Maybe it's time for Gove to do something useful for once and reintroduce Domestic Science to the curriculum?

It's interesting that 'domestic science' was considered to be such a lowly subject – at least in the traditional sense. I do wonder how many mothers were like mine, in withdrawing their children from classes. My mother was convinced it was a waste of time and money. An in terms of cooking skills, I think she somehow assumed that one would develop them when one needed them. You didn't have to be taught anything.

Reading [iBad Food Britain[/i by Joanna Blythman, she highlights how domestic science was changed from actually cookery lessons to 'food tech', whereby pupils learnt, for instance, how big food manufacturers design and develop new products. Which, of course, is the antithesis of what is needed. I gather things are improving and going back to the actual cookery classes.

But I do think my mother's attitude also reflects the wider problem of a society where food is not really valued as much beyond fuel.

But then other doctors would point out that the entire cholesterol issue has been vastly over done and that saturated fat in diet is not related to heart disease – and even that low cholesterol, certainly after 50, is actually unhealthy.

:1muho26g

Now you've really given me a soap box to stand on!

Too many people, in fact, almost everyone I meet, views a meal as just "something you do", I often find people saying to me at 12, my travelling companions seemed to enjoy quantity over quality.

Food is something we really need to reconnect with, on the few occasions I have looked after my niece the one thing she wants to do is cook, nothing complex, but she is interested, once she gets to "big school" that interest will not be nurtured or supported.

She will, however, be taught that "if John has a ladder that is 2m tall and he places it against a wall at an angle of x degrees from the ground, the angle at the top will be y", based on some ancient latin/greek (excuse my ignorance, but I discarded this irrelevant knowledge some time go) theory. Which will serve her 4/5th of f'k all in adult life.

Being overweight is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, a self-inflicted condition. There are those people who have a medical/glandular problem, but there are infinitely more who do not.

I personally know now, and have worked with in the past, a pretty fair number of overweight people. I have yet to meet one who was not overweight because of over eating and drinking, and/or taking too little physical activity (which doesn't necessarily include formal exercise).

I agree that food packaging is misleading and that organisations like weight watchers are just awful, but they're far from the primary source of the so-called 'obesity epidemic'.

By the way, if anyone would like a humorous (and not entirely inaccurate) view on this subject, put 'Tim Minchin Fat Kids' into youtube.

Explain....(please)?

And so she should be. Numeracy is one of the most important skills that any child can acquire. But rather than bang on, can I recommend a highly entertaining and great read for you, Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos, probably 1p on Amazon. Reply when you've read that

as it's you, I'll pass

They don't help people to seek long term solutions to their weight problems, merely offer a 'system' for short term weight loss that amounts to simple calorie deprivation. You can buy weight watchers crisps, cherry bakewells and other such goodies, and, provided that you don't exceed your 'points' for the day, you'll still lose weight. Their business model relies on creating a dependency on weight watchers, so that when people pile the weight back on they think 'weight watchers worked last time, I'll go there again'. What they fail to realise is that, if weight watchers was actually a suitable way to lose weight, they wouldn't need to go back.

What people need is good information, not some stupid, faddy, points-based diet.

When I actually get one on one with overweight people, I find most know exactly where their problems lie. They know full well that they drink too much wine, or that three Mars bars a day isn't very good for them. What the diet/fitness industry ought to be doing is educating people as to how they can gradually lose weight and (most importantly) keep it off.

This involves gradual, realistic lifestyle changes that can be maintained in the longer term, not some crash diet that brings short-term results and little to no lasting benefit.

My broadband is off at the moment, so I'm typing this on my phone. I haven't read it back, so apologies if it's a bit rambling in places.

Many actual medical experts would disagree.



But then, if I understand correctly, you're part of an industry that benefits financially from al, this.

Nope. Haven't worked in the fitness industry for years. And, as my last post demonstrates, I firmly believe in giving people the tools necessary to maintain a healthy weight in the longer term, rather than creating a profitable dependence on a particular service.

I'd like to meet the 'actual medical experts' who think that food labelling is the primary cause of obesity in this country. It's undoubtedly a problem, and the actions of the companies involved are dishonest to say the least. Something should definitely be done about it, but to say it's the 'primary cause' of obesity is to excuse everyone of any personal responsibility.

