Losing benefit if you're an addict or obese

[Looby]

Well some of the people on supersize v superskinny seem to think a bucket full of food per meal is an acceptable portion.

You're getting your information from a show which deliberately picks the extreme/sensational cases. That's like basing your opinion of society on a few episodes of Jeremy Cunting Kyle.

You're a fucking idiot.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sorry but it's basic biology / medicine that weight gain is simply down to calories in - calories out. If you're gaining weight for whatever reason your either eating too much (even if it's what you usually eat) or you're not burning enough calories off.

If your medication makes you gain weight then your eating more than you need to. If your un happy with that weigh gain then eat less or excercise more.

1) It's basic physics (not biology or medicine) that weight gain should equate to calories out.
2) It's basic biology that a human body's weight can be influenced by external factors - a body with close to the notional safe limit of sodium will retain more fluid than a body with a lower sodium count.
3) It's basic chemistry that some medications have adverse effects on biological systems, including affecting tissue size, which also causes fluid retention.

So what do you propose: That people lower their fluid intake? That's been tried, and it doesn't work. In fact it causes a concentration of crap like sodium and potassium in tissues.

Do yourself a favour, please. Don't talk about science when you clearly don't really understand it.

 

[Looby]

Why did I read this thread? I've actively dodged it because I knew what would happen. I'm now avoiding tidying my bedroom and getting cranky. [emoji35]

 

[harpo]

Here is a scenario regularly played out. Someone approaching their late teens begins to hear voices. Voices they don't like. They may be telling them to harm themselves. This goes on privately for some time because, let's face it, nobody wants to admit this to themselves or anyone else. Then something might happen, something that gives the whole game away, something that renders the person a danger to themselves or others. They might get sectioned. They might not, but that that stage it becomes likely that they will have to take a drug for the rest of their lives that will make them sluggish and fat. An anti-psychotic. And quite commonly, people have to take this otherwise be recalled back to hospital.

So, in this case Wouldbe, do you think it's fair to point the finger and shout 'fatty'?

ETA it's never fair to do this, of course, or right, or helpful, but am just trying to get Wouldbe to see a really awful situation for people that might make him more sympathetic.

 

[SpamMisery]

It's basic good manners to be nice to each other

 

[laptop]

Sorry but your wrong. Even if your were on ever tablet known to man that caused weight gain. If you ate nothing at all you wouldn't put weight on would you you muppet?

Obsesity is relative. You might as well argue that lack of nuclear weapons explosions causes obesity.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I love the whole "make smokers/obese people/whatever pay for treatment" angle, because it's just so, so ridiculous. It's so absurd it makes me laugh.

Fatty twats like me who smoke and drink die young, often before pensionable age - we don't consume much NHS resource, because by the time we're diagnosed then it's already metastatic and a month or so in a (low-cost) hospice is all that's required before we pop our clogs. Having, of course, spent those short years contributing tax far beyond what we use, including that on tobacco and alcohol (which I have no problem with - big up the welfare state )

Those that eat well, don't have any unhealthy vices, exercise regularly etc - they live to a ripe old age, usually developing a host of comorbidities (heart failure, COPD, diabetes etc), and have numerous hospital admissions in their last decade of life. The financial burden on the NHS and SS is far greater for the healthy people than idiots like me who'll be unlikely to see 50.

I'm not for a second advocating an unhealthy lifestyle, but it's not the smokers, obese etc that are putting such a burden on healthcare. Quite the opposite.

There was a reputed peer-reviewed journal paper that studied this in depth a few years ago, but I'm buggered if I can remember which journal it was in.

People dying before retirement may be good for the public purse, but it would be bad for the tories who rely heavily on the votes of grumpy old people who probably think they're voting for Ted Heath.

 

[Corax]

People dying before retirement may be good for the public purse, but it would be bad for the tories who rely heavily on the votes of grumpy old people who probably think they're voting for Ted Heath.

 

[toggle]

Sorry but your wrong. Stuffing your face requires you to make conscious decisions which can over ride hormonal feedback. Everyone gets horny from time to time it doesn't mean they go out and shag anything they come across.

none of which is relavent to your claims.


you claimed there was no condition that caused people to eat in an uncontrolled manner. that is factually incorrect. bearing in mind your now proven ignorance, i don't think you're in any poisition to try to lecture others about that which you know so little.

 

[ViolentPanda]

WRONG.

