# Thanks for all of the comments on fasting guys.



## DougKenline

Thanks for all of the comments on fasting guys.   I'll chew on it.  Went to Doctor and all numbers are spot on.  Doc says excellent work my boy!  Keep it up!   

Doc says "Triglycerides are now normal, this is from your diet and exercise."

Love the bacon cheeseburger pic!  

Search for "fasting" on this site brings up quite a few interesting threads.  

I like this one....

*What should be The Warrior Diet?*
The Warrior diet is a controversial diet that encourages under-eating during the day and then feasting at night. It is designed to mimic the way a warrior would eat (Spartans are mentioned by the creator).

Thanks Jake.


Tames D says....*Remember the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin: 'to lengthen thy life, lessen thy meals.'*


Thanks Dan T. "Being a practitioner of Shaolin, we preach moderation and balance in all things."

Do you believe that your way is the only way?  That only your way is good and my way is not good?  Or is my way just my way and your way is your way?

I can't understand why a thread would be closed but it's your show.

Finished 2nd Phase 2 feast cycle.  Now back on fasting cycle until 150 lbs.  Then 5 weeks of feasting in Colorado with goal of gaining back to 190 lbs.

Investigating further at this time....


----------



## pdg

Well, I'm pretty sure Franklin meant more along the lines of not making every meal a gutbusting feast and getting so fat you can't physically shift your bulk and die of a heart attack before you're 28.

Moderation and balance doesn't mean a continual fast and binge cycle.

Your average warrior's primary concern wasn't living long enough to see their grandchildren get married.

'My' way is certainly not the only way and furthermore I probably wouldn't recommend it to others, I don't feed my children in the same fashion, so it's not that I consider it great (good enough maybe, for me).

'Your' way I consider bad. That's not saying bad in comparison to the way I eat, or bad in comparison to any other diet - just simply bad in total isolation.


----------



## pdg

Also - I take it your avatar is a picture of you?

Not intending to be nasty, but you look gaunt and unhealthy.


----------



## Martial D

DougKenline said:


> Thanks for all of the comments on fasting guys.   I'll chew on it.  Went to Doctor and all numbers are spot on.  Doc says excellent work my boy!  Keep it up!
> 
> Doc says "Triglycerides are now normal, this is from your diet and exercise."
> 
> Love the bacon cheeseburger pic!
> 
> Search for "fasting" on this site brings up quite a few interesting threads.
> 
> I like this one....
> 
> *What should be The Warrior Diet?*
> The Warrior diet is a controversial diet that encourages under-eating during the day and then feasting at night. It is designed to mimic the way a warrior would eat (Spartans are mentioned by the creator).
> 
> Thanks Jake.
> 
> 
> Tames D says....*Remember the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin: 'to lengthen thy life, lessen thy meals.'*
> 
> 
> Thanks Dan T. "Being a practitioner of Shaolin, we preach moderation and balance in all things."
> 
> Do you believe that your way is the only way?  That only your way is good and my way is not good?  Or is my way just my way and your way is your way?
> 
> I can't understand why a thread would be closed but it's your show.
> 
> Finished 2nd Phase 2 feast cycle.  Now back on fasting cycle until 150 lbs.  Then 5 weeks of feasting in Colorado with goal of gaining back to 190 lbs.
> 
> Investigating further at this time....


Go away.


----------



## Buka

There is something to be said for being a gentleman. Doesn't matter if you disagree with something. 

And talking about a person's looks....really? C'mon, fellas.


----------



## CB Jones

DougKenline said:


> Spartans are mentioned by the creator).



Research Spartan warrior Life.  They weren't feasting.  Spartans weren't even allowed to sleep inside the city until they were in there 30s.  

They lived a very stringent life.  Every thing was extremely uniform in Spartan Society.


----------



## pdg

Buka said:


> There is something to be said for being a gentleman. Doesn't matter if you disagree with something.
> 
> And talking about a person's looks....really? C'mon, fellas.



But this is a discussion forum, a place to discuss things where both agreement and disagreement have a rightful place.

If everyone only agrees and daren't disagree in case they hurt some delicate sunflower's feelings, it ceases to be a discussion forum and becomes a validation arena - much like the college debate group where a girl was ejected for daring to disagree with someone else's viewpoint, that's a place I have no wish to be.


And commenting on his looks is perfectly valid - if someone is trying to self promote something on health and wellbeing grounds, they should look healthy and well otherwise they undermine themselves. Would you take weight loss advice from an unqualified fat person?

It'd be akin to me lauding my system on how to look handsome, and using a picture of me to promote it


----------



## Headhunter

Buka said:


> There is something to be said for being a gentleman. Doesn't matter if you disagree with something.
> 
> And talking about a person's looks....really? C'mon, fellas.


Usually I'd agree but he's making an observation based on the subject matter of this post. This guys talking about general it's not like he's talking about forms and he's bringing up how he looks. How he looks relates to the subject of this post. I'm not going to comment on this matter anymore as I've said all I need to say


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DougKenline said:


> Investigating further at this time....


I rather doubt that.


----------



## Headhunter

Also I do have to wonder what any of this has to do with martial arts...


----------



## jobo

DougKenline said:


> Thanks for all of the comments on fasting guys.   I'll chew on it.  Went to Doctor and all numbers are spot on.  Doc says excellent work my boy!  Keep it up!
> 
> Doc says "Triglycerides are now normal, this is from your diet and exercise."
> 
> Love the bacon cheeseburger pic!
> 
> Search for "fasting" on this site brings up quite a few interesting threads.
> 
> I like this one....
> 
> *What should be The Warrior Diet?*
> The Warrior diet is a controversial diet that encourages under-eating during the day and then feasting at night. It is designed to mimic the way a warrior would eat (Spartans are mentioned by the creator).
> 
> Thanks Jake.
> 
> 
> Tames D says....*Remember the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin: 'to lengthen thy life, lessen thy meals.'*
> 
> 
> Thanks Dan T. "Being a practitioner of Shaolin, we preach moderation and balance in all things."
> 
> Do you believe that your way is the only way?  That only your way is good and my way is not good?  Or is my way just my way and your way is your way?
> 
> I can't understand why a thread would be closed but it's your show.
> 
> Finished 2nd Phase 2 feast cycle.  Now back on fasting cycle until 150 lbs.  Then 5 weeks of feasting in Colorado with goal of gaining back to 190 lbs.
> 
> Investigating further at this time....


It MAY be that your a single issue poster and the single issue has nothing at all to do with ma or even physical performance, other people's diets are rather Dull as a conversation.

The warrior diet is however a bit interesting, someone has taken a Not uncommon eating cycles and given it a cool name, to try and sell it.

I've been doing that all my life, whilst people generally tell me it's unhealthy and I should eat breakfast etc, I do it not because I think it's good, rather i don't want food, till I've been up 5hours or so, and that then would spoil my main meaL so I don't for another 3or 4hours, theN eat bigAs iM  starving hungry

It's funny to find out that my dysfunctional eating patterns are actually a strategy, I have kept my boyish figure in to my 50s whilst all my " heAlthy eating friends have all ballooned, so may be there's something in it or may be it's just genetics

I suspect that it's partly to do with the fact that I don't snack on cakes or sweets etc, I don't want them Pre, main meal and after I'm to fUll of steak to consider them apart from I'Ce cream obviously


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> It MAY be that your a single issue poster and the single issue has nothing at all to do with ma or even physical performance, other people's diets are rather Dull as a conversation.
> 
> The warrior diet is however a bit interesting, someone has taken a Not uncommon eating cycles and given it a cool name, to try and sell it.
> 
> I've been doing that all my life, whilst people generally tell me it's unhealthy and I should eat breakfast etc, I do it not because I think it's good, rather i don't want food, till I've been up 5hours or so, and that then would spoil my main meaL so I don't for another 3or 4hours, theN eat big.
> 
> It's funny to find out that my dysfunctional eating patterns are actually a strategy, I have kept my boyish figure in to my 50s whilst all my " heAlthy eating friends have all ballooned, so may be there's something in it or may be it's just genetics


Nutrition studies used to suggest skipping breakfast was bad (there's still some evidence of that, but it seems it's much more nuanced than previously thought), but new studies provide some balance to that view. Folks telling you it's unhealthy are still following old thoughts. There's also evidence on both sides of the big last meal of the day. In other words, if it's actually working for your body (and it seems to be) keep at it, brother.


----------



## DanT

DougKenline said:


> Thanks for all of the comments on fasting guys.   I'll chew on it.  Went to Doctor and all numbers are spot on.  Doc says excellent work my boy!  Keep it up!
> 
> Doc says "Triglycerides are now normal, this is from your diet and exercise."
> 
> Love the bacon cheeseburger pic!
> 
> Search for "fasting" on this site brings up quite a few interesting threads.
> 
> I like this one....
> 
> *What should be The Warrior Diet?*
> The Warrior diet is a controversial diet that encourages under-eating during the day and then feasting at night. It is designed to mimic the way a warrior would eat (Spartans are mentioned by the creator).
> 
> Thanks Jake.
> 
> 
> Tames D says....*Remember the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin: 'to lengthen thy life, lessen thy meals.'*
> 
> 
> Thanks Dan T. "Being a practitioner of Shaolin, we preach moderation and balance in all things."
> 
> Do you believe that your way is the only way?  That only your way is good and my way is not good?  Or is my way just my way and your way is your way?
> 
> I can't understand why a thread would be closed but it's your show.
> 
> Finished 2nd Phase 2 feast cycle.  Now back on fasting cycle until 150 lbs.  Then 5 weeks of feasting in Colorado with goal of gaining back to 190 lbs.
> 
> Investigating further at this time....


If your way is cutting down to a healthy weight and then putting on 40 lbs on purpose, then that is wrong and you are destroying your body. Your triglycerides and readings came back healthy, why don't you maintain that rather than trying to be fat again?


----------



## Martial D

DanT said:


> If your way is cutting down to a healthy weight and then putting on 40 lbs on purpose, then that is wrong and you are destroying your body. Your triglycerides and readings came back healthy, why don't you maintain that rather than trying to be fat again?


Eating disorders don't manifest in anything resembling logical behavior


----------



## Tames D

I suspect there is much more than an eating disorder going on here, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Headhunter

DanT said:


> If your way is cutting down to a healthy weight and then putting on 40 lbs on purpose, then that is wrong and you are destroying your body. Your triglycerides and readings came back healthy, why don't you maintain that rather than trying to be fat again?


Because by his logic that's his reward for losing so much weight he gets to now binge. It's like the argument you can eat what you want after working out


----------



## DougKenline

Thank you for the feedback.

Does anybody here think that 6' 4" 190 lbs is fat?

I don't think that 6' 4" 190 lbs is fat.

And here's a thought I had.  What would you think about my feasting and fasting program if I changed the menu from junk food to organic raw health food?

For example, what if my feasting cycle menu was limited to only organic raw whole foods something like this?...

Almonds
Rasins
Oatmeal
Dates
Chia Seeds
Hemp Hearts
Walnuts
Apples
Bananas
Organic  Raw Peanut Butter
Organic Raw Maple Syrup
Organic Raw Honey
Oranges
Strawberries
Cantelope
Egg Whites
Lobster
Fish
Lean Beef
Grilled Chicken Breast
Whole Grain Brown Rice
Skim Milk
Organic Mixed Raw Baby Spinach
Organic Mixed Baby Greens
Virgin Olive Oil
Apple Cider Vinegar
Pink Himalayan Salt
(add your favorite most healthy food items here.)


What would you think of my feast fast program if I limited my menu to the above and similar food items?

Calorie counts are still the same, 600 calories per day on fast cycle, no calorie limit on feast cycle.

Fasting/Very Low Calorie Days cycle down to 160 lbs.

Organic Raw Whole Health Foods Feasting cycle up to 190 lbs.

With heavier lifting and more intense kung fu workouts during upswings.

And more light-weights, calisthenics, yoga-like, stretching and kung fu type workouts during downswings

Then repeat.




.


----------



## Headhunter

DougKenline said:


> Thank you for the feedback.
> 
> Does anybody here think that 6' 4" 190 lbs is fat?
> 
> I don't think that 6' 4" 190 lbs is fat.
> 
> And here's a thought I had.  What would you think about my feasting and fasting program if I changed the menu from junk food to organic raw health food?
> 
> For example, what if my feasting cycle menu was limited to only organic raw whole foods something like this?...
> 
> Almonds
> Rasins
> Oatmeal
> Dates
> Chia Seeds
> Hemp Hearts
> Walnuts
> Apples
> Bananas
> Organic  Raw Peanut Butter
> Organic Raw Maple Syrup
> Organic Raw Honey
> Oranges
> Strawberries
> Cantelope
> Egg Whites
> Lobster
> Fish
> Lean Beef
> Grilled Chicken Breast
> Whole Grain Brown Rice
> Skim Milk
> Organic Mixed Raw Baby Spinach
> Organic Mixed Baby Greens
> Virgin Olive Oil
> Apple Cider Vinegar
> Pink Himalayan Salt
> (add your favorite most healthy food items here.)
> 
> 
> What would you think of my feast fast program if I limited my menu to the above and similar food items?
> 
> Calorie counts are still the same, 600 calories per day on fast cycle, no calorie limit on feast cycle.
> 
> Fasting/Very Low Calorie Days cycle down to 160 lbs.
> 
> Organic Raw Whole Health Foods Feasting cycle up to 190 lbs.
> 
> With heavier lifting and more intense kung fu workouts during upswings.
> 
> And more light-weights, calisthenics, yoga-like, stretching and kung fu type workouts during downswings
> 
> Then repeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Would it matter what anyone says? You've shown your not willing to listen to a word anyone says so why waste our time?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

DougKenline said:


> Thank you for the feedback.
> 
> Does anybody here think that 6' 4" 190 lbs is fat?
> 
> I don't think that 6' 4" 190 lbs is fat.
> 
> And here's a thought I had.  What would you think about my feasting and fasting program if I changed the menu from junk food to organic raw health food?
> 
> For example, what if my feasting cycle menu was limited to only organic raw whole foods something like this?...
> 
> Almonds
> Rasins
> Oatmeal
> Dates
> Chia Seeds
> Hemp Hearts
> Walnuts
> Apples
> Bananas
> Organic  Raw Peanut Butter
> Organic Raw Maple Syrup
> Organic Raw Honey
> Oranges
> Strawberries
> Cantelope
> Egg Whites
> Lobster
> Fish
> Lean Beef
> Grilled Chicken Breast
> Whole Grain Brown Rice
> Skim Milk
> Organic Mixed Raw Baby Spinach
> Organic Mixed Baby Greens
> Virgin Olive Oil
> Apple Cider Vinegar
> Pink Himalayan Salt
> (add your favorite most healthy food items here.)
> 
> 
> What would you think of my feast fast program if I limited my menu to the above and similar food items?
> 
> Calorie counts are still the same, 600 calories per day on fast cycle, no calorie limit on feast cycle.
> 
> Fasting/Very Low Calorie Days cycle down to 160 lbs.
> 
> Organic Raw Whole Health Foods Feasting cycle up to 190 lbs.
> 
> With heavier lifting and more intense kung fu workouts during upswings.
> 
> And more light-weights, calisthenics, yoga-like, stretching and kung fu type workouts during downswings
> 
> Then repeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


You say it would be the same calories, but it wouldn't. It would be very hard to consume the same number of calories in those foods as in the junk foods - that's one of the problems (not the only one) with junk food.


----------



## jobo

DougKenline said:


> Thank you for the feedback.
> 
> Does anybody here think that 6' 4" 190 lbs is fat?
> 
> I don't think that 6' 4" 190 lbs is fat.
> 
> And here's a thought I had.  What would you think about my feasting and fasting program if I changed the menu from junk food to organic raw health food?
> 
> For example, what if my feasting cycle menu was limited to only organic raw whole foods something like this?...
> 
> Almonds
> Rasins
> Oatmeal
> Dates
> Chia Seeds
> Hemp Hearts
> Walnuts
> Apples
> Bananas
> Organic  Raw Peanut Butter
> Organic Raw Maple Syrup
> Organic Raw Honey
> Oranges
> Strawberries
> Cantelope
> Egg Whites
> Lobster
> Fish
> Lean Beef
> Grilled Chicken Breast
> Whole Grain Brown Rice
> Skim Milk
> Organic Mixed Raw Baby Spinach
> Organic Mixed Baby Greens
> Virgin Olive Oil
> Apple Cider Vinegar
> Pink Himalayan Salt
> (add your favorite most healthy food items here.)
> 
> 
> What would you think of my feast fast program if I limited my menu to the above and similar food items?
> 
> Calorie counts are still the same, 600 calories per day on fast cycle, no calorie limit on feast cycle.
> 
> Fasting/Very Low Calorie Days cycle down to 160 lbs.
> 
> Organic Raw Whole Health Foods Feasting cycle up to 190 lbs.
> 
> With heavier lifting and more intense kung fu workouts during upswings.
> 
> And more light-weights, calisthenics, yoga-like, stretching and kung fu type workouts during downswings
> 
> Then repeat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Why do you need to Yoyo your weight 30lbs , it makes no sense, pick a weight you can maintain, let's say 180- 190 and stay there, then you nether have to diet or eat to extremes and you can still have a bit of a pig out.

