# Fat benefits claimants told to go to the gym or face having have handouts taken away



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Fat benefits claimants told to go to the gym or face having have handouts taken away by local councils | Mail Online

thoughts?

now it doesnt say but im assuming they mean those on disability benefits

as if they mean all benefits including JSA thats a bit unfair


----------



## Kirkland (Aug 28, 2012)

I skimmed read it so sorry if it was in there but does the article mention who would be paying for it? It would be quite unfair if someone on benefits had to try and budget in a gym membership however discounted it is. I personally rather the government put a tax on unhealthy foods and used that money generated to make healthy food cheaper.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

If it was free I'd welcome it.

I used to love swimming and badminton but just can't afford it now, £4.80 adult swim, £9.00 to book a badminton court.

I was invovled in a free gym and exercise programme for people with depression and I felt it was of great benefit. Lack of funding meant it stopped 

Sadly there are some people for whom tough love won't work, it seems under this government, that these people have no voice and will end up in hospital, prison or dead


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

If they mean benefits being paid_ just_ because the claimant is overweight I agree with it.

I would imagine the only benefit paid for_ just_ being overweight is DLA.

If they are talking about overweight people that are doing everything they can to get off benefits and start working, then no, I don't agree with it.

One of my best friends _must_ be size 20. She has a full time job, and teaches karate 5 times a week. She is a black belt (not sure what dan she is up to now), and she is a million times _fitter_ than I am (size 10-12).

Don't penalise people for being overweight - penalise them if they use their size as an _excuse_ to claim benefits.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

MCWillow said:


> If they mean benefits being paid_ just_ because the claimant is overweight I agree with it.
> 
> I would imagine the only benefit paid for_ just_ being overweight is DLA.
> 
> ...


very well said and i completely agree :thumbup:


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

Kirkland said:


> I skimmed read it so sorry if it was in there but does the article mention who would be paying for it? It would be quite unfair if someone on benefits had to try and budget in a gym membership however discounted it is. I personally rather the government put a tax on unhealthy foods and used that money generated to make healthy food cheaper.


I think this would be a case of gym membership being prescribed by the doctor rather than them having to pay for it.


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

MCWillow said:


> If they mean benefits being paid_ just_ because the claimant is overweight I agree with it.
> 
> I would imagine the only benefit paid for_ just_ being overweight is DLA.
> 
> ...


If shes a size 20 why does she need to do karate? lol I guess she started when she was slimmer then put on weight over the years? But that aside, you surely arent suggesting that she is a typical overweight benefits claimant? I used to do karate years ago but gave it up after getting injured. I`ve never been to one of her lessons but we were certainly worked hard!


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

My mum is overweight , a lot overweight...
She has a thyroid problem, type 2 diabetes, a severe back problem, and very high blood pressure which led to her having a T.I.A just before Christmas.

Shes been on benefits for a while and is now on a state pension.
But over the last 20+ years she has repeatedly asked her GP for advice re.diet and all she has ever got was a printed diet sheet..It mentions grilled fish and grilled chicken breast fresh fruit and veg..

Benefits dont run to that kind of diet every day. She is now not to eat too much salt but shes received no help to advise her exactly what 'too much' is or how to work out how much salt is in food.

Many people like mum would welcome help if it was helpful.. By that I mean help designed to show how a healthy low fat low salt (in her case) diet could be achieved on a low income, exercise that would be suitable for her age weight and condition and with the support needed to encourage not punish.

Its all very well the government coming up with these ideas but is the framework in place to provide the support needed? If in 20+ years of asking for help a printed diet sheet is the best help available then I very much doubt it.


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

dorrit said:


> My mum is overweight , a lot overweight...
> She has a thyroid problem, type 2 diabetes, a severe back problem, and very high blood pressure which led to her having a T.I.A just before Christmas.
> 
> Shes been on benefits for a while and is now on a state pension.
> ...


Im struggling to believe she cant improve her diet if she really wanted to. Plenty of excuses but not so many reasons.


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

Sussexplumber said:


> Im struggling to believe she cant improve her diet if she really wanted to. Plenty of excuses but not so many reasons.


She has improved her diet the best she can but have you ever looked at diet foods ? Whats low in sugar is mostly packed full of salt or fat , whats low in fat is full of sugar and so the never ending cycle goes on..
Did you know that most sugar replacements interfer with thyroid meds so they are bad for weight loss?

Mum isnt a great cook she does basic meals. She does do her best but fresh is expensive.. she doesnt drive so doesnt have the luxury of shopping around..

But then people with cocky self rightious attitudes dont help the situation either.


----------



## IrishEyes (Jun 26, 2012)

Sussexplumber said:


> Im struggling to believe she cant improve her diet if she really wanted to. Plenty of excuses but not so many reasons.


That's a bit insensitive Sussex, I would say that a thyroid problem, diabetes, severe back pain and high blood pressure were very good reasons for finding it a struggle to improve your diet and exercise.

I know 2 people who struggle with these, they are overweight as a result but even by improving their diet they still cannot get adequate exercise because of severe back and joint pain upon moving around. Very easy to judge from the outside.
Diabetes and thyroid problems puts weights on and it seems near impossible to reverse this.. it is just one of the long term effects of such illnesses. Exercise would help but what if you have mobility issues as a result of a back problem?


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

dorrit said:


> She has improved her diet the best she can but have you ever looked at diet foods ? Whats low in sugar is mostly packed full of salt or fat , whats low in fat is full of sugar and so the never ending cycle goes on..
> Did you know that most sugar replacements interfer with thyroid meds so they are bad for weight loss?
> 
> Mum isnt a great cook she does basic meals. She does do her best but fresh is expensive.. she doesnt drive so doesnt have the luxury of shopping around..
> ...


Im saying I dont believe she cannot to some extent, help herself.

Its not all about money either. Walk more, ask the GP for a gym prescription. We are all in charge of our own destinies and she isn`t going to get a second chance. Its a matter of attitude and a question of genuinely wanting to change. I think swimming would be ideal for her. Has she tried to get this via her GP? As an OAP she`d get this reduced cost anyway.

I`m afraid though, its not my job to sort out her life.


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Sussexplumber said:


> Im saying I dont believe she cannot to some extent, help herself.
> 
> Its not all about money either. Walk more, ask the GP for a gym prescription. *We are all in charge of our own destinies* and she isn`t going to get a second chance. Its a matter of attitude and a question of genuinely wanting to change.


Similar to to this I guess? http://www.petforums.co.uk/general-chat/283922-what-went-wrong.html

Look, weight loss isn't as simple as getting off one's arse and walking. Like the poster pointed out that underactive thyroids do not process the same level of metabolism to break down fats and sugars.

The comment in bold is very lazy. People who contract cancer and other such fatal illnesses. How can they control their destiny?

There are some things agreed yes we change. Other things are not so simple.


----------



## Waterlily (Apr 18, 2010)

Some fat people are sick, so in that regard, its discriminatory, a lot of thin people dont exercise either, but for ones that, are proven to just scoff and laze around all day, .....sure..................cut the fat.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Sussexplumber said:


> If shes a size 20 why does she need to do karate? lol I guess she started when she was slimmer then put on weight over the years? But that aside, you surely arent suggesting that she is a typical overweight benefits claimant? I used to do karate years ago but gave it up after getting injured. I`ve never been to one of her lessons but we were certainly worked hard!


If you were to get off your high horse for a few minutes SP and actually take time to INTERPRET what is being written, you would see that the point being made is that size does not always dictate fitness levels.

MW's friend is a larger sized lady but has high fitness levels despite that. Her size does not mean she is unfit - which is often what people think when they see bigger people. Hilda, on the other hand, is a petite, and considered acceptable, size of 10-12 but couldn't run the length of herself without needing oxygen afterwards. She is saying that she is not fit despite being slim.

WHEN the lady put on her weight is totally irrelevant.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

IrishEyes said:


> That's a bit insensitive Sussex, I would say that a thyroid problem, diabetes, severe back pain and high blood pressure were very good reasons for finding it a struggle to improve your diet and exercise.
> 
> I know 2 people who struggle with these, they are overweight as a result but even by improving their diet they still cannot get adequate exercise because of severe back and joint pain upon moving around. Very easy to judge from the outside.
> Diabetes and thyroid problems puts weights on and it seems near impossible to reverse this.. it is just one of the long term effects of such illnesses. Exercise would help but what if you have mobility issues as a result of a back problem?


In the same vane cannot diabetes and back pain be brought on be excessive weight?


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Sussexplumber said:


> Im saying I dont believe she cannot to some extent, help herself.
> 
> Its not all about money either. Walk more, ask the GP for a gym prescription. We are all in charge of our own destinies and she isn`t going to get a second chance. Its a matter of attitude and a question of genuinely wanting to change. I think swimming would be ideal for her. Has she tried to get this via her GP? As an OAP she`d get this reduced cost anyway.
> 
> *I`m afraid though, its not my job to sort out her life.*


But you seem to think it's your job to point the finger at everyone and tell them how wrong they all are!!!

Yet again you fail to compute what is written. The posters mother has several illnesses and trying to combat one issue will affect another in a detrimental manner.

It's called being caught in a vicious circle. But I doubt you've heard of such things in your isolated little Utopian bubble.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*The title says a lot. How in this day and age can people call others fat?
Where's the PC brigade when it's needed?*


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

DT said:


> In the same vane cannot diabetes and back pain be brought on be excessive weight?


It would depend on what came first - the diabetes or the weight.

If the diabetes was first then, in many cases, that will cause weight problems, especially type 1 diabetes. It's all to do with insulin intake and the type of insulin used. Some insulins - depending on what brand is best for the patient - need to be a set dosage regardless of food intake. Excess insulin turns to fat. There are new insulins now on the market where the dosage can be altered to suit the food intake but not everyone is suitable for these.

My sister is a type 1 diabetic and has been since she was 7. She struggled with her weight for many years but, fortunately, she was suitable for the new style insulin and has found it a bit easier to keep her size down now than she has in the past.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *The title says a lot. How in this day and age can people call others fat?
> Where's the PC brigade when it's needed?*


whats wrong with the word fat? its a good descriptive word. As is skinny, as is tall, as is short....


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *The title says a lot. How in this day and age can people call others fat?
> Where's the PC brigade when it's needed?*


Busy with other PF tar and feather cases


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

Remember that this is from the Council that flogged off the graveyards for £1.......


----------



## dorrit (Sep 13, 2011)

Sussexplumber said:


> Im saying I dont believe she cannot to some extent, help herself.
> 
> Its not all about money either. Walk more, ask the GP for a gym prescription. We are all in charge of our own destinies and she isn`t going to get a second chance. Its a matter of attitude and a question of genuinely wanting to change. I think swimming would be ideal for her. Has she tried to get this via her GP? As an OAP she`d get this reduced cost anyway.
> 
> I`m afraid though, its not my job to sort out her life.


No one asked you to sort out anyones life ...

I used my mother as an example of why this idea is doomed before it starts.
Her bad back was caused by the type of work she did cause the discs to slip and fuse , if she has surgery she has a 50/50 chance of never walking again.
The diabetes runs in the family but I agree most likely wasnt helped by the weight gain she expierenced when he thyroid gave up. As a graves patient I know most specialists are not interested in the weight gain only the thyroid T4 levels.
A gym prescription or swimming ..great idea except for the costs ,,, did I not mention she has repeatedly asked for help over the last 20+ years and received nothing more than a basic diet sheet?

For some people being overweight is more complicated than simply being due to them stuffing their faces.

My new years resolution is made ...I vow to ignore lead heads with thier ballcock and waste trap opinions which they can shove down the U bend to a place more suited to them ...
Dont worry peeps the 4 inch sewer pipe provides more than ample room for his narrow mind!


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

porps said:


> whats wrong with the word fat? its a good descriptive word. As is skinny, as is tall, as is short....


*In my opinion i think calling people fat is darn right rude.*


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

OK

*There ARE people who carry excessive weight due to no fault of their own, and these people need help not penalizing!*

But there are also a lot of people who are fat for one reason, and one reason alone, they just put too much food into their mouths! Many of these people have then developed other illnesses that are contributed by weight!

When I was at school in the early sixties I can honestly say that seeing a fat child was like trying to scource rocking horse sh*t they were very few and far between! When I got into seniors I think we had one, maybe two girls who was grossly overweight, alas one died at 21 years of age.

I dont know what the execise regime is like in schools these days but we had sports 4 days a week, and we were made to take part, I loved it, but there were many who never and would try to wriggle out of it, this was NEVER allowed and everyone was made to participate!

Seldom are we born 'fat' OK some babies may be bigger the others but I think at lot of weight problems are directly linked to what mothers put into their childrens mouths! You only have to go onto the beaches on the east coast n the summer to see fat children stuffing their faces with fish and chips, popcorn, candy floss and hot dogs!


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *In my opinion i think calling people fat is darn right rude.*


is it also rude to call a tall person tall? Or to call a thin person thin? or to call a small person small? or to call a black person black or a white person white?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

porps said:


> is it also rude to call a tall person tall? Or to call a thin person thin? or to call a small person small? or to call a black person black or a white person white?


*As i said, it's my opinion that's it's rude.*


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> In my opinion i think calling people fat is darn right rude.


I wouldnt call anyone fat.... Science, biology, and healthcare profecionals would though. And who am I to disagree? Who indeed... Are you? lol. Fat is fat. Theres are indexs and charts... Its all fairly specific now-a-days.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Chris Swansea said:


> I wouldnt call anyone fat.... Science, biology, and healthcare profecionals would though. And who am I to disagree? Who indeed... Are you? lol. Fat is fat. Theres are indexs and charts... Its all fairly specific now-a-days.


*Like it or not it is my opinion and i'm entitled to it.*


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *As i said, it's my opinion that's it's rude.*


perhaps it would be more apt to ask if its also rude to call an ugly person ugly... Which i suppose it is... but then ugly has a clear and well defined negative conotation. Lacking in beauty. 
Seems to me that being offended by a term like "fat people" only serves to strengthen the culture which tells us that only thin can be beautiful. It implies that fat can only be undesirable, however at some points in history a fuller figure was actually preffered, and even now there are example where fat is not undesirable. Sumo wrestlers for one...


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> Similar to to this I guess? http://www.petforums.co.uk/general-chat/283922-what-went-wrong.html
> 
> There are some things agreed yes we change. Other things are not so simple.


Agreed. I`m sure there are some things she could do to help herself. A lot of her probs seem to be weight related.


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

dorrit said:


> No one asked you to sort out anyones life ...
> 
> I used my mother as an example of why this idea is doomed before it starts.
> Her bad back was caused by the type of work she did cause the discs to slip and fuse , if she has surgery she has a 50/50 chance of never walking again.
> ...


If you are serious about getting sorted out you don`t ask for diet advice for 20 years. you get off yer ass and do something about it.


----------



## welshjet (Mar 31, 2011)

Sussexplumber said:


> If shes a size 20 why does she need to do karate? lol


I cant believe im seeing that.

Just because she is a size 20, why the hell should she not do karate if she wants to. Just because age is a size 20 it doesnt mean that she's not fit, shes probably a darn sight fitter than a lot of us - me included.

The average size of a female now is 16-18

I know a person who does field archery, yes she's overweight, but by god she is fit. constantly on your feet walking, wzlking all day, even on the side of mountains, shooting, carrying a bow and with arrows, out in all weathers. So yes she's overweight but fit. her words are, any person no matter what size, there is a sport. And if your interested, shes good enough to get into the commonwealth games which is one hell of an achievement

Its frightening now, to think that today marilyn munroe would be classed as obese.


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> *The title says a lot. How in this day and age can people call others fat?
> Where's the PC brigade when it's needed?*





JANICE199 said:


> *In my opinion i think calling people fat is darn right rude.*


The thing is, though, being fat, or overweight to put it more politely, is an actual physical condition. For example, when your BMI is above 25. The fact that people find the use of 'fat' as an adjective insulting shows that somewhere, inside their heads, they know that being fat isn't a good or healthy thing to be.

Since the idea of cutting benefits is referring to people claiming DLA for _being overweight_, I don't really see how they could object to that. The cure for being overweight (other than genuine conditions) is to eat less and move more. Since doctors can't monitor what goes into people's mouths every second of the day, I think prescribing a suitable exercise is a fantastic idea.



DT said:


> When I was at school in the early sixties I can honestly say that seeing a fat child was like trying to scource rocking horse sh*t they were very few and far between! When I got into seniors I think we had one, maybe two girls who was grossly overweight, alas one died at 21 years of age.
> 
> I dont know what the execise regime is like in schools these days but we had sports 4 days a week, and we were made to take part, I loved it, but there were many who never and would try to wriggle out of it, this was NEVER allowed and everyone was made to participate!


