CYCLING has saved the NHS £11,000

[531colin]

When I see the doctor in a week I will ask what the xray showed I forget now

Did I miss it, or has it been a long week?

Sarchasm doesn't work for me sorry.

I went
Seen by the Surgeon ?
Exceedingly happy he was
Follow up check Jan 2025

Do you want to see the letter ?

You were going to tell us what the report said for the x ray you had when your knee condition was diagnosed.

[arnsider]

It's obvious that cycling will prevent ill health in a number of ways, but it's not the be all and end all.
Where you live can make cycling enjoyable or a nightmare. I decided that upland Britain was a far better place to live than the overcrowded and polluted south east.
All manner of "adventure" sports are condusive to good health Just walking is excellent especially as we age. Swimming will facilitate mobility in a gentle and beneficial way.
As for the NHS! Well you are very fortunate if you ever get a proper diagnosis for skeletal/muscular problems and Doctors long ago abandoned such because the resources are so minimal.
I am a lifelong Nasal Polyp sufferer and as anyone familiar with the problem will know, sleep is almost impossible as the condition inevitably worsens with time.
Well, I saved NHS two operation costs by going private amounting to nearly nine thousand pounds.
presently, I have a frozen right shoulder, a painful right knee, chronic tendonitis in my right arm, balance issues that make Hill Walking on ridges and steep ground impossible.
None of those issues have been addressed.
The best medicine is a healthy dose of Stoicism!

[Cugel]

An interesting Guardian article:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/art ... bn-by-2050

Some quotes:

“If the country is to escape from a doom loop of low productivity, driven to a considerable extent by ill health, and rising demand on the NHS … it must prioritise not just the causes of disease, but the causes of those causes, including high levels of poverty and the actions of industries, like alcohol, tobacco, and junk food, that profit from this misery.”

“Prevention is better than cure, which is why government will shift the focus of healthcare from simply treating sickness to preventing it in the first place."

“Whether it be phasing out tobacco sales, implementing restrictions on advertising junk food, or doubling the number of scanners to get the NHS catching cancer on time again, we are committed to ensuring that people live well for longer and that we unleash the potential of our economy.”

I notice that the suggestion is only to ban the advertising of junkfud, rather than banning it's sale. If the stuff is toxic (and it is) why do we allow it to be sold? Ditto rather a lot of other "consumer products and services" such as gambling, cars and flying to a foreign holiday in Cakidorm. I suppose the answer is the usual: capitalism rules; profit is all; growth (of a metastasizing rotter kind upon the body politic).

[re_cycler]

An interesting Guardian article:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/art ... bn-by-2050

Some quotes:

“If the country is to escape from a doom loop of low productivity, driven to a considerable extent by ill health, and rising demand on the NHS … it must prioritise not just the causes of disease, but the causes of those causes, including high levels of poverty and the actions of industries, like alcohol, tobacco, and junk food, that profit from this misery.”

“Prevention is better than cure, which is why government will shift the focus of healthcare from simply treating sickness to preventing it in the first place."

“Whether it be phasing out tobacco sales, implementing restrictions on advertising junk food, or doubling the number of scanners to get the NHS catching cancer on time again, we are committed to ensuring that people live well for longer and that we unleash the potential of our economy.”

I notice that the suggestion is only to ban the advertising of junkfud, rather than banning it's sale. If the stuff is toxic (and it is) why do we allow it to be sold? Ditto rather a lot of other "consumer products and services" such as gambling, cars and flying to a foreign holiday in Cakidorm. I suppose the answer is the usual: capitalism rules; profit is all; growth (of a metastasizing rotter kind upon the body politic).

First step would be a proper definition of junk food, the ones I've seen being used thus far would capture many food items that can have a place within a healthy diet .

[pjclinch]

I notice that the suggestion is only to ban the advertising of junkfud, rather than banning it's sale. If the stuff is toxic (and it is) why do we allow it to be sold? Ditto rather a lot of other "consumer products and services" such as gambling, cars and flying to a foreign holiday in Cakidorm. I suppose the answer is the usual: capitalism rules; profit is all; growth (of a metastasizing rotter kind upon the body politic).

Part of the problem here is that there are lots of things (including gambling, drinkohol, chips, cakes, TV) which are bad when overindulged in but actually quite amenable in low doses. If I've just ridden 50 Km on a hot day a bag of salty chips is actually a pretty good thing to have, while if all I've done is sit watching TV while eating numerous other bags of salty chips it's a terrible thing to have.

I don't have any snappy solutions, but banning anything that's typically not good for folk probably isn't one either.

Pete.

[Pinhead]

First step would be a proper definition of junk food, the ones I've seen being used thus far would capture many food items that can have a place within a healthy diet .

