Obesity: Fat People Could Face Benefit Cuts

[Minibits]

SKY NEWS>>>>>>>>>>

 

"Obese people could face cuts to their benefits if they do not attend exercise sessions, under new plans being outlined by a local council.

Westminster City council has published a report looking at how councils can link benefit payments to claimants' lifestyles.

It describes how some local authorities have begun allowing GPs to prescribe leisure activities like swimming and fitness classes.

It is hoped that by using technology such as smart cards, the use of leisure facilities can be monitored leading to housing and council benefit payouts being cut for those not attempting to lose weight.

The document, written with the think-tank the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU), states: "Where an exercise package is prescribed to a resident, housing and council tax benefit payments could be varied to reward or incentivise residents."

Obesity costs the NHS £5.1bn a year and the number of Britons who are overweight is expected to increase by 10% over the next decade.

In recent years the responsibility for tackling public health has moved back to local government, despite many councils experiencing funding cuts.

Councillor Philippa Roe, Leader of Westminster City Council, said: "Councils have a great opportunity to improve lives by thinking how public health can be integrated into existing local services, this can lead to savings being shared across the entire public sector.

"This report contains exactly the sort of bright, forward-thinking and radical ideas that need to be looked at.""

 

The last line says it all. It's about time that Godwin's Law was repealed.

Even Hitler didn't dream this one up!

[dpick]

This is similar to my local council they used to allow Disabled people to use gym's for 18 weeks free of charge, problem was when the 18 weeks were up most disabled people that were not able to work were unable to pay for the gym membership.

 

I used this and was starting to become more supple and I believe in the long run would have improved my health, but I could not meet the cost of the gym membership after the end of the 18 week period. I think that with someone younger than myself that a continued use of the gym may have helped them to get back into work thus reducing the amount of benefits paid out.

 

dpick

[Nystagmite]

In theory, it's a good idea. But some of us don't have gyms nearby. That's assuming we can get up, get dressed, etc. in the first place.

[Surfer01]

What about those whose medication makes them over weight no matter what they eat. I am 26kgs over weight was exercise is painful and having to take steroids daily does not help either.

[bcham]

how much overweight do you have to be to be obese.

[Minibits]

how much overweight do you have to be to be obese.

 

I've got no idea, but the thought of Eric Pickles turning up at my door with a weighing scales under his arm, has already put me off my food.

[osdset]

how much overweight do you have to be to be obese.

 

A Body Mass Index of 30 or over.

BMI calculator here: http://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/Healthyweightcalculator.aspx

[Nystagmite]

BMI is a load of rubbish. I am slightly overweight apparently, according to it. I don't look fat at all.

[osdset]

BMI is a load of rubbish. I am slightly overweight apparently, according to it. I don't look fat at all.

 

It's not just about fat retention, some people are naturally heavy boned, or unusually muscular and will score a higher BMI, it's intended as a rule of thumb not a definitive diagnosis.

[estellyn]

Firstly, exercise has not been shown to be terribly effective for weight loss. Secondly, the idea of causing someone to become homeless if they refuse to use a gym is ridiculous. I'd like to know who else is going to penalised for their perceived faults? They can follow through on this idea as soon as MP's wages are docked if they don't follow health advice - so no excessive drinking, no smoking, no dangerous sports, mandatory fitness regimes.

 

What you mean this is only going to apply to the poor - what a surprise.

 

A massive human rights violation. But if MP's are prepared to lead the way.....

 

And a last point, I'm so disgusted about the way obese people are treated. And this would have them treated worse than a criminal, just for the crime of wearing their 'sin' on the outside. Go into a shopping centre and look around you at the people - there are theives, child abusers, wife beaters, addicts, psycopaths, rascists, drunk drivers, dangerous drivers, aldulterers, people with sti's who don't use protection.....I could go on and on, but you can't tell which of the people in shopping centre have which 'sin' - only the obese people, a nice easy, visible target, who actually cost the NHS (and the state) less over a lifetime as they die earlier.

[Nystagmite]

I think that education would be a better option - such as classes on how to cook healthy meals on a budget, etc.

[estellyn]

I think that education would be a better option - such as classes on how to cook healthy meals on a budget, etc.

 

Well, yes, food is the key - eating real natural food and learning to cook food from scratch and avoiding all the processed crap that's sold nowadays. Even bread has sugar added (as do plenty of so called diet foods). The best thing people can do is to cut out anything with sugar, sweeteners, grains, fruit juices and processed fats (ie margerine - butter is far better).

[antone]

And a last point, I'm so disgusted about the way obese people are treated. And this would have them treated worse than a criminal, just for the crime of wearing their 'sin' on the outside. Go into a shopping centre and look around you at the people - there are theives, child abusers, wife beaters, addicts, psycopaths, rascists, drunk drivers, dangerous drivers, aldulterers, people with sti's who don't use protection.....I could go on and on, but you can't tell which of the people in shopping centre have which 'sin' - only the obese people, a nice easy, visible target, who actually cost the NHS (and the state) less over a lifetime as they die earlier.

 

I wear my "sin" on the outside too - I'm a smoker. About 10 years ago, I remember saying, just as the anti-smoking hysteria was revving up, that overweight nonsmokers should watch themselves because they would be next. I was scoffed at.

[firstclassx]

I don't know why the government doesn't just charge people for any NHS treatment relating to their weight, where it is caused by their own lifestyle/diet choices. If they are on benefits, they should get it deducted from them until paid off. If in employment, should be deducted through PAYE until paid off.

 

Same for people on illicit/illegal substances, tobacco, drink etc.

 

I don't see why taxes should be spent treating someone (whether on benefits or otherwise), who likes to gorge on McNuggets and cheap lager. If they want to lead an unhealthy lifestyle, that's fine, their choice, but they need to cough up when it goes wrong.

 

Same for these teens out every weekend who spend the night in A+E after having their stomach pumped. Should be billed for it, whether in work or not.

[antone]

I don't know why the government doesn't just charge people for any NHS treatment relating to their weight, where it is caused by their own lifestyle/diet choices. If they are on benefits, they should get it deducted from them until paid off. If in employment, should be deducted through PAYE until paid off.

 

Same for people on illicit/illegal substances, tobacco, drink etc.

 

I don't see why taxes should be spent treating someone (whether on benefits or otherwise), who likes to gorge on McNuggets and cheap lager. If they want to lead an unhealthy lifestyle, that's fine, their choice, but they need to cough up when it goes wrong.

 

Same for these teens out every weekend who spend the night in A+E after having their stomach pumped. Should be billed for it, whether in work or not.

 

This is going to go well.

[estellyn]

I don't know why the government doesn't just charge people for any NHS treatment relating to their weight, where it is caused by their own lifestyle/diet choices. If they are on benefits, they should get it deducted from them until paid off. If in employment, should be deducted through PAYE until paid off.

 

Same for people on illicit/illegal substances, tobacco, drink etc.

 

I don't see why taxes should be spent treating someone (whether on benefits or otherwise), who likes to gorge on McNuggets and cheap lager. If they want to lead an unhealthy lifestyle, that's fine, their choice, but they need to cough up when it goes wrong.

 

Same for these teens out every weekend who spend the night in A+E after having their stomach pumped. Should be billed for it, whether in work or not.

 

What about people who are obese for other reasons than gorging on food? There are many medical conditions that lead to weight gain. Also diets don't work 95% of the time. What about the fact that over a lifetime, the obese and smokers cost the NHS less than a healthy person - they die early and don't need treatment when older, they also don't use much of their state pension or post retirement benefits. Curing obesity and smokers today, would cost the NHS and welfare state millions in the long term. So are you saying the elderly should pay for their excessive healthcare costs, which are greater than obese or smokers? Their lifestyle choices have led them to live longer and cost the NHS more.

[Surfer01]

Maybe councils should read this before stating every one needs to go to a gym.

London - There is welcome news for anyone who’s resolved to get fit in the New Year. Scientists claim we don’t have to spend hours every week slogging in the gym or jogging around a park in all weathers, along with the other January resolution makers. Instead, they advocate a pioneering new quick fitness regime that makes remarkable claims: just a few 30-second bursts of intense exercise, amounting to only three minutes a week, could deliver the health and weight-loss benefits of hours of lengthy, conventional regimes.

This may revolutionise our ability to stick to New Year fitness resolutions, which only one in five of us manage to keep for more than a few weeks. A study in the Journal of Clinical Psychology found the main reason we break resolutions is that our plans are over-ambitious: we set the bar too high in a hopelessly optimistic burst of post-Christmas enthusiasm. But this new exercise regime lowers that bar significantly. Scientists at the universities of Nottingham, Birmingham and Bath say the secret is to commit yourself to three short bursts of highly intense exercise for 30 seconds each, with short rest periods between, in less than five minutes.

They claim early results are ground-breaking and may lead to conventional medical textbooks on exercise being torn up. Instead of sweating for hours, scientists say we should hurl ourselves around on an exercise bike or rowing machine — or even just run rapidly up and down the stairs at home. After half a minute of wild exertion, we can collapse red-faced for 60 seconds, then do it all again. Three bouts like that means your exercise requirement for that session is sorted.

