UK government may start offering financial rewards for becoming healthier

[grams]

I presume that's what happened. Too many litter complaints, manager promises to bung the council some bins to make the problem go away.

Sometimes done as a condition of planning permission.

Though they'd really need to provide bins in every layby and litterpickers in every verge for miles around to solve it.

[Lightning Phil]

I watched one of the many health programs a few years back. You know, the ones that are always shown in Jan / Feb and on around 8pm.

They were talking about how addictive sugar and fat are. There was some experiment where rats were fed items with either high fat content or high sugar content.  Some rats became addicted to the sugar and put on weight. Some became addicted to fat and put on weight.  But there were a number of rats that were addicted to neither and their weight stayed fairly steady.  Then they added some further combinations  for them high in both fat and sugar. Different proportions of fat and sugar. All the rats became addicted even the ones previously immune. They all gained weight.

At the end they said that the proportion of fat to sugar at which they all became addicted is pretty much what you find in many fast foods.

Our biology hasn’t changed , our genes haven’t changed in any significant way since the 50,60,70s etc.  It just that the opportunities to eat are far greater, the messages to eat are pervasive, and food we eat has been made far more addictive.  Combine with other societal changes in the same period and it’s not hard to see how we ended up where we are.  We even had America to look at and learn from at a decade or more back.  To see what was coming.

[Cudzoziemiec]

That we've made eating in a car seem desirable is a big symptom of the skewedness of our lives.

[Lightning Phil]

It’s a bit like climate change. That was seen way back in the 70s but ignored.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I think having the US to point to acts as a false security rather than a warning. "We're nowhere near as bad as them."

[Lightning Phil]

I think having the US to point to acts as a false security rather than a warning. "We're nowhere near as bad as them."

We weren’t, but we are now.

[ian]

Not yet. Americans are enormous. We'll need to work at catching them up. Bring on the 32-ounce soda and bottomless cheese-and-bacon fries.

[giropaul]

It would be interesting to see just what “ healthier” looks like.
It’s easy to say people with a high BMI aren’t healthy, but neither are those with very low BMIs
Exercise is good - well yes, but only up to a point. A worrying number of ex-athletes I know have health issues resulting from their sports careers. Of the ex- big hitter cyclists I know, about 30% have heart issues, typically arrhythmia or atrial fibrillation.

[Lightning Phil]

Life time risk for developing AF for adults 40 years and older is calculated as 25% according to this study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15313941/.  So the people you know fall pretty much around the norm.  What it does show is that exercise doesn’t necessarily protect you from AF later in life. But it’s known will protect you against a number of other conditions.

[hellymedic]

I watched one of the many health programs a few years back. You know, the ones that are always shown in Jan / Feb and on around 8pm.

They were talking about how addictive sugar and fat are. There was some experiment where rats were fed items with either high fat content or high sugar content.  Some rats became addicted to the sugar and put on weight. Some became addicted to fat and put on weight.  But there were a number of rats that were addicted to neither and their weight stayed fairly steady.  Then they added some further combinations  for them high in both fat and sugar. Different proportions of fat and sugar. All the rats became addicted even the ones previously immune. They all gained weight.
At the end they said that the proportion of fat to sugar at which they all became addicted is pretty much what you find in many fast foods.
Our biology hasn’t changed , our genes haven’t changed in any significant way since the 50,60,70s etc.  It just that the opportunities to eat are far greater, the messages to eat are pervasive, and food we eat has been made far more addictive.  Combine with other societal changes in the same period and it’s not hard to see how we ended up where we are.  We even had America to look at and learn from at a decade or more back.  To see what was coming.

So CAIK, chocolate and biscuits are seductive, fattening and addictive.
Who knew?

I LOVE these things but mostly eat TINY portions, after I've had the TIME, space, money and fuel to cook good stuff from scratch.

As I posted to a medic on Twitter: the Mars bar of desperation is not the meal you'd eat at home.

[Lightning Phil]

Indeed.

What I’ll eat on a garage forecourt at 3am during an audax bears no resemblance to my day to day diet.

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

Not yet. Americans are enormous. We'll need to work at catching them up. Bring on the 32-ounce soda and bottomless cheese-and-bacon fries.

Went on a cruise ship to Alaska with most of the passengers from the USA.  When I landed back in the UK, people here looked so thin and fit by comparison and I had to stop eating for a fortnight thanks to the cruise ship diet.  Also met some real die-hard Trump supporters, an experience not to be missed or indeed repeated.

