trivial numbers of conscripts had to be rejected as unfit due to poor physical condition.
    Yes, it should definitely be remembered that all was not rosy in the garden before WW2. However, the paucity of cheese, butter, mik, eggs, under rationing really shocks me. And undoubtedly led to issues - the most visible being dental.
    Yup - Chamberlin had a whole program of stuff he wanted to do, including universal health insurance. Then re-armament kicked up a notch... re-armament started in 1932, and by 1936/7 was of the "spend all money you can on expanding the arms industry"
    I don't know anything about food supplies in WW2, but it does surprise me a bit how dairy had to be rationed so strictly. I would have supposed that was mostly domestically produced at the time. Getting into WW2 was catastrophic (if the right thing to do). Getting into WW1 was just catastrophic.
    Probably shortage of grain (for animal feed) and difficulty with importing animal feed. The grain shortage certainly led to a reduction in whisky production in WW2 (and of course the draff byproducts which would have fed lots of cattle).

    Edit: In general I don't think anyone needed to starve during WW2 in the UK - but would have had to fill up with wholemeal bread and spuds and other veg. Outwith favoured groups such as servicemen, the problem seems to have been fats and meat to make the bulk palatable, never mind have an excess to get fat on. Very different from the diets od today discussed here.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    Braithwaite has been both Anderson's and Broad's 500th wicket. Weird.

    One of the all time greats and a well deserved haul. We've been lucky to have him and Anderson at the same time, a bit like the Aussies having McGrath and Warne at the same time.

    Its interesting that all the 500-club of bowlers are from the modern* era, I can only guess despite the introduction of ODIs and T20s that there are more Tests now than in the past?

    * I'm defining modern as 90s+ which is when I started following cricket. Your mileage may vary.
    Probably. But also far greater longevity (for fast bowlers particularly) because of how little first class cricket they play.
    Yes I think that is the key. Anderson and Broad have both had very long careers on the back of central contracts.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 6,910

    MaxPB said:

    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Care home 19
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Elsewhere 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Home 30
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Hospice 3
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Hospital 23
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Other communal establishment 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Care home 1
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Elsewhere 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Home 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Hospice 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Hospital 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Other communal establishment 0

    Some interesting data to add to the PHE/ONS debate. From the ONS stats, in week 29 Wiltshire saw 19 care home deaths from all causes and 1 with Covid (by ONS rules). It must surely be possible that many of those 19 have at some stage tested positive for Covid (even if only asymptomatically), and by PHE methods, would be Covid deaths, even if that is not the main cause of death.

    This is not to revise the 45000 deaths, but to illustrate the current genuine Covid deaths is probably a fair bit lower than the PHE count.

    Yes, I've put the daily reduction in and I think we're probably at about 20 deaths per day at the moment not 30.
    I just did some maths -

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales/2020/publishedweek292020.xlsx

    Says that 200 people died of COVID in all settings - week end 17th July (week 29)

    PHE via https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/

    Say that 442 people died of COVID in all settings between 11th Just and 17th July inclusive.

    What am I doing wrong?
    PHE deaths include

    1) deaths reported in period, but including those from earlier (although this may be true of ONS?
    2) PHE deaths include those who may have had a COVID positive test months ago, and were fully recovered.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859
    edited July 2020

    MaxPB said:

    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Care home 19
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Elsewhere 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Home 30
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Hospice 3
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Hospital 23
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Other communal establishment 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Care home 1
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Elsewhere 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Home 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Hospice 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Hospital 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Other communal establishment 0

    Some interesting data to add to the PHE/ONS debate. From the ONS stats, in week 29 Wiltshire saw 19 care home deaths from all causes and 1 with Covid (by ONS rules). It must surely be possible that many of those 19 have at some stage tested positive for Covid (even if only asymptomatically), and by PHE methods, would be Covid deaths, even if that is not the main cause of death.

