Micromanagement or what?

Health officials believe the move is needed as people are consuming 200 to 300 calories too many each day.

The government is claiming to be able to manage calorie intake by 10% or so each day.

Sigh.

40 thoughts on “Micromanagement or what?”

  1. “Popular foods”, a magnificent euphemism for “food the working classes enjoy”.

    You can bet your life that wheels of camembert won’t be getting 10% smaller.

    “Public Health” is essentially a war by upper middle class Puritans on the lower orders.

  2. Supermarkets need to tell the state to fuck off and do so nosily and very, very publicly.

    As in “We won’t obey–law or not”.

    Negative attention to their schemes will shrivel the health Commissars nicely.

  3. Ii’s in the great tradition of the state telling us to abjure fat and limit proteins: “eat your carbohydrates, serfs” it declaimed.

  4. Once again we see our lords and masters, (and ladies and mistresses), invoking collective punishment on the peasants because some of us have the temerity to weigh in a bit over the ideal weight for our station in life.

    They see a few fatties around the place and so we must all be punished by having less joy in our miserable little lives and paying more for simple survival.

    If it was about more than collective punishment, then our betters might choose an approach to obesity, (or any of the other supposed ills of society), which had a hope in hell of making some tiny difference, (like treating the individuals who have a problem via our peerless NHS), and leaving the rest of us to take responsibility for our own lives.

    Cunts.

  5. The end of all of this is preserving the NHS.

    Any free-at-the-point-of-use system is going to be massively oversubscribed. There’s no way around it.

    So, thinks gvt, lets have a massive social engineering exercise in order to avoid having to tamper with the NHS. And create a load of non-jobs to grow said gvt further at the same time.

  6. 200 calories per day is 200x365x10 = 730000 Calories, which at 3500 Calories per pound of fat is 208 pounds of fat. If you also consider that 60% of our body mass is water, and the body’s water content expands/shrinks to match the fat, it means we can expect to put on about 400 pounds every ten years, and after 50 years will weigh 2000 pounds more than we did as young adults. That’s about 140 stone? Something like that.

    Add another 50% if it’s as high as 300 Calories. That must mean there are some 210 stone 70 year-olds wobbling around somewhere. And that’s just the average! What do the tails of the distribution look like?!!

    I think there’s an even bigger problem with the children of today. They can’t do simple arithmetic.

  7. ‘Dr Tedstone said she was “delighted” with it as it was the first time there had been a cross-government commitment to tackling the issue.’

    The fascists can – theoretically, at least – control what people put in their mouths. They suggest no measures to control HOW MUCH, which is the nut of obesity.

    Obese people have made a choice, they care more about consuming food than their appearance and, allegedly, health. If NHS understood the obese, they’d know that taking 200 to 300 calories out will result in the obese just eating more. Surely, there are doctors smart enough to know this. Dr Tedstone putting her name on this schtick should be career limiting.

  8. Dr Tedstone putting her name on this schtick should be career limiting.

    She is a Nutritionist. I can find no evidence that she is a medical doctor anywhere. Her bio on PHE simply says she has a BSc and a PhD from the University of London. No indication of what they were in.

    My guess is she doesn’t posess a single medical qualification, so a natural for “Public Health”.

  9. “They will be voluntary, although officials at the government advisory body said if the industry did not respond they were prepared to legislate.”

    I bet they are.

    On a lighter note, I saw a get well card which tickled me. Chap in doctor’s surgery: “When you say don’t eat anything fatty, you mean things like puddings, cakes, bacon and so on?”

    “No, I mean don’t eat anything, Fatty.”

  10. But what about biomechanical satiaty feedback (or whatever its called?)
    If I eat a 12″ pizza I feel full. If I eat a 10″ National Pizza I don’t feel full so I seek out another 2″ of pizza.

  11. “They will be voluntary, although officials at the government advisory body said if the industry did not respond they were prepared to legislate.”
    That’s not really voluntary then, is it.

  12. ‘Alex11
    August 18, 2017 at 11:53 am
    “They will be voluntary, although officials at the government advisory body said if the industry did not respond they were prepared to legislate.”
    That’s not really voluntary then, is it.’

    This.

  13. @NiV

    200 calories per day per year is 200×365/1000 = 73 Calories

    1000 calories ≣ 1 Calorie (AKA 1 kilogram calorie or food calorie)

    (BTW, the 3500 Cal to 1 lb figure takes water-loss into account.)

    Assuming Nick Triggle (sic) has even a teeniest knowledge of science and has used the correct terminology (which plainly he hasn’t), that means Dr Tedstone is worrying about an average annual gain of about 0.02 of an ounce. The alternative is an annual average gain of 20-25 lbs. Average, mind you: we’re not just talking about about feminists here.

    One remarkable feature of the body’s almost miraculous capacity for homeostasis is how little one’s weight varies over the years. The obesity epidemic has been caused in part by people like this daft bint and their clueless mouthpieces in the media, issuing the wrong advice on diet; and in part, probably a larger part, by the cynical cupidity of the food industry and the supermarkets.

    All in all, the best thing Dr Tedstone could now maintain would be a period – say 40 years – of silence. Ditto the Nick Triggle and the entire BBC, but that would be too much to hope for.

