Benefits and Bypasses.

And exactly what I said - they need help.

At least the poor obese won't be costing the NHS extra for dementia according to the latest report - so not all bad then!

What about the rich obese? Does the report mention them?
Otherwise it is stereotyping a section of society.

The mind boggles!

What if someone crashes their car whilst breaking the speed limit? Would we deny them ambulance and emergency treatment and just leave them there?

Having said that, I do see where the OP is coming from.

What did your two pears weigh, Greenfinch ? My Lidl has fun-sized pears for 69p a kilo - the label is "Oaklands for Kids".

Fruit in season is far cheaper than manufactured snacks, you just have to avoid what has been flown in at vast expense out of season.

We were not fat as children, but we ate well. It takes knowledge of what is good food, and how to cook it, and the ability to resist advertising and peer pressure.

To me both sides of the 'arguement' are raising valid points.

One side of the 'debate' is IMHO raising a serious question , should the NHS and the funding of the NHS/ Welfare payments continue Ad infinitum to those who are categorically NOT going to alter their lifestyle and expect continuing funding and care at an enormous cost to the tax payer who funds their lifestyle and taking valuable NHS care provision from others because of it. e.g what is the cost in money terms, welfare and NHS care if you don't stop smoking knowing you are going to have 'another' leg amputated or you are so obese you will be in receipt of Disability and other Welfare payments for life, continued care requirement from the NHS or you are an alcoholic , drug addict.

The other side of the 'debate' is to raise valid points re compassion and fair play, the fact there are many things we do that areare equally self inflicted but are deemed to be in a different type of category but none the less are self inflicted and therefore cannot be viewed differently. A fair point to raise, e.g nobody told you to climb the mountain that broke your back when you fell, nobody told you to play rugby that broke your neck, nobody told you to play hockey where you broke your arm. Yet they are self inflicted injuries that once again require funding from the tax payer for NHS care and in the worst degree Ad infinitum Welfare payments, so should these cases be classed as different?

For me I think there is a difference in a person on an hour by hour, daily basis committing themself to self destruction as opposed to somebody engaging in sport and having an accident.( I might not agree with myself on mountain climbing, potholing etc)
The irony is one group of people are killing themselves with full understanding of what they are doing, the other is trying to use sport as a measure to 'keep fit'. . Addiction is a terrible condition but some do take responsibility and turn their life around but they are those who will refuse help and even see it 'as their right' to demand care, which of course they obtain.

The NHS/Welfare costs are enormous to the tax payer but sadly the cost to those who took part, willingly, in the program are nothing by comparison. They all accepted they were at fault, they accepted their responsibility for their actions and all accepted they knew they were doing untold damage to their life, but apart from the woman with alcahol induced liver failure and the man who had the gastric band none of them were prepared to alter their lifestyle so it is fair to ask this:-

' At what point if an adult is not prepared to take responsibility for their lifestyle does it become nothing more than the state facilitating their self destruction , is that the right use of tax payer funding through the NHS/Welfare systems?

We are a compassionate country, we understand the difficulty of addiction, we will never turn away those who need help with care so I don't see things will ever change but if I am to be honest there are times when you have to give rise to the thought that compassion can also be a dangerous thing when it gives those in the most need permission to self destruct and we as a society are tantamount to aiding and abetting them.

It doesn't say rich or poor, roseq.

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/why-being-overweight-means-you-live-longer-the-way-scientists-twist-the-facts-10158229.html

You could add on from that, and say that a privatised health service will in fact help a minority of people to drastically improve their lifestyles.
It wont be good for most of the rest of the general population.

I was adding on from POGS post.

Elegran I guess my pears were not the most economical although they had loads of flesh on them and were virtually a meal in themselves. I can't remember the price per kilo but the one I have left weighs 300gr.so I guess the total weight was around 600gr.

At a rough sum, that is about £2 a kilo, greenfinch so they are luxury fruit compared to the little ones at 69p a kilo.

My point is that there are a lot of fruits and vegetables which are NOT expensive.

And my point is that if you are on a tight budget it is still cheaper to buy bread ,economy biscuits,crisps and cheap cake to fill your family up than it is to give them fruit and vegetables not to mention meat.
I think we will have to agree to disagree.

And I still disagree! You seem to be assuming that no one on a tight budget ever does any actual cooking, Greenfinch!

