ThunderDragon Blog

I have never subscribed to the idea of eating “diet” varieties of food. I have never seen the point. Just either eat less or exercise more. There is now evidence that for children, “diet” foods could cause them to become obese:

“Diet foods for children may inadvertently lead to overeating and obesity, say researchers.
In tests on young rats, animals given low-calorie versions of foods were induced to overeat, whether they were lean or obese.
The researchers believe low-calorie versions of usually high-calorie foods disrupt the body’s ability to use taste to regulate calorific intake…
Lead researcher Professor David Pierce said: “Based on what we’ve learned, it is better for children to eat healthy, well-balanced diets with sufficient calories for their daily activities rather than low-calorie snacks or meals.”" (BBC)

It is pretty obvious in many ways that eating healthy balanced meals and exercising is better for children - and for adults. Whilst so-called “diet” alternatives have less calories than the standard foods, they often appear to have higher levels of salt or sugar instead - just as bad for you. It really is obvious that just replacing what you already eat with the “diet” variety is not going to help all that much. It is your lifestyle that needs to change more than anything else.

Children anyway shouldn’t have any need to be fed “diet” foods. They should be actively playing enough to work off at least most of any surplus calories they ingest anyway. They shouldn’t need to be fed “low calorie” snacks, and those that do need to should get up from in front of the TV and go out and run around outside.

Source: BBC

What makes people fat? Is it just because they are “greedy”?

“The head of the British Medical Association has sparked a row after claiming that fat people are simply greedy.
Dr Hamish Meldrum was reported yesterday as saying doctors over-medicalise the condition.
Obesity experts rounded on him saying his remarks were unhelpful and anachronistic…
Dr Meldrum said an obsession with labels may be stopping overweight people from tackling their problems. He said: “We are saying ‘This patient has a hyper-appetite problem’ rather than ‘They are just greedy’.”" (The Telegraph)

I agree with him on one thing - obesity is over-medicalised and over-medicated like so much in our society is now. But to say that people who are fat are “just greedy” is severely trivialising it. There is no doubt that to a certain extent being fat is genetic, and “[l]atest thinking suggests that genetics could be responsible for between 30 per cent to 70 per cent of cases.”

Of course, genetics alone cannot and do not determine precisely who and what we are, but they do point in a certain direction. Lifestyle is undoubtedly also a component in obesity but not just, or even only, due to sheer greed. Lack of exercise is also going to be a cause, to start with, along with eating the right amount - but of the wrong thing.

On the other hand, lifestyle can be modified. It is possible to eat less, to eat better, or to do more exercise. So “greed” cannot be ruled out as a big component of obesity, in one form or another. But for the head of the BMA to make such a declaration, certainly in the way he has phrased it, is wrong. Some fat or obese people may well be “just greedy”, but that certainly isn’t going to be the only cause for even them, and certainly not every obese person in Britain, which is nearing a quarter of our population. That is a scary thought.

Source: The Telegraph

You’re a drug addict? Here, have an iPod on the government!

“DRUG addicts are to be offered gift vouchers and prizes on the National Health Service under plans by the government’s medicine watchdog to encourage them to stay clean.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) will recommend the system of inducements, which could enable clinics to offer televisions and iPods as prizes, to tackle the burgeoning drugs problem…” (Sunday Times)

Why should drug addicts get any financial incentives to stop? If they don’t want to stop for other reasons, this will only keep them off the drugs for as long as the money keeps on coming in. This is totally wrong.

Supporters claim that the money spent of giving addicts iPods will be “recouped” through them making fewer demands of the NHS. Despite the fact that the money won’t be “recouped” but just not spent on it, they may be right. But that doesn’t support the idea that financial incentives will make addicts quit. Beyond the problems of cost, it is morally a bad thing to do. It is effectively rewarding people because they have broken the law and have now stopped. It’s like giving a burglar money because he hasn’t robbed your house this week - utterly absurd.