I've been to two schools - one where sport was very highly prized as an activity, and where we were top of the league table in each sport we played. In that one, at least an hour of sport was played every day, as well as extra practices at lunchtime and after school for people in the school teams - since there was an average of ten people in a year, that was almost everyone. It was also a girls only school, so there was none of that culture about being worried about getting sweaty or your make up running  They were very strict about taking registers, so everyone got the right amount of exercise.

I was struck by how different state schools are when I switched to one in my final year. The teachers didn't have a clue who was meant to be in their lessons or not, so didn't know if anyone skived off. They didn't bother to teach the rules of the sports properly, so no one knew what they were doing, and they didn't make people actually try and partake properly. Now lots of schools do dance and zumba and stuff instead of proper sports.

I know the sport thing won't be the same in every school, but I switched to the best state school in my area, and sport had really fallen by the wayside. I know this does happen in at least some other schools.

And if people don't exercise properly from an early age, it will be much more difficult to persuade them to do it once they're adults.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

welshjet said:


> Its frightening now, to think that today marilyn munroe would be classed as obese.


Sorry Cupcake, need to bust the myth on this one........ 

It has long been proven that the delectable MM was a lot smaller in size than the 16 usually quoted and this is due to the change in dress sizing.

From t'interwebs:

_These are Marilyns measurements from her dressmaker:

Height: 5 feet, 5½ inches

Weight: 118-140 pounds (Hollywood studios listed her between 115-120 lbs.)
Bust: 35-37 inches
Waist: 22-23 inches
Hips: 35-36 inches
Bra size: 36D

Hmm, so her waist never got above 23 inches, and her hips never got beyond 36.

When British Journalist Sara Buys actually tried on Marilyn Monroes clothes, heres what she experienced:

Contrary to received wisdom, she was not a voluptuous size 16  quite the opposite. While she was undeniably voluptuous  in possession of an ample bosom and a bottom that would look at home gyrating in a J-Lo video  for most of the early part of her career, she was a size 8 and even in her plumper stages, was no more than a 10. I can tell you this from experience because a few weeks ago, I tried to try on her clothes.
British sizes are also different from American sizes, as in they are less forgiving. A British size 8 is actually an American size 4, a 10 is a 6.

Daven Hiskey on the website todayIfoundout.com notes that Marilyns infamous Seven Year Itch white dress was too small to fit on a size 2 mannequin. He also noted that many times her clothes were so tight she had to be sewn into them. Often she was wearing what would be considered now to be a size 2, when she probably would be more comfortable with a 4.

So why worry about all this? Because the truth behind myths matter, and in a society thats full of body conscious young women its better to know that if youre a size 16 youre not going to look like Marilyn Monroe, because she was a size 4. Its also important to know that Marilyn Monroe was not overweight in any way, and if your body does resemble hers, neither are you. _

.


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Sussexplumber said:


> Agreed. I`m sure there are some things she could do to help herself. A lot of her probs seem to be weight related.


You are convinently ingonoring the medical problems that poster has elluded to and ignoring the dietry advice that her mother has recieved too. Let's concentrate on the issues at hand. Some overweight people are unable to exercise due to medical problems. The people which the government are targeting are those who are physically and medically able to exercise.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

JANICE199 said:


> Like it or not it is my opinion and i'm entitled to it.


Im just pointing out that their opinion is based on science and predefined, specific fact. I'm entitled to the opinion that cars are made of jelly... This does not though, mean that I am right.  It means that my opinion... No matter how entitled to it I am... Is wrong. 



> OP


Sure, fat people should be made to exercise if their draining more than their fare share of benefits. A self enduced drink, drug or food problem is not something the state should fund.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

other side of the coin now.. is this not a bit unfair on thin people? why should fat people get free gym?


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Society coupled with technology has played a big part in overweight children, many who battle with their weight for their entire lives!

Take away their computer games, mobile phones , facebook and televisions and het presto problem solved!

No seriously!, when we were young even TV was a luxury we would play out all day on our bikes, roller skates, playing games, skipping, rounders etc! The was not much on TV for children and we used to go out and PLAY!

But now, I guess you can blame society for that problem as its no longer safe to allow your children out on the streets, in the parks and in fields in this day and age!


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> Some overweight people are unable to exercise due to medical problems. The people which the government are targeting are those who are physically and medically able to exercise.


I think a reasonable question to ask would be... How many of those people have medical issues that caused them to be overweight. And how many of them caused their medical issues by being overweight... I think theres very different levels of sympathy I could give....

Do I feel sorry for someone hit by a bus? I do!... What is they slowly pushed themselves... Yeah... Not so much.

I wonder how many poeple in this world are truely overweight by sheer force of medical condition... And by that, I mean that they exercise regularly, eat right, yet still end up obese... I would imagine... Not many...


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

porps said:


> other side of the coin now.. is this not a bit unfair on thin people? why should fat people get free gym?


Couch to 5K - Live Well - NHS Choices 

Theres hundreds of free ways to loose weight... Sod paying for gym memberships.


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

porps said:


> other side of the coin now.. is this not a bit unfair on thin people? why should fat people get free gym?


I don't actually know what help underweight people get to put weight on, it's not something that's talked about as much. Anyone?


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> I think a reasonable question to ask would be... How many of those people have medical issues that caused them to be overweight. And how many of them caused their medical issues by being overweight... I think theres very different levels of sympathy I could give....
> 
> Do I feel sorry for someone hit by a bus? I do!... What is they slowly pushed themselves... Yeah... Not so much.
> 
> I wonder how many poeple in this world are truely overweight by sheer force of medical condition... And by that, I mean that they exercise regularly, eat right, yet still end up obese... I would imagine... Not many...


The cause of overweight and how they 'treat' it is 2 different things.

This thread isn't about sympathy. It is about whether a portion of the 'overweight' people can actually get out and exercise.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> The cause of overweight and how they 'treat' it is 2 different things.
> 
> This thread isn't about sympathy. It is about whether a portion of the 'overweight' people can actually get out and exercise.


The question is ACTUALLY... Should they be forced too... And that being the case, what are the circumstances? If you take out circumstance, What exactly are you left with?

I mean, surely the questions...



> Should a person that has litterally no other choice other than to be fat... Although I heavily dispute that statement... Be forced to exercise?
> 
> and
> 
> ...


Are not unreasonable ones... Unless you think the question should be... Flat out, with no specification... Should fat people be made to exercise regardless of reasoning... In which case, I guess you force a yes out of me.

Completely seperate to this though... Can ANYONE tell me if theres a illness where you can run a few miles a day and eat salads, yet still pile on the weight? And if so... What is it called?

*EDIT*
actually the OP was for my thoughts on it... And the above are my thoughts.


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

In threads like this, people always seem to focus on the exceptions to the rule, not the majority. So, what about the majority of overweight people, who don't in fact have any reason to be overweight other than eating too much and not doing enough exercise?


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Chris Swansea said:


> I think a reasonable question to ask would be... How many of those people have medical issues that caused them to be overweight. And how many of them caused their medical issues by being overweight... I think theres very different levels of sympathy I could give....
> 
> Do I feel sorry for someone hit by a bus? I do!... What is they slowly pushed themselves... Yeah... Not so much.
> 
> I wonder how many poeple in this world are truely overweight by sheer force of medical condition... And by that, I mean that they exercise regularly, eat right, yet still end up obese... I would imagine... Not many...


I think maybe you have hit the nail well and truelly on the head Mr Swansea


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> The question is ACTUALLY... Should they be forced too... And that being the case, what are the circumstances? If you take out circumstance, What exactly are you left with?
> 
> I mean, surely the questions...
> 
> ...


Right so people with mobility issues should be forced to the gym? So without proper guidance just force them to the gym where the likelihood is that they would probably cause more damage to themselves thus costing the NHS more money in treatment.

I am sold


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> Right so people with mobility issues should be forced to the gym? So without proper guidance just force them to the gym where the likelihood is that they would probably cause more damage to themselves thus costing the NHS more money in treatment.
> 
> I am sold


Well... That entirely depends now, doesnt it... Did they do it to themselves, or not? And looking at it... I think its impossible for a medical condition to make you fat! So in fact... Youve done it to yourself. Although I'll still wait for any medical conditions past hypothyroidism (which was the one I found)

Should a drunk, or druggie be forced to go to the relivant meetings? How can you make a druggie walk to a meeting when theres all those roads to cross? He might walk into a wall, or fall into the road and cost the NHS more in treatment?

Or is that point ever so slightly silly? Or are you suggesting that those that make themselves fat, or have medical difficulties that make it HARDER, but by no means impossible, should simply be allowed to drain funds with no attempt made to fix the situation?

Or possibly... Just possibly are you being deliberately obtuse?


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

DT said:


> Society coupled with technology has played a big part in overweight children, many who battle with their weight for their entire lives!
> 
> Take away their computer games, mobile phones , facebook and televisions and het presto problem solved!
> 
> ...


We are led to believe that it is as safe to let kids play out these days as it has always been but, due to better & faster media information etc, society is much more aware of safety issues than they once were and have over-compensated as a result. This BBC article covers just that:

BBC News - How stranger danger changed the way children play

.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> Right so people with mobility issues should be forced to the gym? So without proper guidance just force them to the gym where the likelihood is that they would probably cause more damage to themselves thus costing the NHS more money in treatment.
> 
> I am sold


i wouldn't force them to the gym! Those will health and mobility issues caused *purely* by overweight should lose all their DLA! Make them walk everywhere! or get a bike!


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> Well... That entirely depends now, doesnt it... Did they do it to themselves, or not? And looking at it... I think its impossible for a medical condition to make you fat! So in fact... Youve done it to yourself. Although I'll still wait for any medical conditions past hypothyroidism (which was the one I found)
> 
> Should a drunk, or druggie be forced to go to the relivant meetings? How can you make a druggie walk to a meeting when theres all those roads to cross? He might walk into a wall, or fall into the road and cost the NHS more in treatment?
> 
> ...


Or possibly your missing the whole point entirely.

The issue is to get overweight people into exercising. Which in principle I agree with. The issue at hand is those who are overweight, but due to medical conditions cannot 'physically' exercise. How they became overweight is irrelevent. They are trying to tackle the problem with coercion to those who can despite being overweight can 'physically' take part in forms of exercise.

Druggies crossing roads is nothing related to this story. No idea why your post is littered with such smoke screens.


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> The issue is to get overweight people into exercising. Which in principle I agree with. The issue at hand is those who are overweight, but due to medical conditions cannot 'physically' exercise. How they became overweight is irrelevent. They are trying to tackle the problem with coercion to those who can despite being overweight can 'physically' take part in forms of exercise.


I believe swimming was suggested. What would be wrong with that? High impact exercise would obviously not be suitable for some, but I believe swimming is one of the most low impact forms of exercise out there. It also depends which medical conditions you are referring to that make them unable to 'physically' exercise. I just don't believe it isn't possible for most people to exercise, one way or another.


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Megan345 said:


> I believe swimming was suggested. What would be wrong with that? High impact exercise would obviously not be suitable for some, but I believe swimming is one of the most low impact forms of exercise out there. It also depends which medical conditions you are referring to that make them unable to 'physically' exercise. I just don't believe it isn't possible for most people to exercise, one way or another.


Put a 30 stone person in a swimming pool and see what happens. Some of those who are overweight need to lose some weight first before they can take part in exercising.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> Or possibly your missing the whole point entirely.
> 
> The issue is to get overweight people into exercising. Which in principle I agree with. The issue at hand is those who are overweight, but due to medical conditions cannot 'physically' exercise. How they became overweight is irrelevent. They are trying to tackle the problem with coercion to those who can despite being overweight can 'physically' take part in forms of exercise.
> 
> Druggies crossing roads is nothing related to this story. No idea why your post is littered with such smoke screens.


No smoke screens... That point was in fact to make little of your comment that because there is risk, there should be no action!

And what exactly are you talking about when you say medical conditions that make it impossible to exercise...?

But your entire point is based on the fact that even if you make yourself fat, you should not be expected to do anything about it, if its hard... So again... What condition... Which specific medical condition.... Means that no matter how healthily you eat, or how much you exercise physically makes you gain weight?

Because I dont think one exists... And if it doesnt, your suggesting that if a thin person choose to either 1) Eat too much or 2) Not work hard enough to keep weight off... That you should be allowed to claim money off the goverment, for the rest of your life, without being forced to address that issue....

Or to use my same point... if you 1) choose not to deny the temptation to do drugs or 2) refuse to do the physical thing that would get you healthy again should the goverment provide for this, and not ask you to do anything about it?


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

porps said:


> other side of the coin now.. is this not a bit unfair on thin people? why should fat people get free gym?


yeah id like to see free gym for all, absolutely! But its those individuals that are most in need of help before they eat themselves to an early grave. Agreed?


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> Put a 30 stone person in a swimming pool and see what happens. Some of those who are overweight need to lose some weight first before they can take part in exercising.


So hang on... You cant make a fat person exercise... Until they have exercised. OK... So can you ask them to float about in low impact exercise? Oh, you cant?

So do me a favor... What EXACTLY are you suggesting... because on earth, the only lower impact exercise is in freefall.... Im sure youre not suggesting we drop fat people out of planes... But Im at a loss as to how exactly you drop from 30 stone, to whatever weight you think you can swim at, by... Doing whatever it is your suggesting?

So would you be able to clarify?


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> Put a 30 stone person in a swimming pool and see what happens. Some of those who are overweight need to lose some weight first before they can take part in exercising.


If someone can walk on land, they can walk more in a pool where the water is supporting them, but also providing resistance, and maybe even swim a few strokes. I'm not suggesting they start off by swimming ten lengths.

But if you think even that wouldn't work for some reason, what do you suggest? Because as it stands, the choices are either leave them to it because they can't exercise, and let them eat themselves to death, or confine them somewhere where they can only eat the food that is prescribed. If they were capable of controlling their own diet, they wouldn't have got to that enormous weight, where they couldn't possibly do anything, in the first place.


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> No smoke screens... That point was in fact to make little of your comment that because there is risk, there should be no action!
> 
> And what exactly are you talking about when you say medical conditions that make it impossible to exercise...?
> 
> ...


So where did I say 'no action' was required?

Underactive thyroids cause weight gain. But like I keep saying and I won't repeat myself, the issue at hand is not what caused the weight gain!

Being overweight can lead to arthritis and ostoarthritis which can be debilitaing and prevent people from exercising.


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> So hang on... You cant make a fat person exercise... Until they have exercised. OK... So can you ask them to float about in low impact exercise? Oh, you cant?
> 
> So do me a favor... What EXACTLY are you suggesting... because on earth, the only lower impact exercise is in freefall.... Im sure youre not suggesting we drop fat people out of planes... But Im at a loss as to how exactly you drop from 30 stone, to whatever weight you think you can swim at, by... Doing whatever it is your suggesting?
> 
> So would you be able to clarify?


Hmmmm lose weight to begin through dieting then exercise. It is about small steps. Not running 100 yards like it has been suggested!


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2013)

Megan345 said:


> *I don't actually know what help underweight people get to put weight on*, it's not something that's talked about as much. Anyone?


You're told to eat more pies, I wish I was only joking, I really do :incazzato:

I have been struggling with my weight for the majority of my life but help for eating disorders just isn't readily available.

It seems it isn't acceptable to call someone fat (even if you are using the word as a descriptive) yet I have people coming up to me telling me that I should eat more on a regular basis and that is perfectly fine it would seem 

As for the OP this is only in talks and the likelihood of it actually being rolled out is slim to none, but if it is then it will be the benefit claimants GP's that set up the exercise routines. This will only be for people that refuse to exercise even tho they have been declared fit enough so I see no issue at all.

People shouldn't need to be told how and when to exercise but it seems that unless we do, some will just sit and wallow in their own self pity.


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

B3rnie said:


> You're told to eat more pies, I wish I was only joking, I really do :incazzato:
> 
> I have been struggling with my weight for the majority of my life but help for eating disorders just isn't readily available.
> 
> ...


That's shocking, can't believe that's all the help you get!

Completely agree with the sentence in bold. People complain about the government nannying them and interfering, but a lot of people just seem to think they should be allowed to do whatever they like, even when it impacts on other people.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> So where did I say 'no action' was required?
> 
> *Underactive thyroids cause weight gain*. But like I keep saying and I won't repeat myself, the issue at hand is not what caused the weight gain!
> 
> Being overweight can lead to arthritis and ostoarthritis which can be debilitaing and prevent people from exercising.


No it doesnt. It flat out doesnt... A SYMPTOM is that you gain weight. An underactive thyroid causes a low level of thyroxine. That makes it HARDER to maintain weight and easier to gain weight. It does not CAUSE weight gain. Im litterally reading this from the NHS site... Its not hard info to find... Maintaining weight is possible, but harder. So its not a medical condition... Its a choice. The medical condition can be treated with tablets and exercise. Unless were talking a serious, 1 in a million condition.