If your prepared to eat that lot to feast, then just eat that lot permanently and adjust the amount to keep your weight s e able


----------



## Headhunter

gpseymour said:


> You say it would be the same calories, but it wouldn't. It would be very hard to consume the same number of calories in those foods as in the junk foods - that's one of the problems (not the only one) with junk food.


I don't think there's any harm at all in eating junk food just not a lot all at once. I mean if you eat to much fruit all at once it's bad for you or drink to much water it's bad. It's all about moderation


----------



## Gerry Seymour

Headhunter said:


> I don't think there's any harm at all in eating junk food just not a lot all at once. I mean if you eat to much fruit all at once it's bad for you or drink to much water it's bad. It's all about moderation


Oh, I'm definitely not anti-junk-food (gotta love a Hardee's mushroom and swiss burger). As you say, though, moderation is needed.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Oh, I'm definitely not anti-junk-food (gotta love a Hardee's mushroom and swiss burger). As you say, though, moderation is needed.


Is the Hardee's burger junk food though? People throw the term about widely, it's probably calerie rich, but that doesn't to my mind make it junk,

I have a half pound cheese burger from my local shop, Drowned in salard, I consider that a healthy meal, giving  all my nutritional needs


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Is the Hardee's burger junk food though? People throw the term about widely, it's probably calerie rich, but that doesn't to my mind make it junk,
> 
> I have a half pound cheese burger from my local shop, Drowned in salard, I consider that a healthy meal, giving  all my nutritional needs


It is when you add the fries and shake. Which I always do. Of course, "junk food" is a pretty vague term - perhaps almost as vague as "McDojo".


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> It is when you add the fries and shake. Which I always do. Of course, "junk food" is a pretty vague term - perhaps almost as vague as "McDojo".


Well the fries are potatoes and the shake i assume milk all good,

Yes it's much the same as macdojo,it's a judgmental term applied to other people's diets,

It's not a term I use a lot, but if I was to Dr so, if point the finger a cake and other similar things that have a lot of Calleries s but little nutrition, but even then you have eggs and FLOur so not all bad


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Nutrition studies used to suggest skipping breakfast was bad (there's still some evidence of that, but it seems it's much more nuanced than previously thought), but new studies provide some balance to that view. Folks telling you it's unhealthy are still following old thoughts. There's also evidence on both sides of the big last meal of the day. In other words, if it's actually working for your body (and it seems to be) keep at it, brother.


Here an interesting article, on 16 hour fasting and short brutal excersise, which is more or less what I do
Can autophagy be good for your health?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Well the fries are potatoes and the shake i assume milk all good,
> 
> Yes it's much the same as macdojo,it's a judgmental term applied to other people's diets,
> 
> It's not a term I use a lot, but if I was to Dr so, if point the finger a cake and other similar things that have a lot of Calleries s but little nutrition, but even then you have eggs and FLOur so not all bad


Yep, the fries are fried and (in the US at least) way too salted, which makes them far less than good for you. Similar with the ingredients of a cake - it's not the base that's so bad, but what's used to make it so danged tasty.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Here an interesting article, on 16 hour fasting and short brutal excersise, which is more or less what I do
> Can autophagy be good for your health?


I read another article that suggested regular 12-hour fasting (similar principle, obviously) or intermittent fasting days (defined as very low calories, though I don't recall the actual number). I can't seem to go to either completely - I get far too hungry, and it does bad things to me - but I try to get what I can from it by reaching for the 16-hour gap when I can.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Yep, the fries are fried and (in the US at least) way too salted, which makes them far less than good for you. Similar with the ingredients of a cake - it's not the base that's so bad, but what's used to make it so danged tasty.


But it doesNt make them" Far less than good for you", you could argue that they Are notas good as jacket potatoes, but that's the skin that increases theIr e nutritional value, but then lots of people don't eat the skin anyway
.
 They are in no way BAD for you, Any Fat content they have will v miniscule and anyway you need fat in your diet like wise you need salt, particularly iF your working out and sweating a lot

The bulk of healthy eating advice is aiMe the % of the population that are obese and don't take excersise, in which case lay ofF the fries Is probably good advice if they make up a large % of your diet


----------



## Tez3

CB Jones said:


> Research Spartan warrior Life.  They weren't feasting.  Spartans weren't even allowed to sleep inside the city until they were in there 30s.
> 
> They lived a very stringent life.  Every thing was extremely uniform in Spartan Society.




Perhaps that's why we use the word spartan in the manner we do.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

jobo said:


> But it doesNt make them" Far less than good for you", you could argue that they Are notas good as jacket potatoes, but that's the skin that increases theIr e nutritional value, but then lots of people don't eat the skin anyway
> .
> They are in no way BAD for you, Any Fat content they have will v miniscule and anyway you need fat in your diet like wise you need salt, particularly iF your working out and sweating a lot
> 
> The bulk of healthy eating advice is aiMe the % of the population that are obese and don't take excersise, in which case lay ofF the fries Is probably good advice if they make up a large % of your diet


You clearly have not had the fries in most restaurants in America. Those are absolutely shyte for you...if they weren't I would be the first one to rationalize eating them.


----------



## jobo

kempodisciple said:


> You clearly have not had the fries in most restaurants in America. Those are absolutely shyte for you...if they weren't I would be the first one to rationalize eating them.


Well that's a clear statement with absolutely no back up, in what way are they shYt for you ? They lack nutritional value that's true, but so do Peeled potatoes generaly


----------



## mrt2

jobo said:


> Well that's a clear statement with absolutely no back up, in what way are they shYt for you ? They lack nutritional value that's true, but so do Peeled potatoes generaly


There is a correlation between consumption of french fries and bad health outcomes, or even death. Now, it might be that people who eat a lot of french fries are overweight, thus, less likely to exercise regularly, or whatever.  As for myself, when I am looking to lose weight or improve my numbers when I know a physical or checkup is coming up (and they come up every year now, if I want to keep my health insurance), I tend to shy away from fast food fries. A side benefit is, I feel better generally without them, even if my palate misses the salty crunchy goodness of a hot, crispy fry.

The Unfortunate Health Risks Of French Fries


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> But it doesNt make them" Far less than good for you", you could argue that they Are notas good as jacket potatoes, but that's the skin that increases theIr e nutritional value, but then lots of people don't eat the skin anyway
> .
> They are in no way BAD for you, Any Fat content they have will v miniscule and anyway you need fat in your diet like wise you need salt, particularly iF your working out and sweating a lot
> 
> The bulk of healthy eating advice is aiMe the % of the population that are obese and don't take excersise, in which case lay ofF the fries Is probably good advice if they make up a large % of your diet


Again, it's more about the combination. Add fat (plenty of fat already in the burger) and salt (already enough of that in the burger, too). Now add a shake (minimal dairy, more fat, tons of sugar). The meal becomes less healthy than it could be by a large margin. By comparison, a raw potato (skin on, with pepper rather than salt) and glass of milk is hugely different. I'd truly classify many fries as "junk food" because most are fattier than necessary (not cooked hot enough) and far saltier than needed for taste. And the typical portion size (in the US) means all that is amplified.

But, in moderation, it's not so bad. I eat that meal a few times a year - probably fewer than 10. There are a few like it I eat, too, though less often. At that rate, they're not doing any real harm. They're still food - just less healthful than other alternatives.


----------



## jobo

mrt2 said:


> There is a correlation between consumption of french fries and bad health outcomes, or even death. Now, it might be that people who eat a lot of french fries are overweight, thus, less likely to exercise regularly, or whatever.  As for myself, when I am looking to lose weight or improve my numbers when I know a physical or checkup is coming up (and they come up ever year now), I tend to shy away from fast food fries. A side benefit is, I feel better generally without them, even if my palate misses the salty crunchy goodness of a hot, crispy frie.
> 
> The Unfortunate Health Risks Of French Fries


Well I think you've answered the issue, an over abundance of fries will cause issue, your diet need to be balanced, as is often said correlation doesn't prove causation, the researchers clearly don't know why fries are bad for you, beyond the accepted norm that to much of anything is bad for you

I'm will to get there a stOng coroLation n between people who own cars and death


----------



## Gerry Seymour

mrt2 said:


> There is a correlation between consumption of french fries and bad health outcomes, or even death. Now, it might be that people who eat a lot of french fries are overweight, thus, less likely to exercise regularly, or whatever.  As for myself, when I am looking to lose weight or improve my numbers when I know a physical or checkup is coming up (and they come up ever year now), I tend to shy away from fast food fries. A side benefit is, I feel better generally without them, even if my palate misses the salty crunchy goodness of a hot, crispy frie.
> 
> The Unfortunate Health Risks Of French Fries


A solid correlation, but with all the usual problems of that type of study (and a continuing problem for how those studies are reported by mainstream media). People who eat fries more often probably also eat burgers more often, and maybe also drink sodas more often. If it is as simple as that (other meals replaced by burger, fries, and soda), it's not hard to see how the link might be skewed.

Or fries might be awful. It's frustrating.


----------



## mrt2

jobo said:


> Well I think you've answered the issue, an over abundance of fries will cause issue, your diet need to be balanced, as is often said correlation doesn't prove causation, the researchers clearly don't know why fries are bad for you, beyond the accepted norm that to much of anything is bad for you


If you cook fries at home, or trust the person making the fries, it is probably a safer bet than eating at a fast food place, where the fries are highly processed, and you just don't know how old the oil is that was used to fry the potatoes.


----------



## jobo

mrt2 said:


> If you cook fries at home, or trust the person making the fries, it is probably a safer bet than eating at a fast food place, where the fries are highly processed, and you just don't know how old the oil is that was used to fry the potatoes.


How are they processed ? And what difference does the age of the oil make?


----------



## mrt2

gpseymour said:


> A solid correlation, but with all the usual problems of that type of study (and a continuing problem for how those studies are reported by mainstream media). People who eat fries more often probably also eat burgers more often, and maybe also drink sodas more often. If it is as simple as that (other meals replaced by burger, fries, and soda), it's not hard to see how the link might be skewed.
> 
> Or fries might be awful. It's frustrating.


I don't feel great eating fries.  That I know.  Usually fries are paired with high fat, high salt burgers, and high calorie shakes.  I never eat a burger, fries and a shake meal like I used to as a kid.  That is a seriously over the top meal.  According to McDonalds website, a big mac, large fries and shake is 1570 calories, 67 gms fat, 199 gms of carb, and 43 gms of protein.  Delete the shake and you are down to 1050 calories.  Delete the fries, and you are down to 560 calories.   Not great nutritionally, but if a big mac is the only thing you eat for lunch, at least you won't gain


----------



## jobo

mrt2 said:


> I don't feel great eating fries.  That I know.  Usually fries are paired with high fat, high salt burgers, and high calorie shakes.  I never eat a burger, fries and a shake meal like I used to as a kid.  That is a seriously over the top meal.  According to McDonalds website, a big mac, large fries and shake is 1570 calories, 67 gms fat, 199 gms of carb, and 43 gms of protein.  Delete the shake and you are down to 1050 calories.  Delete the fries, and you are down to 560 calories.   Not great nutritionally, but if a big mac is the only thing you eat for lunch, at least you won't gain


So that's about half the calories needed by an active male, if the other half includes sufficient nutrients t what's the problem ? just drop the shake if your watching your weight


----------



## mrt2

jobo said:


> How are they processed ? And what difference does the age of the oil make?


Here is a list of the ingredients in fast food fries.  19 ingredients in McD's fries.  (interestingly, just 3 in Five Guys and In and Out burger)  Is it bad for you?   Here Is Every Ingredient in Your Favorite Fast Food French Fries

As for eating food cooked in old oil, there are some studies suggesting causes cancer.  Hard to pin down since commercially prepared food is ubiquitous these days, so if a person gets cancer, who is to say it was the french fries that caused it.


----------



## mrt2

jobo said:


> So that's about half the calories needed by an active male, if the other half includes sufficient nutrients t what's the problem ? just drop the shake if your watching your weight


No, not at all.  The average person needs somewhere between 2,000 to 2,500 calories per day.  Maybe a bit more if you are a young, active male, say a football player or endurance athlete.  A bit less if you are female, older, or sedentary.  If you are trying to lose weight, maybe even less.  If you are trying to lose weight, maybe you can have the Big Mac, and peel off one of the pieces of bread to lower calories and carb content further.  

And the problem is, a person who eats stuff like this is probably not eating just a plain salad made of spinach leaves or water packed tuna the rest of the day.

So no, this meal of 1,500 empty calories is not something the average adult should be eating more than, maybe once a week, at most.


----------



## Tez3

mrt2 said:


> Here is a list of the ingredients in fast food fries.  19 ingredients in McD's fries.  (interestingly, just 3 in Five Guys and In and Out burger)  Is it bad for you?   Here Is Every Ingredient in Your Favorite Fast Food French Fries
> 
> .




That's the McD's in America, the company itself says the ingredients are different as the stuff they put in fires in the US is illegal in Europe. Are the ingredients used in your fries the same as in the U.S.A?

*UK:* Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (Sunflower, Rapeseed), Dextrose (only added at beginning of the season). [The restaurants use non-hydrogenated vegetable oil].
*
Nutrition source: *McDonald's Fries - Saver Menu | McDonald's UK

*US: *Ingredients: Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (Canola Oil, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Natural Beef Flavor [Wheat and Milk Derivatives]*, Citric Acid [Preservative]), Dextrose, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate (Maintain Color), Salt. Prepared in Vegetable Oil (Canola Oil, Corn Oil, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Soybean Oil with TBHQ and Citric Acid added to preserve freshness), Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent. *CONTAINS: WHEAT AND MILK.  **Natural beef flavor contains hydrolyzed wheat and hydrolyzed milk as starting ingredients. 

*Nutrition source:* McDonald's Menu: Our Full McDonald's Food Menu | McDonald's, accessed Feb 25 2014










mrt2 said:


> As for eating food cooked in old oil,


McDs here turns it into biofuel for the delivery vehicles.


----------



## jobo

mrt2 said:


> Here is a list of the ingredients in fast food fries.  19 ingredients in McD's fries.  (interestingly, just 3 in Five Guys and In and Out burger)  Is it bad for you?   Here Is Every Ingredient in Your Favorite Fast Food French Fries
> 
> As for eating food cooked in old oil, there are some studies suggesting causes cancer.  Hard to pin down since commercially prepared food is ubiquitous these days, so if a person gets cancer, who is to say it was the french fries that caused it.


Is it bad for you, is he question I asked you, which of those 19 is harmful the amount contained.

Old oil causes cancer, well old engine all does, but I doubt they are using that


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> How are they processed ? And what difference does the age of the oil make?


Old oil does have some health issues. Polar compounds can form, which are carcinogenic. Oxidation leads to slightly toxic changes (indigestion, not death). More oil is retained in the food (less crunchy, and more fat).


----------



## Gerry Seymour

mrt2 said:


> If you cook fries at home, or trust the person making the fries, it is probably a safer bet than eating at a fast food place, where the fries are highly processed, and you just don't know how old the oil is that was used to fry the potatoes.


Some are coated, but I think most are just potato. The point about the oil is well taken, though I think the places with good fries have those good fries because they change the oil regularly.


----------



## jobo

mrt2 said:


> No, not at all.  The average person needs somewhere between 2,000 to 2,500 calories per day.  Maybe a bit more if you are a young, active male, say a football player or endurance athlete.  A bit less if you are female, older, or sedentary.  If you are trying to lose weight, maybe even less.  If you are trying to lose weight, maybe you can have the Big Mac, and peel off one of the pieces of bread to lower calories and carb content further.
> 
> And the problem is, a person who eats stuff like this is probably not eating just a plain salad made of spinach leaves or water packed tuna the rest of the day.
> 
> So no, this meal of 1,500 empty calories is not something the average adult should be eating more than, maybe once a week, at most.