    This is not to revise the 45000 deaths, but to illustrate the current genuine Covid deaths is probably a fair bit lower than the PHE count.

    Yes, I've put the daily reduction in and I think we're probably at about 20 deaths per day at the moment not 30.
    I just did some maths -

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales/2020/publishedweek292020.xlsx

    Says that 200 people died of COVID in all settings - week end 17th July (week 29)

    PHE via https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/

    Say that 442 people died of COVID in all settings between 11th Just and 17th July inclusive.

    What am I doing wrong?
    My mistake, I was using the figure from week 28. So that actually makes it more like 15 deaths per day currently.
  • alex_alex_ Posts: 6,910
    edited July 2020

    DavidL said:

    Braithwaite has been both Anderson's and Broad's 500th wicket. Weird.

    One of the all time greats and a well deserved haul. We've been lucky to have him and Anderson at the same time, a bit like the Aussies having McGrath and Warne at the same time.

    Its interesting that all the 500-club of bowlers are from the modern* era, I can only guess despite the introduction of ODIs and T20s that there are more Tests now than in the past?

    * I'm defining modern as 90s+ which is when I started following cricket. Your mileage may vary.
    England tests by decade:

    1880 29
    1890 32
    1900 38
    1910 21
    1920 48
    1930 72
    1940 32
    1950 83
    1960 100
    1970 95
    1980 104
    1990 107
    2000 129
    2010 126

    Note in the modern era England play a lot more than everyone else. Also more weaker teams like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland can help inflate records.
    Latter point doesn't really apply, i think. Weak teams have always existed. And not particularly noticeable for Broad/Anderson anyway. Unless you define "weaker" as "not Australia"!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    Barnesian said:

    isam said:

    Pulpstar said:

    MaxPB said:

    On topic: maybe the government should have created a longer watchlist of countries under review on quarantine. That way the public could have a bit more information for forward planning of holidays. Going from no restrictions to fortnight quarantine overnight with no official heads up is I think something people are justified in feeling aggrieved at. I mean, it was obvious to me that booking a foreign holiday right now was pretty risky (hence three weeks in Scotland for us) but not everyone has the time or background knowledge to interpret epidemiological evidence themselves and some might reasonably have thought that Spain was now ok (especially the Balaerics and Canaries).

    Yes, a proper traffic light system would be good. Red is "no go", amber "book at your own risk" and green is "go ahead". Spain should never really have been green, it should always have been amber.
    USA, Russia, Iran, Sweden, anywhere in South America - Red

    Ireland (CTA) - Always green

    Should anywhere else in Europe be green ? Denmark, Norway perhaps ?
    What's going on with Ireland @Barnesian ? My girlfriend's Grandmother lives in Cork, and the family haven't been able to see her for a long while due to the virus.
    My wife died in Ireland while on holiday in Galway nearly two years ago. She built a house near Craughwell. It is in 20 acres and very isolated, and I imagine, very overgrown. Her car is still there. I haven't managed to obtain probate yet after much trying so I'm going to see a solicitor (after my 14 days self isolation are up) and also do some mowing, strimming, chain sawing etc at my wife's house while I'm there by myself.
    Deepest sympathies. If there is heritage involved you will certainly need a lawyer.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859
    alex_ said:

    MaxPB said:

    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Care home 19
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Elsewhere 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Home 30
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Hospice 3
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Hospital 23
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Other communal establishment 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Care home 1
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Elsewhere 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Home 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Hospice 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Hospital 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Other communal establishment 0

    Some interesting data to add to the PHE/ONS debate. From the ONS stats, in week 29 Wiltshire saw 19 care home deaths from all causes and 1 with Covid (by ONS rules). It must surely be possible that many of those 19 have at some stage tested positive for Covid (even if only asymptomatically), and by PHE methods, would be Covid deaths, even if that is not the main cause of death.

    This is not to revise the 45000 deaths, but to illustrate the current genuine Covid deaths is probably a fair bit lower than the PHE count.