 

[ian]

After several years in the US, I found 60% of myself to be surplus to requirements. That last 5kg of pure waffle and maple syrup was the hardest 5 kg.

[Davef]

It’s a bit like climate change. That was seen way back in the 70s but ignored.

Back in the 70s the worry was the destruction of the ozone layer and a new ice age all brought on by CFCs. In the eighties it moved on to acid rain. “Global warming” had the wrong PR people - had it been branded “climate megadeath” it might have got earlier traction.

[Lightning Phil]

It’s a bit like climate change. That was seen way back in the 70s but ignored.

Back in the 70s the worry was the destruction of the ozone layer and a new ice age all brought on by CFCs. In the eighties it moved on to acid rain. “Global warming” had the wrong PR people - had it been branded “climate megadeath” it might have got earlier traction.

Even in the 70s it was called the green house effect. The obvious allusion to warming was known and stated then.

[Polar Bear]

Global warming was the nomenclature chosen by the anti climate change brigade.  It sounds nice when you live somewhere colder or even temperate that you might getting hot summers and not freeze your bits off over winter.  They still use it.

It never got the press simply because it's not a right wing favourite.  Knowing as they did back then what damage burning dinosuar bones was doing wasn't going to make billionaires out of russians or yanks let alone arabs and aussies.  They spent massive amounts on the negative publicity campaigns and still do even today as well as taking every opportunity to tell blatant lies such as spouted by the Governor of Texas and his recent energy problems.

It's like nobody advertises how good fruit and vegetables are for you but you'll get any number of adverts telling you just how wonderful the sugar and salt laden processed shite is that makes the avaricious ever richer. 

[Davef]

I watched one of the many health programs a few years back. You know, the ones that are always shown in Jan / Feb and on around 8pm.

They were talking about how addictive sugar and fat are. There was some experiment where rats were fed items with either high fat content or high sugar content.  Some rats became addicted to the sugar and put on weight. Some became addicted to fat and put on weight.  But there were a number of rats that were addicted to neither and their weight stayed fairly steady.  Then they added some further combinations  for them high in both fat and sugar. Different proportions of fat and sugar. All the rats became addicted even the ones previously immune. They all gained weight.
At the end they said that the proportion of fat to sugar at which they all became addicted is pretty much what you find in many fast foods.
Our biology hasn’t changed , our genes haven’t changed in any significant way since the 50,60,70s etc.  It just that the opportunities to eat are far greater, the messages to eat are pervasive, and food we eat has been made far more addictive.  Combine with other societal changes in the same period and it’s not hard to see how we ended up where we are.  We even had America to look at and learn from at a decade or more back.  To see what was coming.

So CAIK, chocolate and biscuits are seductive, fattening and addictive.
Who knew?

I LOVE these things but mostly eat TINY portions, after I've had the TIME, space, money and fuel to cook good stuff from scratch.

As I posted to a medic on Twitter: the Mars bar of desperation is not the meal you'd eat at home.

I remember this, or certainly a similar experiment, to do with satiety rather than addiction. We have natural instincts to eat - hunger, food tastes good etc, but we also need an off switch to stop eating in case a predator comes round the corner and you can’t waddle away fast enough. This works well for fats and for sugar separately. With a spoon and a tub of butter or bag of sugar, most people won’t get very far. Mix them together and then satiety mechanism appears to be foxed - ice cream, Mars bars, cake and you can just keep going much longer. With the rats, presented with fat or sugar they ate their fill and went for a nap. With the mix (which doesn’t occur naturally) they just kept on eating, some to the “just one more wafer thin mint” moment. Perhaps the answer is to mandate some of the new appetite suppressant drugs to be added to the ready meal recipes.

[Gattopardo]

After several years in the US, I found 60% of myself to be surplus to requirements. That last 5kg of pure waffle and maple syrup was the hardest 5 kg.

In the US I remember eating the whole day.  Woke up, no work went to the diner with a book and a note pad.  I ate all day. 

[Cudzoziemiec]

Bring back mealtimes. Seriously. I think the "little and often" movement, sold as healthy, was just a Big Food ploy to get us to eat non-stop, legitimising snacks. Just like "hydration" was used to sell us expensive water in plastic bottles.

[Kim]

It’s a bit like climate change. That was seen way back in the 70s but ignored.

Back in the 70s the worry was the destruction of the ozone layer and a new ice age all brought on by CFCs. In the eighties it moved on to acid rain. “Global warming” had the wrong PR people - had it been branded “climate megadeath” it might have got earlier traction.