And yes, being overweight does cause those things... Not doing enough and eating too much creates the condition of "being overweight" and as those things are a choice, I do not condone that choice.

Do I concede that circumstances can make this harder... Yes. Do i care? Not really... its STILL a choice. People make hard choices every day. Unless were talking about the rare, 1 in a million type condition... Of which there are few, im sure. In which case what were doing is talking about the vast minority, instead of the majority, as Megan345 Suggested... And I think the only reason to do that, is if the interest is to pick holes.


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

Sussexplumber said:


> *If shes a size 20 why does she need to do karate?* lol I guess she started when she was slimmer then put on weight over the years? But that aside, you surely arent suggesting that she is a typical overweight benefits claimant? I used to do karate years ago but gave it up after getting injured. I`ve never been to one of her lessons but we were certainly worked hard!


Who said she _needs _to do karate? I do things because I enjoy doing them.

Or are you implying that at size 20 she would be so ugly there would be no need to learn self defence, as no-one would want to attack her?

What a very offensive remark and way of thinking. Most of us are out of the dark ages now.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> Being overweight can lead to arthritis and ostoarthritis which can be debilitaing and prevent people from exercising.


Exactly!
We rest our case!


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> No it doesnt. It flat out doesnt... A SYMPTOM is that you gain weight. An underactive thyroid causes a low level of thyroxine. That makes it HARDER to maintain weight and easier to gain weight. It does not CAUSE weight gain. Im litterally reading this from the NHS site... Its not hard info to find... Maintaining weight is possible, but harder. So its not a medical condition... Its a choice. The medical condition can be treated with tablets and exercise. Unless were talking a serious, 1 in a million condition.
> 
> And yes, being overweight does cause those things... Not doing enough and eating too much creates the condition of "being overweight" and as those things are a choice, I do not condone that choice.
> 
> Do I concede that circumstances can make this harder... Yes. Do i care? Not really... its STILL a choice. People make hard choices every day. Unless were talking about the rare, 1 in a million type condition... Of which there are few, im sure. In which case what were doing is talking about the vast minority, instead of the majority, as Megan345 Suggested... And I think the only reason to do that, is if the interest is to pick holes.


Medical Causes of Obesity

I would love to see you justify 'Depression' as choice


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Sussexplumber said:


> yeah id like to see free gym for all, absolutely! But its the bloaters that are most in need of help before they eat themselves to an early grave. Agreed?


Aye i agree, i was jut thinking out loud really i have no personal interest in the gym wether its free or not (i'd rather walk a dog around a park tbh)



B3rnie said:


> It seems it isn't acceptable to call someone fat (even if you are using the word as a descriptive) yet I have people coming up to me telling me that I should eat more on a regular basis and that is perfectly fine it would seem


True, i get that kinda thing often too.

Or how about this one: "i dont know where you put it all!".. "yeah right, and i bet what you had didnt even touch the sides eh? Oh... now its offensive?? "


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Chris Swansea said:


> No smoke screens... That point was in fact to make little of your comment that because there is risk, there should be no action!
> 
> And what exactly are you talking about when you say medical conditions that make it impossible to exercise...?
> 
> ...


Chris, you're very narrow minded. That, or you simply cannot concede a point. There are many health issues that can, and do, easily lead to a person piling on the pounds - mostly, conditions which affect the person's mobility and/or their 'exercise' tolerance without experiencing pain or greatly increased pain as a result of 'exercise'.

The most obvious that spring to mind are auto immune illnesses such as Lupus and various thyroid disorders. ME and MS. Arthritis. And all are more common than you may think.

I am hypothyroid and suffer with quite severe arthritis in both knees; a bit of a double whammy as far as exercise and losing weight goes. Fortunately, thanks maybe to genetics, I am "only" a couple of stones overweight - weight that my knees would certainly thank me for losing. I am pretty much in constant pain with arthritis and I can tell you that given the choice of taking the car half a mile to the village shop or walking there and back, the car wins almost every time. Why? The walk, barely do'able on most days anyway, leaves me with pain through the roof for up to a fortnight.

I'm not looking for anyone's sympathy and my arthritis/health problems are minor compared to what many people suffer. I'm just trying to illustrate to you that, for many, many people 'exercise', even in moderation, is not an option.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> Medical Causes of Obesity
> 
> I would love to see you justify 'Depression' as choice


Yeah... See... Again, I feel youre not understanding... It creeates a lack of a chemical, which regulates your metabolism. Which makes gaining weight easier. It does not make you gain fat. Someone with hypothyroidism, who ate zero fat, would not have any fat... it does not magically generate fat. Or any other substance. It simply doesnt produce AS MUCH of a chemical we need.

As for Depression being a choice... Depression, like hypothyroidism is not a choice. On the other hand... Choosing to eat too much and not exercise enough ARE choices... Do you see now? It it making a bit more sense?

A broken arm is not a choice... Not going to work because of it, is... That is not to say that broken arms cause you to not to go to work. Its pretty simple. There are millions of depressed thin people. And millions of people with hypothroid issues that arent 30 stone. One does not CAUSE the other...

It makes it harder, granted... But only the very few have reasonable reasons. I refuse to believe that the majority of people have absolutely no option what-so-ever.


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

gskinner123 said:


> I am hypothyroid and suffer with quite severe arthritis in both knees; a bit of a double whammy as far as exercise and losing weight goes. Fortunately, thanks maybe to genetics, I am "only" a couple of stones overweight - weight that my knees would certainly thank me for losing. I am pretty much in constant pain with arthritis and I can tell you that given the choice of taking the car half a mile to the village shop or walking there and back, the car wins almost every time. Why? The walk, barely do'able on most days anyway, leaves me with pain through the roof for up to a fortnight.


Out of interest, could you not swim? I'm genuinely curious, I don't know about your personal circumstances, but I assume there would be a lot less load on your joints through swimming rather than walking, if you were in a position where you had to lose weight.

(Although the point is still that these measures would be directed at people who had no reason not to exercise!)


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> Yeah... See... Again, I feel youre not understanding... It creeates a lack of a chemical, which regulates your metabolism. Which makes gaining weight easier. It does not make you gain fat. Someone with hypothyroidism, who ate zero fat, would not have any fat... *it does not magically generate fat*. Or any other substance. It simply doesnt produce AS MUCH of a chemical we need.
> 
> As for Depression being a choice... Depression, like hypothyroidism is not a choice. On the other hand... Choosing to eat too much and not exercise enough ARE choices... Do you see now? It it making a bit more sense?
> 
> ...


So because the condition doesn't generate fat means that conditions that can cause can be dismissed?

Right right. Bit pedantic aren't we.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

gskinner123 said:


> Chris, you're very narrow minded. That, or you simply cannot concede a point. There are many health issues that can, and do, easily lead to a person piling on the pounds - mostly, conditions which affect the person's mobility and/or their 'exercise' tolerance without experiencing pain or greatly increased pain as a result of 'exercise'.
> 
> The most obvious that spring to mind are auto immune illnesses such as Lupus and various thyroid disorders. ME and MS. Arthritis. And all are more common than you may think.
> 
> ...


My point is that simply put... One does not automatically and unavoidably cause the other. There may be compound issues, but I cant imagine that in my wildest dreams the majority of people suffer from multiple and debilitating issues. I have seen hundreds of fat epople in McDonalds... I would like to submit that if they have issues, at least 1 of them is self enduced.

There will be exceptions to any rule... Even "mine" but I simply cant accept that the majority of people are overweight due to unavoidable circumstances. And by that, I mean people that at birth, were destined to be overweight by genetics and/or fate.

I would reasonably assume that the majority could help themselves... But dont. I dont think its easy. But its not meant to be. And something not being easy, isnt an excuse for anything.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> So because the condition doesn't generate fat means that conditions that can cause can be dismissed?
> 
> Right right. Bit pedantic aren't we.


I didnt say it should be dismissed... I said that those things make it harder. That does not, by definition, make it impossible. Having issues can make it harder, I concede, but thats no point.

When conditions make it impossible, genuinely impossible,I will concede my point entirely. Hard ≠ Impossible. Its not pedantic at all... the only way it BECOMES pedantic is if you believe the distinction makes no difference.

So does the distinction matter... Yes. It matters because it in fact seperates the minority from the majority.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Chris Swansea said:


> Yeah... See... Again, I feel youre not understanding... It creeates a lack of a chemical, which regulates your metabolism. Which makes gaining weight easier. It does not make you gain fat. Someone with hypothyroidism, who ate zero fat, would not have any fat... it does not magically generate fat. Or any other substance. It simply doesnt produce AS MUCH of a chemical we need.


What is the person gaining then, if not fat? House bricks?

Your take on hypothyroidism is a little embarrassing. You're way off with "...who ate zero fat, would not have any fat". Nothing of the sort. True, hypothyroid patients needs to make very careful lifestyle choices if they're to try and keep their weight at a level they're comfortable with. But they will *still* struggle - not as a result of your magical eat no fat, have no fat idea - but as a result of impaired neurotransmitter function, their slowed metabolic rate (which medication does little or nothing to address) and the fact that the body cannot utilise synthetic hormones (i.e. thyroxine medication) as well as the 'real thing'.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Chris Swansea said:


> My point is that simply put... One does not automatically and unavoidably cause the other. There may be compound issues, but I cant imagine that in my wildest dreams the majority of people suffer from multiple and debilitating issues. I have seen hundreds of fat epople in McDonalds... I would like to submit that if they have issues, at least 1 of them is self enduced.
> 
> There will be exceptions to any rule... Even "mine" but I simply cant accept that the majority of people are overweight due to unavoidable circumstances. And by that, I mean people that at birth, were destined to be overweight by genetics and/or fate.
> 
> I would reasonably assume that the majority could help themselves... But dont. I dont think its easy. But its not meant to be. And something not being easy, isnt an excuse for anything.


Why must you invariably take things to the extreme? You did virtually the same thing when we were debating the **** and booze on benefits thing. Nobody is saying the *majority* of people are overweight as a result of a health condition. We're saying that a proportion of people are overweight as a *direct result* of a health condition. If you can't or won't accept that then... well, I don't know.


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> I didnt say it should be dismissed... I said that those things make it harder. That does not, by definition, make it impossible. Having issues can make it harder, I concede, but thats no point.
> 
> *When conditions make it impossible, genuinely impossible,I will concede my point entirely.* Hard ≠ Impossible. Its not pedantic at all... the only way it BECOMES pedantic is if you believe the distinction makes no difference.
> 
> So does the distinction matter... Yes. It matters because it in fact seperates the minority from the majority.


So what is impossible by 'your' standards?


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Megan345 said:


> Out of interest, could you not swim? I'm genuinely curious, I don't know about your personal circumstances, but I assume there would be a lot less load on your joints through swimming rather than walking, if you were in a position where you had to lose weight.
> 
> (Although the point is still that these measures would be directed at people who had no reason not to exercise!)


Depending on the level of mobility, getting in and out of a swimming pool could be very difficult for some people.

Also, how far is the nearest pool? For some, just getting to the pool could be a difficult task if they don't drive or have a good public transport system to hand.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

gskinner123 said:


> What is the person gaining then, if not fat? House bricks?
> 
> Your take on hypothyroidism is a little embarrassing. You're way off with "...who ate zero fat, would not have any fat". Nothing of the sort. True, hypothyroid patients needs to make very careful lifestyle choices if they're to try and keep their weight at a level they're comfortable with. But they will *still* struggle - not as a result of your magical eat no fat, have no fat idea - but as a result of impaired neurotransmitter function, their slowed metabolic rate (which medication does little or nothing to address) and the fact that the body cannot utilise synthetic hormones (i.e. thyroxine medication) as well as the 'real thing'.


People get fat from TOO MUCH fat. But the simple fact is that if anyone eats too much fat, for their particular circumstances... They will gain weight.

If, with a lower level of hormone, lower metobolic rate, impaired neuro transmitter conductivity and all associated issues the human body requires "x" amount of fats, salts, sugars, protiens, etc.... Then surely you just need to eat that amount of things. You take all those things into account.

Is it easy? I dont believe for a second it is... But thats no real concern. You could exercise to help mitigate the issue. If you genuinely cant... Then I take no issue with that. But I still dont think the majority are in that circumstance. Unless Im wrong... In which case im happy to be provided with data.


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> People get fat from TOO MUCH fat. But the simple fact is that if anyone eats too much fat, for their particular circumstances... They will gain weight.
> 
> If, with a lower level of hormone, lower metobolic rate, impaired neuro transmitter conductivity and all associated issues the human body requires "x" amount of fats, salts, sugars, protiens, etc.... Then surely you just need to eat that amount of things. You take all those things into account.
> 
> Is it easy? I dont believe for a second it is... But thats no real concern. You could exercise to help mitigate the issue. If you genuinely cant... Then I take no issue with that. *But I still dont think the majority are in that circumstance. Unless Im wrong... In which case im happy to be provided with data.*


So have you got the data to prove that the majority can?


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

gskinner123 said:


> What is the person gaining then, if not fat? House bricks?
> 
> Your take on hypothyroidism is a little embarrassing. You're way off with "...who ate zero fat, would not have any fat". Nothing of the sort. True, hypothyroid patients needs to make very careful lifestyle choices if they're to try and keep their weight at a level they're comfortable with. But they will *still* struggle - not as a result of your magical eat no fat, have no fat idea - but as a result of impaired neurotransmitter function, their slowed metabolic rate (which medication does little or nothing to address) and the fact that the body cannot utilise synthetic hormones (i.e. thyroxine medication) as well as the 'real thing'.


Not forgetting that steroids can also be prescribed if the sufferer also has other illnesses such asthma and these can compound the problem of maintaining a reasonable weight.

Everything is not always black & white or so clear cut.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> So what is impossible by 'your' standards?


None that I have ever seen, bar paralisation (sp?) the levels go from easy to exceptionally, mind bendingly hard, before they reach impossible.

But this still only affects the MINORITY of people. Unless, as I said, I am wrong and I welcome data. The discussion of the MINORITY does not really make any difference unless its to pointlessly poke holes. The MINORITY will not be affected.

So let us accept that the MINORITY could not exercise... And let us move onto the MAJORITY?


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

MoggyBaby said:


> Depending on the level of mobility, getting in and out of a swimming pool could be very difficult for some people.
> 
> Also, how far is the nearest pool? For some, just getting to the pool could be a difficult task if they don't drive or have a good public transport system to hand.


Don't all swimming pools now have to have hoists to help people in and out of the pool, specifically so everyone can participate in that activity? Some have normal steps in rather than ladders, too. (Bearing in mind I'm not actually talking about gskinner, but about people who need to lose weight to keep their benefits).

If the pool is a long way away and you couldn't get there, that's a different matter of course.


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

Burrowzig said:


> Who said she _needs _to do karate? I do things because I enjoy doing them.
> 
> Or are you implying that at size 20 she would be so ugly there would be no need to learn self defence, as no-one would want to attack her?
> 
> What a very offensive remark and way of thinking. Most of us are out of the dark ages now.


Sorry that wasnt very polite was it. I didnt mean she was ugly but rather "large" enough to look after herself.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> So have you got the data to prove that the majority can?


Thats just my opinion. I will change it with data or reason which I see as... Well... Reasonable. I do not wish to PROVE my point. Simply put it across. And the above is my belief. If I wish to change yours, I will be happy to provide data.

But to clarify... My main area's of concern do not include healthcare on the wide scale. Its interesting to be sure... But not an area of concern to me.

If you choose not to provide data, thats perfectly reasonable... I just wont change my opinion based on yours. Unless I believe you make a reasonable and logical arguement.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> Not forgetting that steroids can also be prescribed if the sufferer also has other illnesses such asthma and these can compound the problem of maintaining a reasonable weight.
> 
> Everything is not always black & white or so clear cut.


i was going to mention that earlier, but think the amount in the sprays is negligable! Certainly never contributed to my weight gain when I was six and a half stone!

BUT! that said the 60mg that I had to take orally over a long term period did!
BUT that was my choice as the steriods increased my appetite and I did eat like a pig! and the wrong things too/

As it happens I did end up fat, and still am next to some but I knew what was happening, albeit it took me twenty years to fi it!

A minute in the mouth a lifetime on the hips! and soo very very true if you allow it!


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

gskinner123 said:


> Why must you invariably take things to the extreme? You did virtually the same thing when we were debating the **** and booze on benefits thing. Nobody is saying the *majority* of people are overweight as a result of a health condition. We're saying that a proportion of people are overweight as a *direct result* of a health condition. If you can't or won't accept that then... well, I don't know.


Sorry... Just seen this. Im doing exactly the opposite. Im talking about the majority of people, and getting attacked for it as SOME cant exercise. And ive said on MANY occasions that if you cant, thats fine. And that I in fact disagree with the extreme view and that it should not be considered.

Throughout this entire thing, I have said that the majority could exercise... So how exactly am i taking things to the extreme... Or is that not indeed everyone else?


