Should we continue to pay benefit to this person

jakeblu said:
It seems that they may have been wrong about cholesterol and heart disease...
Click to expand...
Agree, except there's no "may" about it;

Ancel Keys, Ph.D., professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota 1997. (as many will know, the origin of the current low-fat dogma)
"There's no connection whatsoever between cholesterol in food and cholesterol in blood. And we've known that all along. Cholesterol in the diet doesn't matter at all unless you happen to be a chicken or a rabbit."
​
Tecumseh study (one of two major long term studies)
‘Serum cholesterol and triglyceride values were not positively correlated with selection of dietary constituents.’ (or in English ‘You can eat as much saturated fat as you like and it makes no difference whatsoever to your blood cholesterol levels.’)​

Framingham study (the other major long term study)
William Castelli, Framingham study director: "In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people's serum cholesterol...we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active."​

Cholesterol(*), as we currently measure and medicate, has no correlation with heart disease - indeed the majority of people admitted with heart attacks have LOW or NORMAL cholesterol(*). Things are different if we start talking about lipoprotein profiles (number and size of LDL particles), total HDL, or total triglycerides - those are meaningful. But what you find is the absolute key measures (total cholesterol divided by HDL (ideally less than 4), and triglycerides divided by HDL (ideally less than 1). Total cholesterol itself? Meaningless. LDL "cholesterol"? Mostly meaningless (unless high - but the key there is you then need to understand WHY it is high. LDL is the body's repairman - if it is high, something is needing repaired. Shooting the repairman is NOT helpful! You need to find out where he's going and why, and give him a hand) :-)

For anyone interested this is a really excellent summation of the current state of knowledge.


(*) Cholesterol here is used in the common terminology - actually it refers to lipoproteins.
 
kennethwfd said:
and about time too

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31464897
Click to expand...
LOL. People follow the governments advice to cut back on cholesterol, and eat "healthy" carbohydrates and whole grains. Then they get obese. Government threatens to stop benefits due to obesity....which was caused by following government's own advice.

These people are insane. The government should be paying them compensation for damaging their lives with such godawful advice, not stopping benefits.
 
Probably a whole different argument and not something I know about, but I watched a couple of documentaries about the 'food' industry recently. I do wonder whose/what research the government base their advice on sometimes.
 
new2me said:
Probably a whole different argument and not something I know about, but I watched a couple of documentaries about the 'food' industry recently. I do wonder whose/what research the government base their advice on sometimes.
Click to expand...
People who get paid by Coke & Nestle?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/hea...ebb-took-research-funding-from-Coca-Cola.html

EDIT: She was the "expert" dishing out the advice on that ridiculous "which diet for you" program recently. I wondered why there was such a focus on continuing to eat sugar.
 
Moadib said:
LOL. People follow the governments advice to cut back on cholesterol, and eat "healthy" carbohydrates and whole grains. Then they get obese. Government threatens to stop benefits due to obesity....which was caused by following government's own advice.

These people are insane. The government should be paying them compensation for damaging their lives with such godawful advice, not stopping benefits.
Click to expand...
No they do not. The advice is clear; it includes exercise and does not include over eating. Within moderation and with exercise there is nothing wrong with it.

Suggesting government should pay compensation is even more daft. That is basically saying that you out of your own pocket are willing to pay them. Reward for lacking self control doesn't sound good to me.
 
this is not just about obesity. The PM has asked for investigation regarding those on long term sickness benefit as to whether a particular claimant is able to get their life back on track. It also encompasses those who have drug and alcohol problems.

The proposal is that if a claimant refuses to accept advice and/or help regarding their situation in preference to stayng on benefits then he/she should risk losing them

Which is exactly what the person in the original article has done, rejecting advice of her GP and others plus refusal to undergo surgery

I get fed up listening to the mantra regarding "the mess this last government has left the country in" but in my opinion spot on with this proposal
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
Without wishing to comment on this individual you are on a slippery slope forcing people to undergo medical intervention
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this.
Advice, yes.
Forced to undergo surgery? Absolutely not.
 
kennethwfd said:
this is not just about obesity. The PM has asked for investigation regarding those on long term sickness benefit as to whether a particular claimant is able to get their life back on track. It also encompasses those who have drug and alcohol problems.

The proposal is that if a claimant refuses to accept advice and/or help regarding their situation in preference to stayng on benefits then he/she should risk losing them

Which is exactly what the person in the original article has done, rejecting advice of her GP and others plus refusal to undergo surgery
Click to expand...
Which is exactly the point I made - it's the same advice of those governments and GPs which has caused a lot of the obesity. As a country we have eaten less fat, eaten less cholesterol, loaded up on those heart health whole grains. And, as a country, and as a consequence, we've become fatter overall, with some people obese.

It's ridiculous of the government now to talk of withholding people's benefits, when it's the governments own advice that is at the root of the obesity increase - it's not the cause for every individual, but the atrocious dietary advice is at the root of the scale of obesity we now face.