    Yes, I've put the daily reduction in and I think we're probably at about 20 deaths per day at the moment not 30.
    I just did some maths -

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales/2020/publishedweek292020.xlsx

    Says that 200 people died of COVID in all settings - week end 17th July (week 29)

    PHE via https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/

    Say that 442 people died of COVID in all settings between 11th Just and 17th July inclusive.

    What am I doing wrong?
    PHE deaths include

    1) deaths reported in period, but including those from earlier (although this may be true of ONS?
    2) PHE deaths include those who may have had a COVID positive test months ago, and were fully recovered.
    The new series is by date of death which matches the ONS measurement. The difference comes entirely from point 2 at the moment.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460
    edited July 2020

    Carnyx said:

    TOPPING said:

    kle4 said:

    @noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...

    Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
    You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
    Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.

    This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983

    Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.

    What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?

    How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
    It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.

    My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
    Well done on you shedding weight.

    Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:

    "Exercise more.
    Eat less."
    The problem is that this seeming truism, isn't the whole story. The body is incredibly complex. I've seen some extremely interesting studies, such as feeding volunteers hugely excess (k)calories for a long period. If it was simply excess calories leads to weight gain, then all would have ballooned. They didn't. Most only gained a few extra pounds. Its the same with very low calorie diets - the body resists the diet and shuts down resting energy use. Peoples approach to food is important. My wife only eats when hungry, when she's not she has no interest in food. I, on the other hand, can eat at any time. Notably if my wife is tired, she's not hungry. No late night munchies or curries for her.
    Its also unhelpful for those who find it incredibly easy to not put on weight to assume that they are doing something right by conscious choice, and those that are overweight are 'weak', or eating a poor diet. Its complicated still further by fitness - you can be cardiovasularly fit, and overweight. It would be better to be fit and not overweight, but its not easy. I have run over 20 half marathons and two marathons, yet was never able to reach my goal of under 12 stone (I'm Boris height). At my fittest, I was still a plodder (2h 14 min best half time) but with a resting pulse of 52 bpm.
    I don't eat sweets particularly and have recently given up chocolate, and limiting cake to once a week. My weakness for certain is bread (and its usually high quality, wholegrain bread at that). All my family have this issue - we all tend to be rounder than ideal. Yet my father is now 81 and my mum 76, and in perfect health. I really want to emulate them...
    Very interestingly, a 'don't be such a greedy pig - eat less, exercise more and eat more veg' diet was given a mass experiment in WW2. Verdicts on the health of this diet are mixed, but there's some evidence that it actually puts on weight. There was a programme with Giles Coren and Sue Perkins where they ate a WW2 diet for a period (I think a week?) and both put on weight. I think it was probably a switch over to carbs (from fats and proteins) that was largely responsible.
    I wonder what the results would have been sans modern central heating, given wartime fuel shortages? That is another factor - metabolism for primary thermogenetic purposes.
    I guess new work patterns with extra shifts would change dietary requirements. Also stress - fear of defeat, bombing, loved ones dying or imprisoned on a foreign field. Perhaps Giles Coren worrying about where the next vehicle for the betterment of Giles Coren was coming from fulfilled that element.
    Yes, one worried about Giles with all the restaurants closed. His Eating Out column in the Times got put on pause - with probably no furlough income - and he had to make do with a new makeshift column (also in the Times) called "The Corens Locked Down" in which he and his wife, Esther, wrote about amusing little things that had happened in their lockdown house in the Cotswolds over the previous week. I suppose he was paid for this but it (surely) wouldn't have been as much as he used to get for his restaurant column. But anyway, all Ok now. Eateries are open again for him to review plus he's up and running with a show on Times Radio. Oh and through it all he had and has his other Times column, the "current affairs" one where he gently and sometimes not so gently mocks all things Politically Correct. Or "woke" as he tends to put it.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 24,566
    Selebian said:

    Cyclefree said:


    As for the healthiness of the meals, all her meals are cooked from fresh: there are vegetarian and fish options and a salad is always offered. And from time to time she does Special Food nights eg Greek offering where she gets in a Greek chef to do a whole menu. Very popular and successful. Unlike some other pubs nearby she does not buy in ready-made meals.