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

I think that everyone with a weight problem should try and live by the following words! whether it be medically enduced or self inflicted!

Eat to live!
Don't live to eat


----------



## SammyJo (Oct 22, 2012)

I can see that not all fat people are that way because they eat pies and watch TV all day (medical reasons etc)

But for all the just pure lazy fat people, that do eat pies and watch TV all day, yes they should be forced to get off their backsides! :yesnod:


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> None that I have ever seen, bar paralisation (sp?) the levels go from easy to exceptionally, mind bendingly hard, before they reach impossible.
> 
> But this still only affects the MINORITY of people. Unless, as I said, I am wrong and I welcome data. The discussion of the MINORITY does not really make any difference unless its to pointlessly poke holes. The MINORITY will not be affected.
> 
> So let us accept that the MINORITY could not exercise... And let us move onto the MAJORITY?


Well least we have broken through the generalisation that overweight people can shift the weight by going to the gym.

Like I have said I have no issue with the government enforcing such a policy to those able to exercise and have the mobility to do so.

Your take on weight gain is actually alarmingly out of touch. I for example have been on Anti-Depressents and Anti-Pyschotics for 2 years. In the first 2 months of taking the medication I put a stone on in weight. The doctor advised me that the medication had declined the metabolism rates in my body. Now that coupled with sedative effects of the medication made exercise extremely difficult to maintain for long periods of time and it took me 12 months to shift a stone through dieiting and exercising because Anti-Psychotics cause weight gain. Now this is isn't a simple of case you are what you eat. The medication was dictating how my body was feeling and at times the medication left me feeling hungry despite consuming a full meal. I can't begin to describe the daily battle it is to keep on top of my diet with the confusion that my condition can cause.

Some things are not that simple.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

I know of a family (mom, dad and 2 sisters) who got fat so they didnt have to work. They had disability benefit because they were so obese they could barely walk! 
If they are taking benefits away from the fat folk such as disability benefit etc then bring it on! Even though they are fat doesnt stop them from sitting behind a desk.


----------



## Sussexplumber (Oct 5, 2011)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> Well least we have broken through the generalisation that overweight people can shift the weight by going to the gym.
> 
> Like I have said I have no issue with the government enforcing such a policy to those able to exercise and have the mobility to do so.
> 
> ...


Sorry to hear you`ve not been well but surely you are the exception rather than the rule?


----------



## SammyJo (Oct 22, 2012)

harley bear said:


> I know of a family (mom, dad and 2 sisters) who got fat so they didnt have to work. They had disability benefit because they were so obese they could barely walk!
> If they are taking benefits away from the fat folk such as disability benefit etc then bring it on! Even though they are fat doesnt stop them from sitting behind a desk.


Hey, I sit behind a desk, what are you implying :laugh:


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

SammyJo said:


> I can see that not all fat people are that way because they eat pies and watch TV all day (medical reasons etc)
> 
> But for all the just pure lazy fat people, that do eat pies and watch TV all day, yes they should be forced to get off their backsides! :yesnod:


To me, this is the essence of it. I don't know why there's a problem! Of course no one assumes that absolutely everyone will be suitable for hard exercise in one form or another, but for MOST people, i.e. those that are NOT in the minority, it really is very simple - if not necessarily easy!


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

For every "get fit/fat club" TV show there are 20 cooking/dine with me shows, I think that speaks volumes


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Chris Swansea said:


> Sorry... Just seen this. Im doing exactly the opposite. Im talking about the majority of people, and getting attacked for it as SOME cant exercise. And ive said on MANY occasions that if you cant, thats fine. And that I in fact disagree with the extreme view and that it should not be considered.
> 
> Throughout this entire thing, I have said that the majority could exercise... So how exactly am i taking things to the extreme... Or is that not indeed everyone else?


Okay, I'll forget your earlier sweeping statements about health issues not leading to weight gain.

Back to the critical point of the thread. The technique of targeting a section of the population as being responsible for the state's ills. Rings a bit of a bell.

Aside from which what proportion of benefits claimants receive benefit as a result of claiming to be "too fat to work"? I'll have a wild guess - not bloody many.


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> For every "get fit/fat club" TV show there are 20 cooking/dine with me shows, I think that speaks volumes


Eating is more fun than exercise though


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Sussexplumber said:


> Sorry to hear you`ve not been well but surely you are the exception rather than the rule?


I am in full time employment 

I count myself lucky to have a job. Dieting and exercising around work is pain at times.


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

gskinner123 said:


> Back to the critical point of the thread. The technique of targeting a section of the population as being responsible for the state's ills. Rings a bit of a bell.
> 
> Aside from which what proportion of benefits claimants receive benefit as a result of claiming to be "too fat to work"? I'll have a wild guess - not bloody many.


I don't think anyone is saying that fat people are all that is wrong with Britain, but surely lots of little money saving changes will add up to a big one?


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> Well least we have broken through the generalisation that overweight people can shift the weight by going to the gym.


No actually... The generalisation that fat people can loose weight by going to the gym is in fact... Correct as the majority can. The generalisation that that fat people can NOT loose weight by going to the gym is based on the minority.

In general the majority outweight (no pun intended) the minority. It seems to be logic thats lacking. If in fact the majority and minority are backwards... Then fact will bear that out. But neither of us will provide that, which is fine. But my opinion is that your statements are factually incorrect.



> Your take on weight gain is actually alarmingly out of touch. I for example have been on Anti-Depressents and Anti-Pyschotics for 2 years. In the first 2 months of taking the medication I put a stone on in weight. The doctor advised me that the medication had declined the metabolism rates in my body. Now that coupled with sedative effects of the medication made *exercise* extremely difficult to maintain for long periods of time and it took me 12 months to shift a stone *through* dieiting and *exercising* because Anti-Psychotics cause weight gain. Now this is isn't a simple of case you are what you eat. The medication was dictating how my body was feeling and at times the medication left me feeling hungry despite consuming a full meal. I can't begin to describe the daily battle it is to keep on top of my diet with the confusion that my condition can cause.
> 
> Some things are not that simple.


Not eating less. And again, anti psycotics dont cause weight gain!!!! Unless they have a calorie value attached. Anti psychotics may have made it harder to maintain weight, or lowered your metabolism... But they do not cause anything except a lower level of psycosis or whatever the correct medical term is. At this point, it is time to adapt. Which you stated you did... And my point is... So can others.

As for your personal issues... Your feelings of confusion and must have been a struggle... And im sorry about that. But made it hard for you, by you own admission... Not impossible.

I would be happy to concede though that being on antipsycotics and drugs that have a sedative affect do make things harder. No worries... I cant dissagree. BUT... Not impossible by your own admission. So I think were actually agreeing.

If you feel the need to get angry at me commenting on your personal circumstance, which is usually the case... May I remind you before you do, that you brought it up.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Megan345 said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that fat people are all that is wrong with Britain, but surely lots of little money saving changes will add up to a big one?


Sure, I agree. But how about we start not with the tiny, easy target, minority but with, just for starters, not publicly funding MP's to travel by first class rail and their TV licence? Just as a little starter; we'll save ourselves a packet. When they're used to that, perhaps then we can tackle the REAL issues surrounding MP's expenses.


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

£80m bill for obesity: Benefit claims by those too fat to work have soared under Labour | Mail Online

It looks like two years ago, there were 1100 people claiming _because_ they were overweight. That's not many people, but adding up the housing benefit, council tax benefit, school meals, incapacity, DLA if they get it, etc., has got to come to a fair bit. The article reckons costs totalled around £80 million in the period of time it covers.

ETA: And the number of people claiming because they were obese had doubled in the preceding thirteen years. I wonder if it's rising at the same rate?


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

gskinner123 said:


> Okay, I'll forget your earlier sweeping statements about health issues not leading to weight gain.


Im a bit unsure here... Could you point out which post that was please? In context and in its entirity please.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Colliebarmy said:


> For every "get fit/fat club" TV show there are 20 cooking/dine with me shows, I think that speaks volumes


Id be very suprised if people that take the effort to cook proper meals from recipes they see on tv are the "lazy overweight". Fast food and quick fix meals are more to blame than encouraging people to cook a meal.


----------



## CRL (Jan 3, 2012)

people do not just get fat from eating loads of rubbish. there is a form of malnutrition that people who eat too much fat are really skinny. my friend has this, she is size 8, thinks she is fat, she eats a load of crap every day, wont touch any fruit or veg, and hasnt done any exercise even when she was in school. 
i however am a size 18-20 eat a range of foods, unhealthy and healthy, i exercise while i work as on 1 care shift i can walk about 4 miles around the building. 

there are also better ways than the gym to loose weight. walking and running, which are both free.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Megan345 said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that fat people are all that is wrong with Britain, but surely lots of little money saving changes will add up to a big one?


you'd think so but the many small money saving changes could just be a smokescreen to deflect attention from other issues which theyve chosen not to deal with...

This article is somewhat interesting in regards to that, though i must admit that i havent researched the guy who wrote it to find out what HIS agenda is.

Benefit fraud is just a distraction from real issue of tax dodgers - Socialvoices on MSN News UK


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Megan345 said:


> £80m bill for obesity: Benefit claims by those too fat to work have soared under Labour | Mail Online
> 
> It looks like two years ago, there were 1100 people claiming _because_ they were overweight. That's not many people, but adding up the housing benefit, council tax benefit, school meals, incapacity, DLA if they get it, etc., has got to come to a fair bit. The article reckons costs totalled around £80 million in the period of time it covers.


And those are the ones that should be targeted! Immediately! Stop their money now! ALL of it.
And one has to ask how many other health issues these people have developed since they have been on benifits?


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Chris Swansea said:


> Not eating less. And again, anti psycotics dont cause weight gain!!!! Unless they have a calorie value attached.


Chris, I don't want to take this thread off at a wild tangent... but really, you're sounding alarmingly dopey on these sort of issues.


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Originally Posted by Chris Swansea 
Not eating less. And again, anti psycotics dont cause weight gain!!!! Unless they have a calorie value attached.

They trigger increased appetite, hence cause.

If I wasn't on them I wouldn't have such cravings!


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

porps said:


> you'd think so but the many small money saving changes could just be a smokescreen to deflect attention from other issues which theyve chosen not to deal with...
> 
> This article is somewhat interesting in regards to that, though i must admit that i havent researched the guy who wrote it to find out what HIS agenda is.
> 
> Benefit fraud is just a distraction from real issue of tax dodgers - Socialvoices on MSN News UK


True - but even if this is a nice bit of misdirection, I still think benefit reforms need to be done. The benefit fraud figures quoted in that article won't, I assume, include those who are claiming legitimately under the current rules but don't really need to.

I haven't a clue how tax fraud would be tackled, or how much it would cost, but I do agree that it is probably easier and cheaper for the government to reassess benefits than work on reducing tax fraud. I think they could perhaps work on both, though!


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> Originally Posted by Chris Swansea
> Not eating less. And again, anti psycotics dont cause weight gain!!!! Unless they have a calorie value attached.
> 
> They trigger increased appetite, hence cause.
> ...


There is a whole list of medications out there that list weight gain as one of the side effects! its still down to you to put the extra food into your mouth!
Havn't read the following fully, but i says something like a sensible diet and exercise helps, which is basically what some of us are saying.

Weight gain


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

gskinner123 said:


> Chris, I don't want to take this thread off at a wild tangent... but really, you're sounding alarmingly dopey on these sort of issues.


Well... Ive just gone through all my posts to make sure, and all Ive done is stated simple fact. If you didnt want to take it off on a tangent... Why did you? I am simply replying to your alligation. If your understanding of the logic is lacking, thats not really my issue... Is it?

But for future reference... If you do no wish to talk about something, a good start is to not talk about it...


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

DT said:


> There is a whole list of medications out there that list weight gain as one of the side effects! its still down to you to put the extra food into your mouth!


I think this is the point, isn't it? The medications don't, in and of themselves, make you gain weight - they stop you feeling full, so you still feel hungry, so you eat more. That is a personal choice.


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

DT said:


> There is a whole list of medications out there that list weight gain as one of the side effects! its still down to you to put the extra food into your mouth!
> Havn't read the following fully, but i says something like a sensible diet and exercise helps, which is basically what some of us are saying.
> 
> Weight gain


And people wouldn't put the extra food in if they didn't have the cravings some medications cause!!!!

I don't think you have read it properly


----------



## 3dogs2cats (Aug 15, 2012)

I saw this reported on the news yesterday and thought it seemed a bit odd and vague TBH. I know nothing about how benefits work etc but this report did not seem to suggest that only those people who are recieving benefits entirely because they are obsese would be effected. I presume if someone is claiming benefits because they can not work it would be classed as a disability therefore they would be getting DLA or something similar? 

So just been having a trawl through various websites and can`t find anything to suggest that this would only effect those claiming benefits purely because they are obsese. They are talking vaguley about housing benefits and council tax, mainly they seem to be talking about how much obeseity is costing the NHS something to the tune of 5billion.

Now of course this is shocking but is there any evidence that only those on benefits are obsese, surely not, so if the councils when they are put in charge of public health are worried about the health of their public ( and how much it is costing them) then surely they need to target everyone and make it compulsory for all to exercise not just those recieving benefits.


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Megan345 said:


> I think this is the point, isn't it? The medications don't, in and of themselves, make you gain weight - they stop you feeling full, so you still feel hungry, so you eat more. That is a personal choice.


How is that personal choice when the medication is causing the cravings?

Simple formula

No medication = No cravings.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

DT said:


> There is a whole list of medications out there that list weight gain as one of the side effects! its still down to you to put the extra food into your mouth!
> Havn't read the following fully, but i says something like a sensible diet and exercise helps, which is basically what some of us are saying.
> 
> Weight gain


See... This is exactly my point. (at this point, im not talking at you here DT)... You take a tablet or have a condition that means you may put on weight... Shock horror... You have to change your eating and exercise habbits.

Just as almost everyone on here has missrepresented and missunderstood... These things do not CAUSE weight gain. They cause a change in other circumstances which mean you... The person... The individual has to change. If you are driving down a road, someone pulls out in front of you and instead of slowing down you CHOOSE to NOT modify your behavior (speed) you crash... The other driver did not cause the crash, YOU did. Cause and effect. Its recognised science. Its not an opinion, or a theory, or an idea.

Before people try and stretch the metaphor... Yes it can happen too fast, brakes may fail... whatever... But in the MAJORITY of cases, you can simply modify your behavior. Maybe its hard, maybe its irritating, maybe its a chore... But its doable if you put your mind to it. Unless of course, you are in the minority of specific circumstances. At that point you are exempt.


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Sussexplumber said:


> If shes a size 20 why does she need to do karate? lol I guess she started when she was slimmer then put on weight over the years? But that aside, you surely arent suggesting that she is a typical overweight benefits claimant? I used to do karate years ago but gave it up after getting injured. I`ve never been to one of her lessons but we were certainly worked hard!


She doesn't _need_ to do karate - she _enjoys _doing karate - and what has her size got to do with her doing karate anyway?

And no she never started when she was slimmer, she has always been big and its never stopped her doing anything.

She's never claimed benefits either, and every single one of her jobs has been physical - shes been in her current job for at least 10 years, and she is a sheet metal worker.

She has dealt with attitudes like yours all her life, so I guess if you _did _go to one of her classes, you would almost definitely get injured.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Megan345 said:


> I think this is the point, isn't it? The medications don't, in and of themselves, make you gain weight - they stop you feeling full, so you still feel hungry, so you eat more. That is a personal choice.


And I am a prime example of this! wasn't going to put this as sure my case will have no bearing on no one else, as each has to be judged on its own merit. BUT, you could just say I work up one morning and did smell the roses!


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

DT said:


> And I am a prime example of this! wasn't going to put this as sure my case will have no bearing on no one else, as each has to be judged on its own merit. BUT, you could just say I work up one morning and did smell the roses!


opps sorry megan it was chris I was quoting there!
dont know what went wrong


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> How is that personal choice when the medication is causing the cravings?


i guess in the same way that it's personal choice to not smoke a cigarette when you are trying to give up smoking despite the cravings you may have. The cravings may make the choice more difficult but they do not take the choice out of your hands.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> Simple formula


If...

Medication = Craving

and

Cravings ≠ food in gob.

∴

Medication ≠ food in gob.


----------



## dobermummy (Apr 4, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> See... This is exactly my point. (at this point, im not talking at you here DT)... You take a tablet or have a condition that means you may put on weight... Shock horror... You have to change your eating and exercise habbits.


What if the medication you take lower your metabalisn so much all you are eating is less than 500 cals a day and still gaining weight? Or do you suggest starving totally? And these meds not only lower the metabalism but increase appitite so you are constantly hungry, feeling sick and faint.


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

porps said:


> i guess in the same way that it's personal choice to not smoke a cigarette when you are trying to give up smoking despite the cravings you may have. The cravings may make the choice more difficult but they do not take the choice out of your hands.