I said an active male, not an average person, half of which Arnt maLe s and most of which And not very active

I thinK we can agree that old fat inactive people should avoid that amount ofcaleries,


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Old oil does have some health issues. Polar compounds can form, which are carcinogenic. Oxidation leads to slightly toxic changes (indigestion, not death). More oil is retained in the food (less crunchy, and more fat).


What a proven carcinogens in humans or a possible carcinogens in little furry things that are over dosed on them?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> What a proven carcinogens in humans or a possible carcinogens in little furry things that are over dosed on them?


Well, since we can't conduct controlled experiments on humans, we don't have many carcinogens where we can do more than point at a REALLY strong correlation. I've not dug any deeper into it - for me, the limp fries and higher fat are enough reason to want fresh oil.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Well, since we can't conduct controlled experiments on humans, we don't have many carcinogens where we can do more than point at a REALLY strong correlation. I've not dug any deeper into it - for me, the limp fries and higher fat are enough reason to want fresh oil.


There are large number of things are are proven to cause cancer in humans and an almost infinite amount of things that may do in that Repeatedly over dosing Micee in their own body weight of the stuff does.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> There are large number of things are are proven to cause cancer in humans and an almost infinite amount of things that may do in that Repeatedly over dosing Micee in their own body weight of the stuff does.


Define "large number". Of the chemicals with a strong link to cancer (either correlation, or furry creature studies, or proven case history in humans), I think the smallest number are those we have definitive proof for humans. We have good evidence on a lot of them, but a small number (relative to the whole) have what we'd call proof.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Define "large number". Of the chemicals with a strong link to cancer (either correlation, or furry creature studies, or proven case history in humans), I think the smallest number are those we have definitive proof for humans. We have good evidence on a lot of them, but a small number (relative to the whole) have what we'd call proof.


Go on the OSHH  web site, they lIst thousands of chemicals and a significant number, I haven't actual counted are identified as being carcinogens tohumans

I can think of twenty just off the top of my head, chrome hex for instance, the third most lethal substance in the world


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Tez3 said:


> That's the McD's in America, the company itself says the ingredients are different as the stuff they put in fires in the US is illegal in Europe. Are the ingredients used in your fries the same as in the U.S.A?
> 
> *UK:* Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (Sunflower, Rapeseed), Dextrose (only added at beginning of the season). [The restaurants use non-hydrogenated vegetable oil].
> *
> Nutrition source: *McDonald's Fries - Saver Menu | McDonald's UK
> 
> *US: *Ingredients: Potatoes, Vegetable Oil (Canola Oil, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Natural Beef Flavor [Wheat and Milk Derivatives]*, Citric Acid [Preservative]), Dextrose, Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate (Maintain Color), Salt. Prepared in Vegetable Oil (Canola Oil, Corn Oil, Soybean Oil, Hydrogenated Soybean Oil with TBHQ and Citric Acid added to preserve freshness), Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent. *CONTAINS: WHEAT AND MILK.  **Natural beef flavor contains hydrolyzed wheat and hydrolyzed milk as starting ingredients.
> 
> *Nutrition source:* McDonald's Menu: Our Full McDonald's Food Menu | McDonald's, accessed Feb 25 2014
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McDs here turns it into biofuel for the delivery vehicles.


Yup. That's why I specified earlier fries in the US are different.


----------



## jobo

jobo said:


> Go on the OSHH  web site, they lIst thousands of chemicals and a significant number, I haven't actual counted are identified as being carcinogens tohumans
> 
> I can think of twenty just off the top of my head, chrome hex for instance, the third most lethal substance in the world


Here a lIst of know and reasonably suspected human carcinogens, I can't be bother counting, it looks like lots to me
Known and Probable Human Carcinogens


----------



## Tez3

kempodisciple said:


> Yup. That's why I specified earlier fries in the US are different.



Actually I wouldn't say they were 'different' but poisoned! Why would anyone want that gunk on their food?


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> How are they processed ? And what difference does the age of the oil make?


This may have been answered already, but they start with a potato slurry, and then add anywhere between 10 and 20 ingredients (I read an article not too long ago that said that the McDonalds fries contained like 19 or 20 ingredients).  They have chemicals and colorants and all kinds of things to make them delicious, that are also probably very bad for you.

Regarding the age of the oil, I don't know if that makes too much difference, provided that they clean it regularly and swap it out before it goes rancid.  When I was in high school, I would pick up some extra dough helping out the maintenance guys who worked overnight, and they would run the oil vats through a machine that cleaned any food particulates out of the oil. 

Coincidentally, I made burgers and fries at home on Saturday.  Cut the taters myself and fried them twice in peanut oil to make them delicious and crispy. Still bad for us, but oh so good.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> This may have been answered already, but they start with a potato slurry, and then add anywhere between 10 and 20 ingredients (I read an article not too long ago that said that the McDonalds fries contained like 19 or 20 ingredients).  They have chemicals and colorants and all kinds of things to make them delicious, that are also probably very bad for you.
> 
> Regarding the age of the oil, I don't know if that makes too much difference, provided that they clean it regularly and swap it out before it goes rancid.  When I was in high school, I would pick up some extra dough helping out the maintenance guys who worked overnight, and they would run the oil vats through a machine that cleaned any food particulates out of the oil.
> 
> Coincidentally, I made burgers and fries at home on Saturday.  Cut the taters myself and fried them twice in peanut oil to make them delicious and crispy. Still bad for us, but oh so good.


Well somebody intimated as much, but I'm still not getting anyone telling what exactly is unhealthy about the 19 incredients, you canT just assume that anY additive e is bad for you, a lot are necessary to stop the product going off or make it look more appealing. 

Your home cooked fries are certainly not bad for you, provided you don't attempt to eat your body weight


----------



## mrt2

jobo said:


> I said an active male, not an average person, half of which Arnt maLe s and most of which And not very active
> 
> I thinK we can agree that old fat inactive people should avoid that amount ofcaleries,


Look, most people over estimate their level of activity and under estimate their calorie intake.  So even though I consider myself fairly active, if I am honest with myself, I am probably only moderately active.  And the scale says I am overweight, so I know despite my relatively active lifestyle, I managed to each back all the calories I burned off and more.  And I am not alone.  Obesity levels are on the rise in the US and the UK.  That is a fact.

Part of the problem for those of us who lift weights at a gym, or train in MA, cycle, swim, run, or whatever is, this is the most active part of our days.  The 3,000 plus calories should be reserved for adolescent boys involved in sports, soldiers in elite combat units, and grown men with physically demanding jobs.  The rest of us graft maybe 5 to 10 hours a week onto what would otherwise be a fairly sedentary lifestyle, which makes us, collectively, only moderate active.  So, we should be shooting for closer to 2,000 calories. certainly not 3,000 or more.


----------



## mrt2

Steve said:


> This may have been answered already, but they start with a potato slurry, and then add anywhere between 10 and 20 ingredients (I read an article not too long ago that said that the McDonalds fries contained like 19 or 20 ingredients).  They have chemicals and colorants and all kinds of things to make them delicious, that are also probably very bad for you.
> 
> Regarding the age of the oil, I don't know if that makes too much difference, provided that they clean it regularly and swap it out before it goes rancid.  When I was in high school, I would pick up some extra dough helping out the maintenance guys who worked overnight, and they would run the oil vats through a machine that cleaned any food particulates out of the oil.
> 
> Coincidentally, I made burgers and fries at home on Saturday.  Cut the taters myself and fried them twice in peanut oil to make them delicious and crispy. Still bad for us, but oh so good.


Look up what a McRib looks like raw, before they cook it and slather it in BBQ sauce.


----------



## jobo

mrt2 said:


> Look, most people over estimate their level of activity and under estimate their calorie intake.  So even though I consider myself fairly active, if I am honest with myself, I am probably only moderately active.  And the scale says I am overweight, so I know despite my relatively active lifestyle, I managed to each back all the calories I burned off and more.  And I am not alone.  Obesity levels are on the rise in the US and the UK.  That is a fact.
> 
> Part of the problem for those of us who lift weights at a gym, or train in MA, cycle, swim, run, or whatever is, this is the most active part of our days.  The 3,000 plus calories should be reserved for adolescent boys involved in sports, soldiers in elite combat units, and grown men with physically demanding jobs.  The rest of us graft maybe 5 to 10 hours a week onto what would otherwise be a fairly sedentary lifestyle, which makes us, collectively, only moderate active.  So, we should be shooting for closer to 2,000 calories. certainly not 3,000 or more.


You've lost me, I said active male needs 3000 calories and you've given a list of inactive maLess that only need 2000, how is this an argument against my point,

Active people Arnt  fat, unless they do it on purpose, as you are , its clear your not active, why your saying other people shouldNt eat MACDs as it's unhea10TH based jusT on yoU being plump i have no idea


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> Well somebody intimated as much, but I'm still not getting anyone telling what exactly is unhealthy about the 19 incredients, you canT just assume that anY additive e is bad for you, a lot are necessary to stop the product going off or make it look more appealing.
> 
> Your home cooked fries are certainly not bad for you, provided you don't attempt to eat your body weight


what kind of evidence would you accept?


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> what kind of evidence would you accept?


Well something from an authoritative source saying xXxX is damaging to your health in the dosage included in these frys, not crank web sites and health scare report headline


----------



## mrt2

jobo said:


> You've lost me, I said active male needs 3000 calories and you've given a list of inactive maLess that only need 2000, how is this an argument against my point,
> 
> Active people Arnt  fat, unless they do it on purpose, as you are , its clear your not active, why your saying other people shouldNt eat MACDs as it's unhea10TH based jusT on yoU being plump i have no idea


I am sorry, but we can't all live up to your standards.  Hard to tell, though how fit you are under that clown suit.


----------



## Steve

mrt2 said:


> Look up what a McRib looks like raw, before they cook it and slather it in BBQ sauce.


I was pre mcrib.... At least wr never had them in the ones I worked in.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> Well something from an authoritative source saying xXxX is damaging to your health in the dosage included in these frys, not crank web sites and health scare report headline


okay . I will see what I can dig up .


----------



## jobo

mrt2 said:


> I am sorry, but we can't all live up to your standards.  Hard to tell, though how fit you are under that clown suit.


But my point is valid, that something is loaded with calories doesn't make it bad for you, calories are quite important to life, if you eat to much, don't exercise enough that's your fault not the foods

The UK has just introduced a,sugar tax on soda, that means that I have to drink horrible coke, just because some fat guys drink it by the gallon and don't walk any where, how's that fair?


----------



## JR 137

mrt2 said:


> Here is a list of the ingredients in fast food fries.  19 ingredients in McD's fries.  (interestingly, just 3 in Five Guys and In and Out burger)  Is it bad for you?   Here Is Every Ingredient in Your Favorite Fast Food French Fries
> 
> As for eating food cooked in old oil, there are some studies suggesting causes cancer.  Hard to pin down since commercially prepared food is ubiquitous these days, so if a person gets cancer, who is to say it was the french fries that caused it.


Men’s Health broke down the nutritional content of the US’s fast food fries and ranked them best to worst.

Five Guys’ fries were the best AND worst 
How’s that possible?  Worst due purely to serving size.  Best due from an ounce to ounce comparison.  Five Guys’ recipe is simple - potatoes (with skin), peanut oil, and salt.

I love In N Out’s fries.  Only had them a few times during a vacation to California.  I ordered fries, and the cashier threw a potato to a guy in the back who cut it and threw it in the fryer.  None of that frozen in a bag crap.


----------



## mrt2

jobo said:


> But my point is valid, that something is loaded with calories doesn't make it bad for you, calories are quite important to life, if you eat to much, don't exercise enough that's your fault not the foods
> 
> The UK has just introduced a,sugar tax on soda, that means that I have to drink horrible coke, just because some fat guys drink it by the gallon and don't walk any where, how's that fair?


You know, people have different body types, and you can knock off the insulting tone towards the overweight.  You make it seem like the overweight are completely slothful gluttons.  And that isn't the case.  If it were, obesity rates would not be rising in both of our countries.  My body was built to survive in times when people had to do hard, physical work, and maybe survive a famine or two.  Others are built to chase, or run after fast moving animals.  So congrats on your genetics, but if an actual famine comes, I might survive an extra month or two after you wither away to nothing.

A lot of things go into why obesity rates are on the rise.  Part of it is a sedentary lifestyle, which goes beyond individual choices.  Like infrastructure that forces people to drive or take mass transit to work rather than encourage walking or cycling or some other active form of transportation.  And jobs that are mostly sedentary.

And the second part is, constant access to cheap, processed, high calorie food.

So what do we do?  Graft some exercise onto an otherwise sedentary life, and cut back on the processed high calorie junk food.


----------



## mrt2

JR 137 said:


> Men’s Health broke down the nutritional content of the US’s fast food fries and ranked them best to worst.
> 
> Five Guys’ fries were the best AND worst
> How’s that possible?  *Worst due purely to serving size.*  Best due from an ounce to ounce comparison.  Five Guys’ recipe is simple - potatoes (with skin), peanut oil, and salt.
> 
> I love In N Out’s fries.  Only had them a few times during a vacation to California.  I ordered fries, and the cashier threw a potato to a guy in the back who cut it and threw it in the fryer.  None of that frozen in a bag crap.


The serving size of Five Guys fries is ridiculous.  A regular size fries is almost 1,000 calories.  Another reason I can't touch that stuff, even though it is comparatively not all that bad unless I can share a single order with r 3 other people.  You start out ordering a calorie rich cheeseburger, then put yourself over the top with the fries.  The burrito places aren't much better calorie wise. Even though it isn't deep fried, those overstuffed burritos can have over 1,000 calories.


----------



## jobo

mrt2 said:


> You know, people have different body types, and you can knock off the insulting tone towards the overweight.  You make it seem like the overweight are completely slothful gluttons.  And that isn't the case.  If it were, obesity rates would not be rising in both of our countries.  My body was built to survive in times when people had to do hard, physical work, and maybe survive a famine or two.  Others are built to chase, or run after fast moving animals.  So congrats on your genetics, but if an actual famine comes, I might survive an extra month or two after you wither away to nothing.
> 
> A lot of things go into why obesity rates are on the rise.  Part of it is a sedentary lifestyle, which goes beyond individual choices.  Like infrastructure that forces people to drive or take mass transit to work rather than encourage walking or cycling or some other active form of transportation.  And jobs that are mostly sedentary.
> 
> And the second part is, constant access to cheap, processed, high calorie food.
> 
> So what do we do?  Graft some exercise onto an otherwise sedentary life, and cut back on the processed high calorie junk food.


It was you that said you were over weight, unless you have some metabolism issues, that's a life style choice you've made, just cause there availablE food doesn't mean you have to eat it, and what infrastructure do you need to ride a bike? You don't even need a road

You seem to be one of those blame society people, they have fast food restraunts and no cycle lanes, it's theIr fault iM fat.


----------



## mrt2

jobo said:


> It was you that said you were over weight, unless you have some metabolism issues, that's a life style choice you've made, just cause there availablE food doesn't mean you have to eat it, and what infrastructure do you need to ride a bike? You don't even need a road
> 
> You seem to be one of those blame society people, they have fast food restraunts and no cycle lanes, it's theIr fault iM fat.


OK, I am done with you.  Again, congratulations on your superior physique despite eating your fill of Cola and fast food.


----------



## jobo

mrt2 said:


> OK, I am done with you.  Again, congratulations on your superior physique despite eating your fill of Cola and fast food.


BIT OF a heat wave today, Popped s down to the town centre in my shorts and gym shark top to show of my lean muscular physique, The girls ignored me, the gay guyss kept giving me the eye, I'm going to have to get rid of this FREedie mercury mustache


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> But my point is valid, that something is loaded with calories doesn't make it bad for you, calories are quite important to life, if you eat to much, don't exercise enough that's your fault not the foods
> 
> The UK has just introduced a,sugar tax on soda, that means that I have to drink horrible coke, just because some fat guys drink it by the gallon and don't walk any where, how's that fair?


NYC had some nonsensical laws that I’m not sure if they were repealed or not...

Restaurants could only serve I think 12 oz. max to kids.  Adult cups were limited in size too, but I think we’re allowed refills.  And they wanted a high tax on soda/sugary drinks like they have on alcohol and tobacco.