    It is perfectly possible to eat out and eat healthily as part of an overall sensible diet. Plus if you’ve been working on a farm or building site all day - as many do around here - you will certainly have burned off more calories than you will be consuming.

    To tackle obesity it’s the hidden sugar in so much processed food and indeed the eating of processed food which needs to be stopped or substantially reduced.

    I forget where, but remember a quote (maybe apocryphal) about sugar in homes and the presence of an actual bag of sugar being a good predictor or lower weight in the home - because having sugar meant the people actually did their own cooking/baking and that was generally healthier than buying in cakes and ready meals.

    Also, comparing the sugar content of fat-free and normal fat variants of foods, such as yoghurts, can be quite an eye opener.
    I stopped eating stuff with added sugars in most things a few years ago. So I have no biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, and a whole host of other things. I have time off for good behaviour at Christmas but am so used to not eating sugars that I rarely actually bother with anything other than some Christmas cake or Christmas pud. I have moved to sugar free yoghurts but with the exception of xylotol which my wife uses when making ice cream I also avoid all artificial sweeteners as well. I do still drink alcohol.

    One interesting side effect of this which appeared almost immediately is I no longer get heart burn or indigestion - having suffered with it really badly for years before. No idea of the mechanics of that one but it has certainly made life a lot more peasant and made it easier to stick to the restriction as well.

    The only diet that ever really worked for me was intermittent fasting which had a quite spectacular success. Having let my weight drift for a few years I am back on that again as well.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,979
    alex_ said:

    DavidL said:

    Braithwaite has been both Anderson's and Broad's 500th wicket. Weird.

    One of the all time greats and a well deserved haul. We've been lucky to have him and Anderson at the same time, a bit like the Aussies having McGrath and Warne at the same time.

    Its interesting that all the 500-club of bowlers are from the modern* era, I can only guess despite the introduction of ODIs and T20s that there are more Tests now than in the past?

    * I'm defining modern as 90s+ which is when I started following cricket. Your mileage may vary.
    England tests by decade:

    1880 29
    1890 32
    1900 38
    1910 21
    1920 48
    1930 72
    1940 32
    1950 83
    1960 100
    1970 95
    1980 104
    1990 107
    2000 129
    2010 126

    Note in the modern era England play a lot more than everyone else. Also more weaker teams like Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Ireland can help inflate records.
    Latter point doesn't really apply, i think. Weak teams have always existed. And not particularly noticeable for Broad/Anderson anyway. Unless you define "weaker" as "not Australia"!
    Agree it doesnt apply to Broad and Anderson, but it does to some players if you are comparing by era. After India joined in 1932 there was only one new team added in the next 50 years so during much of that era the gaps were much smaller.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,195
    alex_ said:

    MaxPB said:

    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Care home 19
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Elsewhere 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Home 30
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Hospice 3
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Hospital 23
    Local Authority Wiltshire All causes 29 Other communal establishment 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Care home 1
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Elsewhere 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Home 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Hospice 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Hospital 0
    Local Authority Wiltshire COVID 19 29 Other communal establishment 0

    Some interesting data to add to the PHE/ONS debate. From the ONS stats, in week 29 Wiltshire saw 19 care home deaths from all causes and 1 with Covid (by ONS rules). It must surely be possible that many of those 19 have at some stage tested positive for Covid (even if only asymptomatically), and by PHE methods, would be Covid deaths, even if that is not the main cause of death.

    This is not to revise the 45000 deaths, but to illustrate the current genuine Covid deaths is probably a fair bit lower than the PHE count.