I've got a cousin, in his 30s now, who had a pituitary tumour in his mid-teens. He spent about 18 months as an in-patient after his tumour was removed, precisely so that the hospital could control the hunger his chemo and steroid therapies caused. He was on 1,000 calories a day for over 500 days, and yet left hospital weighing 70kg - he went in weighing 54kg. Now, both the staff and his family know he wasn't cheating, so where did the weight gain come from?

 

[ViolentPanda]

while wouldbe is obviously wrong here, is there any point in getting drawn into an argument about weight gain due to medication etc? It rather reinforces the idea that there's good, excusable weight gain (due to medication or rare genetic conditions) and bad weight gain (due to having no self control, eating too much and not getting any exercise).

Thing is, weight gain is almost always multi-factorial, and it's only eejits like WouldBe and the late,unlamented jaed who don't acknowledge that. Interestingly, such people are almost always people who've lost weight, and for whom keeping it off hasn't been problematic - they're utterly convinced that what works for them will work for everyone - as unscientific a proposition as it's possible to propose.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sorry but your wrong. Even if your were on ever tablet known to man that caused weight gain. If you ate nothing at all you wouldn't put weight on would you you muppet?

You'd die, you muppet.

 

[toggle]

1) It's basic physics (not biology or medicine) that weight gain should equate to calories out.
2) It's basic biology that a human body's weight can be influenced by external factors - a body with close to the notional safe limit of sodium will retain more fluid than a body with a lower sodium count.
3) It's basic chemistry that some medications have adverse effects on biological systems, including affecting tissue size, which also causes fluid retention.

So what do you propose: That people lower their fluid intake? That's been tried, and it doesn't work. In fact it causes a concentration of crap like sodium and potassium in tissues.

Do yourself a favour, please. Don't talk about science when you clearly don't really understand it.

fwiw, vlc diets mandate really high fluid intake. not only to protect the kidneys, but it's also noticable that getting dehydrated on one of those diets stalls weight loss. while still on 600calories/day.

but if it was as simple as a physics equation energy in and energy out then weight loss on a diet that is controlled to that point and it should be steady. the same every day.

 

[Looby]

while wouldbe is obviously wrong here, is there any point in getting drawn into an argument about weight gain due to medication etc? It rather reinforces the idea that there's good, excusable weight gain (due to medication or rare genetic conditions) and bad weight gain (due to having no self control, eating too much and not getting any exercise).

Exactly, I was about to post similar. We're slipping into 'deserving' poor territory.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well some of the people on supersize v superskinny seem to think a bucket full of food per meal is an acceptable portion.

Do most people?

 

[toggle]

I've got a cousin, in his 30s now, who had a pituitary tumour in his mid-teens. He spent about 18 months as an in-patient after his tumour was removed, precisely so that the hospital could control the hunger his chemo and steroid therapies caused. He was on 1,000 calories a day for over 500 days, and yet left hospital weighing 70kg - he went in weighing 54kg. Now, both the staff and his family know he wasn't cheating, so where did the weight gain come from?

rant not aimed at you vp, but i's time for it now

one other thing. it's all well saying go to the experts, but most doctors get very little education on nutrition, andn are subject to hearing the same government backed diet contradictions as we all hear. I got mine stumped when i didn't loose weight. did more than enough exercise, ate the recomended things in reasonable quantities. I got hit by the muscle gain = fat loss myth more times than I can remember. but even without meds, and doing all the right things for 5 months, my weight was absolutely stable.

doctor was stumped. ordered blood tests and admitted defeat. gym instructor reminded me that fit cancels out most of the ill effects of fat. the nutritionist (foaf) just told me to keep goung. and going. and going. there was nothing in her training that had taught her how to advise someone who the standard mantra didn't work for. and thern got really quite nasty when the vlc diet did work.

so no expert help actually helped, (until spangles became her own expert and helped me.) and i still don't know why. others may know why for them, but not be able to access things like councelling. fat people aren't idiots who just need to be yelled at until they realise someone's brand of fuckwit 'common sense' diet plan. many have tired multiple options and many know more about nutrition than your average joe. but there's a nultibillion pound diet industry cause it isn't easy. and because one size dosen't fit all. and because things like the mechanisms of appetite feedback are almost unknown, even among experts so half their advice is useless anyway.

and now breathe......

 

[Corax]

Bit tangential, but anyone reading this thread should be aware of the difference between a 'nutritionist' and a 'dietitian'.

Nutritionist - Ben Goldacre's cat
Dietitian - regulated and properly accredited profession

 

[laptop]

We're slipping into 'deserving' poor territory.

Are we? Just one person here has argued that obesity is always the fault of the fatty.