Thank former mayor Mike Bloomberg for having government further run everyone’s lives.  I’m pretty sure those laws were repealed pretty quickly.  But for some reason, NYC and much of NY Sate has a mentality where they need to tell the citizens how to live.  Yet the powers that be and their staunch supporters don’t want to abide by their own rules and be left alone.


----------



## jobo

JR 137 said:


> NYC had some nonsensical laws that I’m not sure if they were repealed or not...
> 
> Restaurants could only serve I think 12 oz. max to kids.  Adult cups were limited in size too, but I think we’re allowed refills.  And they wanted a high tax on soda/sugary drinks like they have on alcohol and tobacco.
> 
> Thank former mayor Mike Bloomberg for having government further run everyone’s lives.  I’m pretty sure those laws were repealed pretty quickly.  But for some reason, NYC and much of NY Sate has a mentality where they need to tell the citizens how to live.  Yet the powers that be and their staunch supporters don’t want to abide by their own rules and be left alone.


Well it's only the beginning here, Scotland has just brought in minimum alcohol pricing, a lot more " heaLTH" taxing to come i fear, which only punished the responsible but does nothing to stop the irresponsible.

The answer is straight forward enough, do people tax code \social security pay out,based on there Body mass rating , that way they leave people like me alone


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Well it's only the beginning here, Scotland has just brought in minimum alcohol pricing, a lot more " heaLTH" taxing to come i fear, which only punished the responsible but does nothing to stop the irresponsible.
> 
> The answer is straight forward enough, do people tax code \social security pay out,based on there Body mass rating , that way they leave people like me alone


I'm not at all certain that's straightforward. Do we punish those with thyroid conditions and reward the anorexic (to choose some extreme examples)?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> It was you that said you were over weight, unless you have some metabolism issues, that's a life style choice you've made, just cause there availablE food doesn't mean you have to eat it, and what infrastructure do you need to ride a bike? You don't even need a road
> 
> You seem to be one of those blame society people, they have fast food restraunts and no cycle lanes, it's theIr fault iM fat.


Not even close to entirely true. I know people who exercise much more than I do, and eat at least as healthfully, yet are significantly overweight. I've met a triathlete (he has actually done the Ironman) who is visibly overweight enough to make it more than a little surprising to learn he's a triathlete. I remember seeing a TV show about an extreme distance runner (routinely ran 30+ miles) who was technically obese.

I'm gifted with a metabolism that keeps me from being fat. It's not as magical as it once was (lifestyle choices, in my case), but it's still pretty nifty. If you think your metabolism is universal, you're mistaken.


----------



## JR 137

jobo said:


> Well it's only the beginning here, Scotland has just brought in minimum alcohol pricing, a lot more " heaLTH" taxing to come i fear, which only punished the responsible but does nothing to stop the irresponsible.
> 
> The answer is straight forward enough, do people tax code \social security pay out,based on there Body mass rating , that way they leave people like me alone


It’s ridiculous the way governments feel they need to parent.  Their role should be to educate/warn of potential dangers, not to take away freedom of choice.  A “you’ve been warned of the inherent risks” rather than a “you cannot” IMO.  But ultimately, I guess it truly comes down to making more money than actually protecting.  People are going to drink and smoke regardless of the price and warnings, so might as well tax the hell out of it and look like they’re doing it to curtail the use rather than showing the true cash-grab. 

I think I’m bordering on political here, so I’ll duck out now.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Not even close to entirely true. I know people who exercise much more than I do, and eat at least as healthfully, yet are significantly overweight. I've met a triathlete (he has actually done the Ironman) who is visibly overweight enough to make it more than a little surprising to learn he's a triathlete. I remember seeing a TV show about an extreme distance runner (routinely ran 30+ miles) who was technically obese.
> 
> I'm gifted with a metabolism that keeps me from being fat. It's not as magical as it once was (lifestyle choices, in my case), but it's still pretty nifty. If you think your metabolism is universal, you're mistaken.


d.

I did say unless you have metabolism issuSE, most people have a metabolism that stops them from being over weight, if they eat and exercise in the correct proportion,

Finding a fat triathelete is some what unusual , so unusual that it's clearly a defect with him. By it has nothing to do with healthy eating, you can over eat with healthy foods, and you have no idea what they are eating, fat people like alcoholics always lie


----------



## Tez3

jobo said:


> The UK has just introduced a,sugar tax on soda, that means that I have to drink horrible coke, just because some fat guys drink it by the gallon and don't walk any where, how's that fair?




It was introduced because children were drinking soft drinks with too much sugar in, if the parents don't take any notice then someone has to stop the kids teeth rotting and getting diabetes ( and before Americans start shouting nanny state, remember kids get free dental care here paid for by the rest of us, which is fine until the parents are costing us a fortune as well as diabetes costing the country millions every year). the money made from this tax is going back into children's health with emphasis on healthy eating and more physical exercise. 
_"There are nine teaspoons of sugar in a 330ml can of cola, instantly taking children above their recommended maximum for the day. A five year old should have no more than 19g of sugar in a day, but a typical can of cola can have 35g. Public health experts from the Chief Medical Officer to the British Heart Foundation agree that sugar-sweetened soft drinks are a major source of sugar for children and teenagers, and that sugar intake drives obesity."
_
Soft Drinks Industry Levy: 12 things you should know


----------



## mrt2

Tez3 said:


> It was introduced because children were drinking soft drinks with too much sugar in, if the parents don't take any notice then someone has to stop the kids teeth rotting and getting diabetes ( and before Americans start shouting nanny state, remember kids get free dental care here paid for by the rest of us, which is fine until the parents are costing us a fortune as well as diabetes costing the country millions every year). the money made from this tax is going back into children's health with emphasis on healthy eating and more physical exercise.
> _"There are nine teaspoons of sugar in a 330ml can of cola, instantly taking children above their recommended maximum for the day. A five year old should have no more than 19g of sugar in a day, but a typical can of cola can have 35g. Public health experts from the Chief Medical Officer to the British Heart Foundation agree that sugar-sweetened soft drinks are a major source of sugar for children and teenagers, and that sugar intake drives obesity."
> _
> Soft Drinks Industry Levy: 12 things you should know


I recognize the problem, and despite what guys like Jobo say, I never drink regular colas, and rarely drink diet colas.  

The problem with the government imposing taxes on cola, is, it is under inclusive, and that any effort to be comprehensive will be cumbersome to say the least.  The fact is, juices have high amounts of sugar, yet the same companies that sell colas also sell juices to children.  Do lawmakers impose taxes on juices?  

What I am all for is transparency on menus so people know what they are eating and can make informed choices about what, and how much they put in their mouths.  And that is something where, at least here in the US, things have gotten better in recent years, at least as far as chain restaurants are concerned.


----------



## Tez3

mrt2 said:


> Do lawmakers impose taxes on juices?




Not here, we don't have added sugar in juices just the sugar that is there already. The tax is aimed at getting children off what we call fizzy drinks, children who drink a lot of these don't tend to drink fruit juices/tea/milk etc. It's quite specific, the tax is on the manufacturers who will need to produce drinks with less sugar in not to pay it. 
Similar taxes have worked in five other countries, with some methods reducing consumption of fizzy drinks by up to one quarter.

_"Mexico, which has one of the world's worst weight problems with a third of adults obese, introduced a 10 per cent sugar tax on sugar-sweetened drinks in 2014. A paper published in the BMJ in January found that sales of fizzy drinks had fallen by 12 per cent in the first year._

_In Hungary, the introduction of a tax on companies has led to a 40 per cent reduction in levels of sugar products."_
Sugar tax: what does it mean, which drinks will be affected, and will it work?

One thing I don't understand is people saying this is a tax on the poor. There's plenty of drinks around like low sugar/sugar free squashes around ( I assume they have these in US but don't know what you call them). they are cheaper and better for you anyway. why do people think poor people don't want to eat healthily or that they actually don't.

› Why the fizzy drinks tax should be implemented | Oral Health Foundation


----------



## mrt2

Tez3 said:


> One thing I don't understand is people saying this is a tax on the poor. There's plenty of drinks around like low sugar/sugar free squashes around ( I assume they have these in US but don't know what you call them). they are cheaper and better for you anyway. why do people think poor people don't want to eat healthily or that they actually don't.
> 
> › Why the fizzy drinks tax should be implemented | Oral Health Foundation


In the US, a lot of poor people live in "food deserts."  That is, neighborhoods where there isn't a decent supermarket for miles and people are forced to buy food from convenience stores and bodegas.  Often, the only options are unhealthy processed foods high in sugar, salt, and fat.  It is absurd, but at a convenience store, the best deal if you are thirsty is a huge coke from the machine for $.99.  That is how imposing taxes on sugary colas taxes the poor disproportionately here in the US.


----------



## jobo

Tez3 said:


> Not here, we don't have added sugar in juices just the sugar that is there already. The tax is aimed at getting children off what we call fizzy drinks, children who drink a lot of these don't tend to drink fruit juices/tea/milk etc. It's quite specific, the tax is on the manufacturers who will need to produce drinks with less sugar in not to pay it.
> Similar taxes have worked in five other countries, with some methods reducing consumption of fizzy drinks by up to one quarter.
> 
> _"Mexico, which has one of the world's worst weight problems with a third of adults obese, introduced a 10 per cent sugar tax on sugar-sweetened drinks in 2014. A paper published in the BMJ in January found that sales of fizzy drinks had fallen by 12 per cent in the first year._
> 
> _In Hungary, the introduction of a tax on companies has led to a 40 per cent reduction in levels of sugar products."_
> Sugar tax: what does it mean, which drinks will be affected, and will it work?
> 
> One thing I don't understand is people saying this is a tax on the poor. There's plenty of drinks around like low sugar/sugar free squashes around ( I assume they have these in US but don't know what you call them). they are cheaper and better for you anyway. why do people think poor people don't want to eat healthily or that they actually don't.
> 
> › Why the fizzy drinks tax should be implemented | Oral Health Foundation


It's a tax on the poor as richer people can afford to pay the extra and carry on drinking their sugary coke and poor people cant,It if they do it's a much higher % of their income

Or the reverce if your sold on the idea, only poor people will get the benefit whilst richer people carry on GETting g fatter


----------



## jobo

mrt2 said:


> In the US, a lot of poor people live in "food deserts."  That is, neighborhoods where there isn't a decent supermarket for miles and people are forced to buy food from convenience stores and bodegas.  Often, the only options are unhealthy processed foods high in sugar, salt, and fat.  It is absurd, but at a convenience store, the best deal if you are thirsty is a huge coke from the machine for $.99.  That is how imposing taxes on sugary colas taxes the poor disproportionately here in the US.


Only option, don't these stores sell vegatables?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

jobo said:


> Only option, don't these stores sell vegatables?


Plenty of bodegas dont


----------



## jobo

kempodisciple said:


> Plenty of bodegas dont


I've No idea what that is, are you saying that poor people can't access veg,to buy,  EvEN in tins or frozen, what about rice


----------



## jobo

jobo said:


> I've idea what that is, are you saying that poor people can't access veg,to buy,  EvEN in tins or frozen, what about rice


I read an article, that said that lots of poor American were eating dog food, which it turned out was more nutritious that a lot of people food, as it contained a lot of liver, which has vitamins not usual found in people meat

Offal generally is very good for you And generally l cheap


----------



## mrt2

jobo said:


> Only option, don't these stores sell vegatables?


No.


----------



## jobo

mrt2 said:


> No.


Same question as above, are you claiming that poor American can get access to ANY veg, ? Really they can't walk a mile or two and buy some carrots, I find that hard to believe,


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

jobo said:


> I've No idea what that is, are you saying that poor people can't access veg,to buy,  EvEN in tins or frozen, what about rice


Rice they have plenty of, depending on where you're at. In fact it's the only way to get a decent number of food groups.


----------



## mrt2

jobo said:


> Same question as above, are you claiming that poor American can get access to ANY veg, ? Really they can't walk a mile or two and buy some carrots, I find that hard to believe,


No, they really can't.  It really sucks to be poor in the US.  Fresh fruit and vegetables in food deserts are poor quality, and relatively expensive compared to the alternatives.


----------



## jobo

kempodisciple said:


> Rice they have plenty of, depending on where you're at. In fact it's the only way to get a decent number of food groups.


People are are making claims, but no follow up, is it impossible to buy veg, if your a poor amercan, even if it involves a bit of a walk, I have to walk tWo miles to buy mine, That doesn't make where I live a good desert,just h Not t conveniently located


----------



## jobo

mrt2 said:


> No, they really can't.  It really sucks to be poor in the US.  Fresh fruit and vegetables in food deserts are poor quality, and relatively expensive compared to the alternatives.


So they can buy Veg, then,You said they couldn't now, then can but it's expensive, how much would they pay for a pound of carrots? Or a tIn of peArs


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Only option, don't these stores sell vegatables?


Many actually don't, in those areas. That's why they are referred to as food deserts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Same question as above, are you claiming that poor American can get access to ANY veg, ? Really they can't walk a mile or two and buy some carrots, I find that hard to believe,


Here's the issue: in some urban areas, it's not particularly profitable to run a grocery store, so no regular grocery stores show up there. The ones that do, often the produce is significantly more expensive than normal, so no fresh veg. And the stores are small, so often don't stock a wide range, and may have a very limited selection and supply of tinned veggies.

And that may be for a radius of a few miles, in some cases.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> People are are making claims, but no follow up, is it impossible to buy veg, if your a poor amercan, even if it involves a bit of a walk, I have to walk tWo miles to buy mine, That doesn't make where I live a good desert,just h Not t conveniently located


You also have to factor in health. For someone with health problems (more prevalent in poor families, in the US), a couple of miles walk can be more like a 10-mile walk for you and me. And in these areas, it might involve a walk through a very high-crime area (those tend to go along with the food deserts). It's not a single element, but several, that make a food desert a real problem.


----------



## jobo

Here poor people live of processed food, because it convient or they are to lazy to walk a bit further bUy a pound of carrots, peel them and cook them, just open a few tins Out them in the microwave and complain how poor they are.

I can feed myself quite easily for 2pounds a day and good Food is a lot cheaper in the states than it is here


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Here's the issue: in some urban areas, it's not particularly profitable to run a grocery store, so no regular grocery stores show up there. The ones that do, often the produce is significantly more expensive than normal, so no fresh veg. And the stores are small, so often don't stock a wide range, and may have a very limited selection and supply of tinned veggies.
> 
> And that may be for a radius of a few miles, in some cases.


Well yes, but how many miles, accepting they don't own cars in which case the distance makes no differanc e, saying it's a desert because they won't walk anywhere or get a bus once a week is pushing the point some what


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Well yes, but how many miles, accepting they don't own cars in which case the distance makes no differanc e, saying it's a desert because they won't walk anywhere or get a bus once a week is pushing the point some what


See my next reply to you for more on that.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> You also have to factor in health. For someone with health problems (more prevalent in poor families, in the US), a couple of miles walk can be more like a 10-mile walk for you and me. And in these areas, it might involve a walk through a very high-crime area (those tend to go along with the food deserts). It's not a single element, but several, that make a food desert a real problem.


We have a high crime areas here as well, if your saying people eat badly because it's too dangerous to go out, that one thing, same if their house bound through I'll health. The 85 year old lady next door gets here shopping trolley and walks to the supermarket and that's a two miles round trip, I can't accept that all the poor American are incapable of a walk and or a bus ride to a super narket, not all of them


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> We have a high crime areas here as well, if your saying people eat badly because it's too dangerous to go out, that one thing, same if their house bound through I'll health. The 85 year old lady next door gets here shopping trolley and walks to the supermarket and that's a two miles round trip, I can't accept that all the poor American are incapable of a walk and or a bus ride to a super narket, not all of them


It's not an all of anybody thing. It's a matter of how it impacts poorer people. They are more likely to live far from good food. They are more likely to have trouble covering the distance (I live about 3-4 miles from good food, but I can easily get in my car and drive to it and am healthy enough to walk it if needed). They are more likely to live in an area where taking a 2-hour walk (let's say 20 minutes to walk a mile, and slower when carrying bags of groceries) is risky. They are more likely to live in an area where fresh foods are more expensive than crap foods, and least able to afford that difference. (Another factor: they are more likely to work multiple jobs, leaving less time for the travel to those stores.) Put all that together in varying amounts, and it becomes a social issue, rather than a matter of lifestyle choice.


