But, to maintain the farce that there was not a systems failure in the NHS, due to cuts, politicians are maintaining the line that Lucy Letby killed babies, and is now accusing managers of letting her do so.
Jeebus:
And again, medical literature, and I’ve taken advice on this issue, shows that this is true. In particular, and let’s name the  culprit, ultra-processed food is deliberately designed to lower our ability to burn calories.
“… I’ve taken advice on this issue …”
And the voices in my head agree with me 100%.
On health issues he takes his lead from his wife. And while the story itself is sad and I’ve insisted we not make fun of either for it, it is true that she actually did go mad. So not, perhaps, a wholly reliable source.
Hmm, anybody got a clue why UPF would be “deliberately designed to lower our ability to burn calories”?
Srsly, if you’re BIG FOOD, what would be the point of that?
I understand why they would make their stuff addictive – don’t believe it, but it would make sense. But WTF would be the point of not burning calories?
Just trying to see if there’s a rational reason this might be so.
Yeah I’m not going there. I just find it hard to believe the man who knows everything has advisors. Given the drivel he turns out constantly it’s implausible.
I’m going to nobble Alacaraz at Wimbledon by feeding him a mars bar an hour before he goes out on court. He just won’t be able to burn calories and run around.
@ Bongo
A Mars Bar is too old to be UPF – it’s the soya-based pseudo-meat pies that are the real toxic foods
Speaking of Conspirazoid:
The concerns are wholly appropriate. Banning people from opposing the glaringly obvious genocide that Israel is pursuing, aided and abetted by the UK government, which continues to supply arms and military support to that far-right, neo-fascist regime, makes no sense at all.
The deliberate equation of Israel with ‘Far right’ is profoundly offensive to many – but he’s got a ready-made excuse.
We have reached the absurd position where supporting the deliberate slaughter of innocent people and children carries no penalty, but opposing it carries with it the risk of 14 years in prison, being charged with a hate crime, and being subject to mass hysteria in the media because someone has had the temerity to stand up and express their concern about the actions of a military force that is clearly out of control.
I’d agree – I think the pro Hamas marches have been going on for 21 months with nary a peep from any police force in the UK
Let me be clear that I do not, and never will, condone violence. That is hardly surprising when I am a Quaker. Nothing I say here should be conflated with doing so.
How convenient for you – everything you have said of course condones Hamas violence and considers it completely justified – so you are not only an anti-semite of rare viciousness but a pathological liar
Nor is anything that I say here in any way antisemitic. Criticising the Israeli government cannot be, should not be, and never can be antisemitic. In fact, to claim that saying anything against it might be antisemitic when the Israeli government is not necessarily a Jewish identity, and it is not the fact that it is dominated by Jewish interests that is the reason why I am criticising it, is just wrong. I am simply criticising it for the unjustified killing of other human beings in pursuit of its deeply misplaced political goals.
If by some miracle amidst the voluminous outpourings of what passes for your mind you could point to a single blog post in two decades criticising Iran this attempt at self-exculpation might have a slim chance of being credible. However, there isn’t one – so your absurd protestation ‘I’m not an anti-semite because’ is just that, preposterous. It’s certainly revealed one of your proclamations to be true though. You could quite easily have been in Dachau – as part of the garrison.
All that I am saying is that freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, and the freedom to undertake political opposition all matter. They cannot represent terrorism, and whilst the actions of those expressing themselves in ways that cause damage to property can give rise, quite appropriately, to criminal charges for that reason, to pretend that the charge is in question should be terrorism related is quite obviously absurd, and will only encourages juries to not convict people who might suffer penalties completely disproportionate to any offence that they might have to undertaken.
Of course those who proclaim ‘two tier justice’ must be treated with the extreme enforcement of the law, especially those who make inapprporiate tweets.
When politicians, like Yvette Cooper, propose the introduction of legislation that is obviously inappropriate, as the terrorist sanctioning of Palestinian Action clearly is, it is apparent that it is they, and not those who are speaking out, who have lost the plot.
They should be proscribed and ideally if not of UK origin expelled forthwith – Ideally their useful idiot apologists should be put on a plane to Gaza as well to meet the IDF.
It is absolutely essential that we retain the right to speak out against coordinated state terror, whichever state in the world undertakes it. It would be an act of deliberate oppression of basic human rights to deny us that freedom. Is that what the UK government really intends?