Most overweight people know that they should eat fewer takeaways, drink less alcohol and be more physically active. That many choose not to do these things is the primary reason more of us are becoming obese.

Food labelling – processed food in general and the amount of sugar in this; not least the amounts of 'hidden' sugars, or corn syrup etc.

And yes: I know that you consider that we should all be slogging it out in The Gym, under the watchful (and as mentioned earlier, patronising) eye of some youngster.

Then you have quite obviously chosen not to read any of my posts in this thread properly. I have referred to 'physical activity' and said things like 'doesn't necessarily include formal exercise'. Don't think I've even mentioned a gym.

And as I've said several times - I agree that current practices regarding food labelling are unacceptable. They are not the primary reason for the obesity epidemic, though. A contributory factor, certainly, but not the main cause by any stretch of the imagination.

Is it necessarily the labelling, or the food itself, and the constant demand for everything to be cheaper?

As you say, personal responsibility is at the core, but it seems some want to abdicate all responsibility to someone else, be it Tesco, Starbucks, The Bankers or whomever.

Business can only sell to a market (be it value burgers, "rubbish" coffe or interest only mortgages, 0% interest credit cards, pay day loans), I don't blame the provider, I blame the consumer.

Sticking with just the food thing, I think there's an element of both. Some products are marketed as being 'healthy' alternatives when they're anything but. That said, I don't suppose anyone has ever become obese by eating too much fat free yoghurt. People (most people) put on weight by eating too many calories or expending too few calories. They know it's happening - nobody gets fat overnight - but often only take steps to address the issue after the fact. Where the problem occurs is, I think, when someone decides they'll try to lose some weight: they pick up these 'healthy' alternatives in the supermarket and expect that they'll do the trick. Labelling should be clearer, and more free help should be available to those who need it.

such as?

Business creates markets and products all the time, both consumer and producer are equally to blame.

NHS funded one to one nutritional advice, subsidised/free gym memberships/swimming/classes, regular free contact with a 'weight loss practitioner'. It might be costly, but I reckon it'll be significantly cheaper than the alternative.

Business exploits markets, nobody ever forced anyone to buy anything.

Perhaps not, but if you think you're buying a healthy thing (because it is marketed as such) when you're buying the opposite, that's an issue with the producer rather than the consumer.

That doesn't absolve the producers.

I had that years ago. I was told to diet to 800kcals per day, on the basis that my family GP believed that I should be below 9st – and I was always hovering just over – and the amount of lean tissue I was carrying, and my fitness, were as irrelevant to him as the knowledge that I was already dieting to 1,000 kcals per day (which I only realised later was part of the damned problem).

The establishment, if you will, is still a real problem in terms of diet advice and help. And increasingly, here as in the US, corporate 'sponsorships' are meaning that it's increasingly unlikely that we are being given properly independent advice.

ADD in the States is absolutely up to its eyeballs in corporate links. Over here, we're seeing the likes of the British Heart Foundation linking up with Unilever/Flora – and indeed, their materials promote foods that will be full of sugar (low-fat yogurts) along with highly processed food (Flora etc) over natural, unprocessed foods.

As I've illustrated before, government moves to involve the industry in public health is simply meaning [url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/meaty-advice-thats-tough-to-chew.htmlsurreptitious free advertising for big manufacturers[/url. Even the new traffic light system plays into the hands of the same big food producers – a diet fizzy drink is healthier than a fresh mackerel, FFS.

Business also creates markets. All sorts of businesses, all of the time.

While I agree that nobody is ever [iforced[/i to buy anything, there is a reason why billions are spent on marketing.

I did say NHS funded, not NHS delivered. I once had a practice nurse tell me I was overweight because my BMI is just under 27. I pointed out to her that I was carrying only 11% body fat, to which she mumbled something about me 'still needing to lose a bit of weight'. But this is the problem: GPs and nurses aren't necessarily the best trained people to be dispensing fitness/nutritional advice.

The same could be said of many in the fitness industry - there are loads of idiots working in gyms who don't know the first thing about healthy eating and exercise. Some of the advice I've seen dispensed is scary.

All that said, there are a number of hugely competent people out there who could make a real difference if the will (and funding) was there. The challenge, as with any such project, would be finding the correct people.