Those who don’t take drugs and get addicted are effectively being screwed over by this because they haven’t broken the law/got addicted beforehand. If these addicts want to get “clean” then they don’t need financial incentives to do so. if they can only stop tasking drugs in return for iPods and the like, as soon as they stop getting given them, or have what they want, then they will just revert to their old state, costing the NHS double. If addicts want to quit, they don’t need to be given money to do so. If they don’t want to quit, all the money in the world won’t make a difference.

The 24-hour drinking law is quite possibly the best piece of legislation introduced by Labour in the past decade. The fact that it is pretty much alone as good pieces of legislation is by-the-by in this instance.

There are claims that these laws have led to a trebling of drink-related treatment at A&E and that it, apparently, has led to a “surge” in early-morning violence.

In A&E attendance at St Thomas’ Hospital in Central London, in March 2005 there were 79 “drink-related” injuries (2.9% of the injuries), and a year later there were 250 (8%). First of all, that was more than a year ago and the article gives no comparable level for March 2007. Also, they were “defined as having an alcohol-related problem if they had drunk before going to hospital, or if they were intoxicated when examined or in their final diagnosis.” So their actual reason for going to A&E could have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they had been drinking, but because they had it was included in this report as “alcohol-related”… Somehow I think that invalidates this report.

Whilst early-morning violence may have “surged” - “criminal damage and harassment between 3am and 6am rose sharply in the 12 months after the reforms came in” - the actual numbers have dropped, as “averages across the whole day were slightly down.” So, in fact, 24-hour drinking has caused fewer alcohol-fuelled crimes. A 22% jump between 3am and 6am, yes, but fewer overall. That this sort of alcohol-fuelled activity would occur at later times was obvious. As pubs and clubs stayed open for longer, then alcohol-related incidents would also obviously shift to a later time. That’s like having a 11-7 working day for lots of people and then being surprised that there was a far greater level of traffic at 7pm!

Also, never mind the hype, 24-hour drinking is still an urban legend. No licensed premises has that sort of licence, and I would be quite surprised if many ever did, and even if they had it, used it all that often. The 24-hour availability of alcohol is pretty much limited to 24-hour supermarkets.

Sources: The Times, The Telegraph

The revelations are coming thick and fast today on cabinet ministers and their “youthful” drug use. Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary started this off by admitting that, when asked whether or not she had ever smoked cannabis, saying:

“I have. I did when I was at university. I think it was wrong that I smoked it when I did. I have not done for 25 years.”

This has now been followed by revelations from Alistair Darling that he had smoked cannabis “occasionally in my youth”, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Andy Burnham, who had smoked it “once or twice at university”, Hazel Blears who tried cannabis “once or twice when very young,” and, surprisingly, Ruth Kelly as well.

And my comment, as I said when David Cameron was accused of smoking cannabis, is: So what? Who cares? So you smoked cannabis when you were at university? Many people do. Politicians can have pasts too! It may have mattered in the past, but not any more.

It is all due to the government wanting to reclassify cannabis back to a Class B drug, and being able to point the finger at David Cameron for not having answered whether or not he has smoked cannabis in his past. This sort of mass “coming out” will protect them all from any negative repercussions from these “revelations”, but also makes them wide open to the sort of joke I have used as the title of this post. By doing this, they don’t necessarily win or lose anything, except for maybe a bit of disgruntlement from some especially anti-drug campaigners.

It is amusing that all the politicians who admit having tried cannabis also all say that they didn’t enjoy it, or that it didn’t do anything for them. What a load of bollocks they’re talking! People wouldn’t do it if it had no effect, and be refusing to admit that they liked it even the tiniest bit gains them no points back from the anti-drugs squad or wins them any from those who have or do smoke cannabis.

Reclassifying cannabis back up to Class B isn’t going to work very well, and their justifications for it on the grounds of fears that its use is linked to psychotic illness, depression and suicide among young people are pretty slim. I’ve pretty much come round to thinking that cannabis should be legal, since it barely seems to have any worse effects than drinking alcohol or cigarette smoking, and being legal would cut down the extent to which it is a “gateway drug”.