    Yes, I've put the daily reduction in and I think we're probably at about 20 deaths per day at the moment not 30.
    I just did some maths -

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales/2020/publishedweek292020.xlsx

    Says that 200 people died of COVID in all settings - week end 17th July (week 29)

    PHE via https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/

    Say that 442 people died of COVID in all settings between 11th Just and 17th July inclusive.

    What am I doing wrong?
    PHE deaths include

    1) deaths reported in period, but including those from earlier (although this may be true of ONS?
    2) PHE deaths include those who may have had a COVID positive test months ago, and were fully recovered.
    1) The PHE numbers I use are by date of death - I download the actual data and build the graph below

    2) THe ONS has 2 numbers -

    Deaths (numbers) by local authority and cause of death, for deaths that occurred up to 17th July 2020 but were registered up to 25th July 2020, England and Wales - 306

    Deaths (numbers) by local authority and cause of death, for deaths that occurred up to 17th July 2020 but were registered up to 25th July 2020, England and Wales - 200

    if the correct one is the later then, as the great philosopher said "Holy Shitsnacks!"

    I can see why PHE isn't moving on the rework of the numbers.

    image
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,195

    On topic.

    I am sorry but who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to book overseas holidays this year after the virus had hit. Obviously I can understand beforehand as no one could have predicted this. But once we had been through the first wave, you have to be mad to book a holiday and not think it might all fall apart.

    A friend and his wife went to Ibiza. On the basis that they are both WFH, and could work if stuck there. Or work from quarantine when they returned.

    They got hit by quarantine, in the end.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,523

    On topic.

    I am sorry but who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to book overseas holidays this year after the virus had hit. Obviously I can understand beforehand as no one could have predicted this. But once we had been through the first wave, you have to be mad to book a holiday and not think it might all fall apart.

    Yes couldn’t agree more.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859

    On topic.

    I am sorry but who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to book overseas holidays this year after the virus had hit. Obviously I can understand beforehand as no one could have predicted this. But once we had been through the first wave, you have to be mad to book a holiday and not think it might all fall apart.

    I'm going to Sicily, but I'll go either way. I'm not fussed by having to do 14 days quarantine if necessary, however. I booked knowing that it might be necessary on returning and I'm not going to whine if the government introduces it.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594

    On topic.

    I am sorry but who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to book overseas holidays this year after the virus had hit. Obviously I can understand beforehand as no one could have predicted this. But once we had been through the first wave, you have to be mad to book a holiday and not think it might all fall apart.

    Yep. I cannot for the life of me think why anyone would take the risk of booking at the moment other than a staycation.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,498

    On topic.

    I am sorry but who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to book overseas holidays this year after the virus had hit. Obviously I can understand beforehand as no one could have predicted this. But once we had been through the first wave, you have to be mad to book a holiday and not think it might all fall apart.

    Cabinet Ministers...
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,435



    Something which people aren't talking about is the amount of holiday which people at work will have been building up. I've taken really no days holiday this year so far, and still have well over 20 days to take.

    I'm beginning to be pressured (as with everyone at my work) to consider taking them, but I don't really want to. Obviously some people have jumped at the chance of a summer holiday in Spain and the like on the basis that they 'have' to take holiday, and don;t want to just hang around at home (especially if you're working from home already!).

    It's only going to get worse, and could be a big issue for lots of firms. I can already see I'm going to be very busy this year and could easilt run though my work to December without a good time for a break.

    Of course i 'do' need a break, and will take at least a week soon, but then I still over 3 other weeks to take off.... for what?

    Yes, we have a mild management style but the message has been gently communicated that it would be really nice if people took some days off now (especially as with Parliament in recess there is less lobbying going on) rather than saving it all up. Lots of people are taking long weekends just to add variety to the 5/2 routine, but nobody is taking a long break. It's one of the subtle problems that will rear its head later in the year.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,594

    Selebian said:

    Cyclefree said:


    As for the healthiness of the meals, all her meals are cooked from fresh: there are vegetarian and fish options and a salad is always offered. And from time to time she does Special Food nights eg Greek offering where she gets in a Greek chef to do a whole menu. Very popular and successful. Unlike some other pubs nearby she does not buy in ready-made meals.