If only it worked that way


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

porps said:


> whats wrong with the word fat? its a good descriptive word. As is skinny, as is tall, as is short....


It's not the word itself, it's the way it's being used. On its own merit it's merely an adjective - the same as the word "black". Both are accurate but innocuous describing words - unlesss used in a discriminatory manner. And the word "fat" is now being used in a discriminatory manner in much the same as "black" was - it's the new "hate" term for 2013.

You've only got to look at the posts on here to see how some people immediately equate "fat" with lazy and greedy - when that isn't the case at all. And just as you get idiots immediately linking "black" with "terrorist", more and more we are seeing idiots linking "fat" with "lazy and greedy".

That in itself is discriminatory - as a lot of posts on here have shown, fat does not necessarily mean lazy and greedy. But now we have lickspittle bunterish politicians trying to take benefits from people who are fat - and that is even more discriminatory.

So Janice was prefectly correct in calling for the pc brigade.


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> If...
> 
> Medication = Craving
> 
> ...


Good try, but way off the mark.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> And people wouldn't put the extra food in if they didn't have the cravings some medications cause!!!!
> 
> I don't think you have read it properly


Yep love! I have read it properly!, I was on 60mg of steriods for a long long time following bodged up surgery and an emergency colostomy! I weighed 6.5 stones, I lived on a liquid diet for a long time! The steriods did increase my appetite , grossly, and when I could eventually eat again my weight over a two year period almost doubled! They I woke up! smelt the roses and realized the reason it had rocketed was because of what I put into my mouth!


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

DT said:


> Yep love! I have read it properly!, I was on 60mg of steriods for a long long time following bodged up surgery and an emergency colostomy! I weighed 6.5 stones, I lived on a liquid diet for a long time! The steriods did increase my appetite , grossly, and when I could eventually eat again my weight over a two year period almost doubled! They I woke up! smelt the roses and realized the reason it had rocketed was because of what I put into my mouth!


So if you didn't have the steroids, your weight wouldn't have ballooned love


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> It's not the word itself, it's the way it's being used. On its own merit it's merely an adjective - the same as the word "black". Both are accurate but innocuous describing words - unlesss used in a discriminatory manner. And the word "fat" is now being used in a discriminatory manner in much the same as "black" was - it's the new "hate" term for 2013.
> 
> You've only got to look at the posts on here to see how some people immediately equate "fat" with lazy and greedy - when that isn't the case at all. And just as you get idiots immediately linking "black" with "terrorist", more and more we are seeing idiots linking "fat" with "lazy and greedy".
> 
> ...


Couldn't care less what people call me! fat, thin, skinny, overweight.
Can't see why if offends myself!


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

dobermummy said:


> What if the medication you take lower your metabalisn so much all you are eating is less than 500 cals a day and still gaining weight? Or do you suggest starving totally? And these meds not only lower the metabalism but increase appitite so you are constantly hungry, feeling sick and faint.


Am i not correct in thinking that if your metabolism is decreased, then your calorie need also decreases. And sure it wont need to decrease to dangerous levels... But if you are gaining weight, you body has an EXCESS of what it needs... The cravings, while sad... Are a little irrelivant. Thats the fault of the illness not me, or the goverment, or anyone else. I would feel sorry for that person... But my sympathy is worthless.

Should I feel sorry for someone... Yeah, I cant see why not. Am I obliged to pay for the level of comfort... Not at all. If I choose to, thats up to me. But im not obliged.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> Good try, but way off the mark.


Im sorry... How is that statement incorrect?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> It's not the word itself, it's the way it's being used. On its own merit it's merely an adjective - the same as the word "black". Both are accurate but innocuous describing words - unlesss used in a discriminatory manner. And the word "fat" is now being used in a discriminatory manner in much the same as "black" was - it's the new "hate" term for 2013.
> 
> You've only got to look at the posts on here to see how some people immediately equate "fat" with lazy and greedy - when that isn't the case at all. And just as you get idiots immediately linking "black" with "terrorist", more and more we are seeing idiots linking "fat" with "lazy and greedy".
> 
> ...


while i think most of your points in this post are valid i must disagree with your final statement.

Janice pointed to the thread title as being offensive


JANICE199 said:


> *The title says a lot. How in this day and age can people call others fat?
> Where's the PC brigade when it's needed?*


 and called for the pc brigade, however to my eyes there is nothing derogatory about the way the word fat was used in the title.

There are no doubt cases where fat is used as an insult but i dont beleive this is one of them.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> So if you didn't have the steroids, your weight wouldn't have ballooned love


I had to put weight on, as I said I couldn't eat solids for a long time, The steriods were *not* given to me to gain weight, but to address an AutoImmune illness, as you say the side effect s do* increase the appetite *which they did! 
But I wanted corrective surgery to repair the broken colostomy and my surgeon would not operate due to my l*ow* weight! When I was able to eat again I sat and stuffed my face, eventually , three lots of surgery followed, and the weight stayed wtih me! During this time *I was blaming the steriods for the weight gain*, which in my case was not a bad thing, but now it was unwanted! ! My steriod dose NEVER dropped below 30mg over a three year period! much of the time I was on 60mg, which is high and my face looked like a hamster! I went on a healthly eating plan, still ate a good amount, but I ate a well balanced diet and It was a heck of a lot harder to lose then it was to put on!
Food in mouth is what puts weight on in most cases, OK appetites may increase due to some drugs, but thats down to the indivudal to control,


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Megan345 said:


> £80m bill for obesity: Benefit claims by those too fat to work have soared under Labour | Mail Online
> 
> *It looks like two years ago, there were 1100 people claiming because they were overweight. That's not many people, but adding up the housing benefit, council tax benefit, school meals, incapacity, DLA if they get it, etc., has got to come to a fair bit. The article reckons costs totalled around £80 million in the period of time it covers.*
> 
> ETA: And the number of people claiming because they were obese had doubled in the preceding thirteen years. I wonder if it's rising at the same rate?


If the above 1100 people were ONLY claiming JSA @ approx £72 a week, that works out at £343,200 a month. Or £4,118,400 a year. STILL a decent sum of money. And, like I said, that is only basic JSA.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

I've only skim read the first couple of posts as I have been busy today and off out again in a mo...but can I please make this clear

DLA disability living allowance...is not a benefit...it is an allowance. It is non means tested...a millionaire can claim it.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> And again, anti psycotics dont cause weight gain!!!! Unless they have a calorie value attached. Anti psychotics may have made it harder to maintain weight, or lowered your metabolism.
> .


Anti-psychotics stimulate appetite and _at the same time_ reduce metabolism. So even if you were eating normally you would gain more weight than normal - but you are also being stimulated to eat more than normal, so you are hit by a double whammy. Add all that to struggling with a psychotic illness in the first place and I'm sure you can see:

a) just how unhelpful it is when a self-righteous know-it all tells you that all you have to do is eat less and exercise more, and
b) (to bring it back to the original subject of the thread) how it is discriminatory in the extreme to stop benefits for people who are struggling to cope with this condition plus their side effects of their medication.



Megan345 said:


> I think this is the point, isn't it? The medications don't, in and of themselves, make you gain weight - they stop you feeling full, so you still feel hungry, so you eat more. That is a personal choice


You are wrong. There are several groups of drugs that cause weight gain that the person taking them can do nothing about. A few examples:

Corticosteroids are known to stimulate appetite while reducing the body's ability to absorb glucose, which can promote fat deposits in the midsection.

Beta-blockers can cause shortness of breath and fatigue, making it difficult for patients taking them to exercise

Calcium channel blockers taken for high blood pressure can cause users to retain water.

And, as I've just explained above, some anti-depressants and anti-psychotics stimulate appetite and at the same time reduce metabolism.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> I've only skim read the first couple of posts as I have been busy today and off out again in a mo...but can I please make this clear
> 
> DLA disability living allowance...is not a benefit...it is an allowance. It is non means tested...a millionaire can claim it.


a bit like the winter fuel allowance then


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> You are wrong. There are several groups of drugs that cause weight gain that the person taking them can do nothing about. A few examples:
> 
> Corticosteroids are known to stimulate appetite while reducing the body's ability to absorb glucose, which can promote fat deposits in the midsection.
> 
> ...


I'm off out to walk the dogs now - but to use an extreme case as an example, if a person ate nothing for a week, they wouldn't gain weight, as no calories would be going in for weight to be gained from.

It follows, then, that eating a _suitable amount_, no matter what medication you are or are not on, will not make you gain weight.

I'm really arguing the toss at this point because I don't believe the benefit cuts should be applied to the people who are taking medication for other conditions, and the side effect of these is weight gain - I'm trying to make the point that medicine doesn't make you grow extra arms and animate these to make you shovel food into your gob. No matter how hungry you are, it is a matter of impulse control. But it's a nul point, because the cuts _should_ not (not _will_ not) apply to these people, so they can all carry on and do as they please, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Wiz201 (Jun 13, 2012)

dorrit said:


> Shes been on benefits for a while and is now on a state pension.
> But over the last 20+ years she has repeatedly asked her GP for advice re.diet and all she has ever got was a printed diet sheet..It mentions grilled fish and grilled chicken breast fresh fruit and veg..
> Benefits dont run to that kind of diet every day. She is now not to eat too much salt but shes received no help to advise her exactly what 'too much' is or how to work out how much salt is in food.


Just buy chicken and veg and cook it from scratch? Don't go for the ready meals as they can be really expensive. Package labelling should say how much salt is in food, but if you buy pure meat it shouldn't have salt in it anyway.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Anti-psychotics stimulate appetite and _at the same time_ reduce metabolism. So even if you were eating normally you would gain more weight than normal - but you are also being stimulated to eat more than normal, so you are hit by a double whammy. Add all that to struggling with a psychotic illness in the first place and I'm sure you can see:
> 
> a) just how unhelpful it is when a self-righteous know-it all tells you that all you have to do is eat less and exercise more, and
> b) (to bring it back to the original subject of the thread) how it is discriminatory in the extreme to stop benefits for people who are struggling to cope with this condition plus their side effects of their medication.


I accept for about the 10th time that its harder. And as you specify "if you eat normally" you cant eat normally... Your body/brain is abnormal.

a) Like doctors, healthcare profecionals, etc? And all you actually have to do is eat less and exercise more. I mean... Boil away the BS of it all... You actually need to exercise more and eat less. Does it "suck to be you" why yes it does... Does that change the fact? Not really.

Does it make someone a self rightious know-it-all? No really... Its the logical conclusion to the situation on hand.

b) its not any more discriminatory than "picking on" drunks or druggies, or if they wanted too... Smokers. *If that was indeed the users choice*. If its not, then thats different... But medically, I dont think anyone needs to do herion, or smoke. Nor do they need to drink. And yes... Some people dont need to be paid to eat more, when they wont exercise.

So is it a choice if your on meds?

Well... Cravings are not food. I crave to punch people sometimes, but I dont because cravings can be controled... is it hard... yes it is. But i'm a big boy. Is it harder for some than others? Yeah... But thats no reasonable point.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DT said:


> Couldn't care less what people call me! fat, thin, skinny, overweight.
> Can't see why if offends myself!


Well, people can call me what they want too - as long as they don't call me too late for my dinner! 



porps said:


> while i think most of your points in this post are valid i must disagree with your final statement.
> 
> Janice pointed to the thread title as being offensive and called for the pc brigade, however to my eyes there is nothing derogatory about the way the word fat was used in the title.
> 
> There are no doubt cases where fat is used as an insult but i dont beleive this is one of them.


I understand what you mean about the actual words not being offensive - it's the meaning behind the words that is offensive. It's the way "fat" is being linked to "lazy and greedy" and "need to exercise or you can't have benefits" that is offensive.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Well, people can call me what they want too - as long as they don't call me too late for my dinner!


:lol:



Spellweaver said:


> I understand what you mean about the actual words not being offensive - it's the meaning behind the words that is offensive. It's the way "fat" is being linked to "lazy and greedy" and "need to exercise or you can't have benefits" that is offensive.


Totally agree with you there.. this goverment at the moment reminds of prince phillip (or at least the way he is portrayed in satire).. Its like every time they open their mouth with a new idea they offend yet another large group of voters.. very strange strategy indeed, unless they've already given up hope for winning the next election (lets face it, theres no hope for them winning again... thankfully)


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> a) Like doctors, healthcare profecionals,


No - like people on a forum who don't let their appalling lack of medical knowledge stop them from dictating their erroneous "facts" those who do actually know what they are talking about.



Chris Swansea said:


> Does it make someone a self rightious know-it-all? No really... Its the logical conclusion to the situation on hand.


Yes it does make someone a self-righteous know-it-all because no it isn't the logical conclusion to hand.



Chris Swansea said:


> b) its not any more discriminatory than "picking on" drunks or druggies, or if they wanted too... Smokers.


It may not be *any more *discriminatory but that does not take away from the fact that it *is* discriminatory.



Chris Swansea said:


> Is it harder for some than others? Yeah... But thats no reasonable point.


It is a perfectly reasonable point. The whole point of a benefits system is that it is there to help those who are struggling. And someone who is struggling with an anti-psychotic lllness, plus the side effects of the medication they HAVE to take to help them functon with that illness, should not be labelled as lazy or greedy and should not be a target for benefit cuts.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> The whole point of a benefits system is that it is there to help those who are struggling. And someone who is struggling with an anti-psychotic lllness, plus the side effects of the medication they HAVE to take to help them functon with that illness, should not be labelled as lazy or greedy and should not be a target for benefit cuts.


But all areas of the benifits system are being revamped! And the benifits system is not only their for those of have children, nor those who have ilnesses, nor fake illness, it is also there for our old people and for treatment in our hospitals.

Maybe i got this wrong, but when i started worked I was told that I HAD to pay 9s and 6d (think it was) insurance contribution and that this went towards my old age pension when I would retire (at 60 - but a lot of us have taken a direct hit there having to go on until we are 66) and for our hospitals and our health treatment!

Nothing then was mentioned about free housing, free council tax, DLV if we should ever need it , the mobility scheme (the all had little blue bubble cars then) Frees school meals, Family Credits, Working tax credit, Extra money for children, Infact nothing else was ever considered! OK I guess they had schemes for the weak and the needy then but sure as god made ittle green apples I'll bet there were nowhere near the amount of people on benifits!

The thing is now we have a society of takers, benifit scroungers and those who, if nothing applies invent an illness! To get what they thin is *THEIR* share outta the pot! And that is the problem! too many taking! And that is itself is why the innocent are having to pay!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Megan345 said:


> It follows, then, that eating a _suitable amount_, no matter what medication you are or are not on, will not make you gain weight.


But it doesn't follow at all. Some drugs - such as lithium - really mess up the metabolic system so that people cannot lose weight no matter what they do - and then the choice for these people is either put up with being overweight or stop taking the tablets and live with the hell that is a psychotic illness. I know which I'd choose!

Have a look at this link: Lithium Weight Gain

Here are a couple of quotes:

_"All antidepressants slow the metabolism and inhibit specific enzymes in the liver that allow the metabolism to function correctly. Many antidepressants also also increase appetite and carbohydrate cravings. Antidepressants like Lithium are also shown to cause hormonal changes, which can further add to weight gain"_.

_"With Lithium weight gain, it is not the amount of food eaten, but the bodys crippled metabolism. If you have already cut your food intake, have eliminated fatty foods, exercise on a regular basis and you still are gaining weight, your metabolism is to blame. If you are taking Lithium, chances are Lithium is contributing to the sluggish metabolism. The only true solution to Lithium weight gain is to stop using Lithium."_


----------



## tiatortilla (Oct 1, 2012)

some people on this forum really need to stop getting so angry about people on benefits. getting irate about something over the internet doesn't actually change anything, it just adds to the stigma that everybody who claims is lazy etc. (hence why i'm no longer involving myself in these debates, even though i'm of the opposite opinion to these people, it's a total waste of time!)
just throwing that out there - try to chill out a bit, or why not go and try to change something if it bothers you that much?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DT said:


> But all areas of the benifits system are being revamped! And the benifits system is not only their for those of have children, nor those who have ilnesses, nor fake illness, it is also there for our old people and for treatment in our hospitals.
> 
> Maybe i got this wrong, but when i started worked I was told that I HAD to pay 9s and 6d (think it was) insurance contribution and that this went towards my old age pension when I would retire (at 60 - but a lot of us have taken a direct hit there having to go on until we are 66) and for our hospitals and our health treatment!
> 
> ...


Whilst I agree that some people do make a living out of being on benefits, I think that we should not be hoodwinked by the government and the media into thinking that they are in the majority when they are, in fact, a small minority. These people who make a living out of it should be targetted rather than targetting the truly needy.