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
junk food

noun
pre-prepared or packaged food that has low nutritional value.


NHS

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/h ... sed-foods/

[re_cycler]

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
junk food

noun
pre-prepared or packaged food that has low nutritional value.


NHS

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/h ... sed-foods/

[And you'll find every dictionary has a different definition. Using the above a bag of lettuce leaves may be considered as junk food.
The definition needs to be clearer than that if there's a desire to legislate based on it.
A lot of dairy products could be considered processed, packaged and high fat, I'm not sure that makes them junk foods.

[Cugel]

I notice that the suggestion is only to ban the advertising of junkfud, rather than banning it's sale. If the stuff is toxic (and it is) why do we allow it to be sold? Ditto rather a lot of other "consumer products and services" such as gambling, cars and flying to a foreign holiday in Cakidorm. I suppose the answer is the usual: capitalism rules; profit is all; growth (of a metastasizing rotter kind upon the body politic).

Part of the problem here is that there are lots of things (including gambling, drinkohol, chips, cakes, TV) which are bad when overindulged in but actually quite amenable in low doses. If I've just ridden 50 Km on a hot day a bag of salty chips is actually a pretty good thing to have, while if all I've done is sit watching TV while eating numerous other bags of salty chips it's a terrible thing to have.

I don't have any snappy solutions, but banning anything that's typically not good for folk probably isn't one either.

Pete.

Like so much else, its a matter of degree. How harmless are various toxic things at low dosages? Can some of them even be beneficial at low dosages?

So, as with the more obvious substances such as prescription drugs, rather than banning them completely why not reduce the amounts that can legally be included in a product or service to "safe" amounts? With alcohol this might be a half pint of beer or a very small glass of wine a day. (Controlled with ration coupons). With gambling it would be none-allowed to a 10p raffle ticket (one each per week).

Some things are hard to ration. This includes refined sugar and various other highly processed components (UPFs) of many packaged fuds. In these cases, there's no way to make the doses safe so ban them completely. Addicts will eat 20 bars of UPF stuff to get more if one doesn't have enough in it. Although there's always those ration coupons.

How about car fumes and momentums? These cost a fortune in all sorts of currencies besides cash.

*********************
Nanny knows best! We modern infantilised folk really need our nanny.

*************

Seriously, though - should any civilised society allow complete and free access to highly toxic substances and activities? If we do, shouldn't that come with the price of:

* No access to services like the NHS for deliberately poisoning yourself, driving like a loon so crashing, or getting addicted to booze.
* Severe financial compensation penalties if your habits harm others too, including your family.
* Liability on the toxic-stuff producers for fixing the harms done by their "goods" and "services".

How do we feel about having to cough up a large portion of our tax and well-being to fix carloon victims, UPF victims, gambling victims, toxic chemical producer victims et al? Or to compensate for a thousand other harms caused by junk-makers, the costs of which (and not just the financial costs) they lay off on us all?

[axel_knutt]

[And you'll find every dictionary has a different definition. Using the above a bag of lettuce leaves may be considered as junk food.
The definition needs to be clearer than that if there's a desire to legislate based on it.

Ofcom already has a ban on advertising junk foods, but it currently only applies to advertising on children's TV. The FSA Nutrient Profile Score is an objective numeric scale for grading the healthiness of foodstuffs that was devised at the time for the purpose of enforcement.

A lot of dairy products could be considered processed, packaged and high fat, I'm not sure that makes them junk foods.

As Ben Goldacre says, "There's no such thing as an unhealthy meal, only an unhealthy diet", which is why it's good to assess the collective nutritional value of a whole diet rather than individual foodstuffs. It would be easy enough for someone to market some software that would calculate your own personal NPS collectively from your whole diet, using data averaged from a few months groceries by scanning barcodes with a smartphone. My spreadsheet does that, but you have to enter the data manually.

[Cugel]

As Ben Goldacre says, "There's no such thing as an unhealthy meal, only an unhealthy diet", which is why it's good to assess the collective nutritional value of a whole diet rather than individual foodstuffs. It would be easy enough for someone to market some software that would calculate your own personal NPS collectively from your whole diet, using data averaged from a few months groceries by scanning barcodes with a smartphone. My spreadsheet does that, but you have to enter the data manually.

Whilst I admire Mr G's writings, I can't agree with the notion that there's no such thing as an unhealthy meal. Any "meal" that contains no significant nutrition and a large proportion of harmful elements, from various UPFs to micro-plastic, forever chemicals, pesticides and various other toxins (especially those of a biological nature) can be seen as unhealthy in its individual self, as well as very unhealthy as a regular habit.