    It is perfectly possible to eat out and eat healthily as part of an overall sensible diet. Plus if you’ve been working on a farm or building site all day - as many do around here - you will certainly have burned off more calories than you will be consuming.

    To tackle obesity it’s the hidden sugar in so much processed food and indeed the eating of processed food which needs to be stopped or substantially reduced.

    I forget where, but remember a quote (maybe apocryphal) about sugar in homes and the presence of an actual bag of sugar being a good predictor or lower weight in the home - because having sugar meant the people actually did their own cooking/baking and that was generally healthier than buying in cakes and ready meals.

    Also, comparing the sugar content of fat-free and normal fat variants of foods, such as yoghurts, can be quite an eye opener.
    I stopped eating stuff with added sugars in most things a few years ago. So I have no biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, and a whole host of other things. I have time off for good behaviour at Christmas but am so used to not eating sugars that I rarely actually bother with anything other than some Christmas cake or Christmas pud. I have moved to sugar free yoghurts but with the exception of xylotol which my wife uses when making ice cream I also avoid all artificial sweeteners as well. I do still drink alcohol.

    One interesting side effect of this which appeared almost immediately is I no longer get heart burn or indigestion - having suffered with it really badly for years before. No idea of the mechanics of that one but it has certainly made life a lot more peasant and made it easier to stick to the restriction as well.

    The only diet that ever really worked for me was intermittent fasting which had a quite spectacular success. Having let my weight drift for a few years I am back on that again as well.
    Likewise on chocs, cakes, biscuits etc. We do seem as a society to be swimming in them though. If you are someone who is easily tempted then it is a nightmare I guess.

    Personally I would ban non-sugar-free soft drinks like coke. A huge part of the obesity issue is down to them imho.

  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    Johnson could not make a better job of making the coming economic cataclysm absolutely as bad as it possibly could be if he tried.

    It really is a quite breathtaking example of cowardice, cravenness, vanity and incompetence.
  • On topic.

    I am sorry but who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to book overseas holidays this year after the virus had hit. Obviously I can understand beforehand as no one could have predicted this. But once we had been through the first wave, you have to be mad to book a holiday and not think it might all fall apart.

    A friend and his wife went to Ibiza. On the basis that they are both WFH, and could work if stuck there. Or work from quarantine when they returned.

    They got hit by quarantine, in the end.
    In which case I doubt they're they are the types offering vox pops about how unforseeable and unjust this all is - good on them - and hope they keep happy and well.

    I'm someone who has been banging on for months that our Government moved late at every stage and we suffered the consequences. That still stands. But I won't have any criticism them for prioritising public health over a total luxury - with a known risk attached.

    Anyone visiting loved ones after many months I obviously have much more sympathy for.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,523
    edited July 2020

    isam said:

    isam said:

    30 odd years later, the Labour party kicked these workers where it hurts, then called them racist for complaining about it

    ...and they still do now

    twitter.com/EnglishRadical/status/1288010229137973248?s=20

    Are you serious? I mean really...?????

    This is a perfect example of what was wrong with Britain in the early 70s. Trade Unions dictating to the govt and the Courts and threatening to bring the country to its knees.

    The "Pentonville Five" were locked up for breaking the law.
    Of course I am serious, I mean really, yes I am!

    The Labour Party went from supporting this kind of action, to importing hundreds of thousands of people to undercut the wages of the people on marches like this.

    I remember this stuff from the 70s. The Labour Party was full of the then equivalent of Corbynites (anti-semitism would not matter back then) and the "Loony Left". It was unworkable. You could get nothing done because of strike disruption and when you did get it done, it was overpriced and under-spec and usually shoddily made.