And as for the whole system being re-vamped - don't get me started on that or we'll take this thread way off subject. That is a subject for a whole new thread (well, not new, 'cos there are already several on here) on which I would be more than happy to debate with you about this. (you know me - can't resist a good ol' debate!) Suffice it to say that I don't buy into the propaganda that the only way - or indeed, the correct way - for this country to get back on its feet is to take away money from the poorest and most needy of its citizens.


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2013)

DT said:


> I had to put weight on, as I said I couldn't eat solids for a long time, The steriods were *not* given to me to gain weight, but to address an AutoImmune illness, as you say the side effect s do* increase the appetite *which they did!
> But I wanted corrective surgery to repair the broken colostomy and my surgeon would not operate due to my l*ow* weight! When I was able to eat again I sat and stuffed my face, eventually , three lots of surgery followed, and the weight stayed wtih me! During this time *I was blaming the steriods for the weight gain*, which in my case was not a bad thing, but now it was unwanted! ! My steriod dose NEVER dropped below 30mg over a three year period! much of the time I was on 60mg, which is high and my face looked like a hamster! I went on a healthly eating plan, still ate a good amount, but I ate a well balanced diet and It was a heck of a lot harder to lose then it was to put on!
> Food in mouth is what puts weight on in most cases, OK appetites may increase due to some drugs, but thats down to the indivudal to control,


I'm actually on 100mg of Methylprednisolone at the moment due to a recent MS attack and I'm still 6-7 stone, yes steriods increase appetite and can bloat you a bit but they don't force the food into anyones gob.
Far too many people blame medication for increased weight without thinking that maybe they shouldn't put so much/wrong sort of food in their mouth in the first place.

I don't particularly care what size anyone is but it does my head in when all the excuses are banded about, but then I'm not allowed to have that opinion because I'm skinny and have no idea what it is like to have an eating issue


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

B3rnie said:


> I'm actually on 100mg of Methylprednisolone at the moment due to a recent MS attack and I'm still 6-7 stone, yes steriods increase appetite and can bloat you a bit but they don't force the food into anyones gob.
> Far too many people blame medication for increased weight without thinking that maybe they shouldn't put so much/wrong sort of food in their mouth in the first place.
> 
> I don't particularly care what size anyone is but it does my head in when all the excuses are banded about, but then I'm not allowed to have that opinion because I'm skinny and have no idea what it is like to have an eating issue


Yep! thats what I said, but think you have to go back a couple of pages


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Whilst I agree that some people do make a living out of being on benefits, I think that we should not be hoodwinked by the government and the media into thinking that they are in the majority when they are, in fact,* a small minority.* These people who make a living out of it should be targetted rather than targetting the truly needy.


But the ones who do will ruin things for everyone else. One bad apple and all....

To go back to the ex-neighbour of mine (yeah, her again ) all that was wrong with her INITIALLY was an under-active thyroid. Nothing else. That is all. But she refused to eat sensibley and stuffed her face with junk food and she has ballooned up to a good 22+ stone. NOW she can barely walk, she has ulcers on her legs and her joints are well & truly knackered. She is younger than me and looks 10yrs older.

She will NOT lose weight because that means she would have to get a job & work. Something she has been very vocal in refusing to do. When warned that, if she didn't lose weight she risked having to have her legs amputated, she replied with "They can have my legs off, I'll get more benefits then!" :yikes:

Now I agree that she is probably a more extreme case, with this attitude, but a lot of people know someone who is of this ilk and this means lower tolerance levels for the genuine claiments.

As I said, all it takes is one bad apple......

Also, how small is this minority? 10%? 15%? 30%? Besides, no matter how small the minority - 1100 people claiming JSA due to being fat is costing over £4m a year - the minority is still too many costing too much.


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2013)

DT said:


> Yep! thats what I said, but think you have to go back a couple of pages


haha that will teach me for skim reading whilst doing housework :lol:

Oh well it needed saying again I think


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> Also, how small is this minority? 10%? 15%? 30%? Besides, no matter how small the minority - 1100 people claiming JSA due to being fat is costing over £4m a year - the minority is still too many costing too much.


Even if it were just one then it would be one too many:yikes:


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

B3rnie said:


> haha that will teach me for skim reading whilst doing housework :lol:
> 
> Oh well it needed saying again I think


Tut tut!
And here I was thinking I held the crown for foot in gob syndrome!
NOW, theres a thought, wonder if there's a benifit going for that


----------



## Burrowzig (Feb 18, 2009)

dobermummy said:


> What if the medication you take lower your metabalisn so much all you are eating is less than 500 cals a day and still gaining weight? Or do you suggest starving totally? And these meds not only lower the metabalism but increase appitite so you are constantly hungry, feeling sick and faint.


And in these circunstances, eating so little makes it very difficult to get enough nutrients from the food - there's little in processed food to start with - so you have vitamin and mineral deficiencies as well as everything else.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Have a look at this link: Lithium Weight Gain


_
*Not every person taking Lithium will gain weight* but it happens enough for Lithium to hold a solid reputation as a weight gain drug.

all antidepressants without exception have the *potential* to cause weight gain

Studies showed an average weight gain of 15 to 20 pounds with Zoloft, Prozac and Celexa. Paxil appear to have the most significant impact on weight gain of all of the SSRIs and causes weight gains in excess of 20 pounds for the average person taking this antidepressant.
_

Interestingly... Those quotes are from a company trying to sell another product... But if thats what you call reasonable reference material... Fine...

Equally anecdotal is this from another forum...



> Thankfully, BP has come a long way from the 50s when lithium was the only med to take. Your father's doc is right; lithium cannot be used long term, it can damage the kidneys, thyroid and cause changes in the heart.
> 
> Today there are tons of choices, mood stabilizers: Lamictal (good antidepressant effect, too), Topamax, Trileptal, depakote
> 
> ...


So while I know nothing... Maybe theres an alternative. I aint your doctor. But regardless, even if I accept the premise of your statement... Which im not unrelenting on... How many people does that dramatic weight gain occur? In what percentage of patients? Is it 10, 20%? or more like 80-90%?

As with someone else on here... If you wish to prove your point, thats fine, and i'll accept proper and exhaustive referenced report. If not... Thats fine. We differ on opinion. Until then BOTH our opinions are equally as valid, even if you or i dont like them or agree with them.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> _
> Until then BOTH our opinions are equally as valid, even if you or i dont like them or agree with them._


_

There is one vital difference between my opinion and yours. I am a pharmacy technician working in a mental hospital and my opinion is based on solid fact. While yours is based on ...well, what?

In the BNF prescribers are particularly warned about the dangers of obesity when prescribing anti-psychotic drugs: Enabling Cookies: MedicinesComplete

The link may not work because you have to be a registered medical professional to access the BNF so I'll quote the relevant part here for you:

4.2 Drugs used in psychoses and related disorders
Additional information interactions (Antipsychotics).

Advice of Royal College of Psychiatrists on doses of antipsychotic drugs .........
2.Bear in mind risk factors, including obesity;

and here is the SPC from the manufacturer of one kind of lithium tablet - again, not sure if the link willwork so here is the relevent bit quoted:

• Endocrine disorders

Long-term adverse effects may include thyroid function disturbances such as euthyroid goitre and/or hypothyroidism and thyrotoxicosis. Lithium-induced hypothyroidism may be managed successfully with concurrent thyroxine. Hypercalcaemia, hypermagnesemia, hyperparathyroidism have been reported.

• Metabolism and nutrition disorders

Weight increase, hyperglycaemia

Priadel 400mg prolonged release tablets. - Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) - (eMC)

which is exactly what the more user-friendly article I quoted before said._


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> .....


Yes, I have already said that I agree that certain drugs can cause issues. What percentage of people does it affect though? Are you talking about 10% of people or 90%... I think what I'm looking for here is a statistician or reasearcher... Not a pharmacy technician... Is that the same as a pharmacist, out of curiosity?

And my opinion is based on common sense. Which suggests that while you may have a point, your point does not have a quantity. So your point may be 100% valid, or 1% valid. If were talking about say... 90% of all cases being affected by obesity due to the drug and the drug alone... Then you have a valid point indeed... If on the other hand, only 5% (say) has this affect... Then its like saying that car driving is 100% fatal because maybe 0.5% of the population died in car accidents....

One could even postulate that as you are working in a mental hospital, behind a glass screen (or a desk, or whatever), you are not privvy to specific exercise regimes or dietary requirements... Unless technicians are doctors now-a-days... Or maybe not. But I dont personally hang my hat on job titles.

If I have to hand in a technical report stating that my conrod design is reliable and wont snap, I cant simply specify that the information contained within is accurate, cus I said so. No matter what my title... I have to supply numbers, with references and everything. 

See... If I dont, no matter what my contract says... Its just an opinion... More informed than joe blogs... But not by much. Your opinion cannot specify detailed numbers with any degree of accuracy.

So do you have any? Or are your points and opinions equally as useless as mine?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Burrowzig said:


> And in these circunstances, eating so little makes it very difficult to get enough nutrients from the food - there's little in processed food to start with - so you have vitamin and mineral deficiencies as well as everything else.


And another thing that needs to be taken into account is that with lithium, the dose is based on weight, and there is a very fine line between the theraputic dose and an overdose. Users of lithium have to have regular blood tests so that they do not accidentally overdose. If someone loses weight inbetween these blood tests, then they will be straight into an overdosage situation - not good.


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> Yes, I have already said that I agree that certain drugs can cause issues. What percentage of people does it affect though? Are you talking about 10% of people or 90%... I think what I'm looking for here is a statistician or reasearcher... Not a pharmacy technician... Is that the same as a pharmacist, out of curiosity?
> 
> And my opinion is based on common sense. Which suggests that while you may have a point, your point does not have a quantity. So your point may be 100% valid, or 1% valid. If were talking about say... 90% of all cases being affected by obesity due to the drug and the drug alone... Then you have a valid point indeed... If on the other hand, only 5% (say) has this affect... Then its like saying that car driving is 100% fatal because maybe 0.5% of the population died in car accidents....
> 
> ...


So my prescribed medication says 1-10 will gain weight.

Or do you want an official statement from the drug company?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> Yes, I have already said that I agree that certain drugs can cause issues. What percentage of people does it affect though? Are you talking about 10% of people or 90%... I think what I'm looking for here is a statistician or reasearcher... Not a pharmacy technician...Is that the same as a pharmacist, out of curiosity?


How do you know you don't need a pharmacy technician when you don't even know what a pharmacy techncian does? :lol: That's basing your opinion on facts of which you have no knowledge - pretty much the same as you are doing about anti-psychotics and weight gain.

The very fact that the BNF warns perscribers about the dangers of obesity and anti-psychtics shows that it affects* most *of the users of the drugs - otherwise it would be in the rare side effects section - but then, as you have so admirably demonstrated already, you have very little medical knowledge upon which you base your opinions so I suppose you can be forgiven for not knowing that.



Chris Swansea said:


> And my opinion is based on common sense. Which suggests that while you may have a point, your point does not have a quantity. So your point may be 100% valid, or 1% valid. If were talking about say... 90% of all cases being affected by obesity due to the drug and the drug alone... Then you have a valid point indeed... If on the other hand, only 5% (say) has this affect... Then its like saying that car driving is 100% fatal because maybe 0.5% of the population died in car accidents....


Such figures are impossible to collate as there is no national database for such things. There will be some information from the double blind trials which will have taken place for each individual drug before it was allowed to be marketed, but you would have to contact each individual drug company for that information. However, as I said above, if it did not affect most of the users of the drugs then it would be in the rare side effects section of the monograph in the BNF and not in the immediate warnings section.



Chris Swansea said:


> One could even postulate that as you are working in a mental hospital, behind a glass screen (or a desk, or whatever), you are not privvy to specific exercise regimes or dietary requirements. Unless technicians are doctors now-a-days... Or maybe not. But I dont personally hang my hat on job titles.


One could even postulate that as you obviously don't have an idea in hell about what a pharmacy technician does, and have obviously never heard of medicines management techncians who work on wards and are privy to all aspects of a client's care including things such as dietary and exercise requirements as well as their drugs, then your "common sense" opinion actually counts for very little.



Chris Swansea said:


> If I have to hand in a technical report stating that my conrod design is reliable and wont snap, I cant simply specify that the information contained within is accurate, cus I said so. No matter what my title... I have to supply numbers, with references and everything.


And therein lies the problem with your "common sense". Your "common sense" is not even sensible enough to realise that with medicines you are talking about people, not machines. You have been furnshed with facts from the two bibles of the trade - the monograph in BNF and the SPC from the EMC. Choose to ignore them if you want - but if your "common sense" isn't even sensible enough to realise that I am dealing in facts while you are merely reiterating your not very informed opinions, then there is nothing I can do about that.

I have furnished facts and links to medical references to support my opinions - can you do the same to support yours?


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> So my prescribed medication says 1-10 will gain weight.
> 
> Or do you want an official statement from the drug company?


That seems reasonable for the purposes... With a single proviso.

So thats 1 in 10? If it is, thats 10% of people. Thats certainly a minority. 10% of all users will gain weight.

So ok... The previso.... How much weight? How many of them will become obese due to the drug alone? I think maybe 10% of those people who gain weight will gain obese amounts of weight... So thats 1%... 1% of all users.

Lets be more generous shall we... 50% of ALL lithium users will become morbidly obese due to this drug... Thats 5%

My lord... Its an epidemic!!!!

So it turns out that maybe 95% of the users dont suffer this problem... Hell... Lets assume every user who has lithium, becomes morbily obese if they are the 1 in 10... 90% of the users do not suffer the problem... Is the point made now?

By the way, you still havent told me how my equation was wrong...


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Same narrow minded perfect people answering on this thread i see! Lol....oh to live in their world eh! :angry::rolleyes

Two words GO SPELLWEAVER!!!!


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Chris Swansea said:


> That seems reasonable for the purposes... With a single proviso.
> 
> So thats 1 in 10? If it is, thats 10% of people. Thats certainly a minority. 10% of all users will gain weight.
> 
> ...


On the information leaflet these are deemed "very likely" side effects with 1 being the least.

Pay attention to the pharmacy technician as he/she is making more sense than most on this thread.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> On the information leaflet these are deemed "very likely" side effects with 1 being the least.
> 
> Pay attention to the pharmacy technician as he/she is making more sense than most on this thread.


No one has managed to supply any figures yet, if thats not 1 in 10... Then you have given me... A scale. A scale is of no use. What were looking for is a number on a scale... Not that one. But a scale.

So what you have done there... Is yap off, without any usefull info what-so-ever.



> Same narrow minded perfect people answering on this thread i see! Lol....oh to live in their world eh!


Narrow minded... Im the only one looking for actual data. Do please forgive me for wanting facts and figures not whining and "but I said so"

I personally think it would be more narrow minded to attack the request for actual fact, not just opinion... But I spose we cant all be perfect. 

People often wonder how these things turn into name calling and crap... And while people like me often get the blame... Its rarely us. Its the HRT brigade tickling each others... Ego's... Ive expressed an opinion based on logic, reasonable assumption and known fact. When challanged Ive asked for some data (not even much) to corroborate the opinion. Then I get called narrow minded and small, and woe is me, he thinks he's so perfect and wouldnt it be nice to live in his world... Because i asked for some sembalance of fact... Since no logic can be found in a 12 mile radius.

I feel justified... I feel justified to say


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

suzy93074 said:


> Same narrow minded perfect people answering on this thread i see! Lol....oh to live in their world eh! :angry::rolleyes
> 
> Two words GO SPELLWEAVER!!!!


Can't agree with you suzy on this one!
Chris has a point!
As much as I like SW and her views sometimes we have to admit, and imv on this instance not all people who are claiming that drugs are making them overweight are correct! Much of the problem as Chris says is down to what they put in their mouths!

That said Im bowing out too as got company now


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

is this going to be another thread that ends up closed cause we can not play nicely? Just wondering


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

canuckjill said:


> is this going to be another thread that ends up closed cause we can not play nicely? Just wondering


Ive tried... Just sayin.


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

And i agree that for SOME yez this is true BUT yet again some on here are assuming that most people who are overweight are so because they are lazy and greedy! Its just not true! And even when someone with medical knowledge and who work in this area re drugs and illnesses comes on with cold hard facts they still refuse to see another side....that IS narrow minded imo ....


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

im overweight because of my disability, i cant exercise any more, i used to be able to and i used to love it

if i want to lose weight without exercise i have to eat as little as 1000 calories a day, im not willing to be in constant pain and hungry all the time


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Chris Swansea said:


> *People often wonder how these things turn into name calling and crap... And while people like me often get the blame... Its rarely us. Its the HRT brigade tickling each others... Ego's...* Ive expressed an opinion based on logic, reasonable assumption and known fact. When challanged Ive asked for some data (not even much) to corroborate the opinion. Then I get called narrow minded and small, and woe is me, he thinks he's so perfect and wouldnt it be nice to live in his world... Because i asked for some sembalance of fact... Since no logic can be found in a 12 mile radius.
> 
> I feel justified..*. I feel justified to say insert bad words........ *


*

YOU are the first person to resort to name calling - HRT Brigade........