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> The tax is aimed at getting children off what we call fizzy drinks, children who drink a lot of these don't tend to drink fruit juices/tea/milk etc



It's not restricted to just fizzy (carbonated) drinks.

It affects squash and cordials too (and "pure" fruit juice made from concentrate).

So, they legislated to stop or reduce the manufacturers adding sugar - instead they add sucralose and/or aspartame, which while may not contribute as much to obesity are processed chemical sweeteners which leave a nasty aftertaste.

I'd prefer the sugar thanks.

The real problem with UK childhood (and adult actually) obesity isn't sugar, or ready meals (which are getting hammered too with reduced portion sizes and stuff) but levels of activity and over reliance on said products.

When I was a kid I'd regularly get a can of coke and a chocolate bar (bigger than the modern versions I might add) which is what, 4 times the child RDA for sugar? I didn't get fat or have dental issues, nor did any of my friends, because instead of sitting in front of a screen all the time we were out, making treehouses, riding bikes, playing tag...

Sometime (hopefully soon) it'll be realised that you can't legislate against food when the problem lies with idleness.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> It's not an all of anybody thing. It's a matter of how it impacts poorer people. They are more likely to live far from good food. They are more likely to have trouble covering the distance (I live about 3-4 miles from good food, but I can easily get in my car and drive to it and am healthy enough to walk it if needed). They are more likely to live in an area where taking a 2-hour walk (let's say 20 minutes to walk a mile, and slower when carrying bags of groceries) is risky. They are more likely to live in an area where fresh foods are more expensive than crap foods, and least able to afford that difference. (Another factor: they are more likely to work multiple jobs, leaving less time for the travel to those stores.) Put all that together in varying amounts, and it becomes a social issue, rather than a matter of lifestyle choice.



Is the lack of availability really the cause though?

It was said earlier that shops selling fresh produce in these areas aren't profitable, so they don't open - why aren't they profitable? Is it possibly because the local population don't actually want that sort of thing?

There was a TV program a little while ago where a celeb chef wanted to sort out school meals, introducing healthier meals properly cooked instead of heavily processed deep fried or microwave slop.

The kids complained, the parents complained - the parents even went to the lengths of passing McDonald's meals over the school fence to their kids because "they can't be expected to make it through the day eating that green rubbish".

So, said chef visited a few parents - showed them how to cook at home instead of relying on microwave meals and takeaways.

The parents complained about the cost (even when it was within a couple of percent of their existing budget) while stood in front of their 50" TV holding an iPhone whose monthly contract cost could feed a family of 3 for a week...



To put it into perspective - I have a shop and a chinese takeaway within a mile, the shop sells mainly frozen meals, not a huge amount of fresh stuff. The closest place to get "good food" is about 8 miles away.

We manage, and we're hardly wealthy.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> It's not an all of anybody thing. It's a matter of how it impacts poorer people. They are more likely to live far from good food. They are more likely to have trouble covering the distance (I live about 3-4 miles from good food, but I can easily get in my car and drive to it and am healthy enough to walk it if needed). They are more likely to live in an area where taking a 2-hour walk (let's say 20 minutes to walk a mile, and slower when carrying bags of groceries) is risky. They are more likely to live in an area where fresh foods are more expensive than crap foods, and least able to afford that difference. (Another factor: they are more likely to work multiple jobs, leaving less time for the travel to those stores.) Put all that together in varying amounts, and it becomes a social issue, rather than a matter of lifestyle choice.


Well if they can travel to and do multiple jobs then can go shopping, they do have public transport in america, I've been on it. 

It's just excuses, for every one incapable i mean really incapable of finding fresh food in the land of plenty, threRes many more who just don't and do what's easiest,

If there was a demand for fresh food the shops there are would sell it, that's just the American way


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Is the lack of availability really the cause though?
> 
> It was said earlier that shops selling fresh produce in these areas aren't profitable, so they don't open - why aren't they profitable? Is it possibly because the local population don't actually want that sort of thing?
> 
> There was a TV program a little while ago where a celeb chef wanted to sort out school meals, introducing healthier meals properly cooked instead of heavily processed deep fried or microwave slop.
> 
> The kids complained, the parents complained - the parents even went to the lengths of passing McDonald's meals over the school fence to their kids because "they can't be expected to make it through the day eating that green rubbish".
> 
> So, said chef visited a few parents - showed them how to cook at home instead of relying on microwave meals and takeaways.
> 
> The parents complained about the cost (even when it was within a couple of percent of their existing budget) while stood in front of their 50" TV holding an iPhone whose monthly contract cost could feed a family of 3 for a week...
> 
> 
> 
> To put it into perspective - I have a shop and a chinese takeaway within a mile, the shop sells mainly frozen meals, not a huge amount of fresh stuff. The closest place to get "good food" is about 8 miles away.
> 
> We manage, and we're hardly wealthy.


There is a chicken-and-egg problem, of course. Poor people don't have much money, so won't spend much, and if the area is undesirable folks won't wander in to shop there. That makes running a food store (any food store) less profitable. That also make stable goods a better bet in inventory (so no fresh produce).

It's unlikely poor people are any more averse to good nutrition than the general populace. They probably ARE more accustomed to less nutritious food (what they grew up with, based on the same issues), so are more likely to continue to eat it and pass that on to their kids.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Well if they can travel to and do multiple jobs then can go shopping, they do have public transport in america, I've been on it.


It is far from ubiquitous. It exists some places, but sometimes you need a mile or two walk just to get to it. And other places it doesn't exist, at all. In more rural areas, it's likely to be entirely non-existent.



> It's just excuses, for every one incapable i mean really incapable of finding fresh food in the land of plenty, threRes many more who just don't and do what's easiest,
> 
> If there was a demand for fresh food the shops there are would sell it, that's just the American way



Yeah, you're just making excuses, yourself. You don't WANT to understand, so you make excuses. I get it.


----------



## mrt2

This thread has been circling the bowl for awhile.  None of this has anything to do with MA, and the OP seems to have left the building.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> It is far from ubiquitous. It exists some places, but sometimes you need a mile or two walk just to get to it. And other places it doesn't exist, at all. In more rural areas, it's likely to be entirely non-existent.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're just making excuses, yourself. You don't WANT to understand, so you make excuses. I get it.


So you saying that in farming area you can't buy farm food, you could probably steal it though or collect wild stuff


----------



## mrt2

jobo said:


> So you saying that in farming area you can't buy farm food, you could probably steal it though or collect wild stuff


You are either completely clueless or just trolling at this point.  Or maybe a little of both.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> It i
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're just making excuses, yourself. You don't WANT to understand, so you make excuses. I get it.


I understand it perfectly, it's more difficult so they don't do it, there's lot like that here as well, there's kids that have never seen a vegtable, I met a youth who didn't know what a sprout was called,


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> So you saying that in farming area you can't buy farm food, you could probably steal it though or collect wild stuff


Not all rural areas are farm areas. Not the same, at all. I live in a rural area. Not a farm in sight, not for many miles around.


----------



## jobo

mrt2 said:


> You are either completely clueless or just trolling at this point.  Or maybe a little of both.


He said you couldn't get fresh food in rural area, rural areas are generally where they grow fresh food, and have farm shops selling fresh food, I know this as I've seen them


----------



## mrt2

gpseymour said:


> Not all rural areas are farm areas. Not the same, at all. I live in a rural area. Not a farm in sight, not for many miles around.


Not to mention most farms these days are giant agribusinesses.  So no, you can't just go wandering into a field and pick some grain, or steal a chicken.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Not all rural areas are farm areas. Not the same, at all. I live in a rural area. Not a farm in sight, not for many miles around.


So by what definition of rural are we going ? If you mean open countryside with wild things growing then that answers the problem, I bet they could catch rabies as well


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> He said you couldn't get fresh food in rural area, rural areas are generally where they grow fresh food, and have farm shops selling fresh food, I know this as I've seen them


Nope. I said there are rural areas where you can't. There are some without fresh food available within 10 miles. Yep, that's a 10-mile radius. Where I grew up (also rural), you couldn't walk a mile without passing a farm, and probably a farm stand. Other places, that's not at all the case. You saw some, that doesn't mean they are everywhere. I've seen bears - any of those in your neighborhood?


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> So by what definition of rural are we going ? If you mean open countryside with wild things growing then that answers the problem, I bet they could catch rabies as well


So, your solution is that they should be skilled hunter-gatherers? I see what you mean - that's certainly no more time consuming than my trip to the grocery store, and requires no special skills or knowledge, at all. Bunch of lazy bastards, they are.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Nope. I said there are rural areas where you can't. There are some without fresh food available within 10 miles. Yep, that's a 10-mile radius. Where I grew up (also rural), you couldn't walk a mile without passing a farm, and probably a farm stand. Other places, that's not at all the case. You saw some, that doesn't mean they are everywhere. I've seen bears - any of those in your neighborhood?


No but I met a bear in California, there were loads of them and I sign saying don't feed the bears, 

At the moment, you have people who live in cities that can't catch a bus to get food and people who live in the country surrounded by food that for reasons not adequately explained can't find any and this is apparently a wide spread problem that causes them to have to eat processed food


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> So, your solution is that they should be skilled hunter-gatherers? I see what you mean - that's certainly no more time consuming than my trip to the grocery store, and requires no special skills or knowledge, at all. Bunch of lazy bastards, they are.


Skilled ? Find some Nettles and pick them shoulDnt d take to big a chunk out of their day


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

jobo said:


> People are are making claims, but no follow up, is it impossible to buy veg, if your a poor amercan, even if it involves a bit of a walk, I have to walk tWo miles to buy mine, That doesn't make where I live a good desert,just h Not t conveniently located


I'm stating specifically a bodega. In the bodegas in my neighborhood, you're not going to find fruits/vegetables. The most you'll get is rice, and hope theirs other nutritional stuff In the rice (or choose the bodega based on that). I'm not saying anything regarding supermarkets or food deserts, specifically bodegas


----------



## jobo

kempodisciple said:


> I'm stating specifically a bodega. In the bodegas in my neighborhood, you're not going to find fruits/vegetables. The most you'll get is rice, and hope theirs other nutritional stuff In the rice (or choose the bodega based on that). I'm not saying anything regarding supermarkets or food deserts, specifically bodegas


I've no idea what a bodegas is, can't they sell you a tin of fruit, even the petrol station here sell toned fruit


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

jobo said:


> I've no idea what a bodegas is, can't they sell you a tin of fruit, even the petrol station here sell toned fruit


I can't recall ever seeing canned fruit...I'll check on my way home today.


----------



## Tez3

pdg said:


> The real problem with UK childhood (and adult actually) obesity isn't sugar, or ready meals (which are getting hammered too with reduced portion sizes and stuff) but levels of activity and over reliance on said products.



Interesting you disagree with the health professionals as well as the dental profession here.



pdg said:


> The kids complained, the parents complained - the parents even went to the lengths of passing McDonald's meals over the school fence to their kids because "they can't be expected to make it through the day eating that green rubbish".
> 
> So, said chef visited a few parents - showed them how to cook at home instead of relying on microwave meals and takeaways.
> 
> The parents complained about the cost (even when it was within a couple of percent of their existing budget) while stood in front of their 50" TV holding an iPhone whose monthly contract cost could feed a family of 3 for a week...



Not surprising considering what schools they chose, it's like a lot of television, choose the lowest group of people you can and make out like it represents the general population. I don't watch that rubbish.



gpseymour said:


> (what they grew up with, based on the same issues),




Not so true these days, more people than ever are struggling with costs, people who grew up in reasonably affluent homes are now struggling. Families struggle to eat healthily amid rising food bills and shrinking budgets


----------



## Tez3

mrt2 said:


> This thread has been circling the bowl for awhile.  None of this has anything to do with MA, and the OP seems to have left the building.




Oh dear how sad never mind. 

So nutrition has nothing to do with martial arts? Odd thought.


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> Interesting you disagree with the health professionals as well as the dental profession here.



If you can find one single report that clearly states the level of activity of "the average" child is sufficient, I'll reconsider my opinion.

The amount of physical activity in schools (especially primary schools) is shockingly low, something like 30 minutes per week is the mandated minimum, and that's what a lot provide.

That, coupled with parents who allow hours upon hours of screen time (TV, tablet, phone, computer) and won't let kids out (dirty clothes, strangers, tiny modern gardens) and is it really a surprise that kids are fatter now than ever?


Or is it sugar?

If they say it's sugar, I ask them to explain why I'm not fat, and nor are the majority of kids from the 80s and before.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> No but I met a bear in California, there were loads of them and I sign saying don't feed the bears,
> 
> At the moment, you have people who live in cities that can't catch a bus to get food and people who live in the country surrounded by food that for reasons not adequately explained can't find any and this is apparently a wide spread problem that causes them to have to eat processed food


Ah, so you do understand. It is, in fact, widespread, though not ubiquitous. But, no, it doesn't _cause_ them to eat processed food. It just limits their alternatives.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Skilled ? Find some Nettles and pick them shoulDnt d take to big a chunk out of their day


I'm not at all sure what a nettle looks like. I'm also not sure if there's a version that's not edible. I know a few things that are edible in the wild, which are available during some parts of the year. Pretty sure I'd starve trying to make my way in the wild if I didn't have the ability to hunt (tools to hunt with and the physical ability to pursue game), unless I could dedicate a lot of time to it - you know, if I didn't have a job and stuff.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> I'm not at all sure what a nettle looks like. I'm also not sure if there's a version that's not edible.



Really?

Did you not get stung by nettles when you were a kid?

While most nettle varieties are variably poisonous (hence the sting) I don't know of any that are inedible - the european nettle was introduced to the americas for food stock (because there's apparently nothing else to eat there ).

There are a few other plants that bear a passing resemblance that won't do you much good if eaten (but not exactly fatal)..


----------



## Tez3

pdg said:


> If you can find one single report that clearly states the level of activity of "the average" child is sufficient, I'll reconsider my opinion.
> 
> The amount of physical activity in schools (especially primary schools) is shockingly low, something like 30 minutes per week is the mandated minimum, and that's what a lot provide.
> 
> That, coupled with parents who allow hours upon hours of screen time (TV, tablet, phone, computer) and won't let kids out (dirty clothes, strangers, tiny modern gardens) and is it really a surprise that kids are fatter now than ever?
> 
> 
> Or is it sugar?
> 
> If they say it's sugar, I ask them to explain why I'm not fat, and nor are the majority of kids from the 80s and before.







]

You've been reading the Daily Mail again to come up with that many clichés in one post.


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> You've been reading the Daily Mail again to come up with that many clichés in one post.



I haven't read the daily mail since about 1989...


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> Really?
> 
> Did you not get stung by nettles when you were a kid?
> 
> While most nettle varieties are variably poisonous (hence the sting) I don't know of any that are inedible - the european nettle was introduced to the americas for food stock (because there's apparently nothing else to eat there ).
> 
> There are a few other plants that bear a passing resemblance that won't do you much good if eaten (but not exactly fatal)..


The "variably poisonous" (I assume that means indigestion) and "won't do you much good if eaten" means they're not really food - which was my point to Jobo.

I used to know what stinging nettles looked like, but they never really bothered me. I can still identify poison ivy and oak (and maybe sumac), because those things do more than bother me.


----------



## Tez3

pdg said:


> I haven't read the daily mail since about 1989...



That would explain the 1989 views.


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> The "variably poisonous" (I assume that means indigestion) and "won't do you much good if eaten" means they're not really food - which was my point to Jobo.
> 
> I used to know what stinging nettles looked like, but they never really bothered me. I can still identify poison ivy and oak (and maybe sumac), because those things do more than bother me.



There's a possibility of slight indigestion if consumed raw, but the poisonous part I was referring to is stuff like histamine in the 'hairs' which causes the sting - cooking removes and/or neutralises it though.


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> That would explain the 1989 views.



Pfft, I stopped 'reading' it then because it had got far too inclusive and liberal for my tastes...


----------



## pdg

gpseymour said:


> I know a few things that are edible in the wild, which are available during some parts of the year. Pretty sure I'd starve trying to make my way in the wild if I didn't have the ability to hunt (tools to hunt with and the physical ability to pursue game), unless I could dedicate a lot of time to it - you know, if I didn't have a job and stuff



Having done it to varying degrees in the past I know I could survive quite well in the wild and come the zombie apocalypse I think I'd do quite well (as long as I can keep finding people to befriend and subsequently outrun) - and that's without hunting. Let me make a snare or something and I'd be well away.


Doing similar to help feed a family around working a job though? Just impractical whatever way you look at it.