I do know a lot of people who don't I'm afraid. I'm thinking mainly of younger people but not all of course. And I would like to see more practical cookery lessons brought back into schools at both the junior and senior levels. I think this might help.

www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/30/child-poverty-link-malnutrition-rickets

Thanks soontobe. This is exactly what I was trying to say. A very good article!

The article says nothing we haven't been hearing for years, and it doesn't attempt to address the problem of how to educate people about healthy eating. No one is 'forced' to buy high-fat, high-sugar foods, in most cases it's just easier than cooking nutritious meals from scratch.

There are many reasons for people being unable or unwilling to cook nutritious meals from scratch eg lack of time or even the knowledge to do it..

Of course no one is "forced" into buying high fat, high sugar foods - if they were, they wouldn't want them. Any parent knows that. People are initially drawn in by the manipulative practices of the food industry which uses highly effective marketing/branding techniques to convince consumers of their products' desirability. In addition, they incorporate into their products ingredients that they are well aware have addictive qualities.

And, yes, it is easier to get a take away or buy a convenience meal rather than cook a nutritious meal from scratch. There are plenty of people working long hours in low paid jobs who are probably pretty knackered by the end of the day and yet they still have to do washing, ironning, cleaning, food preparation, while at the same time trying to give some time to their children and partners.

It's so easy to criticise other people's lifestyles and yet I wonder which amongst us can say that their own diet and exercise regime is absolutely examplary. Anyway, is it automatically the case that if people faithfully follow the recommendations re diet and exercise that they will be the picture of health, or is it sometimes just the luck of the draw?

I do believe that it is better if people understand the need for a good diet and regular exercise and try to follow the guidelines, but the santimonious tone of some of the posters on here makes me want to go and eat a doughnut.

Dear God, how perfect some are . People give up , they have so little self esteem , they sink into a form of depression, if they are on benefits they are attacked daily, they are not the hard working British families the government keep on and on about, they are the lazy benefit cheats the Daily Mail and Sun attack , they don't live in Lilac Avenue or Cherry Tree Close, many are the child victims of the thatcher years , their children don't go to a free school , have violin lessons, the mothers don't belong to book reading groups, they are treated as the under class by the government , and certaintly by some here.

If I lived their lives I would reach for a bag of chips or packet of biscuits before a bloody pear .

These people cry, love, fear, dream, laugh, feel pain too, what they don't have is hope

That is one of the best posts I have read on gransnet Anniebach.

But they are also people who had home economics lessons at school where they learnt not just cookery but about nutrition too
I do fail to see what MT has to do with it, my friend was a home ec. teacher during the MT years and there were at least 3 at my DC's school - another person I know was unable to get a job as a home ec. teacher there because she had not had sufficient training in nutrition etc having been a 'domestic science teacher' before having her family).

I never had a cookery lesson in my life but we don't live on takeaways and junk food. However my diet and exercise regime are not exemplary.

It is more complex than lack of time.

Violin lessons are free in school, at least they are in Wales and they were in England when my DC were young.
I can hear one now.

It is more complex than lack of time and lack of education I should have said.

It is pushy big business and a giving in to pressure from a plethora of fast food outlets, in fact all kinds of reasons. If some posters state people eat junk food because they are on benefits and could be depressed, then that is not due to lack of time, if due to depression then it is a catch 22 situation because junk food will not help, although it may be comforting.
I expect many will remember the schools trying to introduce healthier lunches and the mothers who went to the chippie at lunchtime to push chips, battered sausages, deep fried junk food, through the railings because their children didn't want to eat that healthy muck! And the woman who was giving her little girls a big bar of Dairy milk each day because it was packed full of milk - and ' they need milk don't they'.

With all the education in school and all the government campaigns to eat 5 a day etc etc you wonder why the message is not getting across.

Thank you soontobe , it really distresses me to constantly see one section of our society criticised , in America these people are dismissed as trailer trash , we don't do that here, we just sniff and point out their laziness and condemn them

Rosequartz , Thatcher had much to do with it , she taught a generation to become dependant on benefits and children learn from their parents do they not . You just don't get it, that violin lessons are free has nothing to do with it, this country is and always has been obsessed by class .

anniebach I tried to point out too that it is not just 'the poor on benefits' who are obese, but some posters seem intent on isolating them as a group prone to obesity. There must be far more 'people on benefits' who eat sensibly.
I know people who are on a reasonable income who are obese because they just eat and drink far too much of the 'good things in life'.