Late last year, the scientific team behind this regime launched a large-scale trial involving 300 volunteers to fully test their system. It could be just the tonic for couch-potato Britain. For despite constant nagging from government and health professionals, the vast majority of us still don’t follow the official NHS advice to do at least 30 minutes of brisk exercise five times a week, plus two sessions of muscle-strengthening exercise such as weight-training, push-ups or heavy gardening.

More than 60 percent of men and 70 percent of women admit that they don’t manage that. Lack of time is our most common excuse. As a result, millions of Britons suffer early death and unnecessary disability due to lifestyle illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease. But the answer for many could be quick and simple. The ongoing study is led by leading exercise expert Jamie Timmons, a professor of systems biology. The team call their system High Intensity Impact Training (HIIT).

So far, their tests on hundreds of unfit middle-aged volunteers in Britain and Canada over the past eight years have shown those three minutes of exercise a week deliver the same significant health improvements as can be achieved through hours in the gym or on the running track. But scientists do not yet entirely understand why the short-burst exercise regime so profoundly boosts volunteers’ stamina and the fitness of their lungs, heart and blood vessels. “The truthful answer is we do not fully understand this,” says Professor Timmons. “But a growing body of independent research shows this is the case and that the textbook explanation of the science of exercise requires revision.”

As for weight loss, the results from conventional long hours of exercise regimes often prove disappointing. Typically, exercisers get themselves into trouble by eating more than they do normally because strenuous gym sessions leave them ravenous. Brief, high-intensity exercise does not stimulate appetite as much, because it demands far less energy expenditure, so participants in the trial don’t suffer the same cravings. What’s more, it appears to do something even more beneficial, according to Professor Timmons.

“We have found that people feel their appetites are suppressed,” he says. “We should have the final evidence for this next year.”

The regime should also raise people’s metabolic rates after they stop exercising, as it builds muscle — and this tissue makes metabolisms run faster. In turn, this stimulates the breakdown of fat and burns calories. Timmons’ team also speculates that high-intensity training uses far more muscle tissue than aerobic exercise.

They say: “Cycling really vigorously uses not just the leg muscles, but also the upper body including arms and shoulders, so 80 percent of the body’s muscle cells can be activated, compared to 20 to 40 percent for walking or moderate intensity jogging or cycling.” It will be about two years, though, before the British scientists publish their full findings as part of a Europe-wide study. In the meantime, they point out: ‘You don’t need a scientific explanation to enjoy the benefits.’

The team’s theories about short-burst exercise are increasingly supported by other research. Australian scientists last June found sprint training for 60 minutes a week is as effective in burning male body fat as jogging for seven hours per week. The study, led by Steve Boutcher at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, recruited 50 overweight men for short, high-intensity cycle sprints. They had to sprint for eight seconds on an exercise bike followed by 12 seconds’ recovery in a training cycle lasting 20 minutes and repeated three times a week over 12 weeks. Boutcher reported in the Journal OfObesity that by the end, the volunteers, who were in their 20s, lost on average 4lb of abdominal fat and increased their muscle mass. Importantly, they had also reduced fat around their liver, kidneys and other internal organs by 17 percent.

This is the fat most strongly linked with an increased risk for cardio- vascular disease. “Other studies using aerobic exercise have found the amount of exercise needed to produce a similar decrease in visceral fat was about seven hoursper week for 14 weeks,” says Professor Boutcher. He believes he has found a crucial clue as to why high-intensity regimes may work. Rapid bursts of muscle movement appear to flood the blood with hormones called catecholamines.

These break down fat stores in the body, and burn them up as energy. By comparison, conventional moderate exercise such as cycling for 40 minutes does not raise the blood-levels of catecholamines much at all. And the professor has discovered another trick for raising levels of these catecholamine hormones in the blood: drink green tea after high-intensity exercise. “The tea stops the hormones from being degraded, so they keep burning fat for longer,” he says.

Tests on women have found fat-loss increases significantly if they drink the tea after exercising. Three minutes of exercise and a cup of tea to follow? Has there ever been such an appealing New Year exercise regime?

1. Warm up for a couple of minutes, picking up your exercise to a moderate pace, making sure you stretch your muscles.

2. Monitoring your time, exercise at 80 or 90 percent of flat-out for 30 seconds without stopping. This will make you breathless.

3. Rest for up to a minute.

4. Repeat three times.

5. Carry out the routine at least twice a week.

* IF YOU have a history of cardiovascular problems, consult your GP before embarking on a new exercise programme.