----------



## Tez3

pdg said:


> Pfft, I stopped 'reading' it then because it had got far too inclusive and liberal for my tastes...




I think you need to look up what 'liberal' means,
liberal | Definition of liberal in English by Oxford Dictionaries

For everyone else, the Daily Mail is the paper that supported Hitler and carries on now with blaming immigrants, single mothers, 'foreigners', etc etc for just about everything going on, it also lies like a cheap Hong Kong watch.

There have always been obese children, always.
Most children aren't obese, don't spend hours on electronic gadgets and do actually do a lot of physical activities hence all the sports clubs we have here. yes there are obese children and adults, it's a growing problem _but it's not a new problem._ 
It's very common for certain people to sit tutting at the younger generation as they look back over past years in their rose tinted glasses.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/
Sugar and children's oral health


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> I think you need to look up what 'liberal' means



I know exactly what liberal means - would you like me to look up 'facetious' or 'sarcastic' for you?


(Hint, I also used the word 'inclusive')


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

On a tangent, but I love the opportunity to share both this image, and this article, so taking the tangent.







The 2,500-Year-Old History of Adults Blaming the Younger Generation


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> I'm not at all sure what a nettle looks like. I'm also not sure if there's a version that's not edible. I know a few things that are edible in the wild, which are available during some parts of the year. Pretty sure I'd starve trying to make my way in the wild if I didn't have the ability to hunt (tools to hunt with and the physical ability to pursue game), unless I could dedicate a lot of time to it - you know, if I didn't have a job and stuff.


Nettles are your friend, there so nutritious you can more or less live off just them, that why they are stingy, to stop the animal from eating them to extiction.


----------



## mrt2

kempodisciple said:


> On a tangent, but I love the opportunity to share both this image, and this article, so taking the tangent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2,500-Year-Old History of Adults Blaming the Younger Generation


You forgot radio, and later records destroying the family.  Previously, families sang, played the piano, and other musical instruments together when they wanted music.  With radio, the family sits around passively listening.


----------



## jobo

Tez3 said:


> I think you need to look up what 'liberal' means,
> liberal | Definition of liberal in English by Oxford Dictionaries
> 
> For everyone else, the Daily Mail is the paper that supported Hitler and carries on now with blaming immigrants, single mothers, 'foreigners', etc etc for just about everything going on, it also lies like a cheap Hong Kong watch.
> 
> There have always been obese children, always.
> Most children aren't obese, don't spend hours on electronic gadgets and do actually do a lot of physical activities hence all the sports clubs we have here. yes there are obese children and adults, it's a growing problem _but it's not a new problem._
> It's very common for certain people to sit tutting at the younger generation as they look back over past years in their rose tinted glasses.
> 
> https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/
> Sugar and children's oral health


Well you said one true thing in that diatribe, obesity is definitely a " GrOwing g problem" they keep GroWing wider ​


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Ah, so you do understand. It is, in fact, widespread, though not ubiquitous. But, no, it doesn't _cause_ them to eat processed food. It just limits their alternatives.


Well yes it limits there alternatives to catching a bus to a supper market,


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> There have always been obese children, always.
> Most children aren't obese, don't spend hours on electronic gadgets and do actually do a lot of physical activities hence all the sports clubs we have here. yes there are obese children and adults, it's a growing problem _but it's not a new problem._
> It's very common for certain people to sit tutting at the younger generation as they look back over past years in their rose tinted glasses.



I've just sat and had a bit of a think about this...

At my kid's primary school there aren't any children that I'd consider obese. There are one or two slightly chubby ones, but even those I'd put money on being within the green band on a bmi chart.

The parents are a very similar story - a few a bit bigger, but none (ok, one...) that I've seen that seem to be compromised by their weight.

Go as little as 5 miles to a school a bit more 'urban' and it's an entirely different story.


In complete honesty, I don't remember it being massively different when I was at the same primary school and did things like inter-school competitions.


----------



## jobo

pdg said:


> I've just sat and had a bit of a think about this...
> 
> At my kid's primary school there aren't any children that I'd consider obese. There are one or two slightly chubby ones, but even those I'd put money on being within the green band on a bmi chart.
> 
> The parents are a very similar story - a few a bit bigger, but none (ok, one...) that I've seen that seem to be compromised by their weight.
> 
> Go as little as 5 miles to a school a bit more 'urban' and it's an entirely different story.
> 
> 
> In complete honesty, I don't remember it being massively different when I was at the same primary school and did things like inter-school competitions.


When I was at school, every class had one fat kid, that we called " fatty" you don't we that many more fat kids now, but when you do See a fat kid, it's a pound to a pinch of dirt they have fat parents , ergo, the problem isn't sugar it's bad parents


----------



## pdg

jobo said:


> Well yes it limits there alternatives to catching a bus to a supper market,



I can't speak to the situation in the US, but I can here...

I live in a rural area, surrounded by farmland.

The closest farm shop is twice as far away as the closest supermarket.

To get to the supermarket by bus would require me to take 3 different buses and over an hour each way to go about 8 miles.

I worked it out a couple of years ago, and to go into town by bus once per week (that's just to town, not out to the supermarket) would've cost more than I was paying at the time to run a Land Rover Discovery.

If you're truly on the financial borderline, public transport in rural areas is far from an economic solution.


----------



## mrt2

jobo said:


> When I was at school, every class had one fat kid, that we called " fatty" you don't we that many more fat kids now, but when you do See a fat kid, it's a pound to a pinch of dirt they have fat parents , ergo, the problem isn't sugar it's *bad parents*


Give me a f-cking break.


----------



## jobo

pdg said:


> I can't speak to the situation in the US, but I can here...
> 
> I live in a rural area, surrounded by farmland.
> 
> The closest farm shop is twice as far away as the closest supermarket.
> 
> To get to the supermarket by bus would require me to take 3 different buses and over an hour each way to go about 8 miles.
> 
> I worked it out a couple of years ago, and to go into town by bus once per week (that's just to town, not out to the supermarket) would've cost more than I was paying at the time to run a Land Rover Discovery.
> 
> If you're truly on the financial borderline, public transport in rural areas is far from an economic solution.


Why didn't you just go to town in the disco?

Having Run a disco, I find that hard to believe And you can get a daysaver for the bus, about a Fiver for as many busses as you wish, you can't run a disco for 10 quid a week,It will cost you that in road tax


----------



## pdg

jobo said:


> Why didn't you just go to town in the disco?
> 
> Having Run a disco, I find that hard to believe And you can get a daysaver for the bus, about a Fiver for as many busses as you wish, you can't run a disco for 10 quid a week,It will cost you that in road tax



You can't get those tickets around here...

In fact, you can't (couldn't) even buy a return ticket before 10am.

So, it was like 12 quid to get to town and back - more if I wanted to go out to the supermarket. (Probably could do it for about £9 all in if later in the day, but can you honestly get a week's worth of shopping on a bus anyway when the bus stop is 3/4 mile from home?)

Disco was £180 for tax, £140 for insurance, £30 for MOT and ~£3 in diesel for each trip into town.

£506 per year, or £9.73 per week if used only for one weekly trip to the shops.

Make that a tenner to include maintenance covering 832 miles per year.


----------



## jobo

Well it's half eleven at night here, I'm off to walk a mile to the petrol station to buy a litre of choc chip ice cream to feast on, a fat person would drive there


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Well yes it limits there alternatives to catching a bus to a supper market,


And just when I thought you were starting to grasp the issue. Oh, well, keep trying - you'll get it eventually.


----------



## pdg

pdg said:


> You can't get those tickets around here...
> 
> In fact, you can't (couldn't) even buy a return ticket before 10am.
> 
> So, it was like 12 quid to get to town and back - more if I wanted to go out to the supermarket. (Probably could do it for about £9 all in if later in the day, but can you honestly get a week's worth of shopping on a bus anyway when the bus stop is 3/4 mile from home?)
> 
> Disco was £180 for tax, £140 for insurance, £30 for MOT and ~£3 in diesel for each trip into town.
> 
> £506 per year, or £9.73 per week if used only for one weekly trip to the shops.
> 
> Make that a tenner to include maintenance covering 832 miles per year.



Oh, and double that bus fare if I wanted to take the wife (to make sure I did the shopping properly).

And say we wanted to go twice in a week - that's an extra £3 in the Disco, or another £18 by bus.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> When I was at school, every class had one fat kid, that we called " fatty" you don't we that many more fat kids now, but when you do See a fat kid, it's a pound to a pinch of dirt they have fat parents , ergo, the problem isn't sugar it's bad parents


Because kids and parents don't share any genetic features, at all. Good point.


----------



## jobo

pdg said:


> You can't get those tickets around here...
> 
> In fact, you can't (couldn't) even buy a return ticket before 10am.
> 
> So, it was like 12 quid to get to town and back - more if I wanted to go out to the supermarket. (Probably could do it for about £9 all in if later in the day, but can you honestly get a week's worth of shopping on a bus anyway when the bus stop is 3/4 mile from home?)
> 
> Disco was £180 for tax, £140 for insurance, £30 for MOT and ~£3 in diesel for each trip into town.
> 
> £506 per year, or £9.73 per week if used only for one weekly trip to the shops.
> 
> Make that a tenner to include maintenance covering 832 miles per year.


Of course you can carry a week's shopping, get on of them shopping trolleys or carry it and that's your weight training for the week


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Because kids and parents don't share any genetic features, at all. Good point.


They also share life style choices, chances of fat pAren't r taking kids out for 20 mile bike ride on a suNday, vertUaly l nil as if they were they wouldn't be fat either


----------



## Gerry Seymour

pdg said:


> I can't speak to the situation in the US, but I can here...
> 
> I live in a rural area, surrounded by farmland.
> 
> The closest farm shop is twice as far away as the closest supermarket.
> 
> To get to the supermarket by bus would require me to take 3 different buses and over an hour each way to go about 8 miles.
> 
> I worked it out a couple of years ago, and to go into town by bus once per week (that's just to town, not out to the supermarket) would've cost more than I was paying at the time to run a Land Rover Discovery.
> 
> If you're truly on the financial borderline, public transport in rural areas is far from an economic solution.


In the US, there typically isn't any public transit in rural areas. I've never lived within 2 miles of a bus stop. All but one of my houses was at least 10 miles from the nearest bus stop - probably twice that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> They also share life style choices, chances of fat pAren't r taking kids out for 20 mile bike ride on a suNday, vertUaly l nil as if they were they wouldn't be fat either


Your stated assumption is that it's entirely due to lifestyle choices. That ignores a fair bit of science.


----------



## pdg

jobo said:


> Of course you can carry a week's shopping, get on of them shopping trolleys or carry it and that's your weight training for the week



A week's shopping for a family of 4?

Yeah, alright, if you say so - we go through 4+ pints of milk a day for a start, so that's 16.38kg off the bat right there (conservative estimate of 2.272 litres per day @ 1030g/l).

Go on, please try to best me with logistics and mathematics - I'm up for a giggle.


----------



## jobo

pdg said:


> A week's shopping for a family of 4?
> 
> Yeah, alright, if you say so - we go through 4+ pints of milk a day for a start, so that's 16.38kg off the bat right there (conservative estimate of 2.272 litres per day @ 1030g/l).
> 
> Go on, please try to best me with logistics and mathematics - I'm up for a giggle.


You didn't specify a) a family of 4 or b) that it was a greedy family. Get the kids to meet you at the bus stop and make them carry the milk, that way they may choose not to drink so much


----------



## pdg

jobo said:


> Of course you can carry a week's shopping, get on of them shopping trolleys or carry it and that's your weight training for the week



Oh, also - just our weekly milk consumption would take ~80% of the payload or ~60% of the volume of your average granny trolley.


----------



## pdg

jobo said:


> You didn't specify a) a family of 4 or b) that it was a greedy family. Get the kids to meet you at the bus stop and make them carry the milk, that way they may choose not to drink so much



Yeah, they could put cola on their cereal instead...


Edit: my kids are 9 and 6 - leaving them alone at home while I fanny about shopping for 3 hours isn't the most legal thing I could choose to do.


----------



## pdg

Oh, another also.

Nobody stated not a family of 4.

And with your statements of a litre of ice cream a day, you honestly think you have anywhere to stand to call someone who goes through an average of one pint of milk a day greedy?


----------



## jobo

pdg said:


> Oh, also - just our weekly milk consumption would take ~80% of the payload or ~60% of the volume of your average granny trolley.


BuY powered milk, your just being entitled, if you have no car then you can only eat what you can carry, if you want to carry more get stronger, Stick 50 kg a side in two bags and carry three quarters of a mile, that easy pesey, I can do give it curls at the same time


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Your stated assumption is that it's entirely due to lifestyle choices. That ignores a fair bit of science.


Go to a war zone were there is starvation and see how many fat people you see, that science


----------



## jobo

pdg said:


> Oh, another also.
> 
> Nobody stated not a family of 4.
> 
> And with your statements of a litre of ice cream a day, you honestly think you have anywhere to stand to call someone who goes through an average of one pint of milk a day greedy?


No one stated a family at all, I'm not complaining that I have to walk to get my I'Ce, cream, I've slipped up and bought peanut butter and choc ice cream, I'm going to have to force it down now, I won't enjoy it


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Go to a war zone were there is starvation and see how many fat people you see, that science


There's a difference between starvation and poor nutrition. But then you knew that and were just trolling because you've run out of arguments that sound at all reasonable. Like you do.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> There's a difference between starvation and poor nutrition. But then you knew that and were just trolling because you've run out of arguments that sound at all reasonable. Like you do.


My point was in answer to your that fatness is genetic, rather than life style, if it were so starving people would still be fat, like they are still talL or have hAzel l eyes.

Once we have established, as we have that eating less cures fatness, we can cure fatness the world over by simply sending them to Syria for 6 months or so


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> My point was in answer to your that fatness is genetic, rather than life style, if it were so starving people would still be fat, like they are still talL or have hAzel l eyes


Except that I never said that.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Except that I never said that.


Good so we agree it's not genetic


----------



## Tez3

jobo said:


> And you can get a daysaver for the bus, about a Fiver for as many busses as you wish,





pdg said:


> You can't get those tickets around here...



I also live in a rural area and totally agree, we don't have those tickets either nor do we have the buses. We don't even have a bus to Northallerton where our nearest hospital is (20 miles away), not that they have a children's A&E or maternity ward, that's 30 miles away with no direct buses. A return fare now to another town where you could go shopping is nearly £10... for one.

We also have a Landrover, it's almost like a community vehicle for elderly neighbours, parents who can't drive and need to get to doctor and hospital appointments etc. We all help people with shopping but it's really not as easy as someone thinks, who actually  knows that but is off on one of his trolls again hence the really bad typing which makes me think the bottle (not milk!) may have been emptied a bit.

Drinking milk is good...in the RAF if you are under 18 you are entitled to have a pint of milk extra a day.


----------



## jobo

Tez3 said:


> I also live in a rural area and totally agree, we don't have those tickets either nor do we have the buses. We don't even have a bus to Northallerton where our nearest hospital is (20 miles away), not that they have a children's A&E or maternity ward, that's 30 miles away with no direct buses. A return fare now to another town where you could go shopping is nearly £10... for one.
> 
> We also have a Landrover, it's almost like a community vehicle for elderly neighbours, parents who can't drive and need to get to doctor and hospital appointments etc. We all help people with shopping but it's really not as easy as someone thinks, who actually  knows that but is off on one of his trolls again hence the really bad typing which makes me think the bottle (not milk!) may have been emptied a bit.
> 
> Drinking milk is good...in the RAF if you are under 18 you are entitled to have a pint of milk extra a day.


Well that's just typical of " country folk, people who have deliberately chosen to live a long way " from civilization " endlessly complaining that they live a long way"_from civilization,

Of course the bus journeys are expensive, they charge by distance, You canT really expect door to door seviceIf you live half way up a road to nowhere. these busses are run at a significant losS  that is then subsidised by other services users, that is my bUss use is more expensive to allow you to have access to a bus service at all. That would really expect a level of gratitude to those of us who pay additional money, but Of course that isn't even slightly forth coming, just complaining.

Very few people live less than a Few hours Bus journey to a children's hospital, they are 30,4050miles apart, even here in the heart of a metropolis, Id have to invest a cUpple of hours tI travel to Manchester children's hospital by bus.