I don't think anyone else here has argued that benefits should be stopped for anyone, whether their weight gain is to do with metabolic changes in how much fat the get out of food or with how much they eat, whether the amount they eat is metabolically or psychologically driven...

 

[Greebo]

Less benefits you wouldn't be able to buy as much food.

I didn't say 'materially deprive' people.

No, of course you didn't, you merely implied it would aid weightloss or discourage unhealthy eating. So that's alright.

For the benefit of anyone who is somewhat slow of thinking: As income decreases, there is a tendancy to buy more of the cheapest food which will fill you up before worrying about balance or longterm health. When really hungry, £1's worth of lettuce, apples, tomatoes, or unprocessed chicken is far less of a priority than £1's worth of mueseli, pasta, rice, or bread.

And I say that as somebody who existed for several months of 4 years mostly on muesli, pasta, marmite, dried skimmed milk, bread, marge, and a one a day supplement, because that was often all I could afford.

 

[killer b]

Thing is, weight gain is almost always multi-factorial, and it's only eejits like WouldBe and the late,unlamented jaed who don't acknowledge that. Interestingly, such people are almost always people who've lost weight, and for whom keeping it off hasn't been problematic - they're utterly convinced that what works for them will work for everyone - as unscientific a proposition as it's possible to propose.

Of course. But engaging such bellendry with talk of medication that causes weight gain and medical conditions doesn't counter their argument does it? It just opens the door to deserving/undeserving ideas - which should be avoided IMO.

 

[treelover]

Ah, you're one of those people. The 'something worked for me therefore it MUST work for everyone else and anyone who finds it a struggle is just lazy and useless'.

There seems to be an increasing amount of these, especially as New age/self help therapies become normalised, many of which seem based on individualism and blaming the person, often they also argue to keep away from all negative/sick people, etc.

 

[Corax]

Bit tangential, but anyone reading this thread should be aware of the difference between a 'nutritionist' and a 'dietitian'.

Nutritionist - Ben Goldacre's cat
Dietitian - regulated and properly accredited profession

Ps - Neither of those links are Rebecca Black BTW. I promise.

Although you really should go and have a view of her single here -

 

[treelover]

Oh fuck off. Just fuck off.

Surely WouldBe is trolling?, don't remember this level of crassness before.

 

[danny la rouge]

OK, read some of the thread - not all. And read/heard a lot of stuff in the media.

With apologies in advance if this has been answered here, but in the knowledge that I haven't seen it answered (or indeed asked) in the media:

1. Is there any evidence that there are people who are receiving sickness benefit because of their obesity who are not trying to get fit? (What is that evidence and where is it published?)
2. If reliable, what proportion of those receiving sickness benefit is that?

It looks to me like a simple case of the Tories seeking to make a connection in people's minds rather than acting on any kind of evidence. It'll be easy to establish that link because of prejudices that a played up in the media. But is it based on fact?

Those are my questions. Here are my points:

Point 1. You might just as well say "I'm against Tory MPs drowning babies to eat later". I'm against that, but does it happen?
Point 2. Has been covered in the thread as far as I can tell - the simplistic understanding of addiction and/or obesity doesn't actually address the issues. And linking that to benefits sanctions is wrong for a number of reasons: a) treatment needs to be consented to. Ask any nurse or doctor - this is basic medical ethics. b) who decides what constitutes "trying" (to lose weight, to give up booze or drugs)? ATOS? Some bureaucrat who has met you once for 10 minutes? The Daily Mail? Or is success the only acceptable measure? c) It seeks to divide people - once again - into the deserving and undeserving poor. d) the real reason for doing it is to tar all unemployed people as fat alcoholics (so that the public don't notice that it's fat alcoholics who are telling us this).
Point 3. The Tories are clearly worried about falling behind in the polls. This is the outcome: panicky appeals to reactionary prejudice, apparently founded on nothing more substantial than the contents of Richard Littlejohn's imaginings.

 

[scifisam]

Exactly, I was about to post similar. We're slipping into 'deserving' poor territory.

I agree, but with the caveat that we do need to treat obesity as a result of over-eating or over-eating disorders differently to obesity as a result of medication. Therapy can sometimes help the former, for example, whereas it won't do much for the latter.

Also I don't think many people are on benefits just for being overweight, it's usually that they're disabled due to something else and that causes the weight gain. So medical reasons are more relevant when it comes to benefits than when it comes to people not on benefits. I mean, there are tons (NPI) of obese people in work, so it's not like obesity per se stops people working even though discrimination sometimes makes it more difficult for them to get specific jobs.