YOU are the first person to resort to using profanity.

The rest of us have managed to put our points across without lowering the tone.*


----------



## canuckjill (Jun 25, 2008)

I removed part of the quote and the original.....Honestly sometimes I feel like I'm 25 again with 3 kids in diapers.....


Weight gain and weight loss is not as easy as some seem to think...At 171 lbs I looked ill esp cause I lost 50 lbs in 3 months...Thanks chemo and cancer, steroids thanks for trying to help...now I've gained back 20 lbs I don't look ill, weight alone doesn't mean alot. At 191 lbs I look normal but then I'm 6 ft tall at 220 I didn't look bad either except I had more energy and could do more exercise and felt pain free...Go figure huh


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

canuckjill said:


> is this going to be another thread that ends up closed cause we can not play nicely? Just wondering


i always play nicely:thumbup::yikes::thumbup:


----------



## Guest (Jan 4, 2013)

DT said:


> i always play nicely:thumbup::yikes::thumbup:


Although giving your kids...










...to go and play softball in primary school was a bit OTT i though tbh...
:lol:


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> im overweight because of my disability, i cant exercise any more, i used to be able to and i used to love it
> 
> if i want to lose weight without exercise i have to eat as little as 1000 calories a day, im not willing to be in constant pain and hungry all the time


I have been absolutely staving today! it must be this thread
Besides my morning musili I have eaten

2 x red grapefuits
1lb of the smallest sweetest cherry tomatos
I x punnet of raspberries,
6 carrots
and a low fat yoghurt!
I have also drank 3 litres of sparling water!
and maybe 4 black coffees!

then for tea my meal was less the 400 calories!

I still feel like I could eat all the cadburys roses!
but my willpower is winning

i cant exercise either at the moment! but I have walked the dogs


----------



## fierceabby (May 16, 2011)

If people on benefits have to not drink, not smoke, not eat certain foods, do a certain amount of exercise they might as well be in the workhouse. There is plenty of literature and accounts of how bad these places were. 

Everybody on here and indeed in the whole country is just a redundancy or a drink driver away from being reliant on benefits for their income through no fault of their own. It could be you tomorrow - how demoralised and how much of a worthless underclass would you feel at having every aspect of your life dictated by people who haven't been as misfortunate as you(yet)?

Freedom of choice is so important in feelings of self worth. And no I can't Harvard Reference it. Just stop for a sec. and imagine how fecking horrible it would be to have NO choices on what you eat, what you do, how long you do it just because, for example, your employer's biggest customer goes bust, so your company makes a loss and owes suppliers so you lose your job, then you can't pay your rent or mortgage. 

I dunno. I just hate how 'hatey' things have become - but I also appreciate debate is good/fun and it's healthy to be able to do it, even it just means people have to agree to disagree in the end. Hope no-one dwells on some comments afterwards and feels upset later, because that's not the result of healthy debate.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

DT said:


> I have been absolutely staving today! it must be this thread
> Besides my morning musili I have eaten
> 
> 2 x red grapefuits
> ...


i couldnt even walk the dogs 

i would never get off the loo if i ate that lot :yikes: my stomach hates a lot f veg and fruit gives me heartburn

what did you have for your tea?

i had salmon, roasties and a yorkshire pud for my dinner, for tea its salmon sandwiches


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

suzy93074 said:


> And i agree that for SOME yez this is true BUT yet again some on here are assuming that most people who are overweight are so because they are lazy and greedy! Its just not true!


I really don't mean to pick an argument here, but are not the MAJORITY ('most' to quote you) of people overweight because they are lazy and greedy (or to put it nicely, perhaps don't have time to exercise or time to cook good food so rely on unhealthy ready meals)? I don't doubt that for some people it can be difficult or close to impossible to lose weight, if they are on certain medications, but I really don't think the majority of the overweight population are in that boat.



tinktinktinkerbell said:


> im overweight because of my disability, i cant exercise any more, i used to be able to and i used to love it
> 
> if i want to lose weight without exercise i have to eat as little as 1000 calories a day, im not willing to be in constant pain and hungry all the time


Disability aside, I'm eating 1100 calories a day or less to lose weight, as well as exercising. I'm not hungry all the time.


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

Megan345 said:


> Disability aside, I'm eating 1100 calories a day or less to lose weight, as well as exercising. I'm not hungry all the time.


you arent me though


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

tinktinktinkerbell said:


> i couldnt even walk the dogs
> 
> i would never get off the loo if i ate that lot :yikes: my stomach hates a lot f veg and fruit gives me heartburn
> 
> ...


i had a very small portion of stewing beef with onions and carrots! together with some boiled potatoes


----------



## tinktinktinkerbell (Nov 15, 2008)

DT said:


> i had a very small portion of stewing beef with onions and carrots! together with some boiled potatoes


mmmmm that sounds really nice!

i actually wrote nice as mice :yikes: :laugh:


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

DT said:


> I have been absolutely staving today! it must be this thread
> Besides my morning musili I have eaten
> 
> 2 x red grapefuits
> ...


 Look at all that good food! Quite jealous


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

I think im gonna take a break from these threads ....i love a good debate and i rarely get personnel unless provoked but a certain person really offends me on here at mo and they at the mo dont debate they just argue ...they dont even concede another viewpoint ...they r rude and obnoxious and it makez this an unenjoyable place to be which is v sad ...ive been here four years and seen debates go on for ages but not anymore ....pity theze people are allowed to stay and shove decent members away! Chow for now!:thumbdown:


----------



## IrishEyes (Jun 26, 2012)

canuckjill said:


> Weight gain and weight loss is not as easy as some seem to think...


This ^^^

Some people are overweight because they eat too much and exercise too little, others are overweight because they have an illness or disability which means that weight gain is easy and weight loss or management is not. Some are overweight because that is their natural predisposed size and all the management in the world won't make them slim.

My mother was slim all her life until she developed a thyroid problem then suddenly without any warning she went up several dress sizes and her face and throat ballooned. She has tried dieting, she walks everyday etc but nothing will shift the weight so she has to live with feeling insecure about how she looks knowing that it's unlikely to change any time soon.

Someone suffering from a disability such as severe arthritis etc can totally have their lives snatched away from them, the limitied exercise means that they put on weight as well as some medicines listing weigh gain as a side effect. They can't walk very far without being in agony so try gentle exercise instead.. swimming.. but find that getting from the changing rooms to the pool is too much, then the steps are agony on their knee joints, the water feels nice but your neck is beginning to lock from trying to hold it up whilst you try to swim... you end up feeling worse than before you started but people don't see this so assume that you are overweight because you simply can't be bothered to try anything.

Same goes for very slim or underweight people, eat a few burgers is the usual one but seldom do people think there may be a medical reason.
I am slim, always have been and it would seem that being slim is my natural body shape. I loose weight without even trying and try my best to eat more than I would like just to make sure that I don't slip into the underweight category. I actually asked my doctor for advice on how to put weight on as eating just doesn't seem to work, well it would if I eat obscene amounts and she just told me to eat lots of cream cakes!

I try not to judge on appearances, one can never know what battles/struggles another is facing.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

suzy93074 said:


> I think im gonna take a break from these threads ....i love a good debate and i rarely get personnel unless provoked but a certain person really offends me on here at mo and they at the mo dont debate they just argue ...they dont even concede another viewpoint ...they r rude and obnoxious and it makez this an unenjoyable place to be which is v sad ...ive been here four years and seen debates go on for ages but not anymore ....pity theze people are allowed to stay and shove decent members away! Chow for now!:thumbdown:


Don;t you butt out you daft mare!
you are made of sterner stuff then that
Think about the rumpases we have had in the past!


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

suzy93074 said:


> I think im gonna take a break from these threads ....i love a good debate and i rarely get personnel unless provoked but a certain person really offends me on here at mo and they at the mo dont debate they just argue ...*they dont even concede another viewpoint ...they r rude and obnoxious* and it makez this an unenjoyable place to be which is v sad ...ive been here four years and seen debates go on for ages but not anymore ....*pity theze people are allowed to stay and shove decent members away!* Chow for now!:thumbdown:


I have liked your post for these points Suze ^^^^^ and not because you plan to go away and not talk about your black c*ck anymore......   :laugh:


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> I have liked your post for these points Suze ^^^^^ and not because you plan to go away and not talk about your black c*ck anymore......   :laugh:


Perhaps she plans on spending more time with her 
OMG moggy! you are leading me astray!

Suzy! seriously get your arse back here!


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

DT said:


> Perhaps she plans on spending more time with her
> *OMG moggy! you are leading me astray!*
> 
> Suzy! seriously get your arse back here!


I'm tame compared to that Lavatory Brush one........ :w00t:

:lol: :lol:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Megan345 said:


> I really don't mean to pick an argument here, but are not the MAJORITY ('most' to quote you) of people overweight because they are lazy and greedy (or to put it nicely, perhaps don't have time to exercise or time to cook good food so rely on unhealthy ready meals)?


No - but then we get onto the whole endomorph/etomorph thing that we did to death iin another thread not so long since.

Your view that most people are overweight because they are lazy and greedy is the very discriminatory view I was talking about in my first post on this thread. The majority of overweight people are neither lazy nor greedy. They are that way because it is either the natural way for their body to be, or because their metabolic system has been messed up by medication or medical conditions.

I appreciate that the current fashion is for people to be thin - but that may change soon, especially as the latest medical research seems to show that being moderately overweight could actually help you to live longer:

BBC NEWS | Health | Overweight people may live longer

So, given the above article and the title of this thread - should we now be starting a thread entitled, _"Thin people to be forced to eat more in order to receive their benefits"?_


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

DT said:


> Don;t you butt out you daft mare!
> you are made of sterner stuff then that
> Think about the rumpases we have had in the past!


Yh but u do take other viewpoints on board dt 
..u hav as i hav even changed your opinion when hearing other opinions 
Thats what debate is about not being a vile bellend lol 



MoggyBaby said:


> I have liked your post for these points Suze ^^^^^ and not because you plan to go away and not talk about your black c*ck anymore......   :laugh:


lol  u know where iam for updates xxx


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> No - but then we get onto the whole endomorph/etomorph thing that we did to death iin another thread not so long since.
> 
> Your view that most people are overweight because they are lazy and greedy is the very discriminatory view I was talking about in my first post on this thread. The majority of overweight people are neither lazy nor greedy. They are that way because it is either the natural way for their body to be, or because their metabolic system has been messed up by medication or medical conditions.
> 
> ...


We are know that there are SOME genuine cases , heart, patients, cancer patients, those with excess fluid because of the drugs, but someone supplied evidence earlier that there are over 1000 people claiming DLA for obesity alone! Now the chaff needs sifting from the wheat! its sad that the genuine are suffering because of the fraudsters! but it has to be done!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DT said:


> We are know that there are SOME genuine cases , heart, patients, cancer patients, those with excess fluid because of the drugs, but someone supplied evidence earlier that there are over 1000 people claiming DLA for obesity alone! Now the chaff needs sifting from the wheat! its sad that the genuine are suffering because of the fraudsters! but it has to be done!


I sort of agree - it's just the amount we disagree on. Just like the benefit fraudsters, it's a few who are giving the rest a bad name. The majority of overweight people are neither lazy nor greedy, and do not deserve to be discriminated against just because the prevailing fashion at the moment is to be thin. There has to be a way to stop the fraudsters without penalising the genuine cases.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

There's is only one person who would fall in to this category that I object to funding out of my taxes...










... sponger...


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> People get fat from TOO MUCH fat. But the simple fact is that if anyone eats too much fat, for their particular circumstances... They will gain weight.


You are totally wrong here. Perhaps if you actually understood how the human body works you might be more able to see just why all your "common sense" arguments are actually nonsense.

The human body stores *any* excess nutrients from *any* food group as fat. For example, look at this link which explains how protein is stoired as fat:

"_The cells of the small intestine actively absorb the amino acids through a process that requires energy . The amino acids travel through the hepatic portal vein to the liver, where the nutrients are processed into glucose or fat (or released into the bloodstream)._"
Protein - food, nutrition, deficiency, needs, body, diet, absorption, health, fat

In certain medical conditions that mess up the metabolism, or when taking certain drugs that mess up the metabolism, fat can be and is stored by the body even when excess nutrients are not taken.

People don't just get fat by eating too much fat. Pehaps if you and your parner actually understood how the human body works and realised that metabolism is not the black and white simplicity that you both seem to imagine it is, perhaps that would alter your views on overweight people.


----------



## Wiz201 (Jun 13, 2012)

its sugar from carbohydrates too that turns into fat for storage.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

I apologise for not having read this thread in its entirety but, do you know what I think? I think the Government are just sittimg around a table conspiring ideas in order to shift the blame of their consistent [email protected]@k ups onto others.

The people didn't create unemployment!

The people didn't create poverty!

But, sadly, they did create lying, opportunistic, thieving Politicians.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Zaros said:


> I apologise for not having read this thread in its entirety but, do you know what I think? I think the Government are just sittimg around a table conspiring ideas in order to shift the blame of their consistent [email protected]@k ups onto others.
> 
> The people didn't create unemployment!
> 
> ...


I'd actually say that bewteen them over the decades they have created a benifit system that had more holes then a collender and that was wide open to abuse to those that wish to do so!

The idle, lazy spog popping spongers who have never worked nor have no intention of doing have been allowed a free ride for too long!

The population is growing vastly, and people are living longer, we are bucking under the pressure.

Now ALL people are having to pay, and alas the vunerable ones are the ones that are being hit the most!


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Spellweaver! I am just not ever going to believe that the majority of overweight people simply cannot help themselves to lose weight.


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

Spellweaver isn't saying they can't help themselves lose weight. Just not that it is as simple as many are illuding to.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

DT said:


> I'd actually say that bewteen them over the decades they have created a benifit system that had more holes then a collender and that was wide open to abuse to those that wish to do so!
> 
> Now ALL people are having to pay, and alas the vunerable ones are the ones that are being hit the most!


Very true.

There isn't a single thing that man has created which hasn't been open to abuse.

The shame off it all now of course is that the Government are so poorly sighted they fail to make any distinction what so ever between those who have very little and need a little more from those who have that litte more and require a little less.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Zaros said:


> I apologise for not having read this thread in its entirety but, do you know what I think? I think the Government are just sittimg around a table conspiring ideas in order to shift the blame of their consistent [email protected]@k ups onto others.
> 
> The people didn't create unemployment!
> 
> ...


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> Spellweaver isn't saying they can't help themselves lose weight. Just not that it is as simple as many are illuding to.


I wasn't trying to say it was that simple for everyone either, just that for most it can be done - perhaps I didn't put that across in the right way. I'm glad we agree then


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Megan345 said:


> I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, Spellweaver! I am just not ever going to believe that the majority of overweight people simply cannot help themselves to lose weight.


Me neither Megan


----------



## 2Cats2Dogs (Oct 30, 2012)

I agree it can be done. I just don't think the whole "go to the gym" mantra is the complete solution as I would imagine many on here for example get enough exercise through walking their dogs daily. I think if the government rolled out the idea with better wording instead of just go to gym, maybe most wouldn't be up in arms about this


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Well!
I have a plan

And NO, I don't think the Gym is one of the governments brighest ideas as it happens! BUT, do agree that people SHOULD be encouraged to lose weight irrespective of for what reason they are carrying excess weight.

Reading the thread is is obvious that most see the current government as a bunch of scheming lying toerags!

So my plan - 
They government tell all the people who are on benifits that are GROSSLY overweight that if the lose (lets say a modest amount of 10lbs ) then their benifit will increase by £20 a week for the following year! :yikes:

Would be interesting to see how many would maintain, and those imv WOULD be the geuine ones.

Well as I said they are viewed as lying scheming toerags! so why not


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

Zaros said:


> The shame off it all now of course is that the Government are so poorly sighted they fail to make any distinction what so ever between those who have very little and need a little more from those who have that litte more and require a little less.


I don't think it helps that the staff who decide who does or doesn't get a specific type of help have very little autonomy. I imagine there are a lot of people who don't fit within a given framework or set of guidelines, resulting in some who get help who don't need it, and others who don't get help that do need it, if you see what I mean?



2Cats2Dogs said:


> I agree it can be done. I just don't think the whole "go to the gym" mantra is the complete solution as I would imagine many on here for example get enough exercise through walking their dogs daily. I think if the government rolled out the idea with better wording instead of just go to gym, maybe most wouldn't be up in arms about this


I think it depends how people view this idea, as well - there were people talking about it on TV as the carrot and the stick yesterday, with the exercise classes and swimming being viewed as the stick. If I was offered free or reduced Pilates classes or gym membership, I'd think that was a bloody good carrot, actually!