As usual people won't help themselves, set up a community shop, if you want access to a shop, a lot of the village shops closed as people were travelling to supper markets to buy food, then the same people complain there is no local shops, unbelievable level of entitlement, move to the city, then you can enjoy the pollution, high crime rate and traffic jams, but at least you have busses and shops


----------



## Tez3

jobo said:


> Well that's just typical of " country folk, people who have deliberately chosen to live a long way " from civilization " endlessly complaining that they live a long way"_from civilization,




I didn't choose to live here actually, we were posted here, houses prices being what they are in the south we could not afford to buy a house down there so were stuck here When we moved here there were regular bus services and a Post Bus which covered areas the buses didn't. Government cuts saw to that. We had local shops, pubs and post offices but were driven out of business by the government's policies on 'saving money' and putting council tax up. It has nothing to do with people travelling to supermarkets which are actually a long drive away, many homes are now holiday lets which means fewer people live in communities, local people can't afford to buy houses here anymore either so move away. Holidaymakers aren't going to help a community shop.

Don't you dare sit there judging anyone, because you clearly haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about, frankly your post is just plain ignorance in all senses of that word ( some of it literally doesn't make sense)

Farmers who live up in the Dales ( you know the ones that provide you with lamb as well as wool for clothes etc and have lived there for generations) are certainly more than an hour from a hospital, in winter even more,* that's why we have the Air Ambulance.
*
it's clear you are a townie who would moan about church bells, the smell of manure on the fields and sheep running on the roads.


----------



## jobo

Tez3 said:


> I didn't choose to live here actually, we were posted here, houses prices being what they are in the south we could not afford to buy a house down there so were stuck here When we moved here there were regular bus services and a Post Bus which covered areas the buses didn't. Government cuts saw to that. We had local shops, pubs and post offices but were driven out of business by the government's policies on 'saving money' and putting council tax up. It has nothing to do with people travelling to supermarkets which are actually a long drive away, many homes are now holiday lets which means fewer people live in communities, local people can't afford to buy houses here anymore either so move away. Holidaymakers aren't going to help a community shop.
> 
> Don't you dare sit there judging anyone, because you clearly haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about, frankly your post is just plain ignorance in all senses of that word ( some of it literally doesn't make sense)
> 
> Farmers who live up in the Dales ( you know the ones that provide you with lamb as well as wool for clothes etc and have lived there for generations) are certainly more than an hour from a hospital, in winter even more,* that's why we have the Air Ambulance.
> *
> it's clear you are a townie who would moan about church bells, the smell of manure on the fields and sheep running on the roads.


Move to civilization, or sit there and moan that seems to be your options, it's seems you've bought a cheap house in the middle of nowhere and not thought it through. People who want to be bE near a hospital should really try and live near a hospital

You can't really claim there's lots of people stuck in the middle of nowhere and in the same context Statethere no demand for a community shop, it has to be one of the other


----------



## Tez3

jobo said:


> Move to civilization, or sit there and moan that seems to be your options, it's seems you've bought a cheap house in the middle of nowhere and not thought it through. People who want to be bE near a hospital should really try and live near a hospital
> 
> You can't really claim there's lots of people stuck in the middle of nowhere and in the same context Statethere no demand for a community shop, it has to be one of the other




Silly boy still trolling. Only you would keep arguing and trying to insult people without realised how much you are embarrassing themselves.
go away and do something constructive like playing on the M62.

PS I don't own a house btw.


----------



## jobo

Tez3 said:


> Silly boy still trolling. Only you would keep arguing and trying to insult people without realised how much you are embarrassing themselves.
> go away and do something constructive like playing on the M62.
> 
> PS I don't own a house btw.


 I can't get a bus Direct from here to the m62 and it's miles away, so that would be three busses and 10 quid, much the same problem as your having


----------



## Tez3

jobo said:


> I can't get a bus Direct from here to the m62 and it's miles away, so that would be three busses and 10 quid, much the same problem as your having




Your fault for living there then or just your fault for living really.


----------



## jobo

Tez3 said:


> Your fault for living there then or just your fault for living really.


Well not really as I have no desire to visit the m62, on the other hand it's 10 mins to the hospital, I included that in my cAlculations,when selecting a property, that what most people do.

I did at one point get a fair way through buying a property up in the  Yorkshire moors, before thinking, this is lunacy, what if I want to buy bread or need a & e etal, it's  Three miles to a bus stop,


----------



## Tez3

jobo said:


> Well not really as I have no desire to visit the m62, on the other hand it's 10 mins to the hospital, I included that in my cAlculations,when selecting a property, that what most people do.
> 
> I did at one point get a fair way through buying a property up in the  Yorkshire moors, before thinking, this is lunacy, what if I want to buy bread or need a & e etal, it's  Three miles to a bus stop,




The Yorkshire Moors are over 70 miles away from where I live, which is a blessing if you'd thought of living there. Perhaps Saddleworth is more your style.


----------



## jobo

Tez3 said:


> The Yorkshire Moors are over 70 miles away from where I live, which is a blessing if you'd thought of living there. Perhaps Saddleworth is more your style.


That's really a very nasty thing to say and we'll well above the sort of response my posts warrent. 
I'm have to put you on ignore now, which is not something a do lightly


----------



## Tez3

jobo said:


> That's really a very nasty thing to say and we'll well above the sort of response my posts warrent.
> I'm have to put you on ignore now, which is not something a do lightly




What an idiot, I have a friend who lives on Saddleworth, I mentioned it because it's in bloody *Lancashire* not Yorkshire.  ( Wars of the Roses thing) Talk about jumping to conclusions still it shows the way your mind works.


----------



## Tez3

Seeing as the dear boy has put me on ignore I guess that means he concedes Yorkshire is better than Lancashire and has gone off in a miff.

Yorkshire V Lancashire: 34 reasons God's own county wins


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> Seeing as the dear boy has put me on ignore I guess that means he concedes Yorkshire is better than Lancashire and has gone off in a miff.
> 
> Yorkshire V Lancashire: 34 reasons God's own county wins



That's just silly.

Everyone knows they're all fighting over second place behind the one true shire.


----------



## Tez3

pdg said:


> That's just silly.
> 
> Everyone knows they're all fighting over second place behind the one true shire.




Aye, Cornwall!


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Good so we agree it's not genetic


Nope.


----------



## Tez3

gpseymour said:


> Nope.




The answer is Lancashire, it makes him put you on ignore.


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> Aye, Cornwall!



If Cornwall/Lancashire/Yorkshire was so great they would've put Stonehenge there


----------



## Tez3

pdg said:


> If Cornwall/Lancashire/Yorkshire was so great they would've put Stonehenge there



They have henges in Cornwall! I used to parachute over Stonehenge ( and ride a horse around it) in the days when you could just wander up to it and it was free to look at. Used to be stationed up the road at RAF Upavon, spent 3 great years there. Wiltshire is one of the places we couldn't afford to move to.


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> They have henges in Cornwall! I used to parachute over Stonehenge ( and ride a horse around it) in the days when you could just wander up to it and it was free to look at. Used to be stationed up the road at RAF Upavon, spent 3 great years there. Wiltshire is one of the places we couldn't afford to move to.



Been a few years since it was called RAF Upavon 

Drove past it on Monday between jobs as it happens...

And yes, it's not a cheap place for housing around here - apparently it's because we're ideally situated in the commuter belt for London (yeah, if you don't mind a 3+ hour each way commute...)


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Nope.


Well you need to stop sitting on the fence and state a firm position so I can tell why your wrong( again)


----------



## Tez3

pdg said:


> Been a few years since it was called RAF Upavon




Certainly has, an awful shame because the army ruins everything. it's Trenchard Lines now but at least the Trenchard bit gives it an RAF memory.
Seeing as we are well off topic I might as well go a little further lol. RAF Upavon was a First World War airfield started in 1912, the first military flying school.  In 1917 it was a air fighting school' a new concept then. It was also where they invented bomb sights. It is a place of ghosts, not ones who died there but of history. Likewise Larkhill, now a big army camp but before Upavon was built was the first military airfield and where much of the pioneering work was done to set up military aviation. Two hangars from 1910 still exist there as well as memorials to pilots killed in flying accidents and in war. 

Yes I'm an RAF enthusiast! RAF Upavon is rightly thought of as the birthplace of the RAF which of course is 100 years old this year. 

Now if anyone wants to know more please pm lol, taken up enough room here but it's more interesting that the OP who resorted to insults on the last thread he did about starving himself.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Well you need to stop sitting on the fence and state a firm position so I can tell why your wrong( again)


Your strawmen are the problem. I never said it was entirely genetic, nor that genetics weren't a factor. No fence-sitting needed - just a basic understanding of facts.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> Well something from an authoritative source saying xXxX is damaging to your health in the dosage included in these frys, not crank web sites and health scare report headline





Steve said:


> okay . I will see what I can dig up .


First, the disclaimer.  I'm not a nutritionist or a scientist.  I have to trust what seem to be credible sources for information, and I asked my daughter who is studying bio-chemistry and knows some stuff (but is also not an expert).

Dimethylpolysiloxane is not good for you.  I'm pretty well convinced.  According to drugs.com, (Dimethylpolysiloxane (Inactive Ingredient) - Drugs.com), "is a silicon-based polymer used as a lubricant and conditioning agent. It functions as an anti-foaming agent, skin conditioning agent, occlusive and skin protectant. It is found in many cosmetic and hygiene products like nail polish, conditioners, make-up, contact lens solutions, sunscreens, deodorants, and shampoo. Examples of products that contain dimethicone include Aveeno Moisturizing Lotion and Johnson's Baby Cream."  

According to several sources, it breaks down into formaldehyde, which is a known carcinogen. 

TBHQ:  tert-Butylhydroquinone (*TBHQ*, tertiary butylhydroquinone) is an aromatic organic compound which is a type of phenol. It is a derivative of hydroquinone, substituted with a tert-butyl group.  There is evidence that TBHQ causes cancer, and some folks seem to think it can exacerbate ADHD symptoms.  Jury seems to be out on this one.  This is an interesting discussion:  TBHQ (Mixed feelings)
​Hydrogenated soybean oil - so, it appears that this is bad for you, but not as bad as partially hydrogenated oils.  I invite you to go down the google rabbit hole, if you want.  But the conclusion I came to is that this is essentially linked to high LDL cholestoral, obesity and heart problems, but not as bad as when they used transfats.


----------



## Steve

jobo said:


> It was you that said you were over weight, unless you have some metabolism issues, that's a life style choice you've made, just cause there availablE food doesn't mean you have to eat it, and what infrastructure do you need to ride a bike? You don't even need a road
> 
> You seem to be one of those blame society people, they have fast food restraunts and no cycle lanes, it's theIr fault iM fat.


For what it's worth, I think there is shared blame.  While we all know that some foods are bad for us, it's not always clear HOW bad things are.  For example, I was BLOWN AWAY when I read the nutritional information for some Starbucks drinks.  Also, foods are often marketed as being healthy alternatives, but are really as bad, or sometimes even worse, for your health.

In the USA, there are also clear links between income and diet.  Here is one example.  http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/123315/2/liu - current.pdf


----------



## Steve

Tez3 said:


> It was introduced because children were drinking soft drinks with too much sugar in, if the parents don't take any notice then someone has to stop the kids teeth rotting and getting diabetes ( and before Americans start shouting nanny state, remember kids get free dental care here paid for by the rest of us, which is fine until the parents are costing us a fortune as well as diabetes costing the country millions every year). the money made from this tax is going back into children's health with emphasis on healthy eating and more physical exercise.
> _"There are nine teaspoons of sugar in a 330ml can of cola, instantly taking children above their recommended maximum for the day. A five year old should have no more than 19g of sugar in a day, but a typical can of cola can have 35g. Public health experts from the Chief Medical Officer to the British Heart Foundation agree that sugar-sweetened soft drinks are a major source of sugar for children and teenagers, and that sugar intake drives obesity."
> _
> Soft Drinks Industry Levy: 12 things you should know


nanny state!!!

Just kidding.  I wish we had universal health care, and it's stupid that we don't.


----------



## jobo

Steve said:


> For what it's worth, I think there is shared blame.  While we all know that some foods are bad for us, it's not always clear HOW bad things are.  For example, I was BLOWN AWAY when I read the nutritional information for some Starbucks drinks.  Also, foods are often marketed as being healthy alternatives, but are really as bad, or sometimes even worse, for your health.
> 
> In the USA, there are also clear links between income and diet.  Here is one example.  http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/123315/2/liu - current.pdf[/QUOTEs that, but I think there is an income decided on most countries, haven't had lobster Theodore for ages





Steve said:


> For what it's worth, I think there is shared blame.  While we all know that some foods are bad for us, it's not always clear HOW bad things are.  For example, I was BLOWN AWAY when I read the nutritional information for some Starbucks drinks.  Also, foods are often marketed as being healthy alternatives, but are really as bad, or sometimes even worse, for your health.
> 
> In the USA, there are also clear links between income and diet.  Here is one example.  http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/123315/2/liu - current.pdf


Well income effects diet, I haven't had lobster th Theodore for ages.

But it's a slightly more complex issue than , not enough money, in the uk at least, is considerably cheaper to buy and consume fresh wholesome foods than it is to live of processed food, I mean massively so, organic food is more expensive, but still considerably Less expensive than living off take aways, which is what a lot of " poor"  people do.

So there has to be a faR bigger issue than disposable income.

As I said above I can easily live of 2 pounds a day and eat fresh meat, vegs,and bread. Cerial and lots of miOk , milk is ridiculous cheap,

Perhaps the issue is One of education and motivation, a lack of which is quite possibly as major factor in them being poor in the first place, it's almost as if a whole generation forgot how to prepare and cook meals?, if they can't Bang it in the microwave for 5 mins they don't eat it


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Well income effects diet, I haven't had lobster th Theodore for ages.
> 
> But it's a slightly more complex issue than , not enough money, in the uk at least, is considerably cheaper to buy and consume fresh wholesome foods than it is to live of processed food, I mean massively so, organic food is more expensive, but still considerably Less expensive than living off take aways, which is what a lot of " poor"  people do.
> 
> So there has to be a faR bigger issue than disposable income.
> 
> As I said above I can easily live of 2 pounds a day and eat fresh meat, vegs,and bread. Cerial and lots of miOk , milk is ridiculous cheap,
> 
> Perhaps the issue is One of education and motivation, a lack of which is quite possibly as major factor in them being poor in the first place, it's almost as if a whole generation forgot how to prepare and cook meals?, if they can't Bang it in the microwave for 5 mins they don't eat it


You’re contrasting fresh foods with take-away. That’s not the issue. No, most poor people aren’t living off take-away. They don’t have the money for that.


----------



## jobo

jobo said:


> Well income effects diet, I haven't had lobster th Theodore for ages.
> 
> But it's a slightly more complex issue than , not enough money, in the uk at least, is considerably cheaper to buy and consume fresh wholesome foods than it is to live of processed food, I mean massively so, organic food is more expensive, but still considerably Less expensive than living off take aways, which is what a lot of " poor"  people do.
> 
> So there has to be a faR bigger issue than disposable income.
> 
> As I said above I can easily live of 2 pounds a day and eat fresh meat, vegs,and bread. Cerial and lots of miOk , milk is ridiculous cheap,
> 
> Perhaps the issue is One of education and motivation, a lack of which is quite possibly as major factor in them being poor in the first place, it's almost as if a whole generation forgot how to prepare and cook meals?, if they can't Bang it in the microwave for 5 mins they don't eat it


In fact it's considerably cheaper to feed my dog on fresh chicken And brown rice, than dog food, I can buy 6kg of Chicken for 10 Quid and enough rice o last last 6 months for 2quid


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> You’re contrasting fresh foods with take-away. That’s not the issue. No, most poor people aren’t living off take-away. They don’t have the money for that.


Well yes they are here, poor people with kids Arntt poor by any normal use of the word, with social security And tax credits,.The bill for a MacDonald for a family of four , would feed the same family for a week,,,, if you are fat enough they will give you a free car

But anyway, that comparison was between organic food and takexaways, fresh food is much cheaper than processed packages food And that's an indisputable fact


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> In fact it's considerably cheaper to feed my dog on fresh chicken And brown rice, than dog food, I can buy 6kg of Chicken for 10 Quid and enough rice o last last 6 months for 2quid


Even buying decent dog food, that’s not the case here. A 30-lb bag of decent dog food is about $1 a lb. and feeds longer than $30 of chicken and rice.


----------



## Tez3

Yep let's blame the poor shall we. A very Tory opinion.