    Modern Labour may have gone too far, but that does not excuse the near Marxist Labour from back then.
    Before my time, and I take your point that overarching Trade Unions can be more of an overall hindrance than a help, but my feeling, that you seem to sympathise with, is that Modern Labour threw the baby out with the bathwater. The majority of people on the march were probably not Loony left, Corbynite anti semites but working class people who wanted job security, same as most poorly paid people today.

    It’s one of the things I find most baffling about modern left wing politics, they rail against the free market in a lot of ways but seem to consider poor peoples labour fair game
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,195



    Something which people aren't talking about is the amount of holiday which people at work will have been building up. I've taken really no days holiday this year so far, and still have well over 20 days to take.

    I'm beginning to be pressured (as with everyone at my work) to consider taking them, but I don't really want to. Obviously some people have jumped at the chance of a summer holiday in Spain and the like on the basis that they 'have' to take holiday, and don;t want to just hang around at home (especially if you're working from home already!).

    It's only going to get worse, and could be a big issue for lots of firms. I can already see I'm going to be very busy this year and could easilt run though my work to December without a good time for a break.

    Of course i 'do' need a break, and will take at least a week soon, but then I still over 3 other weeks to take off.... for what?

    Yes, we have a mild management style but the message has been gently communicated that it would be really nice if people took some days off now (especially as with Parliament in recess there is less lobbying going on) rather than saving it all up. Lots of people are taking long weekends just to add variety to the 5/2 routine, but nobody is taking a long break. It's one of the subtle problems that will rear its head later in the year.
    Where I am, we were flat out told that we needed to use x amount of holiday by date y.

    Pretty sensible - otherwise everyone would have taken the entire of December off.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,719
    Scott_xP said:

    On topic.

    I am sorry but who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to book overseas holidays this year after the virus had hit. Obviously I can understand beforehand as no one could have predicted this. But once we had been through the first wave, you have to be mad to book a holiday and not think it might all fall apart.

    The wives of Cabinet Ministers...
    Fixed that for you.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,406
    edited July 2020

    Johnson could not make a better job of making the coming economic cataclysm absolutely as bad as it possibly could be if he tried.

    It really is a quite breathtaking example of cowardice, cravenness, vanity and incompetence.

    I think you are going to be very, very wrong.

    If the government hadn't done furlough etc then I'm quite confident the economic damage would have been much, much worse as countless healthy businesses would have gone to the wall.

    Thanks to minimally intrusive measures like masks etc now, the economic damage will be really minimised going forwards.
  • Question: does anyone know of an insurance company who would provide health insurance cover for a 2 week non-essential trip to Portugal EXCLUDING Covid-19 cover (so emergency + repatriation for accidents)? Eldest daughter wants to go with the boyfriend next week, and our family policy won't cover her due to the FCO advice at the moment.

    And yes I know it's stupid.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,195

    On topic.

    I am sorry but who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to book overseas holidays this year after the virus had hit. Obviously I can understand beforehand as no one could have predicted this. But once we had been through the first wave, you have to be mad to book a holiday and not think it might all fall apart.

    A friend and his wife went to Ibiza. On the basis that they are both WFH, and could work if stuck there. Or work from quarantine when they returned.

    They got hit by quarantine, in the end.
    In which case I doubt they're they are the types offering vox pops about how unforseeable and unjust this all is - good on them - and hope they keep happy and well.

    I'm someone who has been banging on for months that our Government moved late at every stage and we suffered the consequences. That still stands. But I won't have any criticism them for prioritising public health over a total luxury - with a known risk attached.

    Anyone visiting loved ones after many months I obviously have much more sympathy for.
    They factored it in - he's Spanish and regards being stuck in Ibiza (if that had happened) as "so what?".