[estellyn]

Maybe councils should read this before stating every one needs to go to a gym.

London - There is welcome news for anyone who’s resolved to get fit in the New Year. Scientists claim we don’t have to spend hours every week slogging in the gym or jogging around a park in all weathers, along with the other January resolution makers. Instead, they advocate a pioneering new quick fitness regime that makes remarkable claims: just a few 30-second bursts of intense exercise, amounting to only three minutes a week, could deliver the health and weight-loss benefits of hours of lengthy, conventional regimes.

This may revolutionise our ability to stick to New Year fitness resolutions, which only one in five of us manage to keep for more than a few weeks. A study in the Journal of Clinical Psychology found the main reason we break resolutions is that our plans are over-ambitious: we set the bar too high in a hopelessly optimistic burst of post-Christmas enthusiasm. But this new exercise regime lowers that bar significantly. Scientists at the universities of Nottingham, Birmingham and Bath say the secret is to commit yourself to three short bursts of highly intense exercise for 30 seconds each, with short rest periods between, in less than five minutes.

They claim early results are ground-breaking and may lead to conventional medical textbooks on exercise being torn up. Instead of sweating for hours, scientists say we should hurl ourselves around on an exercise bike or rowing machine — or even just run rapidly up and down the stairs at home. After half a minute of wild exertion, we can collapse red-faced for 60 seconds, then do it all again. Three bouts like that means your exercise requirement for that session is sorted.

Late last year, the scientific team behind this regime launched a large-scale trial involving 300 volunteers to fully test their system. It could be just the tonic for couch-potato Britain. For despite constant nagging from government and health professionals, the vast majority of us still don’t follow the official NHS advice to do at least 30 minutes of brisk exercise five times a week, plus two sessions of muscle-strengthening exercise such as weight-training, push-ups or heavy gardening.

More than 60 percent of men and 70 percent of women admit that they don’t manage that. Lack of time is our most common excuse. As a result, millions of Britons suffer early death and unnecessary disability due to lifestyle illnesses such as diabetes and heart disease. But the answer for many could be quick and simple. The ongoing study is led by leading exercise expert Jamie Timmons, a professor of systems biology. The team call their system High Intensity Impact Training (HIIT).

So far, their tests on hundreds of unfit middle-aged volunteers in Britain and Canada over the past eight years have shown those three minutes of exercise a week deliver the same significant health improvements as can be achieved through hours in the gym or on the running track. But scientists do not yet entirely understand why the short-burst exercise regime so profoundly boosts volunteers’ stamina and the fitness of their lungs, heart and blood vessels. “The truthful answer is we do not fully understand this,” says Professor Timmons. “But a growing body of independent research shows this is the case and that the textbook explanation of the science of exercise requires revision.”

As for weight loss, the results from conventional long hours of exercise regimes often prove disappointing. Typically, exercisers get themselves into trouble by eating more than they do normally because strenuous gym sessions leave them ravenous. Brief, high-intensity exercise does not stimulate appetite as much, because it demands far less energy expenditure, so participants in the trial don’t suffer the same cravings. What’s more, it appears to do something even more beneficial, according to Professor Timmons.

“We have found that people feel their appetites are suppressed,” he says. “We should have the final evidence for this next year.”

The regime should also raise people’s metabolic rates after they stop exercising, as it builds muscle — and this tissue makes metabolisms run faster. In turn, this stimulates the breakdown of fat and burns calories. Timmons’ team also speculates that high-intensity training uses far more muscle tissue than aerobic exercise.

They say: “Cycling really vigorously uses not just the leg muscles, but also the upper body including arms and shoulders, so 80 percent of the body’s muscle cells can be activated, compared to 20 to 40 percent for walking or moderate intensity jogging or cycling.” It will be about two years, though, before the British scientists publish their full findings as part of a Europe-wide study. In the meantime, they point out: ‘You don’t need a scientific explanation to enjoy the benefits.’

The team’s theories about short-burst exercise are increasingly supported by other research. Australian scientists last June found sprint training for 60 minutes a week is as effective in burning male body fat as jogging for seven hours per week. The study, led by Steve Boutcher at the University of New South Wales, Sydney, recruited 50 overweight men for short, high-intensity cycle sprints. They had to sprint for eight seconds on an exercise bike followed by 12 seconds’ recovery in a training cycle lasting 20 minutes and repeated three times a week over 12 weeks. Boutcher reported in the Journal OfObesity that by the end, the volunteers, who were in their 20s, lost on average 4lb of abdominal fat and increased their muscle mass. Importantly, they had also reduced fat around their liver, kidneys and other internal organs by 17 percent.