There seems to be evidence that various inclusions in mass-marketed and highly processed fuds are toxic to some degree. Even if the level of toxicity is small per meal-sized portion, they're still inherently unhealthy ..... per portion.

If the law doesn't use this approach (banning certain unhealthy ingredients from each and every mass-marketed "meal") it'll be extremely difficult to eradicate these things. As with alcohol, the producers will simply shift the blame for the damage caused on to the consumer who "had too much".

[Bonefishblues]

Post made no sense following the editing of the above post

[Cugel]

Another article reporting on "a study" concerning "popular" mass-marketed fud and its dleterious effects on human health.

https://www.theguardian.com/food/articl ... tudy-finds

It begins thus;

"More than three-quarters of the bestselling dishes sold in high street takeaways, restaurants and coffee chains are unhealthy, as judged by government guidelines, a new study reveals.

Popular products such as pizzas, burgers, chicken dishes, fries and baguettes contain dangerously large amounts of fat, salt, sugar or calories that can damage health, the researchers say.

They came to their “hugely alarming” conclusions after analysing the nutritional content of the 10 top-selling items bought at 19 of the UK’s biggest “out of home” outlets, including chains such as Subway, Pizza Express, McDonald’s, Greggs, Starbucks and Pret a Manger".

So, should such "unhealthy dishes" continue to be allowed to be sold on the grounds that you have to eat quite a few to induce the nasty effects? Should the same apply to fags (you can buy 5 a day, if you're just 12 years old, as it takes more to kill you)?

[re_cycler]

Ofcom already has a ban on advertising junk foods, but it currently only applies to advertising on children's TV. The FSA Nutrient Profile Score is an objective numeric scale for grading the healthiness of foodstuffs that was devised at the time for the purpose of enforcement.

Thank you for the link I wasn't aware of the definition. Banning advertising appears to be a sensible precaution, however given that nutritional science seems to still be evolving I'm not sure that intervening in sales would be as desirable.
Some of the topics raised in this paper make for interesting reading. Any thoughts from Jonathon appreciated.
Oreo Cookie Treatment Lowers LDL Cholesterol More Than High-Intensity Statin therapy in a Lean Mass Hyper-Responder on a Ketogenic Diet: A Curious Crossover Experiment
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38276308/
My takeaway ( no pun intended ) was that in many areas there needs to be more science undertaken before banning products.

[axel_knutt]

As Ben Goldacre says, "There's no such thing as an unhealthy meal, only an unhealthy diet", which is why it's good to assess the collective nutritional value of a whole diet rather than individual foodstuffs. It would be easy enough for someone to market some software that would calculate your own personal NPS collectively from your whole diet, using data averaged from a few months groceries by scanning barcodes with a smartphone. My spreadsheet does that, but you have to enter the data manually.

very unhealthy as a regular habit

But that's precisely what Goldacre's getting at: you can't make yourself ill with just one meal, you'd have to eat unhealthy food persistently for a protracted period, by which time the 'meal' is a diet. The problem with looking at individual meals rather than overall diet is that people acknowledge a meal is unhealthy, but tell themselves (and others) that they only eat it occasionally, when they're actually eating it, or equivalents, most of the time. The most unhealthy item in my diet (by FSA NPS) is German salami, but as it's a once a year treat, its effect on my overall diet is negligible. Collectively, my diet is fairly good.

So, should such "unhealthy dishes" continue to be allowed to be sold on the grounds that you have to eat quite a few to induce the nasty effects? Should the same apply to fags (you can buy 5 a day, if you're just 12 years old, as it takes more to kill you)?

The threshold Nutrient Profile Score for advertising to kids is 4, anything above that is deemed too unhealthy and banned.

23% of the items in my diet are over that, but the overall score for my diet is -2.6 because the unhealthier products are consumed in moderation. If you were to ban the sale of anything over 4, manufacturers would immediately engineer all their products down to that level, and someone who made no attempt to avoid them the way I have would end up with an overall score for their diet that is much nearer to four.

The most unhealthy item in my diet is German Salami (NPS 24), but as it's a once a year treat its effect is negligible overall.

I think taxing the unhealthy stuff and using the revenue to subsidise the healthy foodstuffs is the way to go, that way you end up with a progressive scale rather than a binary threshold.

[pjclinch]

Another article reporting on "a study" concerning "popular" mass-marketed fud and its dleterious effects on human health.

https://www.theguardian.com/food/articl ... tudy-finds

It begins thus;

"More than three-quarters of the bestselling dishes sold in high street takeaways, restaurants and coffee chains are unhealthy, as judged by government guidelines, a new study reveals.

My immediate reaction was surprise at the figure, i.e., "really as low a proportion as that?"

Pete.