I'm a bit surprised to see WouldBe use his ME as an excuse for being against people who are overweight. With conditions like ME people often gain weight simply because they continue eating as they did before they lost their former levels of mobility, and then when they realise the problem it's hard to lose the weight because they can't exercise enough to lose it without going hungry, really hungry, and who wants hunger on top of pain and immobility and loss of work and/or social life, etc? There's not a lot to distract you from the hunger if you're stuck indoors watching TV.

Not that everyone with ME is stuck indoors watching TV - some still have jobs, social lives, etc. But they won't be as active as they were before, that's for certain; there will be a lot more sitting down doing nothing much as a consequence of the condition.

Tons of people with ME are overweight and for extremely understandable reasons that can't be solved by just saying "eat less."

 

[KeeperofDragons]

You gain weight by taking in more calories that you burn off. If your gaining weight then you're over eating.

Actually not true on steroids, the leaflet that comes with the one I have when my asthma is very bad warns of weight gain with long term use. Try looking up long-term steroid use then perhaps you will think before you post the sort of crap you are posting on this thread.

 

[laptop]

Actually not true on steroids

To forestall silly response: Actually, technically true but not relevant.

The effect of the steroids is that you gain more weight than would someone else with the same excess of calorie intake over expenditure. Sometimes much more.

(Leaving out, here, any weight gain on steroids that's due to fluid retention...)

 

[Looby]

Are we? Just one person here has argued that obesity is always the fault of the fatty.

I don't think anyone else here has argued that benefits should be stopped for anyone, whether their weight gain is to do with metabolic changes in how much fat the get out of food or with how much they eat, whether the amount they eat is metabolically or psychologically driven...

I think if we focus on those that gain weight due to medication saying 'they can't help it' then that can lead to the good fatties and bad fatties distinction being made.

I agree, but with the caveat that we do need to treat obesity as a result of over-eating or over-eating disorders differently to obesity as a result of medication. Therapy can sometimes help the former, for example, whereas it won't do much for the latter.

Also I don't think many people are on benefits just for being overweight, it's usually that they're disabled due to something else and that causes the weight gain. So medical reasons are more relevant when it comes to benefits than when it comes to people not on benefits. I mean, there are tons (NPI) of obese people in work, so it's not like obesity per se stops people working even though discrimination sometimes makes it more difficult for them to get specific jobs.

I'm a bit surprised to see WouldBe use his ME as an excuse for being against people who are overweight. With conditions like ME people often gain weight simply because they continue eating as they did before they lost their former levels of mobility, and then when they realise the problem it's hard to lose the weight because they can't exercise enough to lose it without going hungry, really hungry, and who wants hunger on top of pain and immobility and loss of work and/or social life, etc? There's not a lot to distract you from the hunger if you're stuck indoors watching TV.

Not that everyone with ME is stuck indoors watching TV - some still have jobs, social lives, etc. But they won't be as active as they were before, that's for certain; there will be a lot more sitting down doing nothing much as a consequence of the condition.

Tons of people with ME are overweight and for extremely understandable reasons that can't be solved by just saying "eat less."

I agree, I wasn't saying they shouldn't be treated differently because of course the issues are different. Every patient needs to be treated as an individual especially if they have complex needs.

Of course. But engaging such bellendry with talk of medication that causes weight gain and medical conditions doesn't counter their argument does it? It just opens the door to deserving/undeserving ideas - which should be avoided IMO.

Yep.

 

[scifisam]

I agree, I wasn't saying they shouldn't be treated differently because of course the issues are different. Every patient needs to be treated as an individual especially if they have complex needs.

What I meant was that you can make some generalisations about people who are obese due to eating disorders and you can make different generalisations about people who are overweight due to medication. Of course each person needs treating as an individual, but to treat someone as an individual you put them into categories. I mean, it's not like a dietician really "knows" a person, they just know which subcategory of which subcategory to file them in.

If that makes sense.

 

[KeeperofDragons]

To forestall silly response: Actually, technically true but not relevant.

The effect of the steroids is that you gain more weight than would someone else with the same excess of calorie intake over expenditure. Sometimes much more.

(Leaving out, here, any weight gain on steroids that's due to fluid retention...)

I know that but WouldBe got me narked by maintaining that weight gain even on steroids was caused by stuffing one's face. My mum has been on them for years with the dosage going up and down as her condition changes and as she was warned about weight gain and has had moderate to severe back pain for years so limited her food intake to try and keep her weight down has still gained weight, if she ate any less she'd end up with malnutrition.