Our government is pushing austerity and austerity is what we are getting, cuts in everything.

_"3. The problems of the poor 
 Poverty is not a problem of the behaviour of poor people – although poor people do act differently because they are poor. It is not because poor people have too many children. It is not the result of racial differences. 
 The government believes there is a large hard core of persistently poor people, that poverty is long term and that it is passed from generation to generation. This is not consistent with the evidence. People move through dependency, and most poverty is temporary. Poor people do not stay in poverty indefinitely" _https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/catalystaugust2002.pdf

_"The majority of those struggling and living in poverty are in work; they are not avoiding healthy food because they prefer junk; they are not avoiding broccoli because they’re too stupid to cook it. This problem has very little to do with a fabled “working-class mentality”. Poor people are not obese because they are lazy, or simply because they eat too much (although some do), rather because the price of good wholesome food is beyond their financial reach._

_Weekly, I have to feed six to seven people three meals a day. I do it on about £50 a week, sometimes £65, sometimes less than £30. It all depends what I have left in the bank after I have paid everything I need to pay."
" Our meals are simple, often plain, but they fill us up. They are, in the main, healthy, but I can’t pretend vegetables don’t cost more to put on the plate. There are many times they get left off entirely; they are an addition – a luxury item – we have to forgo if we are going to eat at all."
"The only thing stopping me from cooking wonderful meals packed full of vegetables and healthy things is cost. I can cook, so can all of my children. I can’t afford to cook as I wish to do. It’s a big difference, and one we need to address, rather than assuming the “poor” occupy another planet. We live in the same world and we don’t think in a different gear, but we do face an unsettling reality of not having a spare 60p to buy a cabbage – an addition to a plate which, while good for us, will not fill a stomach like potatoes or rice.
Value brands are the order of the day – not fast food (have you seen the price of a pizza or a kebab? I can’t afford that!) – but things that cost little in energy usage, and can be cooked in an oven in 25 minutes. Stuff I know will be eaten. Risk-free food I know won’t end up in the bin. When I have just £2 in my pocket, it’s not the time to experiment and find out whether my 13-year-old would appreciate a quinoa-and-aubergine bake."_

_I can’t afford to take risks with food, because there is literally nothing else to offer if the new food is disliked. Children in poverty aren’t fighting obesity because of a lack of willpower (although it can be a factor, just as it is with those who are middle class), but because the only foods their families can afford are often filled with bad things._

_Good food, and being able to afford to cook it, is the domain of the wealthy. To say families should cook chickpea stews or slow-cook over a long period, which will cost more, is patronising in the extreme. It discounts the very real factors that prevent healthy diets. From energy costs to a lack of cooking facilities, from education to simple risks that cannot be taken, there’s more at play than the poor not having the same logic as the perceived middle class._

_It’s not a class problem. It’s a financial problem. We all want the best for our children. We just need to be able to afford to put the building blocks in place._
Jamie Oliver is right, for poor people putting food on the table trumps diet | Kathleen Kerridge


"Perhaps one of the reasons the British public is willing to ignore such dizzying poverty in the UK is the widespread belief that the poor are doing just fine. There’s the _Shameless_ impression of people on benefits as having massive families, smoking, drinking and doing nothing to find work. It’s an image fed by TV programmes such as _On Benefits, Benefits Street _and _Breadline Brummies_."
A study published last year by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation showed that more than 1.2m people, including 312,000 children, could have been considered destitute in the previous year.

The organisation defined such destitution as being unable to afford the essentials such as buying food, staying warm and dry, and keeping clean. "
Benefit sanctions are increasing hunger and depression

Exposing benefit ‘myths’ | Poverty and Social Exclusion

However a poster who goes  in a miff because I suggested somewhere in Lancashire would suit him better than somewhere in Yorkshire ( he lives in Lancashire) and puts me on ignore telling me I'm a horrible person, isn't going to be persuaded by facts.


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> Well yes they are here, poor people with kids Arntt poor by any normal use of the word, with social security And tax credits,. if you are fat enough they will give you a free car
> 
> But anyway, that comparison was between organic food and takexaways, fresh food is much cheaper than processed packages food


Cheap beef is cheaper than good beef, and generally much fattier. Start from that. Not all fresh food is the same. You WANT it all to be about bad choices. You can’t just ignore fact to make that true. I mean, you will, but it still won’t be true.


----------



## Tez3

jobo said:


> Well yes they are here, poor people with kids Arntt poor by any normal use of the word, with social security And tax credits,. if you are fat enough they will give you a free car




Bollocks, typical Tory talk.

Tax credits have been cut, most poor people aren't on benefits and no one gives you a free car. Stop believing the Daily Mail and Piers Morgan and Niggle Farage, it's just plain lies.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Cheap beef is cheaper than good beef, and generally much fattier. Start from that. Not all fresh food is the same. You WANT it all to be about bad choices. You can’t just ignore fact to make that true. I mean, you will, but it still won’t be true.


But fat is An important dietary requirement, as above I can by 6kg of nice lean chicken breasts for 10 quid, that's nearly 15pound of whole some protein packed meat.

The debate is that fresh food is cheaper than processed food, not that some fresh food is better than other fresh food, you can buy poor cuts of beef and,stew it ,


----------



## Gerry Seymour

jobo said:


> But fat is An important dietary requirement, as above I can by 6kg of nice lean chicken breasts for 10 quid, that's nearly 15pound of whole some protein packed meat.
> 
> The debate is that fresh food is cheaper than processed food, not that some fresh food is better than other fresh food, you can buy poor cuts of beef and,stew it ,


You need fat. You need less than a lot. But you know that - you pretend not to, pretend I was saying any fat is bad, because otherwise you’d have to make some sort of sense. And that’s the thing you just won’t do when you are wrong.


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> Even buying decent dog food, that’s not the case here. A 30-lb bag of decent dog food is about $1 a lb. and feeds longer than $30 of chicken and rice.


My dog won't eat dry dog food and nether would you if you've been fed on fresh roast chicken, a Large tin of branded f dog food cost 2quid, I can feed him for Less than 50p on chicken and rice


----------



## jobo

gpseymour said:


> You need fat. You need less than a lot. But you know that - you pretend not to, pretend I was saying any fat is bad, because otherwise you’d have to make some sort of sense. And that’s the thing you just won’t do when you are wrong.


You tell me off for making unjustifiable statement, A quarter to a third of your calories intake should come ro m fat, that's ether a lot oR not much dependent on the measure your using, what measure are you using ?


----------



## Tez3

jobo said:


> for 10 quid,



Ten pound! that's a bloody fortune for many. It may be a lot of chicken but many cannot afford to pay that.  Ridiculous, just like ignoring me for living in Yorkshire. 
The real reason rich people make healthier choices than poor people?


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> Bollocks, typical Tory talk.
> 
> Tax credits have been cut, most poor people aren't on benefits and no one gives you a free car. Stop believing the Daily Mail and Piers Morgan and Niggle Farage, it's just plain lies.



Well, it is bollocks, yet at the same time it's not...

It's certainly not a black and white situation, I'll give it that much.

Here's some actual facts from my personal experience, no reference to political inclinations or media induced prejudices:

When we moved back from France we stayed with parents, and went to the council to see about getting housing - we walked in, said we'd like to go on the list and were told it was currently looking like maybe an 8 year wait...

Then, the lady asked where we were moving from - we truthfully answered "France".

"Oh, would you like an interpreter?(!)"

Under a week later we were in temporary accommodation (comprising of a 2 bed semi) and less than 6 months later had a "permanent" house.

Did I complain about how it's so unfair that we were only treated differently because the computer said "immigrant" based on our last location? Did I heck as like, I'm not (quite) that stupid 



So, at that time I also found myself jobless... If it were just me I would've muddled by and carried on staying with parents, but wife and small child meant going to sign on.

A short time into that I had to do a "better off in work" assessment interview, where they tried to convince me I'd be in a better financial position in work over being on benefits.

The result came back (based on an advertised job 40 miles away for £9/hr, which at the time was well over minimum wage) and it said I'd be over £200 per month WORSE off in work. And that figure didn't take into account any travel expenses for that 80 miles per day.

So, it's true that the poorest people aren't on benefits, they're working...



As for the free car - well that does happen. Sometimes free, sometimes heavily subsidised. It's called the motability scheme.

It's really designed for helping the disabled, but getting fat enough to have difficulty walking does count, especially if you have further related health complications.

One of my customers is in that exact position, got exceedingly fat, got a free car.

In fairness to her, her fatness isn't the result of being lazy or stupid - it's a side effect of the steroids and other medication she takes following a severe illness. She hates it, but genuinely can't do anything to combat it except die...



The big problem is that so many abuse these systems, and these are the ones that make the media, reinforcing the stereotypes...

Like a previous neighbour of ours, every benifits/chav/scum stereotype fitted her like a glove...


----------



## Tez3

pdg said:


> One of my customers is in that exact position, got exceedingly fat, got a free car.
> 
> In fairness to her, her fatness isn't the result of being lazy or stupid - it's a side effect of the steroids and other medication she takes following a severe illness. She hates it, but genuinely can't do anything to combat it except die..


She didn't get fat deliberately just to get a car though which jobo insinuated.



pdg said:


> The big problem is that so many abuse these systems, and these are the ones that make the media, reinforcing the stereotypes...




Not nearly as many as people think, another misconception.
How many benefit cheats are there? Here’s the real fraud | Katharine Sacks-Jones
"Nevertheless, previous research shows that the public perception of fraud is 34 times higher than the reality. It’s an emotive subject. Nobody likes to think of their taxes going to fraudsters. It outrages our sense of fair play and our deep sense of who deserves what and why."

If you've moved from France you aren't 'an immigrant' as such though you were an expat, we hold reciprocal agreements with other EU countries to allow benefits, housing etc. to be given to EU citizens. Notably more Brits are on benefits in Europe than EU citizens on benefits here.


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> Not nearly as many as people think, another misconception.



It's not a misconception on my part.

There are "less than people think", but as I alluded to, people think there are more because the cheats are the ones who make the news and get featured on TV.

The ones you never hear about (the majority) are the ones who have genuine reasons and just get on with it.

Like immigrants - the very vast majority are just normal people making a life - but those aren't newsworthy so get ignored, but tarred with the same "evil immigrant" brush.



Tez3 said:


> If you've moved from France you aren't 'an immigrant' as such though you were an expat, we hold reciprocal agreements with other EU countries to allow benefits, housing etc. to be given to EU citizens. Notably more Brits are on benefits in Europe than EU citizens on benefits here



Computer said immigrant...

The council person made it quite clear that had we not left the UK for a period and then come back, our chances of housing within a sensible time frame were essentially nil.


----------



## jobo

pdg said:


> Well, it is bollocks, yet at the same time it's not...
> 
> It's certainly not a black and white situation, I'll give it that much.
> 
> Here's some actual facts from my personal experience, no reference to political inclinations or media induced prejudices:
> 
> When we moved back from France we stayed with parents, and went to the council to see about getting housing - we walked in, said we'd like to go on the list and were told it was currently looking like maybe an 8 year wait...
> 
> Then, the lady asked where we were moving from - we truthfully answered "France".
> 
> "Oh, would you like an interpreter?(!)"
> 
> Under a week later we were in temporary accommodation (comprising of a 2 bed semi) and less than 6 months later had a "permanent" house.
> 
> Did I complain about how it's so unfair that we were only treated differently because the computer said "immigrant" based on our last location? Did I heck as like, I'm not (quite) that stupid
> 
> 
> 
> So, at that time I also found myself jobless... If it were just me I would've muddled by and carried on staying with parents, but wife and small child meant going to sign on.
> 
> A short time into that I had to do a "better off in work" assessment interview, where they tried to convince me I'd be in a better financial position in work over being on benefits.
> 
> The result came back (based on an advertised job 40 miles away for £9/hr, which at the time was well over minimum wage) and it said I'd be over £200 per month WORSE off in work. And that figure didn't take into account any travel expenses for that 80 miles per day.
> 
> So, it's true that the poorest people aren't on benefits, they're working...
> 
> 
> 
> As for the free car - well that does happen. Sometimes free, sometimes heavily subsidised. It's called the motability scheme.
> 
> It's really designed for helping the disabled, but getting fat enough to have difficulty walking does count, especially if you have further related health complications.
> 
> One of my customers is in that exact position, got exceedingly fat, got a free car.
> 
> In fairness to her, her fatness isn't the result of being lazy or stupid - it's a side effect of the steroids and other medication she takes following a severe illness. She hates it, but genuinely can't do anything to combat it except die...
> 
> 
> 
> The big problem is that so many abuse these systems, and these are the ones that make the media, reinforcing the stereotypes...
> 
> Like a previous neighbour of ours, every benifits/chav/scum stereotype fitted her like a glove...


Yes that's a pretty fair appraisal, my fat friend, was trying to get a gastric band on the nhs, but at 35 BMI,she wasn't fat enough, so she goes a way for three months And eats like horse, well a horse that lives on ChrisPs and biscuits and Indian take aways, till She is so fat she can't move, gets the operation AND as a bonus, gets disability and a free( heavily subsidised) car. couldNt make it up and she a university lecturer, so hardly poor and uneducated


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> She didn't get fat deliberately just to get a car though which jobo insinuated.



No, she didn't - and I genuinely feel sympathy for her.

While I don't know of anybody who fits that particular criteria (get fat to get a car) there are certainly lots of people who do things to fit through loopholes.

For example, the 18 year old girl on the work programme (part of JSA terms) who had a fixed plan - get pregnant, get a flat, get benefits. That was her career map.


----------



## Tez3

pdg said:


> because the cheats are the ones who make the news and get featured on TV.




That's because they've been caught and under the Proceeds of Crime Act, the money is recovered.



pdg said:


> For example, the 18 year old girl on the work programme (part of JSA terms) who had a fixed plan - get pregnant, get a flat, get benefits. That was her career map.




She and others may think that's cheating but the only person who has been cheated is herself, it's very sad.




pdg said:


> While I don't know of anybody who fits that particular criteria (get fat to get a car) there are certainly lots of people who do things to fit through loopholes.



Not sure you're the one who should be pointing that out! On the other hand how many wealthy people are jumping through rings so they don't have to pay income tax?


----------



## Dirty Dog

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

This thread is starting to turn political. If this continues, the thread will be locked. Take political debates to THIS forum instead. They don't belong here.


----------



## pdg

Tez3 said:


> She and others may think that's cheating but the only person who has been cheated is herself, it's very sad.



I agree, but she saw it as preferential to getting a job.

When asked what she'd do when she wanted to go out for the night - "oh, I can just leave it with my mum"...



Tez3 said:


> Not sure you're the one who should be pointing that out! On the other hand how many wealthy people are jumping through rings so they don't have to pay income tax?



Ah, but I didn't leave the country for that reason. We had no intention of moving back, but the situation demanded otherwise.

I might not fully agree with how the system is set up, but to reject it on moral grounds would've been shooting myself (and my wife and child) in the foot - the ends justify the means to a certain extent. Can anybody really say they've never done something they didn't like in order to achieve a better outcome?


As for the tax thing, not as many as the news make out... A few high profile cases, a few more that go along with morally dubious (but perfectly legal) methods to reduce their bill.

To be honest, looking at the tax rates and the reasons they were introduced, I'd be up for a legal avoidance (not evasion) scheme if I was in that situation too.


----------



## pdg

Dirty Dog said:


> ATTENTION ALL USERS:
> 
> This thread is starting to turn political. If this continues, the thread will be locked. Take political debates to THIS forum instead. They don't belong here.



I have no problem with being told to cease and desist with regard to a line of discussion, but...

Pointless link is pointless.

The UK (which is the focus of debate) is a sub sub section of that forum, down the page, under "global", further under "Europe" (and being under Europe is a whole political argument in itself).

Basically, it appears to be opinionated Americans moaning about Brits and offends my delicate nationalistic sensibilities.


----------



## Tez3

Actually it's not a political argument, it's a general discussion on how people become too poor to eat properly we are having as it doesn't involve politics but rather about those who no fault of their own are left impoverished. There's actually no politics in what we were discussing nor was there likely to be,we _are_ English after all.

You have to remember political discussion in the UK is a very different animal from those in the USA.


----------



## Tez3

pdg said:


> Basically, it appears to be opinionated Americans moaning about Brits and offends my delicate nationalistic sensibilities.




You should have seen the comments that used to be on MT before 'politics' was banned.


----------



## Dirty Dog

Thread locked pending staff review.


----------