This is the fat most strongly linked with an increased risk for cardio- vascular disease. “Other studies using aerobic exercise have found the amount of exercise needed to produce a similar decrease in visceral fat was about seven hoursper week for 14 weeks,” says Professor Boutcher. He believes he has found a crucial clue as to why high-intensity regimes may work. Rapid bursts of muscle movement appear to flood the blood with hormones called catecholamines.

These break down fat stores in the body, and burn them up as energy. By comparison, conventional moderate exercise such as cycling for 40 minutes does not raise the blood-levels of catecholamines much at all. And the professor has discovered another trick for raising levels of these catecholamine hormones in the blood: drink green tea after high-intensity exercise. “The tea stops the hormones from being degraded, so they keep burning fat for longer,” he says.

Tests on women have found fat-loss increases significantly if they drink the tea after exercising. Three minutes of exercise and a cup of tea to follow? Has there ever been such an appealing New Year exercise regime?

1. Warm up for a couple of minutes, picking up your exercise to a moderate pace, making sure you stretch your muscles.

2. Monitoring your time, exercise at 80 or 90 percent of flat-out for 30 seconds without stopping. This will make you breathless.

3. Rest for up to a minute.

4. Repeat three times.

5. Carry out the routine at least twice a week.

* IF YOU have a history of cardiovascular problems, consult your GP before embarking on a new exercise programme.

 

Yes, apparently this regime is effective to help insulin resistance which leads to obesity and diabetes.

[jabba jones]

So if benefit claimants are going to have to go on diets we might as well get rid of the food banks as well.

 

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/10138097.Councillor_in_attack_on_food_bank/

 

What a shame that councillor Chris Steward looks like a heart attack waiting to happen

[antone]

So if benefit claimants are going to have to go on diets we might as well get rid of the food banks as well.

 

http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/10138097.Councillor_in_attack_on_food_bank/

 

What a shame that councillor Chris Steward looks like a heart attack waiting to happen

 

This, also, will go well.

 

So, we have a benefit claimant, a middle class man and a billionaire sitting around a table. In the middle of the table is a plate with ten cookies. The billionaire leans over and takes nine of them. He turns to the middle class man and, pointing to the benefit claimant says "I'd keep an eye on him. He's trying to steal your cookie."

[estellyn]

This, also, will go well.

 

So, we have a benefit claimant, a middle class man and a billionaire sitting around a table. In the middle of the table is a plate with ten cookies. The billionaire leans over and takes nine of them. He turns to the middle class man and, pointing to the benefit claimant says "I'd keep an eye on him. He's trying to steal your cookie."

 

very true.

[beezley]

This, also, will go well.

 

So, we have a benefit claimant, a middle class man and a billionaire sitting around a table. In the middle of the table is a plate with ten cookies. The billionaire leans over and takes nine of them. He turns to the middle class man and, pointing to the benefit claimant says "I'd keep an eye on him. He's trying to steal your cookie."

 

The middle class man replies "Could you keep an eye on my cookie? I will be back in couple minutes"

 

"Of course" replies the billionaire.

 

While the middle class man is out of sight, the billionaire quickly scoffs the last remaining cookie. On the return of the middle class man, the billionaire, points once again at the benefit claimant, then presides over the ensuing carnage.....

[LaughingGirl]

I tell you what, it's just as well that the Nazi's didn't run compulsory physical fitness programmes, isn't it? Or else we could be sitting here drawing all sorts of comparisons...oh...wait...

[firstclassx]

Ironically Welfare Reform and Programs were one aspect where the Nazis actually made significant improvements and introduced a number of public health measures, (particularly in relation to smoking),

 

They evidently did some very bad things to specific groups of people, but (in my and some other people's opinion), welfare reform was one of few Nazi successes.

 

In the best passage of Government largess, the regime of Nazi fostered a purified liberal concept to enhance the living standard of German citizens. In order to stimulate the spirit of integrity, comradeship and happiness, Adolf Hitler fanned numerous programs and instituted strict rules for officials to carry them in eternal way. German folks were bestowed by vacation trips, employment programs, public-health campaign and other unprecedented beneficial services to reform their lives.

[antone]

Ironically Welfare Reform and Programs were one aspect where the Nazis actually made significant improvements and introduced a number of public health measures, (particularly in relation to smoking),

 

They evidently did some very bad things to specific groups of people, but (in my and some other people's opinion), welfare reform was one of few Nazi successes.

 

But apart from that Mrs Lincoln, how was the play?