Even in the 70s it was called the green house effect. The obvious allusion to warming was known and stated then.

Yes, the effect of atmospheric CO2 was well-understood over a hundred years ago.  There was something of a panic in the early 70s about solar dimming bringing about an ice age.  It's a staple of 70s science fiction, and was pointed at for some time afterwards to discredit climate science.

CFCs destroying the ozone layer is unrelated.  Indeed, it's one of the few significant environmental success stories.  Mostly because it could be achieved by regulation of a few key industries, and because alternatives to CFCs make very little difference in our daily lives^[1].  Unless your daily life involves fire fighting or designing refrigeration systems, I suppose.

I don't know what happened to acid rain.  Well, we stopped burning as much coal, and reduced the amount of sulphur dioxide in vehicle exhausts for the benefit of people's lungs, which presumably reduced it to levels that are only of concern to ecologists and those with an interest in historic buildings.


_{[1] I now have to use a spacer so the CFC-free propellant of my preventer inhaler doesn't make me cough.}

[hellymedic]

Bring back mealtimes. Seriously. I think the "little and often" movement, sold as healthy, was just a Big Food ploy to get us to eat non-stop, legitimising snacks. Just like "hydration" was used to sell us expensive water in plastic bottles.

Meal times are good.
Prepare food, serve, eat, (socialise?) FINISH, PUT FOOD AWAY, do other things.

Constant snacking on high-energy stuffs is unhealthy and these stuffs frequently contain the lethally seductive mix of starch, sugar and fat...

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

Today I found I'd lost a kilo.  That has to be worth at least two pounds.

[Davef]

It’s a bit like climate change. That was seen way back in the 70s but ignored.

Back in the 70s the worry was the destruction of the ozone layer and a new ice age all brought on by CFCs. In the eighties it moved on to acid rain. “Global warming” had the wrong PR people - had it been branded “climate megadeath” it might have got earlier traction.

Even in the 70s it was called the green house effect. The obvious allusion to warming was known and stated then.

Yes, the effect of atmospheric CO2 was well-understood over a hundred years ago.  There was something of a panic in the early 70s about solar dimming bringing about an ice age.  It's a staple of 70s science fiction, and was pointed at for some time afterwards to discredit climate science.

CFCs destroying the ozone layer is unrelated.  Indeed, it's one of the few significant environmental success stories.  Mostly because it could be achieved by regulation of a few key industries, and because alternatives to CFCs make very little difference in our daily lives^[1].  Unless your daily life involves fire fighting or designing refrigeration systems, I suppose.

I don't know what happened to acid rain.  Well, we stopped burning as much coal, and reduced the amount of sulphur dioxide in vehicle exhausts for the benefit of people's lungs, which presumably reduced it to levels that are only of concern to ecologists and those with an interest in historic buildings.


_{[1] I now have to use a spacer so the CFC-free propellant of my preventer inhaler doesn't make me cough.}

Oh the other thing I remember is the panic that we were going to run out of fossil fuels and so in the future cars might have to be electric.  Ironic really.

The global cooling I learnt about in 1977 was due to pollutants (I thought CFCs but it was a long time ago) increasing the albedo effect. That word I remember because I got it wrong and called it the libido effect.

We also learnt about the greenhouse effect which keeps the earth habitable and had something to do with it being much warmer when the dinosaurs were around. What I don’t recall from school or reading new scientist in the 1980s was any mention of man made global warming. It was obviously happening but neither mainstream media nor popular seemed engaged.

Edit: googling I have found this https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12016350-100-the-greenhouse-effect/ - that is from October 1988 so I would not have seen it as my subscription stopped in June 1988 when I graduated.

[SteveC]

I think one of the other unknowns back in the '70s was the anthropogenic effect. All the models seemed to indicate we were 'due' an ice age.
But farming, starting 10,000 years ago, caused the CO₂ levels to rise, admittedly not my much, but enough to make a difference.
The mini ice age, with frost fairs on the Thames and so on was probably also anthropogenic as a lot of the Americas was reforested when the Europeans introduced things like measles and small pox to the Americans with catastrophic results.

[Flite]

We knew when I was at uni in the 1960s that overpopulation by humans was going to wreck the planet, but no politician dare say so, let alone try to do anything about it. Even David Attenborough has only started to mention it in recent years.
Instead of tackling the problems we have made on this world, we are wasting huge resources dumping our junk on other planets.