Want to eat a burger? Pizza? Chips? It may cost you more from now on:

“More than 3,000 fatal heart attacks and strokes could be prevented in the UK each year if VAT was slapped on a vast range of foods, say Oxford researchers.
A 17.5% rise on fatty, sugary or salty food would cut heart and stroke deaths by 1.7%, the study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health said.
One of the researchers declared the time was right to debate a “fat tax”.” (BBC)

So more than 3,000 people effectively kill themselves through eating food that is bad for them. So what? People know that fatty foods are bad for them if they eat too much. People know that much of this could be offset though exercise, and that eating healthier stuff would be better for them anyway. But people choose to do it. If more than 3,000 people want to cause their own death each year, what business of the government to interfere?

This is especially amusing considering that it has also been revealed that free fruit doesn’t give any long term benefits:

“A government scheme to give free fruit to schoolchildren may not result in any long-term health benefits, say experts.
The government has spent millions of pounds giving daily free fruit or vegetables to four to six-year-olds in state schools in England.
But researchers found that while vitamin levels were initially boosted, they fell away after a few months.” (BBC)

So now they know that giving people free healthy food won’t make any real benefits, they’re going to try to the other tactic - making them pay extra to eat unhealthy foods.

If people want to kill themselves through eating too much fatty stuff, smoking, drinking, or anything else, it is not the governments job to interfere. At all. Making us pay more for what we want will not prevent us from having it. Education of the bad effects of doing it is the only way - and even that needs to be done in a non-preaching manner. Saying don’t drink/smoke/eat fatty foods because it’s bad will not make people not drink/smoke/eat fatty foods. Providing information on the downsides of too much drinking/smoking/eating fatty foods is far more likely to make people thing about and rectify their lifestyles. But it is, and must remain, their choice.

One of the most amusing things about the idea of a “fat tax” is that “the idea was dismissed in 2004 by former prime minister Tony Blair as too suggestive of a “nanny state”"!

Sources: BBC - article 1, article 2

There are two main stories on the Conservative Party’s ideas for the NHS being reported today. The first being to make to hand day-to-day control of the NHS to an independent board, and another being to let those who reform their health habits to the front of the queue for public services. One I agree with, one I detest the very idea of.

The plan to have an independent board to run the day-to-day aspects of the NHS is an excellent idea. The NHS should not be run as a political tool, but to do the job it is there for - saving lives and helping those who are sick or injured recover. Commissar Patricia Hewitt, the [almost certainly outgoing] Health Secretary has ruled a similar idea out herself, saying that:

“The NHS is four times the size of the Cuban economy and more centralised.
That is part of its problem, and the problem can’t be solved by proposing that a modern health service be run like a 1960s nationalised industry.”

Well that’s not a good thing to crow about - that our NHS is more centralised than a Communist totalitarian dictatorship! My reading of the Conservatives plan [which is supported by ConservativeHome's analysis] implies that it will become less centralised as money will be handed down to local trusts and decision making and budgetary powers will be given to doctors and nurses - the people who really understand what they need in order to do their jobs.

I am really not impressed, however, by the idea of a “health miles card,” where giving up smoking or losing weight could earn points which could be redeemed against fresh vegetables or discounted gym membership. People have to want to be healthier if they are to do it to start with, and not to mention the discrimination against those who don’t smoke and are already healthy. An “NHS Miles Card” is a very bad and and really quite stupid and unnecessary idea. This idea should be dropped like a hot potato and kicked into the bushes to rot away out of sight.

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph, The Times, ConservativeHome

First I blogged about Prescott going to hospital, then following reports that he had pneumonia I wished him well - and now he has been released from hospital:

“Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has been sent home from hospital after being treated for pneumonia.
Mr Prescott’s condition will continue to be monitored by University College Hospital, London.
A spokesman for the deputy prime minister said he would rest and recover in his Admiralty House apartment.” (BBC)

Well, just so long as he is out of his grace-and-favour apartment in just over two weeks, it’s fine. He officially leaves his job and ministerial perks on 27 June, the same day as Tony Blair, when a new deputy leader of the Labour Party [and potential Deputy Prime Minister] takes over.

The sooner this farce of a transition period is over and we can stop having two “Prime Ministers” the better. Only 7 days of political paralysis left!

Source: BBC