    They've ended up with the quarantine - which means not a lot, since they are working from home anyway..
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477
    edited July 2020

    Selebian said:

    Cyclefree said:


    As for the healthiness of the meals, all her meals are cooked from fresh: there are vegetarian and fish options and a salad is always offered. And from time to time she does Special Food nights eg Greek offering where she gets in a Greek chef to do a whole menu. Very popular and successful. Unlike some other pubs nearby she does not buy in ready-made meals.

    It is perfectly possible to eat out and eat healthily as part of an overall sensible diet. Plus if you’ve been working on a farm or building site all day - as many do around here - you will certainly have burned off more calories than you will be consuming.

    To tackle obesity it’s the hidden sugar in so much processed food and indeed the eating of processed food which needs to be stopped or substantially reduced.

    I forget where, but remember a quote (maybe apocryphal) about sugar in homes and the presence of an actual bag of sugar being a good predictor or lower weight in the home - because having sugar meant the people actually did their own cooking/baking and that was generally healthier than buying in cakes and ready meals.

    Also, comparing the sugar content of fat-free and normal fat variants of foods, such as yoghurts, can be quite an eye opener.
    I stopped eating stuff with added sugars in most things a few years ago. So I have no biscuits, cakes, sweets, chocolate, and a whole host of other things. I have time off for good behaviour at Christmas but am so used to not eating sugars that I rarely actually bother with anything other than some Christmas cake or Christmas pud. I have moved to sugar free yoghurts but with the exception of xylotol which my wife uses when making ice cream I also avoid all artificial sweeteners as well. I do still drink alcohol.

    One interesting side effect of this which appeared almost immediately is I no longer get heart burn or indigestion - having suffered with it really badly for years before. No idea of the mechanics of that one but it has certainly made life a lot more peasant and made it easier to stick to the restriction as well.

    The only diet that ever really worked for me was intermittent fasting which had a quite spectacular success. Having let my weight drift for a few years I am back on that again as well.
    Likewise on chocs, cakes, biscuits etc. We do seem as a society to be swimming in them though. If you are someone who is easily tempted then it is a nightmare I guess.

    Personally I would ban non-sugar-free soft drinks like coke. A huge part of the obesity issue is down to them imho.

    It's quite hard to get large amounts of sugar in drinks these days. Even the full sugar versions of everything contain loads of aspartime.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,460
    isam said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    30 odd years later, the Labour party kicked these workers where it hurts, then called them racist for complaining about it

    ...and they still do now

    twitter.com/EnglishRadical/status/1288010229137973248?s=20

    Are you serious? I mean really...?????

    This is a perfect example of what was wrong with Britain in the early 70s. Trade Unions dictating to the govt and the Courts and threatening to bring the country to its knees.

    The "Pentonville Five" were locked up for breaking the law.
    Of course I am serious, I mean really, yes I am!

    The Labour Party went from supporting this kind of action, to importing hundreds of thousands of people to undercut the wages of the people on marches like this.

    I remember this stuff from the 70s. The Labour Party was full of the then equivalent of Corbynites (anti-semitism would not matter back then) and the "Loony Left". It was unworkable. You could get nothing done because of strike disruption and when you did get it done, it was overpriced and under-spec and usually shoddily made.

    Modern Labour may have gone too far, but that does not excuse the near Marxist Labour from back then.
    Before my time, and I take your point that overarching Trade Unions can be more of an overall hindrance than a help, but my feeling, that you seem to sympathise with, is that Modern Labour threw the baby out with the bathwater. The majority of people on the march were probably not Loony left, Corbynite anti semites but working class people who wanted job security, same as most poorly paid people today.

    It’s one of the things I find most baffling about modern left wing politics, they rail against the free market in a lot of ways but seem to consider poor peoples labour fair game
    It's a big issue and I pretty much share your take except for the race and immigration angle. For me, the notion that the boss class use this to divide the workers has much going for it. This sort of thing -

    https://isreview.org/issue/98/race-class-and-capitalism
This discussion has been closed.