I doubt it'll ever be brought in anyway, but it'd have to be in conjunction with advice about nutrition. I don't think cookery classes would be a bad idea, either, I have known a fair number of people - not just my age, either - who haven't a clue how to cook, and have passed on this lack of skill to their children.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

2Cats2Dogs said:


> Spellweaver isn't saying they can't help themselves lose weight. Just not that it is as simple as many are illuding to.


That's exactly what I'm saying - that, plus the fact that there are some people who, because of illness or drugs, will find it very nearly impossible to lose weight. And because it is not as simple as a few people are making out, it is totally wrong to discriminate against overweight people by cutting their benefits.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Megan345 said:


> I wasn't trying to say it was that simple for everyone either, just that for most it can be done - perhaps I didn't put that across in the right way. I'm glad we agree then


No, we don't agree. I could never agree to the simplistic and erroneous view of the human metabolism that you and your partner Chris seem to labour under. I prefer the accurate version. Neither do I share the prejudice against overweight people you have both evinced on this thread.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Would be interested to learn if this person gets any benifits!

World's fattest man Paul Mason loses an incredible 45 stone | Mail Online

He admits himself to eating 10 times the amount of what he needs!


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

Perhaps its time this vile condescending bunch of egostistical asses lead by example,how many thousands have they taken from the pot and are still taking as so called expenses. How many of them smoke, drink and over eat all in the name of being a politician and therefore justify their exstotianate expenses not forgetting the illegal expenses that they all too frequently brush over or bury to the bottom of their self gratifying agendas.
I pray to god I am never in need of benefits and have all my thoughts and decsions controlled by these knobs


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

I take in no one was in favour of my plan then?:yikes:


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

DT said:


> I take in no one was in favour of my plan then?:yikes:


Your plan is flawed  what will happen to all he under weight people when hey loose their 10 pounds


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

skip said:


> Your plan is flawed  what will happen to all he under weight people when hey loose their 10 pounds


Nah! it only applies to those 'grossly' overweigth!

And when they achieve the required loss the Government can do what many say they would do!

They welch on it


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

DT said:


> Nah! it only applie to those overweigth!
> 
> And when they achieve the required loss the Government can do what many say they would do!
> 
> They welch on it


I dont think it would work because there are always A FEW people out there who will do anything to get extra benefits, so would gain weight in order to be classed as over weight so they can lose it then claim the extra dosh.

The incentive would work well for some but would be quite open to abuse but then I suppose its no different to any of the other benefits.


----------



## Lavenderb (Jan 27, 2009)

Cripes, if they start on people who are overweight, how long will it be before they start on other groups, such as people who didn't do well in school and can't spell or aren't good at maths.

What about people with bad BO...are they going to make them stand in queues and be hosed down before they can sign on.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> Cripes, if they start on people who are overweight, how long will it be before they start on other groups, such as people who didn't do well in school and can't spell or aren't good at maths.
> 
> What about people with bad BO...are they going to make them stand in queues and be hosed down before they can sign on.


Or those that spend a large portion of their time on forums:001_wub::yikes:


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

Lavenderb said:


> Cripes, if they start on people who are overweight, how long will it be before they start on other groups, such as people who didn't do well in school and can't spell or aren't good at maths.
> 
> What about people with bad BO...are they going to make them stand in queues and be hosed down before they can sign on.


Well I think by the time they have finished torturing the less fortunate they will either be dead or committed suicide they will have to start docking wages from the workers to claw back some money so they can continue to fund their selfish,greedy corrupt lifestyles,when they have finally fished with the workers they will only have themselves left to turn on


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> That's exactly what I'm saying - that, plus the fact that there are some people who, because of illness or drugs, will find it very nearly impossible to lose weight. And because it is not as simple as a few people are making out, it is totally wrong to discriminate against overweight people by cutting their benefits.


I agree with the first sentence. The second lumps all those who could lose weight fairly easily with those who would find it very difficult to lose weight together, so I disagree with that.

I am trying to make the point that for some - I would say most - people, they can lose weight by eating less and exercising more. I know a lot of people who are overweight, and not a single one of those is overweight because of medication they are on, but rather because they eat unsuitable food and don't get enough exercise. While this is anecdotal, I don't understand why it is so hard for you to believe that some people are overweight because they can't be bothered to get any exercise. 



Spellweaver said:


> No, we don't agree. I could never agree to the simplistic and erroneous view of the human metabolism that you and your partner Chris seem to labour under. I prefer the accurate version. Neither do I share the prejudice against overweight people you have both evinced on this thread.


I lose weight when I eat less food and exercise more. I am not overweight, but would prefer to carry less weight, so have tried to lose weight using the above method, and have succeeded. As for the prejudice we supposedly have against overweight people, have you seen Chris's avatar?! That is Chris. 

I also still don't see why it's unfair to cut the benefits of people who are on benefits JUST because they are obese. NOT because they are on medication that makes it easy for them to gain or difficult to lose weight.

Explain that to me, if you disagree? Why should people be able to be paid to live, simply because they are fat? And fat just because they eat too much and exercise too little?


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

Not sure about this one!!surley swimming a couple of lengths or going to the gym for a session is'nt going to stop people overeating, but they would have done what was asked of them so how could they lose there benefit even if they did'nt lose weight?and not sure I want my tax used on gym membership etc


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Still think my plans a winner


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Megan345 said:


> I agree with the first sentence. The second lumps all those who could lose weight fairly easily with those who would find it very difficult to lose weight together, so I disagree with that.


_Originally Posted by Spellweaver 
That's exactly what I'm saying - that, plus the fact that there are some people who, because of illness or drugs, will find it very nearly impossible to lose weight. *And because it is not as simple as a few people are making out, it is totally wrong to discriminate against overweight people by cutting their benefits.*_

You disagree with my second sentence because it lumps everyone together - but that is the whole point why penalising the overweight is wrong. The suggested legislation IS lumping everyone together - those who could lose weight and those who would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to lose weight. The proposed legislation is not going to differentiate - so how can it be fair to legislate against those who cannot lose weight through no fault of their own?



Megan345 said:


> I am trying to make the point that for some - I would say most - people, they can lose weight by eating less and exercising more.


I know you are. And you are not taking in all the proof that has been furnished to you to prove you worng.



Megan345 said:


> I know a lot of people who are overweight, and not a single one of those is overweight because of medication they are on, but rather because they eat unsuitable food and don't get enough exercise. While this is anecdotal


Yes. it is anecdotal. I can give you as many - if not more - anecdotes of people I know who are overweight because of medical conditions or medication they are taking - remember where I work? But I haven't done, because of patient confidentiality and because all it would prove is I that know different people than you know. What I _have_ done is provided scientific reasoning against your misguided beliefs that people who are unable to lose weight easily are in the minority.



Megan345 said:


> I don't understand why it is so hard for you to believe that some people are overweight because they can't be bothered to get any exercise.


If you re-read my posts properly you will find that I have never said anything of the sort. What I have done is disagree with you that such people are the majority of overweight people. What I have done is tried to explain basic human metabolism to both you and your partner (who was under the strange illusion that the only way people get fat is by eating fat :w00t: ) And I don't understand how it is so hard for you to believe the scientific evidence and begin to realise that for the majority of overweight people, losing weight is not just a matter of eating less and exercising more.



Megan345 said:


> I lose weight when I eat less food and exercise more. I am not overweight, but would prefer to carry less weight, so have tried to lose weight using the above method, and have succeeded.


OK, so you are not overweght but are dieting to get thinner. Why? The latest medical research shows that slightly overweight people live longer than thin people. In the following study, there were 34,000 more deaths in the underweight category than the slightly overweight category. Given this information, why do you want to be underweight? Why do you see it as more desireable, when it is obviously not more healthy?

BBC NEWS | Health | Overweight people may live longer



Megan345 said:


> As for the prejudice we supposedly have against overweight people, have you seen Chris's avatar?! That is Chris.


I really don't know what you mean by this. What has your partner's avatar got to do with the way you have both spoken about overweight people on here?  



Megan345 said:


> I also still don't see why it's unfair to cut the benefits of people who are on benefits JUST because they are obese. NOT because they are on medication that makes it easy for them to gain or difficult to lose weight.
> 
> Explain that to me, if you disagree? Why should people be able to be paid to live, simply because they are fat? And fat just because they eat too much and exercise too little?


First of all - saying overweight people are fat only because they eat too much and exercise too little is merely your opinion, and an erroneous and uninformed opinion that at that. But putting that to one side - because it's blatantly obvious to everyone that you are going to continue to ignore the scientific truth in favour of your own mistaken beliefs -there are still some very good arguments as to why overweight people should not have their benefits taken away from them.

1. Discrimination. Why pick on one section of society? Why not pick on people who are underweight (especially people like you who deliberately diet to make themselves underweight even though, medically, being underweight is as undesirable as being overweight? If you are underweight you are as likely to cost the NHS and associated services as much money in treating your associated medical conditions as overweight people. Health risks of being underweight include type 1 diabetes, immune system deficiencies, anaemia, osteoporosis and infertility.

2. It's the thin end of the wedge. Today the overweight, tomorrow the people who need wheelchairs - or people who are poor - or people who rent houses instead of buying houses - or people who are black - or people who are muslim. Once you start to discriminate against one section of society, every section is up for grabs.

3. It's merely another "divide and conquer" ruse by the government. They put things out like this, knowing it will play straight into the hands of people like you who are prejudiced against overweight people - and it stops you from noticing that while they are saying there is no money for benefts, there seems to be plenty of money for tax cuts for the rich.

4. An overweight person may have paid contributions to National INsirance all their working lives - surely they are entitled to benefits from that system when they need them?

What about this scenario? You see someone in her late 50s who is overweight and you declare that she should not have benefits given to her because she is overweight. What your prejudice is blinding you to is the following:

This person was athletic at school, was in the school netball and basketball teams, and ran in the 100 metres and the 4x100 meteres relay for the school. She has had a healthy lifestyle, eating properly, walking miles every day with her dogs, choosing walking holidays in this country because she can take her dogs with her. She has shown dogs all her life, which entails runnning around rings several times a week as a normal part of her life (training and showing her dogs). She has worked in a full-time job where she is standing and walking most of the day and in which she has paid full National Insurance contributions all her life. But - during the last 10 years her active lifestyle began to catch up on her. Arthritis developed due to the wear and tear on her joints, and then because of the NSAIDS she has had to take she now has stage 3 kidnety disease. Becasue of the arthritis and the kidney disease, and the extreme pain these cause, she is less active, and has had to cut down on her work (is now working part time) and her leisure activities (some days it is difficult for her to even get out of bed, she is in so much pain). Because of this slowing down, she has put on weight - even though she still eats sensibly, even though she still works, even though she stills walks, trains and shows dogs (ie gets exercise) - it's just that she is unable to do all this to the same degree as before.

I think by now you will have realised that the person I am describing above is me. If, god forbid, the time should ever come when I am actually no longer able to work, why on earth do you think I should not be given benefits just because I am overweight?

And THAT is what you are failing to see. In your black and white world you merely see fat people, fat people who you arrogantly assume are fat only because they eat too much and exercise too little, and who you therefore think should not be given benefits. But life is not black and white. As the above anecdote shows, people are not just overweight because they eat too much and exercise too little. You do not see the person, or the reason why that person is overweight, or the reason why that person may not be able to exercise - because if you did, you would not be screaming for their money to be taken away from them just because they happen to be fat.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Spellweaver
.[/QUOTE said:


> Don't you like my plan either Val
> 
> time for bed me finks


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Ive been watching this thread... SW... You makes I laugh! Is there a reason I dont elaborate. Why yes there is. Is it because im dull? Have no point? Cant wrap my head around your... *cough*... "Facts"? Cannot yeild to another point of view? Because I have a penis? Because you dont? Other BS?

Well... These are all valid idea's. But to save you the effort of selection. It is none of these... You just make no sense. And I believe you may be on the wrong side of the counter 

Why post? Valid question... I just dislike people misusing the word "scientific" and if you were to be asked to proove your theory, you would need a lot more than the limited knowledge you have shown. Scientists want proof and data, see... Lithium exists, granted, and does the things you say, fine. Whom it affects, the ratio, the age ranges, the majority or minority figures, likelyhood, study data etc... Well... I see none.

So... Well... You makes I laugh.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Chris Swansea said:


> Ive been watching this thread... SW... You makes I laugh! Is there a reason I dont elaborate. Why yes there is. Is it because im dull? Have no point? Cant wrap my head around your... *cough*... "Facts"? Cannot yeild to another point of view? Because I have a penis? Because you dont? Other BS?
> 
> Well... These are all valid idea's. But to save you the effort of selection. It is none of these... You just make no sense. And I believe you may be on the wrong side of the counter
> 
> ...


Well what do you think to my plan Mr Swansea?
Seems no on has faith in me!


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

DT said:


> Well what do you think to my plan Mr Swansea?
> Seems no on has faith in me!


I dont think im the right person to ask there, DT. Im the dim witted, cold hearted, slow on the uptake, biggoted, fat bashing, mental illness bashing, illogical, biased against fat people.... Fat... Devil. Im litterally my own little downward spiral of self loathing. 

But sure, If you would like it... You have my vote... Anythings worth a shot.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> Ive been watching this thread... SW... You makes I laugh! Is there a reason I dont elaborate. Why yes there is. Is it because im dull? Have no point? Cant wrap my head around your... *cough*... "Facts"? Cannot yeild to another point of view? Because I have a penis? Because you dont? Other BS?
> 
> Well... These are all valid idea's. But to save you the effort of selection. It is none of these... You just make no sense. And I believe you may be on the wrong side of the counter
> 
> ...


Yeah, people often laugh at things they don't undersand. Maybe one day you'll grow up enough to be able to understand reasoned argument, but if you don't at least you are happy in your own ignorance. Now go and play and leave the talking to the grown-ups, there's a good boy.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Chris Swansea said:


> I dont think im the right person to ask there, DT. Im the dim witted, cold hearted, slow on the uptake, biggoted, fat bashing, mental illness bashing, illogical, biased against fat people.... Fat... Devil. Im litterally my own little downward spiral of self loathing.
> 
> But sure, If you would like it... You have my vote... Anythings worth a shot.


Well! I thought it were a cracking idea, but it sorta slippped under the radar so to speak! The was only clairelouis who even bother to read it

and oh dear! hope there aint a female version of you!


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

DT said:


> Well! I thought it were a cracking idea, but it sorta slippped under the radar so to speak! The was only clairelouis who even bother to read it
> 
> and oh dear! hope there aint a female version of you!


There is, shes just not as... Vocal. 



> Yeah, people often laugh at things they don't undersand. Maybe one day you'll grow up enough to be able to understand reasoned argument, but if you don't at least you are happy in your own ignorance. Now go and play and leave the talking to the grown-ups, there's a good boy.


They also often laugh at things that are laughable. And you may be correct... I MAY be laughing at you because I am ignorant, theres always that option... But interestingly and equally... I may be laughing because you are... Theres about a 50/50 chance that either one of us is correct, and we may never know whom.

I suppose... In the circumstances... I shall just have to learn to live with your dissapointment.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

DT said:


> Don't you like my plan either Val


Well I read it - but for a grossly overweight person losing 10lb would have no benefit healthwise so can't see why you would want the government to reward them ......... thought this whole business started because the government "says" they are wanting to save money in benefits 

One thing no-one has thought about yet - if a grossly overweight person loses a lot of weight, they will need several operations to take away excess skin - which all comes at a cost to the tax-payer.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Chris Swansea said:


> And you may be correct... I MAY be laughing at you because I am ignorant, theres always that option... But interestingly and equally... I may be laughing because you are... Theres about a 50/50 chance that either one of us is correct, and we may never know whom.


Oh, I think it's blindingly obvious to just about everyone on the thread


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> One thing no-one has thought about yet - if a grossly overweight person loses a lot of weight, they will need several operations to take away excess skin - which all comes at a cost to the tax-payer.


Not if you sell it as handbags.....


----------



## Guest (Jan 5, 2013)

Can't certain members agree to disagree? 

You know, cause um, this is a forum, where people have opinions! Where people may have opinions you don't agree on! I know I know it's terrible, but hey it's life.


----------



## Chris Swansea (Jul 29, 2012)

Spellweaver said:


> Oh, I think it's blindingly obvious to just about everyone on the thread


If there is one thing I am absolutely certain of... It is that only an idiot is ever certain. And correct or incorrect is not a matter of counting how many people raise their hands. You would simply have more opinions... All as equally right, and as wrong as the next. And no matter how many people thought air was made of concrete, It would still not make it correct. So a show of hands does not sway me... Data, logic, or stfu.

Be that as it may... I fear I have said my piece, you have no data and no logic that I follow, so its back to watching.


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

Really need to go through this now, some uncalled for comments 

Think some are out just to annoy others !


----------