But you only give a shit about it if it’s Israel. Oppression in Syria, Iraq or Iran (among many others) barely register on your radar and you regularly point out the false canard of ‘Islamophobia’ – Let’s fact facts. You are on the Far Right. End of story
Burger – 600 calories.
Large fries – 600 calories.
Large soda – 600 calories.
Total – 1800 calories.
I am 223lb and my BMR is around 1900 calories – ie, just what I burn being alive. I have a very active job and that still burns maybe 1200 cal a shift, maybe 600 for the rest of the day. *Maybe*.
If you have a less active lifestyle it’s really easy to take in more calories than your burn – no other manipulation needed.
Sugars that can’t be metabolised are really effective laxatives. I suspect that, if UPF really can’t be burned, we’d have a major water problem due to all the lav flushing.
He does realise you don’t have eat shit if you don’t want to? Oh that’s right, we’re all brainwashed. Learn to cook and stop whining.
Speaking of UPF, a classic case of revealed preferences came up when the Covid hysteria started in Australia – supermarkets emptied of everything *except* the vegan fake meat shelves. The same packets are probably still there.
How do you go from ‘big organisations always become corrupt and will do anything to ensure their own survival’ and then segue straight into ‘big organisations are happy to kill off their customers’?
Commie dick Murphy is too goofy today to warrant comment.
Criticising the Israeli government cannot be, should not be, and never can be antisemitic.
For once I almost agreed with him, but then he had to spoil it by adding more words. Criticism of the Israeli government could be done for antisemitic reasons but merely being critical of the Israeli government is not antesemic.
I haven’t seen any suggestion that opposing Israel’s actions is punishable by 14 years’ imprisonment. Everyone is (and should be) free to protest as vociferously as they wish (and the endless pro-Hamas demos in London and elsewhere demonstrate that this is indeed what happens) providing they don’t (a) call for the death of anyone; or (b) carry out criminal damage amounting to millions of pounds.
Those calorie figures Agammamon are a worthless.
I am a small (75 kg), inactive man. I have a tendency to put weight on easily too — most of my family struggle with weight issues.
If I eat a burger, fries and drink once a day as my food I would starve. In reality I would eat that, plus lunch and wine and still maintain my weight easily.
I do believe that calories in is the key, but burgers and fries aren’t bad food when mixed with other food. The numbers cited are just bogus.
Calories are irrelevant. They don’t weigh anything, and in any case the body doesn’t use calorific energy. And the calories you eat (sic) will largely go directly to fat if your insulin is high through eating carbs, and are thus not available as energy (whilst at the same time your existing body-fat is also locked down.) So you soon feel hungry, and end up eating still more. You eat more because you are getting fat, rather than getting fat because you are eating more.
That’s why the keto diet is so effective: eat more calories (sic) than before, whilst losing weight.
It is true that some people people lose weight by counting calories, but that’s only because they eliminate the most egregious high-carb and sugary foods as part of the calculation. It’s the associated hormonal change that causes the weight loss in this scenario.
@JuliaM
How do you go from ‘big organisations always become corrupt…’
…to everything tiny little aspect of your life should be dictated by the biggest organisation of them all?
You eat more because you are getting fat, rather than getting fat because you are eating more.
Wet streets cause rain…?
Do try and follow the argument, Jimmers.
If, because of the body’s hormonal response, the food you eat largely goes straight to fat and cannot used for energy or for building body tissue, then it’s like you actually ate a much smaller meal: you soon feel hungry again. You literally eat more because you are laying down fat.
By contrast, eating fatty meat for example, the majority of dietary fat will be used for energy and is augmented by existing body fat which, in the absence of insulin, is mobilised. Now you eat less because you are losing weight; because now you are constantly ‘eating’ your own body-fat for energy.
So if you eat eg 5000 calories of fatty meat per day, you still lose weight? I don’t think so.
“So if you eat eg 5000 calories of fatty meat per day, you still lose weight?”
If you burn 5050 calories per day, yes.
Some of the problems with such theories are they don’t appreciate the difference between an amount and the rate of change in that amount, and they assume the amount of calories you burn is constant, or independent of the input. They think that unlike every other biochemical process it is unguided by homeostasis. Organisms evolved energy storage to survive famines, and to your biochemistry, a diet is indistinguishable from a famine.