Note that finally the US dietary guidelines advisory committee is removing the warning to restrict cholesterol. No "sorry, we've been wrong for forty years", or "apologies for all you people who've become obese or ill because of this". But at least they've changed, which is a step in the right direction.
http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-ma...rs-rethink-cholesterol-risk-from-foods-report
 
Moadib said:
Which is exactly the point I made - it's the same advice of those governments and GPs which has caused a lot of the obesity. As a country we have eaten less fat, eaten less cholesterol, loaded up on those heart health whole grains. And, as a country, and as a consequence, we've become fatter overall, with some people obese.

It's ridiculous of the government now to talk of withholding people's benefits, when it's the governments own advice that is at the root of the obesity increase - it's not the cause for every individual, but the atrocious dietary advice is at the root of the scale of obesity we now face.

Note that finally the US dietary guidelines advisory committee is removing the warning to restrict cholesterol. No "sorry, we've been wrong for forty years", or "apologies for all you people who've become obese or ill because of this". But at least they've changed, which is a step in the right direction.
http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-ma...rs-rethink-cholesterol-risk-from-foods-report
Click to expand...
You mean as in the government advising to eat healthy, eat fresh, don't eat too much and excise loads? And you think that is bad advice? The problem comes when people, and it is a very common and natural treat, only pick those parts that they like and don't do the other parts.

Nothing wrong with whole grain, just have one slice of toast not six for breakfast ;) And go for a run as well, etc...Eat normally, eat fresh, eat your five a day and don't be a couch potato. This is all very simple...And no a fry up is not a bonding exercise, going for a run together and pushing each other on is :)
 
viv1969 said:
I completely agree with this.
Advice, yes.
Forced to undergo surgery? Absolutely not.
Click to expand...

Nowhere is there any mention of forcing people to undergo surgery. she has been offered surgery to assist regarding weight loss but has refused this offer as well as rejecting advice from GP's and dieticians.

which brings me back to the PM's statement that if a person in receipt of benefits is assessed as being capable of eventually returning to work, but refuses advice or help to do so in favour of remaining on benefits, then consideration should be gived regarding withdrawal of financial support.

elsewhere this has been commented on as discrimination against fatties and what happens if I break my leg on the football field? Answer you are presumably young and fit, you will have a doctor see to your injury and eventually recover. would such a person refuse treatement because this would lead to a lifetime being supported by the welfae state?
 
kennethwfd said:
Nowhere is there any mention of forcing people to undergo surgery. she has been offered surgery to assist regarding weight loss but has refused this offer as well as rejecting advice from GP's and dieticians.

which brings me back to the PM's statement that if a person in receipt of benefits is assessed as being capable of eventually returning to work, but refuses advice or help to do so in favour of remaining on benefits, then consideration should be gived regarding withdrawal of financial support.

elsewhere this has been commented on as discrimination against fatties and what happens if I break my leg on the football field? Answer you are presumably young and fit, you will have a doctor see to your injury and eventually recover. would such a person refuse treatement because this would lead to a lifetime being supported by the welfae state?
Click to expand...

Threatening to withdraw benefits if surgery is declined is use of force.
 
viv1969 said:
Threatening to withdraw benefits if surgery is declined is use of force.
Click to expand...
Agreed, however an alternative was offered as well which didn't include surgery and was declined also. I mean there is only so much you can do, and if people don't want to be helped that is absolutely fine, I'm all up for that kind of choice...However they'd have to take responsibility for their own choices....
 
viv1969 said:
Threatening to withdraw benefits if surgery is declined is use of force.
Click to expand...

the bottom line is not the surgery ( one option) but refusal to address the situation which results in a person being unable to work when such a condition as obesity or addiction is involved and is curable. Even I can lose weight (plenty of fresh fruit & veg, meat should be mainly fish and chicken, watch out for added sugar and salt avoid pies, pizzas, crisps, takeaways and black puddings - oh and excesrsise)!

And as mentioned already, it seems perfectly acceptible that a person claiming JSA will lose their entitlement if they are not actively seeking employment
 
dejongj said:
Agreed, however an alternative was offered as well which didn't include surgery and was declined also. I mean there is only so much you can do, and if people don't want to be helped that is absolutely fine, I'm all up for that kind of choice...However they'd have to take responsibility for their own choices....
Click to expand...

and if they don't want to work then the state should not pay for their lifestyle. Elsewhere there is an unconfirmed post re another overweight woman who is teaching her child to behave like mum - get fat and enjoy a life living on state support
 
dejongj said:
Agreed, however an alternative was offered as well which didn't include surgery and was declined also. I mean there is only so much you can do, and if people don't want to be helped that is absolutely fine, I'm all up for that kind of choice...However they'd have to take responsibility for their own choices....
Click to expand...

kennethwfd said:
the bottom line is not the surgery ( one option) but refusal to address the situation which results in a person being unable to work when such a condition as obesity or addiction is involved and is curable. Even I can lose weight (plenty of fresh fruit & veg, meat should be mainly fish and chicken, watch out for added sugar and salt avoid pies, pizzas, crisps, takeaways and black puddings - oh and excesrsise)!

And as mentioned already, it seems perfectly acceptible that a person claiming JSA will lose their entitlement if they are not actively seeking employment
Click to expand...

Agreed, and as per my initial post, it's only the potential to force someone to undergo surgery that I found wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top