  14. “But what about biomechanical satiaty feedback (or whatever its called?)
    If I eat a 12″ pizza I feel full. If I eat a 10″ National Pizza I don’t feel full so I seek out another 2″ of pizza.”

    A 12″ pizza is 44% bigger than a 10″ pizza, so you actually need to seek out a 6.6″ pizza.( #Innumeracy. ;-))

    The feedback works over the longer term. If you eat 10″ National Pizzas all the time, then every few days you’ll “feel like going out for a National Pizza” when otherwise you wouldn’t have. And if you don’t, your metabolism will slow down to compensate.

    The only function of satiety is to not burst your stomach. It has relatively little to do with weight control, in the same way that lung capacity has little to do with not breathing too much oxygen and catching fire because you didn’t breathe National Air with only 18% oxygen.

  15. Food producers will love it; smaller portions, lower cost, same selling price, more profit. What’s not to like?

    The great unwashed are already bleating about shrunken ‘rip off’ confectionary but same price.

    But the People love it because they keep voting for the same slime balls every time.

  16. This is as much use as the instruction to fish & chip shops to halve salt intake by having fewer holes. People just shake it for longer.

    Here, they’ll have two portions instead of one!

  17. Only John B seems to have spotted that this is a ruse to improve profits for food cos. If the kid is still hungry after the reduced portion then parents have to buy 2 portions. It’s like taking Roy Hattersley to Pizza Express – he saw the size of the pizzas and ordered 2. In the same vein, minimum alcohol pricing was a way of supporting brewers

  18. Will there in fact be a decrease in cost? How much extra cost is there in redesigning packaging and the process which gets the food into said packaging? Would 10% smaller ‘portions’ even require a redesign of packaging?

    They would save on distribution as presumably 10% packaging would allow them to transport more units for the same weight.

    If the process does require a redesign and changing the manufacturing process then I am sceptical of any reduction in costs at all.

  19. “The sex will be voluntary, although officials at the cab firm/takeaway said if the girls did not respond they were prepared to legislate.”

    Can we apply this to any sphere we like?

  20. Yeah. Well having seen the rows of lard occupying the green benches at PMQs, let’s start taking notice of this bunch of c***s when they manage to regulate their own calorie intake. Yes Emily Thornberry, Diane Abbopotomus, Nicholas Soames & many, many others..We’re looking at you.

  21. At risk of a Godwin, “You will sign this contract with the government to supply quantities we say at the price we say, or we’ll nationalise you like we did to Prof. Junkers”.

  22. @ JuliaM
    You can get a court order to get your other half to have sex with you again?

    Brilliant!

    Does legal aid cover this?

  23. John Square nails it:

    The end of all of this is preserving the NHS. Any free-at-the-point-of-use system is going to be massively oversubscribed. There’s no way around it.

    So, Rob, you are wrong when you say:

    “Public Health is essentially a war by upper middle class Puritans on the lower orders”.

    Public Health is an inevitable consequence of a socialist health system. It’s little to do with class.

    Free health care is unsustainable – which is why France and Germany went for insurance-based systems.

    Very crudely, if your diet is crap (and you smoke) , you pay more

  24. If we had never had a war on fat we wouldn’t have the obesity problem we have today. Just convince people to eat a health ratio of fat to protein and carbs and job done.

    “Our industry has a proud track record of reformulation to remove salt, fat and sugar from food and drinks. This work will continue as we rise to the challenge of PHE’s sugar reduction targets and engage with this new focus on calories.”

    d’oh

  25. “Just convince people to eat a health (sic) ratio of fat to protein and carbs and job done.”

    Won’t work. Total amount is the issue, not the ratio.

  26. Gamecock,

    I hope you’re being deliberately difficult. One needs a diet balanced for their genetics and metabolism, which is most definitely not the number the government has claimed for years.

  27. NiV: LOL yes. It’s amazing how many people think a 12″ pizza is just a tiny bit bigger than 10″, ignoring that you square it to get the amount you eat. A 12″ pizza is 144 units of grub compared to 100 units for a 10″ pizza. No wonder I’m starving after a 10″ when I’m used to a 12″.

  28. And what do they think will stop those inclined from buying two pizzas, or maybe adding garlic bread, or chips?
    Short of ration cards this will have no effect.
    Any politician wants to include rationing in his manifesto of course, it’d be a great vote getter!

  29. “I hope you’re being deliberately difficult.”

    Obesity is quantitative, not qualitative. You find that difficult?

  30. We don’t need quantitative analysis to know that replacing fat with sugar was going to lead to problems consuming excess sugar. Ideally we would acknowledge that advice was a mistake. Instead the plan is now to cut sugar as well. I would advise that you start learning about diseases caused by excess protein consumption.

    All calories are not created equally. You can take your desire for control over everyone’s diet’s and shove it.

  31. I can kinda agree with that. Calories from glucose and sucrose can be viewed as equivalent for most purposes.

  32. I await your marketing of LoopY Pizza, with the exact right balance of carbs, protein, and fat, so you can EAT ALL YOU WANT AND NOT GAIN WEIGHT!!!

    I see great wealth in your future, LY.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *