Finding a healthier way of life

Amanda Rothwell

Amanda Rothwell

First published in News

A WEEK of action aimed at changing Swindonians’ diet habits and tackling the surge in obesity has been launched today.

Swindon’s Healthy Weight Awareness Week kicked off at Penhill Library this morning and will run until Saturday.

To promote better living choices, the council’s health improvement team will meet communities over the next few days to share advice and highlight how lifestyle changes can help manage their weight.

The week of action coincides with National Obesity Awareness Week and the Let’s Turn Obesity Around campaign.

Members of the public are invited to find out more about local lifestyle courses and weight management programmes for all ages, such as Dietbusters at Pinetrees Community Centre, in Pinehurst, on Thursday between 11.30am and 2pm and on Saturday at Asda Walmart, Orbital Retail Park, between 11am and 3pm.

Fiona Dickens, the public health programme manager at Swindon Council said: “We’re aiming to raise awareness of some of the simple lifestyle changes people can make to help them manage their weight and be healthier this year.

“These don’t need to be big or expensive changes – swapping some everyday foods or taking up more exercise, for instance.

“We’ll also have information for people of all ages and abilities about opportunities to join local healthy lifestyle programmes or take up a new leisure activity.”

As part of Healthy Weight Awareness Week, people are being encouraged to sign up to the January Change4life Smart Swaps programme to make one or more easy diet swaps every day for a month and shave off saturated fat, sugar and calories from their diet.

Coun Brian Mattock, the cabinet member for health and adult social care, said: “We know that obesity is as much of a problem in Swindon as it is in other parts of the country, with an estimated one in four adults being obese.

“There is no quick fix. However, people who successfully lose weight and keep it off have a number of things in common.

“They make changes to improve their diet and increase activity that they can keep up, rather than going on short-term diets.

“I would recommend that people sign up to the Change4Life Smart Swaps campaign or go along to the events to find out more about ways to get started.”

There will be healthy food tasting and stalls at each event with information on gentle, low-cost activities like walking, cycling and swimming to help get people more active.

For more information about the Healthy Weight Awareness Week call 01793 465413 or go to www.leisureinswindon.co.uk.

Comments (45)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:25am Mon 13 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

In the news today they reckon the estimate of 50% obese by 2050 is probably understated which is quite scary.
Sadly we are becoming a lazy society who would rather find an excuse or blame others rather than accepting out obesity is our fault and no one else's. Apparently its all down to the supermarkets and fast food chains that we are fat. or that people don't have the money or the time to make healthy meals and look after ourselves. But it has been shown time and again that it doesn't cost the earth to eat healthily if you make the effort and for those who say they don't have time they seem to find the time for their favourite soaps/reality/celebr
ity/talent shows and endless hours on facebook and texts.

To solve a problem you first have to admit there is one and for many that is the hard part. they convince themselves that they aren't fat or that they are "happy" when clearly they are not. Also you don't become obese overnight, it takes years of making a concious decision to overeat.

No one is pretending it is easy to get out of a rut, but only we can help ourselves. I really don't believe that people are happy getting out of breath just walking upstairs or struggling to fit in their clothes. I do hope this helps some but sadly there will always be those you cant help and I am afraid I have no sympathy for those who make that choice and then regret it, this softly softly approach clearly doesn't work. How much do we spend on the NHS on obesity I wonder which could easily be avoided?
In the news today they reckon the estimate of 50% obese by 2050 is probably understated which is quite scary. Sadly we are becoming a lazy society who would rather find an excuse or blame others rather than accepting out obesity is our fault and no one else's. Apparently its all down to the supermarkets and fast food chains that we are fat. or that people don't have the money or the time to make healthy meals and look after ourselves. But it has been shown time and again that it doesn't cost the earth to eat healthily if you make the effort and for those who say they don't have time they seem to find the time for their favourite soaps/reality/celebr ity/talent shows and endless hours on facebook and texts. To solve a problem you first have to admit there is one and for many that is the hard part. they convince themselves that they aren't fat or that they are "happy" when clearly they are not. Also you don't become obese overnight, it takes years of making a concious decision to overeat. No one is pretending it is easy to get out of a rut, but only we can help ourselves. I really don't believe that people are happy getting out of breath just walking upstairs or struggling to fit in their clothes. I do hope this helps some but sadly there will always be those you cant help and I am afraid I have no sympathy for those who make that choice and then regret it, this softly softly approach clearly doesn't work. How much do we spend on the NHS on obesity I wonder which could easily be avoided? house on the hill
  • Score: 8

9:55am Mon 13 Jan 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Just look at the town center, cheap butter soaked pasties, pound shops and charity shops only broken up by cheap pubs.
Although individually we can make our own decisions on how we eat and drink these businesses would not flourish if the demand was not there.
Eating healthy doesnt have to be expensive or even time consuming just a little thought and planning....Sorry I will stop that sentence there.

After this week what is the planned follow up? How will information be used? People that are identified as requiring help will there be follow up or are they going home with a leaflet that will be stacked with menus and take a ways.

Is the issue more one of laziness?
We constantly knock those with drink or drugs habits but I honestly dont see allot of difference.
Just look at the town center, cheap butter soaked pasties, pound shops and charity shops only broken up by cheap pubs. Although individually we can make our own decisions on how we eat and drink these businesses would not flourish if the demand was not there. Eating healthy doesnt have to be expensive or even time consuming just a little thought and planning....Sorry I will stop that sentence there. After this week what is the planned follow up? How will information be used? People that are identified as requiring help will there be follow up or are they going home with a leaflet that will be stacked with menus and take a ways. Is the issue more one of laziness? We constantly knock those with drink or drugs habits but I honestly dont see allot of difference. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 2

10:38am Mon 13 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

It's also interesting that many of those who claim they have to choose between 'eating or heating' are so obese.

Must be a lot of very cold houses around.
It's also interesting that many of those who claim they have to choose between 'eating or heating' are so obese. Must be a lot of very cold houses around. ChannelX
  • Score: 4

10:52am Mon 13 Jan 14

benzss says...

I'm just wondering, why is there an automatic assumption that being healthy and long-lived is the only desirable end? Could it not also be that those who eat, drink and smoke perhaps to excess derive more pleasure from life than they would were they instead to dispense with their 'vices' and be health-conscious?
I'm just wondering, why is there an automatic assumption that being healthy and long-lived is the only desirable end? Could it not also be that those who eat, drink and smoke perhaps to excess derive more pleasure from life than they would were they instead to dispense with their 'vices' and be health-conscious? benzss
  • Score: 6

11:17am Mon 13 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

benzss wrote:
I'm just wondering, why is there an automatic assumption that being healthy and long-lived is the only desirable end? Could it not also be that those who eat, drink and smoke perhaps to excess derive more pleasure from life than they would were they instead to dispense with their 'vices' and be health-conscious?
I tend to agree, in some ways. It IS a fairly bizarre notion that we should curtail any and all enjoyment during our healthy, lucid years such that we might - possibly - 'enjoy' a couple of extra years during the period of our life where we're almost certainly going to be in pain, unable to do much of what we'd like to and may well be losing our mental faculties.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: I'm just wondering, why is there an automatic assumption that being healthy and long-lived is the only desirable end? Could it not also be that those who eat, drink and smoke perhaps to excess derive more pleasure from life than they would were they instead to dispense with their 'vices' and be health-conscious?[/p][/quote]I tend to agree, in some ways. It IS a fairly bizarre notion that we should curtail any and all enjoyment during our healthy, lucid years such that we might - possibly - 'enjoy' a couple of extra years during the period of our life where we're almost certainly going to be in pain, unable to do much of what we'd like to and may well be losing our mental faculties. ChannelX
  • Score: 5

12:08pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Unhealthy foods are so cheap it's no wonder those at the bottom of society choose to eat rubbish over more expensive healthier foods. Fizzy drinks, pastries, multi packs of crisps and chocolate etc are very cheap.
Maybe cranking up tax on junk to contribute towards discounted healthy options might work? Make the healthy option cheaper to encourage it's consumption.
Unhealthy foods are so cheap it's no wonder those at the bottom of society choose to eat rubbish over more expensive healthier foods. Fizzy drinks, pastries, multi packs of crisps and chocolate etc are very cheap. Maybe cranking up tax on junk to contribute towards discounted healthy options might work? Make the healthy option cheaper to encourage it's consumption. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -5

12:25pm Mon 13 Jan 14

benzss says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Unhealthy foods are so cheap it's no wonder those at the bottom of society choose to eat rubbish over more expensive healthier foods. Fizzy drinks, pastries, multi packs of crisps and chocolate etc are very cheap.
Maybe cranking up tax on junk to contribute towards discounted healthy options might work? Make the healthy option cheaper to encourage it's consumption.
After having made apparently cheap junk food more expensive, then what? I don't understand this suggestion.

And I'm not sure that junk food is in fact cheaper than healthier food. If people buy their food with the seasons and buy frozen vegetables, I'm reasonably certain it'll be cheaper than pre-made or other junk food.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Unhealthy foods are so cheap it's no wonder those at the bottom of society choose to eat rubbish over more expensive healthier foods. Fizzy drinks, pastries, multi packs of crisps and chocolate etc are very cheap. Maybe cranking up tax on junk to contribute towards discounted healthy options might work? Make the healthy option cheaper to encourage it's consumption.[/p][/quote]After having made apparently cheap junk food more expensive, then what? I don't understand this suggestion. And I'm not sure that junk food is in fact cheaper than healthier food. If people buy their food with the seasons and buy frozen vegetables, I'm reasonably certain it'll be cheaper than pre-made or other junk food. benzss
  • Score: 8

12:25pm Mon 13 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

The cheapest foods are actually 'Value' range fruit and vegetables... and yet, oddly, the 'poor' seem to sail right past those.

There's no need to punish the rest of us by increasing taxes on certain foods just because some people can't help gorging on the things they enjoy most.
The cheapest foods are actually 'Value' range fruit and vegetables... and yet, oddly, the 'poor' seem to sail right past those. There's no need to punish the rest of us by increasing taxes on certain foods just because some people can't help gorging on the things they enjoy most. ChannelX
  • Score: 5

12:40pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Unhealthy foods are so cheap it's no wonder those at the bottom of society choose to eat rubbish over more expensive healthier foods. Fizzy drinks, pastries, multi packs of crisps and chocolate etc are very cheap.
Maybe cranking up tax on junk to contribute towards discounted healthy options might work? Make the healthy option cheaper to encourage it's consumption.
After having made apparently cheap junk food more expensive, then what? I don't understand this suggestion.

And I'm not sure that junk food is in fact cheaper than healthier food. If people buy their food with the seasons and buy frozen vegetables, I'm reasonably certain it'll be cheaper than pre-made or other junk food.
You only have to look around shops to see the junk being pushed very cheaply. Pound shops and discount stores only seem to have high fat,high sugar processed junk on their shelves. Multi buy bargains so people buy loads of it. It's the same in supermarkets with packs of coke, biscuits, chocolate etc are at the end of every aisle in big buy 1 get one free displays. By the checkouts there are fizzy drinks and sweets.

If healthier foods and drinks were pushed and stoked more,made cheaper by supplementing the discount by charging more for junk foods maybe peoples mindsets may change? Only last week there were findings about the damage sugar is causing with the amounts in some goods highlighted. Fizzy drinks contain huge amounts and even tinned soup has 4 spoons of sugar in it.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Unhealthy foods are so cheap it's no wonder those at the bottom of society choose to eat rubbish over more expensive healthier foods. Fizzy drinks, pastries, multi packs of crisps and chocolate etc are very cheap. Maybe cranking up tax on junk to contribute towards discounted healthy options might work? Make the healthy option cheaper to encourage it's consumption.[/p][/quote]After having made apparently cheap junk food more expensive, then what? I don't understand this suggestion. And I'm not sure that junk food is in fact cheaper than healthier food. If people buy their food with the seasons and buy frozen vegetables, I'm reasonably certain it'll be cheaper than pre-made or other junk food.[/p][/quote]You only have to look around shops to see the junk being pushed very cheaply. Pound shops and discount stores only seem to have high fat,high sugar processed junk on their shelves. Multi buy bargains so people buy loads of it. It's the same in supermarkets with packs of coke, biscuits, chocolate etc are at the end of every aisle in big buy 1 get one free displays. By the checkouts there are fizzy drinks and sweets. If healthier foods and drinks were pushed and stoked more,made cheaper by supplementing the discount by charging more for junk foods maybe peoples mindsets may change? Only last week there were findings about the damage sugar is causing with the amounts in some goods highlighted. Fizzy drinks contain huge amounts and even tinned soup has 4 spoons of sugar in it. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -4

12:43pm Mon 13 Jan 14

benzss says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Unhealthy foods are so cheap it's no wonder those at the bottom of society choose to eat rubbish over more expensive healthier foods. Fizzy drinks, pastries, multi packs of crisps and chocolate etc are very cheap.
Maybe cranking up tax on junk to contribute towards discounted healthy options might work? Make the healthy option cheaper to encourage it's consumption.
After having made apparently cheap junk food more expensive, then what? I don't understand this suggestion.

And I'm not sure that junk food is in fact cheaper than healthier food. If people buy their food with the seasons and buy frozen vegetables, I'm reasonably certain it'll be cheaper than pre-made or other junk food.
You only have to look around shops to see the junk being pushed very cheaply. Pound shops and discount stores only seem to have high fat,high sugar processed junk on their shelves. Multi buy bargains so people buy loads of it. It's the same in supermarkets with packs of coke, biscuits, chocolate etc are at the end of every aisle in big buy 1 get one free displays. By the checkouts there are fizzy drinks and sweets.

If healthier foods and drinks were pushed and stoked more,made cheaper by supplementing the discount by charging more for junk foods maybe peoples mindsets may change? Only last week there were findings about the damage sugar is causing with the amounts in some goods highlighted. Fizzy drinks contain huge amounts and even tinned soup has 4 spoons of sugar in it.
Right, but how exactly do you make sure that healthier foods are 'pushed and stoked'? How would a tax and subsidy achieve this?

And, anyway, if people choose to buy cheap rubbish that is their decision. I also note that nobody's complaining about people who buy expensive rubbish.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Unhealthy foods are so cheap it's no wonder those at the bottom of society choose to eat rubbish over more expensive healthier foods. Fizzy drinks, pastries, multi packs of crisps and chocolate etc are very cheap. Maybe cranking up tax on junk to contribute towards discounted healthy options might work? Make the healthy option cheaper to encourage it's consumption.[/p][/quote]After having made apparently cheap junk food more expensive, then what? I don't understand this suggestion. And I'm not sure that junk food is in fact cheaper than healthier food. If people buy their food with the seasons and buy frozen vegetables, I'm reasonably certain it'll be cheaper than pre-made or other junk food.[/p][/quote]You only have to look around shops to see the junk being pushed very cheaply. Pound shops and discount stores only seem to have high fat,high sugar processed junk on their shelves. Multi buy bargains so people buy loads of it. It's the same in supermarkets with packs of coke, biscuits, chocolate etc are at the end of every aisle in big buy 1 get one free displays. By the checkouts there are fizzy drinks and sweets. If healthier foods and drinks were pushed and stoked more,made cheaper by supplementing the discount by charging more for junk foods maybe peoples mindsets may change? Only last week there were findings about the damage sugar is causing with the amounts in some goods highlighted. Fizzy drinks contain huge amounts and even tinned soup has 4 spoons of sugar in it.[/p][/quote]Right, but how exactly do you make sure that healthier foods are 'pushed and stoked'? How would a tax and subsidy achieve this? And, anyway, if people choose to buy cheap rubbish that is their decision. I also note that nobody's complaining about people who buy expensive rubbish. benzss
  • Score: 6

12:48pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Unhealthy foods are so cheap it's no wonder those at the bottom of society choose to eat rubbish over more expensive healthier foods. Fizzy drinks, pastries, multi packs of crisps and chocolate etc are very cheap.
Maybe cranking up tax on junk to contribute towards discounted healthy options might work? Make the healthy option cheaper to encourage it's consumption.
After having made apparently cheap junk food more expensive, then what? I don't understand this suggestion.

And I'm not sure that junk food is in fact cheaper than healthier food. If people buy their food with the seasons and buy frozen vegetables, I'm reasonably certain it'll be cheaper than pre-made or other junk food.
You only have to look around shops to see the junk being pushed very cheaply. Pound shops and discount stores only seem to have high fat,high sugar processed junk on their shelves. Multi buy bargains so people buy loads of it. It's the same in supermarkets with packs of coke, biscuits, chocolate etc are at the end of every aisle in big buy 1 get one free displays. By the checkouts there are fizzy drinks and sweets.

If healthier foods and drinks were pushed and stoked more,made cheaper by supplementing the discount by charging more for junk foods maybe peoples mindsets may change? Only last week there were findings about the damage sugar is causing with the amounts in some goods highlighted. Fizzy drinks contain huge amounts and even tinned soup has 4 spoons of sugar in it.
Right, but how exactly do you make sure that healthier foods are 'pushed and stoked'? How would a tax and subsidy achieve this?

And, anyway, if people choose to buy cheap rubbish that is their decision. I also note that nobody's complaining about people who buy expensive rubbish.
It's just an idea. I don't know if it would work or not?
The shops on our ever dwindling high streets all stock the same crap though. Greengrocers and fruit and veg shops are virtually non existent. Pound shops and discount stores along with junk food outlets all seem to be growing by the day.
Things will get worse and worse the way things are going.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Unhealthy foods are so cheap it's no wonder those at the bottom of society choose to eat rubbish over more expensive healthier foods. Fizzy drinks, pastries, multi packs of crisps and chocolate etc are very cheap. Maybe cranking up tax on junk to contribute towards discounted healthy options might work? Make the healthy option cheaper to encourage it's consumption.[/p][/quote]After having made apparently cheap junk food more expensive, then what? I don't understand this suggestion. And I'm not sure that junk food is in fact cheaper than healthier food. If people buy their food with the seasons and buy frozen vegetables, I'm reasonably certain it'll be cheaper than pre-made or other junk food.[/p][/quote]You only have to look around shops to see the junk being pushed very cheaply. Pound shops and discount stores only seem to have high fat,high sugar processed junk on their shelves. Multi buy bargains so people buy loads of it. It's the same in supermarkets with packs of coke, biscuits, chocolate etc are at the end of every aisle in big buy 1 get one free displays. By the checkouts there are fizzy drinks and sweets. If healthier foods and drinks were pushed and stoked more,made cheaper by supplementing the discount by charging more for junk foods maybe peoples mindsets may change? Only last week there were findings about the damage sugar is causing with the amounts in some goods highlighted. Fizzy drinks contain huge amounts and even tinned soup has 4 spoons of sugar in it.[/p][/quote]Right, but how exactly do you make sure that healthier foods are 'pushed and stoked'? How would a tax and subsidy achieve this? And, anyway, if people choose to buy cheap rubbish that is their decision. I also note that nobody's complaining about people who buy expensive rubbish.[/p][/quote]It's just an idea. I don't know if it would work or not? The shops on our ever dwindling high streets all stock the same crap though. Greengrocers and fruit and veg shops are virtually non existent. Pound shops and discount stores along with junk food outlets all seem to be growing by the day. Things will get worse and worse the way things are going. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -2

12:58pm Mon 13 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

As long as some people insist on making up excuses for what other people CHOOSE to purchase and eat, nothing will change.

Unfortunately, there are a significant percentage of people who simply eat and drink the things they like the most - which, because of human physiology, tends to be high fat, high sugar foods (including carbohydrates).

Ask the average school kid what they'd rather eat out of a pizza, burger and fries or a mushroom stir-fry and count the number who choose the latter...

Taxing things is NOT the answer. Personal responsibility IS the key... and some people will never, ever take any... especially while others make excuses for them.

Unless we accept that people are dim-witted idiots with absolute no ability to process even the most basic of information, we all have a choice and the one thing we all have a choice over is what we eat and drink.

Obviously that does not apply to very young children, but parents who allow their children to become obese are essentially practicing a form of child abuse and should be dealt with by the law accordingly.
As long as some people insist on making up excuses for what other people CHOOSE to purchase and eat, nothing will change. Unfortunately, there are a significant percentage of people who simply eat and drink the things they like the most - which, because of human physiology, tends to be high fat, high sugar foods (including carbohydrates). Ask the average school kid what they'd rather eat out of a pizza, burger and fries or a mushroom stir-fry and count the number who choose the latter... Taxing things is NOT the answer. Personal responsibility IS the key... and some people will never, ever take any... especially while others make excuses for them. Unless we accept that people are dim-witted idiots with absolute no ability to process even the most basic of information, we all have a choice and the one thing we all have a choice over is what we eat and drink. Obviously that does not apply to very young children, but parents who allow their children to become obese are essentially practicing a form of child abuse and should be dealt with by the law accordingly. ChannelX
  • Score: 6

1:03pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

If a can of coke was £1.50 and a fruit smoothie was 50p then maybe people would change their minds?
If the crap was increased in price then it might make people think about it more? And if not the price increase might force them into taking the healthy option.
If a can of coke was £1.50 and a fruit smoothie was 50p then maybe people would change their minds? If the crap was increased in price then it might make people think about it more? And if not the price increase might force them into taking the healthy option. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -5

1:10pm Mon 13 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Leaving aside the notion that we should be 'forcing' people to eat a certain way, the situation you describe already exists.

At the weekend I noticed Innocent Smoothies were on sale in the two largest supermarket chains for £1.50 a carton. Not that they're actually much healthier than Coke, but a litre of Coke was also around the same price... and yet what do you think those who over-consume junk food would buy?

It's not about cost or price, although certain people still like to perpetuate that myth. Yes, some obese people who love junk food also repeat that mantra because they think it excuses them but unless you think everyone's a mindless victim, we all have the same choice as to what we decide to consume.

As I said earlier, the very cheapest food you can buy is 'Value' range fruit and vegetables... which the supermarkets will even deliver direct to your front door if your mobility scooter's battery has died.
Leaving aside the notion that we should be 'forcing' people to eat a certain way, the situation you describe already exists. At the weekend I noticed Innocent Smoothies were on sale in the two largest supermarket chains for £1.50 a carton. Not that they're actually much healthier than Coke, but a litre of Coke was also around the same price... and yet what do you think those who over-consume junk food would buy? It's not about cost or price, although certain people still like to perpetuate that myth. Yes, some obese people who love junk food also repeat that mantra because they think it excuses them but unless you think everyone's a mindless victim, we all have the same choice as to what we decide to consume. As I said earlier, the very cheapest food you can buy is 'Value' range fruit and vegetables... which the supermarkets will even deliver direct to your front door if your mobility scooter's battery has died. ChannelX
  • Score: 5

1:21pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Innocent smoothies are pure fruit so they are miles healthier than coke. You can get 12 cans of coke for £3 or 2 big bottles for the same price.
Packs of chocolate and crisps are cheaper than fruit and more readily available too. Just look at what the Pound shops, Family bargains, B+M bargains, Wilkinsons, The range and even chemists sell.
Innocent smoothies are pure fruit so they are miles healthier than coke. You can get 12 cans of coke for £3 or 2 big bottles for the same price. Packs of chocolate and crisps are cheaper than fruit and more readily available too. Just look at what the Pound shops, Family bargains, B+M bargains, Wilkinsons, The range and even chemists sell. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -2

1:32pm Mon 13 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Hate to break it to your Davey, but:


Innocent smoothies have almost 30 per cent more sugar per 100ml than Coca-Cola


In terms of putting on weight, Innocent smoothies will do it quicker than Coke will.

You're also still wrong about chocolate and crips being more expensive, Kg for Kg, than value range fruit and vegetables. Just repeating your error over and over again won't make you right.
Hate to break it to your Davey, but: [quote] Innocent smoothies have almost 30 per cent more sugar per 100ml than Coca-Cola [/quote] In terms of putting on weight, Innocent smoothies will do it quicker than Coke will. You're also still wrong about chocolate and crips being more expensive, Kg for Kg, than value range fruit and vegetables. Just repeating your error over and over again won't make you right. ChannelX
  • Score: 1

1:53pm Mon 13 Jan 14

benzss says...

ChannelX wrote:
Hate to break it to your Davey, but:


Innocent smoothies have almost 30 per cent more sugar per 100ml than Coca-Cola


In terms of putting on weight, Innocent smoothies will do it quicker than Coke will.

You're also still wrong about chocolate and crips being more expensive, Kg for Kg, than value range fruit and vegetables. Just repeating your error over and over again won't make you right.
Smoothies are undoubtedly healthier than the equivalent amount of cola.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: Hate to break it to your Davey, but: [quote] Innocent smoothies have almost 30 per cent more sugar per 100ml than Coca-Cola [/quote] In terms of putting on weight, Innocent smoothies will do it quicker than Coke will. You're also still wrong about chocolate and crips being more expensive, Kg for Kg, than value range fruit and vegetables. Just repeating your error over and over again won't make you right.[/p][/quote]Smoothies are undoubtedly healthier than the equivalent amount of cola. benzss
  • Score: -2

1:56pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Fruit sugars along with fibre and vitamins in the smoothie. Not spoons of sugar with no goodness in them along with caffeine in the coke .

Of course if you weigh fruit and compare it to a pack of 4 mars bars it will weigh more kg for kg(nice bit of spin there) but fruit is not stocked in the shops i mentioned whereas the mars bars are. And a pack of 4 mars bars for a quid is cheaper than a pack of value apples or bananas also.
Fruit sugars along with fibre and vitamins in the smoothie. Not spoons of sugar with no goodness in them along with caffeine in the coke . Of course if you weigh fruit and compare it to a pack of 4 mars bars it will weigh more kg for kg(nice bit of spin there) but fruit is not stocked in the shops i mentioned whereas the mars bars are. And a pack of 4 mars bars for a quid is cheaper than a pack of value apples or bananas also. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -2

2:06pm Mon 13 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
If a can of coke was £1.50 and a fruit smoothie was 50p then maybe people would change their minds?
If the crap was increased in price then it might make people think about it more? And if not the price increase might force them into taking the healthy option.
That doesnt tend to work, just look at the prices for tobacco! £8.50 for a packet of fags and still over 1 in 5 smoke.

There are the 2 sides. Yes it is all about freedom of choice but with those freedoms come responsibilities that too many just don't care about. The NHS (the taxpayer) is struggling to cope with the cost of looking after those with self inflicted illnesses and we are in danger of it collapsing altogether if it continues to rise at the current rate as we just wont have the money to pay for it.

I also don't agree with the comments like its only losing a couple of years of life when you are falling to bits anyway. It is also about the quality of your life too. I work with obese 20 somethings who literally get out of breath just walking down the office and I really don't believe they are "enjoying" their lives. With longer lifespans we are now at the stage where the average person will spend more than half their adult life the other side of 50, but how you live the second have is very much dependent on how you live the first half. The choice is yours.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: If a can of coke was £1.50 and a fruit smoothie was 50p then maybe people would change their minds? If the crap was increased in price then it might make people think about it more? And if not the price increase might force them into taking the healthy option.[/p][/quote]That doesnt tend to work, just look at the prices for tobacco! £8.50 for a packet of fags and still over 1 in 5 smoke. There are the 2 sides. Yes it is all about freedom of choice but with those freedoms come responsibilities that too many just don't care about. The NHS (the taxpayer) is struggling to cope with the cost of looking after those with self inflicted illnesses and we are in danger of it collapsing altogether if it continues to rise at the current rate as we just wont have the money to pay for it. I also don't agree with the comments like its only losing a couple of years of life when you are falling to bits anyway. It is also about the quality of your life too. I work with obese 20 somethings who literally get out of breath just walking down the office and I really don't believe they are "enjoying" their lives. With longer lifespans we are now at the stage where the average person will spend more than half their adult life the other side of 50, but how you live the second have is very much dependent on how you live the first half. The choice is yours. house on the hill
  • Score: 1

2:26pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

house on the hill wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
If a can of coke was £1.50 and a fruit smoothie was 50p then maybe people would change their minds?
If the crap was increased in price then it might make people think about it more? And if not the price increase might force them into taking the healthy option.
That doesnt tend to work, just look at the prices for tobacco! £8.50 for a packet of fags and still over 1 in 5 smoke.

There are the 2 sides. Yes it is all about freedom of choice but with those freedoms come responsibilities that too many just don't care about. The NHS (the taxpayer) is struggling to cope with the cost of looking after those with self inflicted illnesses and we are in danger of it collapsing altogether if it continues to rise at the current rate as we just wont have the money to pay for it.

I also don't agree with the comments like its only losing a couple of years of life when you are falling to bits anyway. It is also about the quality of your life too. I work with obese 20 somethings who literally get out of breath just walking down the office and I really don't believe they are "enjoying" their lives. With longer lifespans we are now at the stage where the average person will spend more than half their adult life the other side of 50, but how you live the second have is very much dependent on how you live the first half. The choice is yours.
So that would mean that given the choice people make the wrong ones?
If so the only way is to take that decision away from them surely?
I do not see how to do that apart from making the bad stuff expensive or banning it completely. At least if it was taxed more that money could be put into healthy eating.
What other alternatives are there?
I'd also say people driving everywhere is another big factor. Even short journeys to the schools etc are now taken in the car by bloated mums in desperate need of a walk.
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: If a can of coke was £1.50 and a fruit smoothie was 50p then maybe people would change their minds? If the crap was increased in price then it might make people think about it more? And if not the price increase might force them into taking the healthy option.[/p][/quote]That doesnt tend to work, just look at the prices for tobacco! £8.50 for a packet of fags and still over 1 in 5 smoke. There are the 2 sides. Yes it is all about freedom of choice but with those freedoms come responsibilities that too many just don't care about. The NHS (the taxpayer) is struggling to cope with the cost of looking after those with self inflicted illnesses and we are in danger of it collapsing altogether if it continues to rise at the current rate as we just wont have the money to pay for it. I also don't agree with the comments like its only losing a couple of years of life when you are falling to bits anyway. It is also about the quality of your life too. I work with obese 20 somethings who literally get out of breath just walking down the office and I really don't believe they are "enjoying" their lives. With longer lifespans we are now at the stage where the average person will spend more than half their adult life the other side of 50, but how you live the second have is very much dependent on how you live the first half. The choice is yours.[/p][/quote]So that would mean that given the choice people make the wrong ones? If so the only way is to take that decision away from them surely? I do not see how to do that apart from making the bad stuff expensive or banning it completely. At least if it was taxed more that money could be put into healthy eating. What other alternatives are there? I'd also say people driving everywhere is another big factor. Even short journeys to the schools etc are now taken in the car by bloated mums in desperate need of a walk. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -3

2:32pm Mon 13 Jan 14

benzss says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
If a can of coke was £1.50 and a fruit smoothie was 50p then maybe people would change their minds?
If the crap was increased in price then it might make people think about it more? And if not the price increase might force them into taking the healthy option.
That doesnt tend to work, just look at the prices for tobacco! £8.50 for a packet of fags and still over 1 in 5 smoke.

There are the 2 sides. Yes it is all about freedom of choice but with those freedoms come responsibilities that too many just don't care about. The NHS (the taxpayer) is struggling to cope with the cost of looking after those with self inflicted illnesses and we are in danger of it collapsing altogether if it continues to rise at the current rate as we just wont have the money to pay for it.

I also don't agree with the comments like its only losing a couple of years of life when you are falling to bits anyway. It is also about the quality of your life too. I work with obese 20 somethings who literally get out of breath just walking down the office and I really don't believe they are "enjoying" their lives. With longer lifespans we are now at the stage where the average person will spend more than half their adult life the other side of 50, but how you live the second have is very much dependent on how you live the first half. The choice is yours.
So that would mean that given the choice people make the wrong ones?
If so the only way is to take that decision away from them surely?
I do not see how to do that apart from making the bad stuff expensive or banning it completely. At least if it was taxed more that money could be put into healthy eating.
What other alternatives are there?
I'd also say people driving everywhere is another big factor. Even short journeys to the schools etc are now taken in the car by bloated mums in desperate need of a walk.
Who are you to say that it's the wrong choice?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: If a can of coke was £1.50 and a fruit smoothie was 50p then maybe people would change their minds? If the crap was increased in price then it might make people think about it more? And if not the price increase might force them into taking the healthy option.[/p][/quote]That doesnt tend to work, just look at the prices for tobacco! £8.50 for a packet of fags and still over 1 in 5 smoke. There are the 2 sides. Yes it is all about freedom of choice but with those freedoms come responsibilities that too many just don't care about. The NHS (the taxpayer) is struggling to cope with the cost of looking after those with self inflicted illnesses and we are in danger of it collapsing altogether if it continues to rise at the current rate as we just wont have the money to pay for it. I also don't agree with the comments like its only losing a couple of years of life when you are falling to bits anyway. It is also about the quality of your life too. I work with obese 20 somethings who literally get out of breath just walking down the office and I really don't believe they are "enjoying" their lives. With longer lifespans we are now at the stage where the average person will spend more than half their adult life the other side of 50, but how you live the second have is very much dependent on how you live the first half. The choice is yours.[/p][/quote]So that would mean that given the choice people make the wrong ones? If so the only way is to take that decision away from them surely? I do not see how to do that apart from making the bad stuff expensive or banning it completely. At least if it was taxed more that money could be put into healthy eating. What other alternatives are there? I'd also say people driving everywhere is another big factor. Even short journeys to the schools etc are now taken in the car by bloated mums in desperate need of a walk.[/p][/quote]Who are you to say that it's the wrong choice? benzss
  • Score: 4

2:36pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
If a can of coke was £1.50 and a fruit smoothie was 50p then maybe people would change their minds?
If the crap was increased in price then it might make people think about it more? And if not the price increase might force them into taking the healthy option.
That doesnt tend to work, just look at the prices for tobacco! £8.50 for a packet of fags and still over 1 in 5 smoke.

There are the 2 sides. Yes it is all about freedom of choice but with those freedoms come responsibilities that too many just don't care about. The NHS (the taxpayer) is struggling to cope with the cost of looking after those with self inflicted illnesses and we are in danger of it collapsing altogether if it continues to rise at the current rate as we just wont have the money to pay for it.

I also don't agree with the comments like its only losing a couple of years of life when you are falling to bits anyway. It is also about the quality of your life too. I work with obese 20 somethings who literally get out of breath just walking down the office and I really don't believe they are "enjoying" their lives. With longer lifespans we are now at the stage where the average person will spend more than half their adult life the other side of 50, but how you live the second have is very much dependent on how you live the first half. The choice is yours.
So that would mean that given the choice people make the wrong ones?
If so the only way is to take that decision away from them surely?
I do not see how to do that apart from making the bad stuff expensive or banning it completely. At least if it was taxed more that money could be put into healthy eating.
What other alternatives are there?
I'd also say people driving everywhere is another big factor. Even short journeys to the schools etc are now taken in the car by bloated mums in desperate need of a walk.
Who are you to say that it's the wrong choice?
Because they are obese i'd say they got it wrong. Wouldn't you?
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: If a can of coke was £1.50 and a fruit smoothie was 50p then maybe people would change their minds? If the crap was increased in price then it might make people think about it more? And if not the price increase might force them into taking the healthy option.[/p][/quote]That doesnt tend to work, just look at the prices for tobacco! £8.50 for a packet of fags and still over 1 in 5 smoke. There are the 2 sides. Yes it is all about freedom of choice but with those freedoms come responsibilities that too many just don't care about. The NHS (the taxpayer) is struggling to cope with the cost of looking after those with self inflicted illnesses and we are in danger of it collapsing altogether if it continues to rise at the current rate as we just wont have the money to pay for it. I also don't agree with the comments like its only losing a couple of years of life when you are falling to bits anyway. It is also about the quality of your life too. I work with obese 20 somethings who literally get out of breath just walking down the office and I really don't believe they are "enjoying" their lives. With longer lifespans we are now at the stage where the average person will spend more than half their adult life the other side of 50, but how you live the second have is very much dependent on how you live the first half. The choice is yours.[/p][/quote]So that would mean that given the choice people make the wrong ones? If so the only way is to take that decision away from them surely? I do not see how to do that apart from making the bad stuff expensive or banning it completely. At least if it was taxed more that money could be put into healthy eating. What other alternatives are there? I'd also say people driving everywhere is another big factor. Even short journeys to the schools etc are now taken in the car by bloated mums in desperate need of a walk.[/p][/quote]Who are you to say that it's the wrong choice?[/p][/quote]Because they are obese i'd say they got it wrong. Wouldn't you? Davey Gravey
  • Score: -2

2:45pm Mon 13 Jan 14

benzss says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
house on the hill wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
If a can of coke was £1.50 and a fruit smoothie was 50p then maybe people would change their minds?
If the crap was increased in price then it might make people think about it more? And if not the price increase might force them into taking the healthy option.
That doesnt tend to work, just look at the prices for tobacco! £8.50 for a packet of fags and still over 1 in 5 smoke.

There are the 2 sides. Yes it is all about freedom of choice but with those freedoms come responsibilities that too many just don't care about. The NHS (the taxpayer) is struggling to cope with the cost of looking after those with self inflicted illnesses and we are in danger of it collapsing altogether if it continues to rise at the current rate as we just wont have the money to pay for it.

I also don't agree with the comments like its only losing a couple of years of life when you are falling to bits anyway. It is also about the quality of your life too. I work with obese 20 somethings who literally get out of breath just walking down the office and I really don't believe they are "enjoying" their lives. With longer lifespans we are now at the stage where the average person will spend more than half their adult life the other side of 50, but how you live the second have is very much dependent on how you live the first half. The choice is yours.
So that would mean that given the choice people make the wrong ones?
If so the only way is to take that decision away from them surely?
I do not see how to do that apart from making the bad stuff expensive or banning it completely. At least if it was taxed more that money could be put into healthy eating.
What other alternatives are there?
I'd also say people driving everywhere is another big factor. Even short journeys to the schools etc are now taken in the car by bloated mums in desperate need of a walk.
Who are you to say that it's the wrong choice?
Because they are obese i'd say they got it wrong. Wouldn't you?
No, I wouldn't. Your opinion on the choices of other people is valuable only as a talking point, and certainly not as the basis of a totalitarian notion that people's choices ought to be mandated by a group of supercilious puritans.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: If a can of coke was £1.50 and a fruit smoothie was 50p then maybe people would change their minds? If the crap was increased in price then it might make people think about it more? And if not the price increase might force them into taking the healthy option.[/p][/quote]That doesnt tend to work, just look at the prices for tobacco! £8.50 for a packet of fags and still over 1 in 5 smoke. There are the 2 sides. Yes it is all about freedom of choice but with those freedoms come responsibilities that too many just don't care about. The NHS (the taxpayer) is struggling to cope with the cost of looking after those with self inflicted illnesses and we are in danger of it collapsing altogether if it continues to rise at the current rate as we just wont have the money to pay for it. I also don't agree with the comments like its only losing a couple of years of life when you are falling to bits anyway. It is also about the quality of your life too. I work with obese 20 somethings who literally get out of breath just walking down the office and I really don't believe they are "enjoying" their lives. With longer lifespans we are now at the stage where the average person will spend more than half their adult life the other side of 50, but how you live the second have is very much dependent on how you live the first half. The choice is yours.[/p][/quote]So that would mean that given the choice people make the wrong ones? If so the only way is to take that decision away from them surely? I do not see how to do that apart from making the bad stuff expensive or banning it completely. At least if it was taxed more that money could be put into healthy eating. What other alternatives are there? I'd also say people driving everywhere is another big factor. Even short journeys to the schools etc are now taken in the car by bloated mums in desperate need of a walk.[/p][/quote]Who are you to say that it's the wrong choice?[/p][/quote]Because they are obese i'd say they got it wrong. Wouldn't you?[/p][/quote]No, I wouldn't. Your opinion on the choices of other people is valuable only as a talking point, and certainly not as the basis of a totalitarian notion that people's choices ought to be mandated by a group of supercilious puritans. benzss
  • Score: 4

3:47pm Mon 13 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Fruit sugars along with fibre and vitamins in the smoothie. Not spoons of sugar with no goodness in them along with caffeine in the coke .

Of course if you weigh fruit and compare it to a pack of 4 mars bars it will weigh more kg for kg(nice bit of spin there) but fruit is not stocked in the shops i mentioned whereas the mars bars are. And a pack of 4 mars bars for a quid is cheaper than a pack of value apples or bananas also.
Sugar is sugar, the body does not know which one's 'better' just because it's in a 'nice' carton with a cartoon drawing of a 'cute' piece of fruit with a face on it.

Yes, there are other elements of a smoothie that make it 'healthier' in some ways than Coke, but in terms of sugar content - ie, the bit that makes you fat - smoothies are worse for you than Coke. Smoothies also contain more calories and, often, higher levels of fat (as there's zero fat in Coke).

That's simply a fact, your own preconceptions and errors don't change that:

is.gd/SlI3I7

Still, your comments here do go some way to showing why the nation has an obesity problem... your merrily telling people what they should and shouldn't eat and yet barely seem to know the facts yourself.

Interestingly, Coca-Cola Corporation owns the Innocent brand now...
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Fruit sugars along with fibre and vitamins in the smoothie. Not spoons of sugar with no goodness in them along with caffeine in the coke . Of course if you weigh fruit and compare it to a pack of 4 mars bars it will weigh more kg for kg(nice bit of spin there) but fruit is not stocked in the shops i mentioned whereas the mars bars are. And a pack of 4 mars bars for a quid is cheaper than a pack of value apples or bananas also.[/p][/quote]Sugar is sugar, the body does not know which one's 'better' just because it's in a 'nice' carton with a cartoon drawing of a 'cute' piece of fruit with a face on it. Yes, there are other elements of a smoothie that make it 'healthier' in some ways than Coke, but in terms of sugar content - ie, the bit that makes you fat - smoothies are worse for you than Coke. Smoothies also contain more calories and, often, higher levels of fat (as there's zero fat in Coke). That's simply a fact, your own preconceptions and errors don't change that: is.gd/SlI3I7 Still, your comments here do go some way to showing why the nation has an obesity problem... your merrily telling people what they should and shouldn't eat and yet barely seem to know the facts yourself. Interestingly, Coca-Cola Corporation owns the Innocent brand now... ChannelX
  • Score: 4

6:50pm Mon 13 Jan 14

Empty Car Park says...

Ringer says
Sugar is sugar, the body does not know which one's 'better' just because it's in a 'nice' carton with a cartoon drawing of a 'cute' piece of fruit with a face on it.


Actually it does.

Endurance athletes depend on that fact.
Simple carbohydrates (sweets and granulated sugar) are absorbed / digested faster and easier.
Making a chocolate bar a good choice directly after competing in an endurance event.

Complex carbohydrates (fruit, vegetables,pasta)are not so easily digested but, will burn slower and are therefore essential before an endurance event
Ringer says [quote]Sugar is sugar, the body does not know which one's 'better' just because it's in a 'nice' carton with a cartoon drawing of a 'cute' piece of fruit with a face on it.[/quote] Actually it does. Endurance athletes depend on that fact. Simple carbohydrates (sweets and granulated sugar) are absorbed / digested faster and easier. Making a chocolate bar a good choice directly after competing in an endurance event. Complex carbohydrates (fruit, vegetables,pasta)are not so easily digested but, will burn slower and are therefore essential before an endurance event Empty Car Park
  • Score: -2

8:55pm Mon 13 Jan 14

MrAngry says...

The supermarkets want us to spend more. They tends do deals and BOGOF offers on treats or perishable items. If they do a deal on biscuits people will buy more with the intention of eating some now and saving some for later. But because biscuits are nice, we end up giving in to temptation and eating them all in one sitting. Fruit and veg are sometimes included in BOGOF offers, because the supermarket knows that we will eat the biscuits first and then throw away the fruit and veg that has gone off.
Customers think they are saving money, but are really being enticed in to buying more.
The supermarkets want us to spend more. They tends do deals and BOGOF offers on treats or perishable items. If they do a deal on biscuits people will buy more with the intention of eating some now and saving some for later. But because biscuits are nice, we end up giving in to temptation and eating them all in one sitting. Fruit and veg are sometimes included in BOGOF offers, because the supermarket knows that we will eat the biscuits first and then throw away the fruit and veg that has gone off. Customers think they are saving money, but are really being enticed in to buying more. MrAngry
  • Score: -1

9:31pm Mon 13 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

MrAngry wrote:
The supermarkets want us to spend more. They tends do deals and BOGOF offers on treats or perishable items. If they do a deal on biscuits people will buy more with the intention of eating some now and saving some for later. But because biscuits are nice, we end up giving in to temptation and eating them all in one sitting. Fruit and veg are sometimes included in BOGOF offers, because the supermarket knows that we will eat the biscuits first and then throw away the fruit and veg that has gone off.
Customers think they are saving money, but are really being enticed in to buying more.
So what you are saying then is that people are weak and pathetic and get taken in all the time? Welcome to modern Britain except you forgot to add that the fat ones want the taxpayer (NHS) to pay for their treatment when they show their weakness.

The problem is what is the answer? We cant take away people freedom of choice or we become no better than a police state, but we also cant just leave them to die in their own flab, so it costs a fortune in gastric bands and pills and god knows what else, not to mention the sick days off lost to the economy for "tummy upsets" or couldn't get out of the front door! and there is no way that fat people are happy, they have just accepted it. if you honestly believe that if women were offered the chance of being either a size 10 or a size 20 or men were offered a six pack or a beer keg that 99.9% wouldnt choose the former then you are just as deluded as those who say they are happy being obese. Why the hell would you be happy struggling just to get out of your chair or being dragged back into the sea by Greenpeace or every time you turned around its your birthday! If you are truly happy being obese then you wont take offence at my comments, if as I suspect you hate being fat and unfit as I suspect then you will!

Life is about choice and priority but its also about responsibility not just to yourself but to everyone else you expect to pay for your choices too.
[quote][p][bold]MrAngry[/bold] wrote: The supermarkets want us to spend more. They tends do deals and BOGOF offers on treats or perishable items. If they do a deal on biscuits people will buy more with the intention of eating some now and saving some for later. But because biscuits are nice, we end up giving in to temptation and eating them all in one sitting. Fruit and veg are sometimes included in BOGOF offers, because the supermarket knows that we will eat the biscuits first and then throw away the fruit and veg that has gone off. Customers think they are saving money, but are really being enticed in to buying more.[/p][/quote]So what you are saying then is that people are weak and pathetic and get taken in all the time? Welcome to modern Britain except you forgot to add that the fat ones want the taxpayer (NHS) to pay for their treatment when they show their weakness. The problem is what is the answer? We cant take away people freedom of choice or we become no better than a police state, but we also cant just leave them to die in their own flab, so it costs a fortune in gastric bands and pills and god knows what else, not to mention the sick days off lost to the economy for "tummy upsets" or couldn't get out of the front door! and there is no way that fat people are happy, they have just accepted it. if you honestly believe that if women were offered the chance of being either a size 10 or a size 20 or men were offered a six pack or a beer keg that 99.9% wouldnt choose the former then you are just as deluded as those who say they are happy being obese. Why the hell would you be happy struggling just to get out of your chair or being dragged back into the sea by Greenpeace or every time you turned around its your birthday! If you are truly happy being obese then you wont take offence at my comments, if as I suspect you hate being fat and unfit as I suspect then you will! Life is about choice and priority but its also about responsibility not just to yourself but to everyone else you expect to pay for your choices too. house on the hill
  • Score: 2

5:29am Tue 14 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Empty Car Park wrote:
Ringer says
Sugar is sugar, the body does not know which one's 'better' just because it's in a 'nice' carton with a cartoon drawing of a 'cute' piece of fruit with a face on it.


Actually it does.

Endurance athletes depend on that fact.
Simple carbohydrates (sweets and granulated sugar) are absorbed / digested faster and easier.
Making a chocolate bar a good choice directly after competing in an endurance event.

Complex carbohydrates (fruit, vegetables,pasta)are not so easily digested but, will burn slower and are therefore essential before an endurance event
Great little copy and pasted rant... shame it's got nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Here's the truth, for those who wish to be rather more educated and aware than the likes of Empty Car Park / I Too / Blackwell 2:


The sugars from fruit juice are really no different to regular added sugar. Your body absorbs them just as fast, and they have just the same effect on your blood sugar levels. Using fruit juice concentrate is simply a clever ploy by the food industry to make your drinks sound healthier than they really are.

A recently published BMA study looked at whether consuming fruit juices or whole fruit could lead to type 2 diabetes. This was no small study – over 180,000 individuals were included in the results. The researchers found conclusive evidence that regularly drinking fruit juice was found to increase the chance of diabetes.


How embarrassing for you.
[quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: Ringer says [quote]Sugar is sugar, the body does not know which one's 'better' just because it's in a 'nice' carton with a cartoon drawing of a 'cute' piece of fruit with a face on it.[/quote] Actually it does. Endurance athletes depend on that fact. Simple carbohydrates (sweets and granulated sugar) are absorbed / digested faster and easier. Making a chocolate bar a good choice directly after competing in an endurance event. Complex carbohydrates (fruit, vegetables,pasta)are not so easily digested but, will burn slower and are therefore essential before an endurance event[/p][/quote]Great little copy and pasted rant... shame it's got nothing to do with what I was talking about. Here's the truth, for those who wish to be rather more educated and aware than the likes of Empty Car Park / I Too / Blackwell 2: [quote] The sugars from fruit juice are really no different to regular added sugar. Your body absorbs them just as fast, and they have just the same effect on your blood sugar levels. Using fruit juice concentrate is simply a clever ploy by the food industry to make your drinks sound healthier than they really are. A recently published BMA study looked at whether consuming fruit juices or whole fruit could lead to type 2 diabetes. This was no small study – over 180,000 individuals were included in the results. The researchers found conclusive evidence that regularly drinking fruit juice was found to increase the chance of diabetes. [/quote] How embarrassing for you. ChannelX
  • Score: 2

5:34am Tue 14 Jan 14

ChannelX says...


"Smoothies and fruit juice are the new danger," said Professor Popkin, at the department of nutrition at the University of North Carolina.

He added: "It's kind of the next step in the evolution of the battle. And it's a really big part of it because in every country they've been replacing soft drinks with fruit juice and smoothies as the new healthy beverage. So you will find that Coke and Pepsi have bought dozens around the globe."

"Pulped-up smoothies do nothing good for us but do give us the same amount of sugar as a large coke. It is deceiving."

All sugars are equal in their bad effects, says Popkin – even those described on cereal snack bars sold in health food shops as containing "completely natural" sweeteners.

"The most important issue about added sugar is that everybody thinks it's cane sugar or maybe beet sugar or HFC syrup or all the other syrups but globally the cheapest thing on the market almost is fruit juice concentrate coming out of China. It has created an overwhelming supply of apple juice concentrate. It is being used everywhere and it also gets around the sugar quotas that lots of countries have."


How embarrassing for Empty Car Park. Let's have a laugh at whatever feeble response he will now inevitably feel the need to post as he sits there, growing ever more red with rage at having been made to look silly, as usual.
[quote] "Smoothies and fruit juice are the new danger," said Professor Popkin, at the department of nutrition at the University of North Carolina. He added: "It's kind of the next step in the evolution of the battle. And it's a really big part of it because in every country they've been replacing soft drinks with fruit juice and smoothies as the new healthy beverage. So you will find that Coke and Pepsi have bought dozens [of fruit juice companies] around the globe." "Pulped-up smoothies do nothing good for us but do give us the same amount of sugar as a large coke. It is deceiving." All sugars are equal in their bad effects, says Popkin – even those described on cereal snack bars sold in health food shops as containing "completely natural" sweeteners. "The most important issue about added sugar is that everybody thinks it's cane sugar or maybe beet sugar or HFC syrup or all the other syrups but globally the cheapest thing on the market almost is fruit juice concentrate coming out of China. It has created an overwhelming supply of apple juice concentrate. It is being used everywhere and it also gets around the sugar quotas that lots of countries have." [/quote] How embarrassing for Empty Car Park. Let's have a laugh at whatever feeble response he will now inevitably feel the need to post as he sits there, growing ever more red with rage at having been made to look silly, as usual. ChannelX
  • Score: 2

7:57am Tue 14 Jan 14

semitonic says...

Empty Car Park is absolutely right in what he says - complex carbohydrates such as pasta and potatoes are slower burning than simple ones, such granulated sugar. That's why diabetics are encouraged to eat small portions of complex carbohydrates to avoid surges in glucose levels that simple carbs can cause (in itself a disputed practice as protein works more effectively for many type 2 diabetics).

Look at the side of pack of biscuits and you will often see the total carb content given and 'of which sugars' also given - these are the simple carbs.

You said: "Sugar is sugar, the body does not know which one's 'better' just because it's in a 'nice' carton with a cartoon drawing of a 'cute' piece of fruit with a face on it."

This is plain wrong and frankly rather churlish, but we expect that from you.

So now you'd better scurry off and google for something to contradict what I'm saying.
Empty Car Park is absolutely right in what he says - complex carbohydrates such as pasta and potatoes are slower burning than simple ones, such granulated sugar. That's why diabetics are encouraged to eat small portions of complex carbohydrates to avoid surges in glucose levels that simple carbs can cause (in itself a disputed practice as protein works more effectively for many type 2 diabetics). Look at the side of pack of biscuits and you will often see the total carb content given and 'of which sugars' also given - these are the simple carbs. You said: "Sugar is sugar, the body does not know which one's 'better' just because it's in a 'nice' carton with a cartoon drawing of a 'cute' piece of fruit with a face on it." This is plain wrong and frankly rather churlish, but we expect that from you. So now you'd better scurry off and google for something to contradict what I'm saying. semitonic
  • Score: 0

8:24am Tue 14 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

semitonic wrote:
Empty Car Park is absolutely right in what he says - complex carbohydrates such as pasta and potatoes are slower burning than simple ones, such granulated sugar. That's why diabetics are encouraged to eat small portions of complex carbohydrates to avoid surges in glucose levels that simple carbs can cause (in itself a disputed practice as protein works more effectively for many type 2 diabetics).

Look at the side of pack of biscuits and you will often see the total carb content given and 'of which sugars' also given - these are the simple carbs.

You said: "Sugar is sugar, the body does not know which one's 'better' just because it's in a 'nice' carton with a cartoon drawing of a 'cute' piece of fruit with a face on it."

This is plain wrong and frankly rather churlish, but we expect that from you.

So now you'd better scurry off and google for something to contradict what I'm saying.
If you want to compare completely different things, yes, then of course they're different.

But whether you like it or not, the body absorbs and processes the fructose in smoothies in the same way it processes the corn syrup sugars in Coke.

Of course the body processes pasta differently than it would Coke, but then it processes pasta differently to smoothies also.

Much like the ludicrous Empty Car Park, you'd do well to educate yourself a little before commenting. And also make sure you're commenting on what's been said, not what somebody else simply made up in their meaningless response.
[quote][p][bold]semitonic[/bold] wrote: Empty Car Park is absolutely right in what he says - complex carbohydrates such as pasta and potatoes are slower burning than simple ones, such granulated sugar. That's why diabetics are encouraged to eat small portions of complex carbohydrates to avoid surges in glucose levels that simple carbs can cause (in itself a disputed practice as protein works more effectively for many type 2 diabetics). Look at the side of pack of biscuits and you will often see the total carb content given and 'of which sugars' also given - these are the simple carbs. You said: "Sugar is sugar, the body does not know which one's 'better' just because it's in a 'nice' carton with a cartoon drawing of a 'cute' piece of fruit with a face on it." This is plain wrong and frankly rather churlish, but we expect that from you. So now you'd better scurry off and google for something to contradict what I'm saying.[/p][/quote]If you want to compare completely different things, yes, then of course they're different. But whether you like it or not, the body absorbs and processes the fructose in smoothies in the same way it processes the corn syrup sugars in Coke. Of course the body processes pasta differently than it would Coke, but then it processes pasta differently to smoothies also. Much like the ludicrous Empty Car Park, you'd do well to educate yourself a little before commenting. And also make sure you're commenting on what's been said, not what somebody else simply made up in their meaningless response. ChannelX
  • Score: 1

9:58am Tue 14 Jan 14

Empty Car Park says...

RingerX

My comment is based on experience as an athlete.
Having run several marathons, an ultra marathon, and finishing on page 1 of results in Tough Guy three times.

Not just a copy and paste from google.

You're forgetting some people have a life, hobbies, get outside, etc.
RingerX My comment is based on experience as an athlete. Having run several marathons, an ultra marathon, and finishing on page 1 of results in Tough Guy three times. Not just a copy and paste from google. You're forgetting some people have a life, hobbies, get outside, etc. Empty Car Park
  • Score: -1

10:06am Tue 14 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Empty Car Park wrote:
RingerX

My comment is based on experience as an athlete.
Having run several marathons, an ultra marathon, and finishing on page 1 of results in Tough Guy three times.

Not just a copy and paste from google.

You're forgetting some people have a life, hobbies, get outside, etc.
Oh dear.
[quote][p][bold]Empty Car Park[/bold] wrote: RingerX My comment is based on experience as an athlete. Having run several marathons, an ultra marathon, and finishing on page 1 of results in Tough Guy three times. Not just a copy and paste from google. You're forgetting some people have a life, hobbies, get outside, etc.[/p][/quote]Oh dear. ChannelX
  • Score: 1

10:12am Tue 14 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Anyone who claims Coke is as healthy as a pure fruit smoothie isn't worth arguing with. An absolute nut job.
Anyone who claims Coke is as healthy as a pure fruit smoothie isn't worth arguing with. An absolute nut job. Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

10:15am Tue 14 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Anyone who claims Coke is as healthy as a pure fruit smoothie isn't worth arguing with. An absolute nut job.
Where did anyone make that claim?

And stop playing with the voting please, it's quite obvious what you're doing. Again.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Anyone who claims Coke is as healthy as a pure fruit smoothie isn't worth arguing with. An absolute nut job.[/p][/quote]Where did anyone make that claim? And stop playing with the voting please, it's quite obvious what you're doing. Again. ChannelX
  • Score: 1

11:04am Tue 14 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Anyone who claims Coke is as healthy as a pure fruit smoothie isn't worth arguing with. An absolute nut job.
Where did anyone make that claim?

And stop playing with the voting please, it's quite obvious what you're doing. Again.
Yeah I give myself -votes don't I? Your behaviour which you've altered slighty has been duly noted. I aint touched the votes and we both know that don't we Ringer- Tim Newroman- ChannelX
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Anyone who claims Coke is as healthy as a pure fruit smoothie isn't worth arguing with. An absolute nut job.[/p][/quote]Where did anyone make that claim? And stop playing with the voting please, it's quite obvious what you're doing. Again.[/p][/quote]Yeah I give myself -votes don't I? Your behaviour which you've altered slighty has been duly noted. I aint touched the votes and we both know that don't we Ringer- Tim Newroman- ChannelX Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

12:32pm Tue 14 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Anyone who claims Coke is as healthy as a pure fruit smoothie isn't worth arguing with. An absolute nut job.
Where did anyone make that claim?

And stop playing with the voting please, it's quite obvious what you're doing. Again.
Yeah I give myself -votes don't I? Your behaviour which you've altered slighty has been duly noted. I aint touched the votes and we both know that don't we Ringer- Tim Newroman- ChannelX
No, you don't give yourself minus votes. However, you do up-vote yourself several times after others have given you minus votes.

You also down-vote my posts at least twice on most occasions.

It's so blatant that I really don't know why you deny it, Davey Gravey / Empty Car Park / I Too / Blackwell 2.

Your use of the word 'sprawl' gave you away old son.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Anyone who claims Coke is as healthy as a pure fruit smoothie isn't worth arguing with. An absolute nut job.[/p][/quote]Where did anyone make that claim? And stop playing with the voting please, it's quite obvious what you're doing. Again.[/p][/quote]Yeah I give myself -votes don't I? Your behaviour which you've altered slighty has been duly noted. I aint touched the votes and we both know that don't we Ringer- Tim Newroman- ChannelX[/p][/quote]No, you don't give yourself minus votes. However, you do up-vote yourself several times after others have given you minus votes. You also down-vote my posts at least twice on most occasions. It's so blatant that I really don't know why you deny it, Davey Gravey / Empty Car Park / I Too / Blackwell 2. Your use of the word 'sprawl' gave you away old son. ChannelX
  • Score: 2

12:59pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Anyone who claims Coke is as healthy as a pure fruit smoothie isn't worth arguing with. An absolute nut job.
Where did anyone make that claim?

And stop playing with the voting please, it's quite obvious what you're doing. Again.
Yeah I give myself -votes don't I? Your behaviour which you've altered slighty has been duly noted. I aint touched the votes and we both know that don't we Ringer- Tim Newroman- ChannelX
No, you don't give yourself minus votes. However, you do up-vote yourself several times after others have given you minus votes.

You also down-vote my posts at least twice on most occasions.

It's so blatant that I really don't know why you deny it, Davey Gravey / Empty Car Park / I Too / Blackwell 2.

Your use of the word 'sprawl' gave you away old son.
Are you insane? Get to your doctor.
You are only describing your own behaviour. Everything you do you just divert to who notices it.
The thumbs only go strange when you are about and you've been caught by a few people doing it. I do not do it despite your continual lies. I also am only Davey Gravey.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Anyone who claims Coke is as healthy as a pure fruit smoothie isn't worth arguing with. An absolute nut job.[/p][/quote]Where did anyone make that claim? And stop playing with the voting please, it's quite obvious what you're doing. Again.[/p][/quote]Yeah I give myself -votes don't I? Your behaviour which you've altered slighty has been duly noted. I aint touched the votes and we both know that don't we Ringer- Tim Newroman- ChannelX[/p][/quote]No, you don't give yourself minus votes. However, you do up-vote yourself several times after others have given you minus votes. You also down-vote my posts at least twice on most occasions. It's so blatant that I really don't know why you deny it, Davey Gravey / Empty Car Park / I Too / Blackwell 2. Your use of the word 'sprawl' gave you away old son.[/p][/quote]Are you insane? Get to your doctor. You are only describing your own behaviour. Everything you do you just divert to who notices it. The thumbs only go strange when you are about and you've been caught by a few people doing it. I do not do it despite your continual lies. I also am only Davey Gravey. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

1:38pm Tue 14 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

'Strange'? How so?

I have not been 'caught' doing anything, because I have not done anything.

You may repeat your LIES as many times as you wish, they will not become true just because you do.

Weird, you love to accuse others of manipulating voting and having multiple logins yet deny it yourself. Typical of someone like you.
'Strange'? How so? I have not been 'caught' doing anything, because I have not done anything. You may repeat your LIES as many times as you wish, they will not become true just because you do. Weird, you love to accuse others of manipulating voting and having multiple logins yet deny it yourself. Typical of someone like you. ChannelX
  • Score: 1

1:44pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

ChannelX wrote:
'Strange'? How so?

I have not been 'caught' doing anything, because I have not done anything.

You may repeat your LIES as many times as you wish, they will not become true just because you do.

Weird, you love to accuse others of manipulating voting and having multiple logins yet deny it yourself. Typical of someone like you.
Yet again you only describe yourself. I see what you're trying to do. Not very clever though. Lying little Tory troll. A sad and desperate man
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: 'Strange'? How so? I have not been 'caught' doing anything, because I have not done anything. You may repeat your LIES as many times as you wish, they will not become true just because you do. Weird, you love to accuse others of manipulating voting and having multiple logins yet deny it yourself. Typical of someone like you.[/p][/quote]Yet again you only describe yourself. I see what you're trying to do. Not very clever though. Lying little Tory troll. A sad and desperate man Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Tue 14 Jan 14

benzss says...

ChannelX wrote:
semitonic wrote:
Empty Car Park is absolutely right in what he says - complex carbohydrates such as pasta and potatoes are slower burning than simple ones, such granulated sugar. That's why diabetics are encouraged to eat small portions of complex carbohydrates to avoid surges in glucose levels that simple carbs can cause (in itself a disputed practice as protein works more effectively for many type 2 diabetics).

Look at the side of pack of biscuits and you will often see the total carb content given and 'of which sugars' also given - these are the simple carbs.

You said: "Sugar is sugar, the body does not know which one's 'better' just because it's in a 'nice' carton with a cartoon drawing of a 'cute' piece of fruit with a face on it."

This is plain wrong and frankly rather churlish, but we expect that from you.

So now you'd better scurry off and google for something to contradict what I'm saying.
If you want to compare completely different things, yes, then of course they're different.

But whether you like it or not, the body absorbs and processes the fructose in smoothies in the same way it processes the corn syrup sugars in Coke.

Of course the body processes pasta differently than it would Coke, but then it processes pasta differently to smoothies also.

Much like the ludicrous Empty Car Park, you'd do well to educate yourself a little before commenting. And also make sure you're commenting on what's been said, not what somebody else simply made up in their meaningless response.
Well, he's not wrong. Sugar is sugar, yes - in the sense that fructose is as fructose does, no matter its method of delivery - but a smoothie will contain all the sugar in addition to some fibre and vitamins. Comparing 250ml servings of Coca Cola and a random Innocent smoothie I've just chosen, both contain around 25g of sugar, but the Innocent smoothie has 3g of fibre and 30mg of vitamin C. This clearly makes it healthier, assuming you don't drink a litre of the stuff in one sitting.

This is the same reason why eating an orange is healthier than consuming 25g of sugar on its own. Oranges contain quite a lot more 'other stuff' than an Innocent smoothie, and the presence of fibre will result in a trade off effectively lowering the amount of sugar you just consumed.

So basically if you're going to consume something high in sugar, it should probably be a smoothie or whole fruit rather than coca cola.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]semitonic[/bold] wrote: Empty Car Park is absolutely right in what he says - complex carbohydrates such as pasta and potatoes are slower burning than simple ones, such granulated sugar. That's why diabetics are encouraged to eat small portions of complex carbohydrates to avoid surges in glucose levels that simple carbs can cause (in itself a disputed practice as protein works more effectively for many type 2 diabetics). Look at the side of pack of biscuits and you will often see the total carb content given and 'of which sugars' also given - these are the simple carbs. You said: "Sugar is sugar, the body does not know which one's 'better' just because it's in a 'nice' carton with a cartoon drawing of a 'cute' piece of fruit with a face on it." This is plain wrong and frankly rather churlish, but we expect that from you. So now you'd better scurry off and google for something to contradict what I'm saying.[/p][/quote]If you want to compare completely different things, yes, then of course they're different. But whether you like it or not, the body absorbs and processes the fructose in smoothies in the same way it processes the corn syrup sugars in Coke. Of course the body processes pasta differently than it would Coke, but then it processes pasta differently to smoothies also. Much like the ludicrous Empty Car Park, you'd do well to educate yourself a little before commenting. And also make sure you're commenting on what's been said, not what somebody else simply made up in their meaningless response.[/p][/quote]Well, he's not wrong. Sugar is sugar, yes - in the sense that fructose is as fructose does, no matter its method of delivery - but a smoothie will contain all the sugar in addition to some fibre and vitamins. Comparing 250ml servings of Coca Cola and a random Innocent smoothie I've just chosen, both contain around 25g of sugar, but the Innocent smoothie has 3g of fibre and 30mg of vitamin C. This clearly makes it healthier, assuming you don't drink a litre of the stuff in one sitting. This is the same reason why eating an orange is healthier than consuming 25g of sugar on its own. Oranges contain quite a lot more 'other stuff' than an Innocent smoothie, and the presence of fibre will result in a trade off effectively lowering the amount of sugar you just consumed. So basically if you're going to consume something high in sugar, it should probably be a smoothie or whole fruit rather than coca cola. benzss
  • Score: 0

10:44am Fri 17 Jan 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
If a can of coke was £1.50 and a fruit smoothie was 50p then maybe people would change their minds?
If the crap was increased in price then it might make people think about it more? And if not the price increase might force them into taking the healthy option.
Do you mean like cigarettes? that has proved to work well in the past.
Same ideas rolled out by aging populations who as long as the lower classes arent on their door step really dont care.
Healthy people will only grow from healthy attitudes, far deeper problems than just put down that greggs??
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: If a can of coke was £1.50 and a fruit smoothie was 50p then maybe people would change their minds? If the crap was increased in price then it might make people think about it more? And if not the price increase might force them into taking the healthy option.[/p][/quote]Do you mean like cigarettes? that has proved to work well in the past. Same ideas rolled out by aging populations who as long as the lower classes arent on their door step really dont care. Healthy people will only grow from healthy attitudes, far deeper problems than just put down that greggs?? Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

10:54am Fri 17 Jan 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Is the general suggestion here that people should not be allowed to make their own decisions right or wrong? Scary thought.
Is the general suggestion here that people should not be allowed to make their own decisions right or wrong? Scary thought. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Fri 17 Jan 14

semitonic says...

It's quite obvious what he's up to DG, especially since such an unpleasant pillock would have to vote himself up multiple times to counter every other reader voting him down.

Hey Ringer, what's the weather like up your own arѕe?
It's quite obvious what he's up to DG, especially since such an unpleasant pillock would have to vote himself up multiple times to counter every other reader voting him down. Hey Ringer, what's the weather like up your own arѕe? semitonic
  • Score: 0

11:08am Tue 21 Jan 14

Badgersgetabadname says...

Now that is funny....almost stayed on topic until the personal jibes started. I think that is a big problem in Swindon, people only care about what affects them directly.
Now that is funny....almost stayed on topic until the personal jibes started. I think that is a big problem in Swindon, people only care about what affects them directly. Badgersgetabadname
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree