We know Big Brother will never return to it's Channel 4 heyday while it's on Channel 5. They lost over half their viewers when they moved to Channel 5. It's the least watched terrestrial tv channel. In Channel 5 terms, however, the show still performs very well.
I repeat, it was never Helen's ambition to work in showbiz. It was only ever about the Big Brother experience and anything else is a bonus. It's perfectly normal for Big Brother housemates to have an agent. Most housemates can make decent money when they leave but it tends to be short lived. Having an agent ensures they get the best deal possible. Being offered the job as a Daily Star journalist was a great opportunity and she's really enjoyed it so far. No matter what happens she will have her Salon to fall back on.
How can you possibly know she had no ambition to work in Showbiz?
I'm close with my cousins but the thought of telling them that has never even occurred to me.
If she didn't want to be in Showbiz then she wouldn't do a show like BB or work for the Daily Star it's a contradictory statement.
I never said it wasn't normal for BB HMs to have agents in the past few years. Back on Channel 4 they didn't...their the ones who stood the test of time too.
Agents don't get them a better deal for civilian BB they receive a basic amount per day...all the same and then the winner gets a huge lump sum.
She's not naive enough to think she could go into the Big Brother house and suddenly come out a huge star. It just doesn't happen nowadays. She never even suggested the possibility of having a showbiz career.
You think everyone who enters Big Brother believes they will have a showbiz career when they leave?
It was only about the Big Brother experience. Winning the show opened up further opportunities. The job with a Daily Star was a nice added bonus after winning the show. It was a terrific opportunity to work as a journalist.
Max Clifford represented many of them with his biggest success being Jade Goody. Anyone who was successful back then had an agent.
It has nothing to do with the fee they receive for being in the house. Agents negotiate deals while they are in the house. The first week when they leave the house is the most important period for them. That is when they can get the newspaper and magazine deals. That period is their main earning opportunity.
She doesn't have a big showbiz career, she has a once a week column ghost wirtten in a paper and thats about it. My point is NOBODY these days goes in Big Brother without the hope of it helping their career. Everyone is looking to gain even fifteen minutes of fame from it. Its been that way more than a decade. Its the perfect way for people with little to no talent to get their name in the press for a short time.
So yes I do believe every person who enters that house now does so under the hope they will have a showbiz career out of it.
Yes Max Clifford represented Jade...after she had been on Big Brother not before. Helen had an agent before entering the house, who helped her get on the show to begin with.
I never said the week after wasn't the best earning time, it is. My point the entire time was that Helen going into the house was because of her agent doing his job to get her on the show in the first place. I wasn't talking about the week after.
Agents can't get someone a place if the producers don't want them.
The producers chose Helen over however many other people tried to get in, including those who auditioned. It's not unreasonable to say she "beat out" that many people.
This is true to an extent, but if they searched out people who already had an agent or a history of being in the headlines its not like they are competing with the 15,000 who applied to get one on one time with producers or anything like that. The producers wouldn't search people out for them just to go through the exact same audition process as everyone else. People who have agents will have skipped a step or two. They wanted them to be in the house based off their history to grab headlines and such.
Where as if someone like Helen woul have auditioned like anybody else, without her having an agent do you think it would have been a sure thing she got in the house? Or do you think they could have looked at a hundred other "confrontational people" and decided one of them would have been better suited.
The reason Helen got in the house was because of the Wayne Rooney incident...whether she was the one who sold it to the papers or not
....
This is true to an extent, but if they searched out people who already had an agent or a history of being in the headlines its not like they are competing with the 15,000 who applied to get one on one time with producers or anything like that. The producers wouldn't search people out for them just to go through the exact same audition process as everyone else. People who have agents will have skipped a step or two. They wanted them to be in the house based off their history to grab headlines and such.
Where as if someone like Helen woul have auditioned like anybody else, without her having an agent do you think it would have been a sure thing she got in the house? Or do you think they could have looked at a hundred other "confrontational people" and decided one of them would have been better suited.
The reason Helen got in the house was because of the Wayne Rooney incident...whether she was the one who sold it to the papers or not
I think that when BB searches out people as possible HMs, those people are still competing with the ones who audition. They won't be picked if the producers don't think they'll be a better choice than those who aren't picked.
I don't know exactly what process Helen went through. (Does anyone here?) But the way it used to be is that the people who were sought out or fast tracked "the same process of interviews and group events as everyone else", as Philip Edgar-Jones explained in this post during bb11:
... Re the audition process in general we do fast track people we find interesting, of course we do, it's no great secret, but they are fast tracked through the same process of interviews and group events as everyone else. And we also go out looking for people who wouldn't normally apply. That's particularly true of this year as the team and I wanted the house to have a generally different flavour and tone. Over the years some people have got quite close to being housemates, sometimes even making it to the practice runs we do before each series, if we like them they may eventually become housemates, but again they've still gone through the same process of interviews and checks. I don't think Steve would have applied through the normal route and I am sure he did get an email suggesting he apply (as would many many other people) and from there one in he went through the normal process - in fact I first saw him at the London auditions. In the end I don't think it really matters how people got there - we're trying to create a diverse house and all these means of doing it are perfectly legitimate. p x
BB do invite some people to audition. These people are fast tracked through the first section, not through the whole process. BB probably do this so they have a wider section of people rather than the same people applying year in, year out.
I don't think that skipping the first section means they aren't competing with the others.
I don't even think it mean they aren't competing with the ones who went through the "first section". That they don't face all of those people individually doesn't mean they're not in competition. Otherwise, we'd have to say no one competes with anyone who doesn't turn up at the very same audition event.
She doesn't have a big showbiz career, she has a once a week column ghost wirtten in a paper and thats about it. My point is NOBODY these days goes in Big Brother without the hope of it helping their career. Everyone is looking to gain even fifteen minutes of fame from it. Its been that way more than a decade. Its the perfect way for people with little to no talent to get their name in the press for a short time.
So yes I do believe every person who enters that house now does so under the hope they will have a showbiz career out of it.
Yes Max Clifford represented Jade...after she had been on Big Brother not before. Helen had an agent before entering the house, who helped her get on the show to begin with.
I never said the week after wasn't the best earning time, it is. My point the entire time was that Helen going into the house was because of her agent doing his job to get her on the show in the first place. I wasn't talking about the week after.
Nobody said Helen has a big showbiz career. That's purely down to your own issues towards Helen that you chose to raise that. Helen is a very successful salon owner. That is her job. That is what pays the bills. However, her success on Big Brother has led to other opportunities like modelling and journalism.
Big Brother is now about the experience for the majority of housemates. Yes, they can make a few quid when they leave but it's not long-term. Helen has been more successful than most due to her character and personality. She's probably one of the most memorable housemates in many years. A very controversial figure who split opinion throughout the series but totally dominated debate.
She's not afraid to give an opinion and that's what makes her such an amazing journalist. You only need to read her threads on here to see that. Everyone has an opinion and that's the most important element for any journalist. When people no longer have an opinion, that's the time to worry.
Helen had to go through the audition process the same as anyone else. She beat thousands upon thousands of hopefuls to enter the house. To win the show after the journey she had been on was quite remarkable. She must have gone through every emotion possible throughout the series. Her popularity went up and down but like any true champion she came strong at the end and managed to capture the hearts of the nation.
Don't like to add to a thread without reading it all usually but I'm sure we had her Facebook link up here during the summer and her own son was a little stoutly, apologies if I'm wrong but there was a picture available to public on her wall of him in a car with her.
Edit: Also Helen's friend Michelle put Helen's son on a strict diet whilst she was in the house and said he would be expecting his cheeseburgers again when she came out.
So....is Helen admitting she has abused her own son?
Wasnt her son, it was her dog Dude that was put on a diet,
Well OP in places in the world where people have little to eat and only those with enough money can buy spare food for their family and as a consequence some of their children do become over weight. Does the same seeming 'abuse' theory stick I wonder. Also there are medical conditions which can also cause the child to be over weight.;-);-):)
Well OP in places in the world where people have little to eat and only those with enough money can buy spare food for their family and as a consequence some of their children do become over weight. Does the same seeming 'abuse' theory stick I wonder. Also there are medical conditions which can also cause the child to be over weight.;-);-):)
Which Helen refers to in her article.
''Illnesses out there can cause people to be overweight, I get that, of course I do, I get that people turn to food through depression too. ''
You mean the sarcastic "comebacks" that play to the gallery and distort was Helen said?
No, I meant what I initially stated actually.
The day I take anything, regardless of the subject matter that Helen 'writes' about seriously is the day I give up in all fairness. After her own appalling behaviour that I witnessed on BB I don't think she's that far up in my estimation of what she thinks and doesn't think.
She'd have her work cut out for me to think she could ever be sincere in what she states and gets someone else to prepare for the newspaper.
I love this Rufus guy, purely for the comedy. Is he actually serious?
Not quite sure. But I remember him saying he put a few bob on Helen to win as did other members of the 'family' and that due to her winning they had coined it in.
Odd though as I distinctly remember Helen saying she didn't get on with her family.
More like 1200, and the Independent's length restrictions aren't especially relevant. It's not exceptionally long for a blog post (which is what it essentially is).
I appreciate the time you took to reply and explain, but I'd still surprised you said it's "literally and without exaggeration the worst written thing (you) have ever seen paraded under the word 'journalism'".
I think you are inclined to be especially critical of the way something is written when it says things about obesity you disagree with. It was similar with the NHS Choices page we discussed in another thread. (You haven't yet replied re what the Mayo Clinic said.)
Probably. Overweight people seem the last socially acceptable group for strong and open bullying, and it feels as if there is an irreducible pool of malice that has to go somewhere; in the absence of other targets, it all goes in one direction.
And my current pet dislike in the area is the pretence that it is fine to be harsh and bullying towards overweight people because only a few of them had 'a condition'.
I thought it might be an instance of the tactic, common among certain types of columnists, especially in certain tabloid-shaped papers, of mixing 'politically correct' comments in with things that aren't, as a way to wrong-foot critics. Or perhaps she set out intending to cover a range of weight-related issues but ended up spending the most time on overweight and obesity, because that's what she felt most strongly about, or had the most to say about, or because it's what the Star wanted.
It just sounds like something someone wrote over two separate occasions, losing the thread of what they were saying between the two parts. Very odd.
I thought the same about "I could not leave the table if I still had food on the plate" initially. But it would depend on what she was required to eat, and how much of it there was. I think that, in context, it was about having to eat the food her parents had prepared, including "greens", rather than being "allowed to go and help (herself) to fast food."
I'm sure she was telling the simple truth. People of my generation were often obliged to eat everything on their plates, and very sickening it was at times. I just think she isn't bright enough to distinguish between 'if we didn't eat our dinners, we got nothing else' (which is true and fine) and 'we had to eat everything on our plates whether we wanted to or not' (which is also true and not fine at all.) I guess it goes back to parents who grew up during the war, when food was pretty hard-won and wasting it was not a casual matter.
How is that meant to fit what she said about using "fat" on twitter?
She is boasting about using it as an insult.
Even her "luckily" comment -- which btw was not in all caps -- was not quite how you make it seem. She said "I get that people turn to food through depression too. Luckily, I'm the opposite." But she didn't actually see the effects as a good thing. That she "resembled a stickleback fish" wasn't supposed to be a good thing, just as looking like she "was on the verge of snapping in half" wasn't supposed to be good.
It is obviously supposed to be better. There really isn't any equivalent to the large and fertile lexicon of fat-hating words. 'Stickleback fish' sounds quite cute. People are always moaning that someone dared to call them skinny, but the truth is that unless you look practically dead, thin is the socially valued way to look. Someone who is called skinny, assuming that they are not practically dead, can well afford the smug smile and the 'jealous' sneer.
Anyway, Helen Wood lost weight and got too thin. Then she got too fat. None of which has given her any patience with or sympathy for other people who have got too fat, no doubt because reformed sinners are generally the most intolerant and judgmental of all.
That looks like an example of one of the common forum fallacies: that something based on a generalisation or on a stereotype must be about "all" people in that category; Helen's comment doesn't even mean that any 'butch lesbian' lives on pints of lager and cheesy chips. And "butch", as a description of how someone looks, does not apply equally to 'the same range of body shapes as anyone else'.
I don't agree. I'm not overly comfortable with the word, but no doubt those who put together the It's All Butch calendar don't mind it.
I don't suppose the Star Online readers mind someone chortling that they had to make changes because they looked like a butch lesbian, but that doesn't mean it is not a tiresomely negative stereotype in action.
She doesn't pretend that fat children all live on kebabs; and when a column distinguishes between those with illnesses and those without, you don't normally call it "pious bleating". That "the bullies can't possibly know who has (an illness) and who hasn't" does not mean it's perfectly ok to "feed your child c**p repeatedly".
But she doesn't distinguish. Like every other similar 'let's bash fat people' columnist, she pays lip service, but how can we? We all know that if Katie Price was, say, a humble healthcare assistant, she would not be able to leave the house with Harvey without busybodies clucking and saying things like, "look at the state of that! Disgusting! Someone should tell social services!"
There is a useful article to be written about childhood obesity and how to address it. This is not it.
I like this very much. Doesn't pretend that the issue is simple, even suggests that children today eat LESS in terms of calories than they did 30 years ago. Does not say anything that would lead to the words 'lard-arse'. Takes an adult, nuanced view of the issue, addresses it compassionately, and achieves truly remarkable results.
Has Helen Wood read it? I think that would be a no somehow.
Probably. Overweight people seem the last socially acceptable group for strong and open bullying, and it feels as if there is an irreducible pool of malice that has to go somewhere; in the absence of other targets, it all goes in one direction.
And my current pet dislike in the area is the pretence that it is fine to be harsh and bullying towards overweight people because only a few of them had 'a condition'.
I don't buy the theory about an "irreducible pool of malice that has to go somewhere", and I suspect your belief that "unless you look practically dead, thin is the socially valued way to look" is involved; but ok.
It just sounds like something someone wrote over two separate occasions, losing the thread of what they were saying between the two parts. Very odd.
Who knows? I suggested some possibilities in my previous post. Here's another: perhaps it was originally longer and coherence suffered when it was cut back. *shrugs*
I'm sure she was telling the simple truth. People of my generation were often obliged to eat everything on their plates, and very sickening it was at times. I just think she isn't bright enough to distinguish between 'if we didn't eat our dinners, we got nothing else' (which is true and fine) and 'we had to eat everything on our plates whether we wanted to or not' (which is also true and not fine at all.) I guess it goes back to parents who grew up during the war, when food was pretty hard-won and wasting it was not a casual matter.
You're still ignoring the context, which was about having to eat the food her parents had prepared, including "greens", rather than being "allowed to go and help (herself) to fast food."
She is boasting about using it as an insult.
She isn't.
It is obviously supposed to be better. There really isn't any equivalent to the large and fertile lexicon of fat-hating words. 'Stickleback fish' sounds quite cute. People are always moaning that someone dared to call them skinny, but the truth is that unless you look practically dead, thin is the socially valued way to look. Someone who is called skinny, assuming that they are not practically dead, can well afford the smug smile and the 'jealous' sneer.
To make that seem to work, you've had to leave out the part about looking like she "was on the verge of snapping in half". 'Stickleback fish' is an odd choice of image, but it's irrelevant that to you is "sounds quite cute"; there's no reason to think Helen thought it a positive image.
Anyway, Helen Wood lost weight and got too thin. Then she got too fat. None of which has given her any patience with or sympathy for other people who have got too fat, no doubt because reformed sinners are generally the most intolerant and judgmental of all.
That's a curious bit of mind-reading.
I don't agree. I'm not overly comfortable with the word, but no doubt those who put together the It's All Butch calendar don't mind it.
I don't suppose the Star Online readers mind someone chortling that they had to make changes because they looked like a butch lesbian, but that doesn't mean it is not a tiresomely negative stereotype in action.
If all you meant was that it was a tiresomely negative stereotype, you should have said that rather than the distorting sarcasm.
But she doesn't distinguish. Like every other similar 'let's bash fat people' columnist, she pays lip service, but how can we? We all know that if Katie Price was, say, a humble healthcare assistant, she would not be able to leave the house with Harvey without busybodies clucking and saying things like, "look at the state of that! Disgusting! Someone should tell social services!"
She does distinguish. You don't want to accept that, so you label it "lip service".
I am baffled re why you're determined to bring Katie Price into this. It's irrelevant. No matter what anyone said, no matter how clearly and undeniably they distinguished between those with illnesses and those without, it would still be the case that "if Katie Price was, say, a humble healthcare assistant," etc. then "busybodies" might cluck, etc.
There is a useful article to be written about childhood obesity and how to address it. This is not it.
I like this very much. Doesn't pretend that the issue is simple, even suggests that children today eat LESS in terms of calories than they did 30 years ago. Does not say anything that would lead to the words 'lard-arse'. Takes an adult, nuanced view of the issue, addresses it compassionately, and achieves truly remarkable results.
It's interesting that those articles are so different from the genetic programming / determinism position you were defending in the other thread, and citing research papers to back. For instance, the paper you're referring to this time says:
Environmental factors, lifestyle preferences, and cultural environment play pivotal roles in the rising prevalence of obesity worldwide. In general, overweight and obesity are assumed to be the results of an increase in caloric and fat intake. On the other hand, there are supporting evidence that excessive sugar intake by soft drink, increased portion size, and steady decline in physical activity have been playing major roles in the rising rates of obesity all around the world.
It notes that "while about 50% of the adults are overweight and obese in many countries, it is difficult to reduce excessive weight once it becomes established" and says "Children should therefore be considered the priority population for intervention strategies."
Genetic factors influence the susceptibility of a given child to an obesity-conducive environment. However, environmental factors, lifestyle preferences, and cultural environment seem to play major roles in the rising prevalence of obesity worldwide [26-29]. In a small number of cases, childhood obesity is due to genes such as leptin deficiency or medical causes such as hypothyroidism and growth hormone deficiency or side effects due to drugs (e.g. – steroids) [30]. Most of the time, however, personal lifestyle choices and cultural environment significantly influence obesity.
Note that it (rightly, imo) has the role of genetic factors as influencing "the susceptibility of a given child to an obesity-conducive environment"; it attributes only a "small number of cases" to things like medical causes; and it says "Most of the time, however, personal lifestyle choices and cultural environment significantly influence obesity."
It looks closer to Helen's position than to the one you were defending.
They show a selection of self-selected butch lesbians who are slim.
She does distinguish. You don't want to accept that, so you label it "lip service".
I am baffled re why you're determined to bring Katie Price into this. It's irrelevant. No matter what anyone said, no matter how clearly and undeniably they distinguished between those with illnesses and those without, it would still be the case that "if Katie Price was, say, a humble healthcare assistant," etc. then "busybodies" might cluck, etc.
I am sorry if I wasn't clear.
People who are rude and judgmental about people with overweight children have no way of telling if they are fat because they have a genetic/ medical condition or not. The default position seems to be 'let's be rude and judgmental anyway, because it would be far worse to be polite about someone who has eaten foolishly than it would be to be rude about someone who is very unwell.' The point about Katie Price is that she is largely protected from this abuse by her fame. If she was not famous, she would constantly suffer abuse and hostile comment because of the fatness of her son.
It's interesting that those articles are so different from the genetic programming / determinism position you were defending in the other thread, and citing research papers to back. For instance, the paper you're referring to this time says:
It notes that "while about 50% of the adults are overweight and obese in many countries, it is difficult to reduce excessive weight once it becomes established" and says "Children should therefore be considered the priority population for intervention strategies."
In the section on causes, it says:
Note that it (rightly, imo) has the role of genetic factors as influencing "the susceptibility of a given child to an obesity-conducive environment"; it attributes only a "small number of cases" to things like medical causes; and it says "Most of the time, however, personal lifestyle choices and cultural environment significantly influence obesity."
It looks closer to Helen's position than to the one you were defending.
Genetic characteristics can be expressed or not expressed. I don't see how anyone can deny that most people (not everyone) are genetically programmed to overeat. During normal historical times of scarcity, this was very adaptive. The more fat you acquired, the better your chances of surviving cold and disease. It is impossible to overlook the fact that as soon as any area in the world moves from scarcity to plenty, the majority of people seem to overeat, immediately. It is no longer adaptive, but genes are not self-correcting as our environment changes.
This is different from 'a condition', the factor so beloved of fat-shamers. It means that a lot of people, those with a higher appetite point, will have to stop eating when they are still hungry, every day.
Obviously the Danish study is not concerned with this; it is a practical study, and basically it is addressing the issue, not explaining it. How do we deal with children and teenagers who are not used to hunger, and perceive it (reasonably, since it quickly becomes unpleasant) as pain? The answer is clearly to work with them, not to hector, badger and shame them. People need to reclaim the perception that hunger is a normal daily state; we are programmed to address it, because throughout most of human history that was healthy behaviour.
I genuinely think shallow, critical articles like the one in the OP are harmful, not helpful, even when they are better written.
Ithe local tram when a group of people thought it was their right to shout at a kid who at the time was on steriods, about his weight. Telling him where the nearest fast food outlet was, because he might waste away, having not eaten the entire journey. .
That's so cruel. It's made me really sad. Some horrible horrible people around
I can't say I disagree with her. Agency of what children eat falls squarely on the parents; "Too Fat To Work" type adults have, throughout their lives, developed a dependency on food - if their parents were more responsible, it probably wouldn't have reached that stage.
Allowing children to get obese - not simply chubby, but huge - sets them up to be too fat to work. And if you can't cope with a child demanding, and kicking and screaming, you shouldn't be a parent.
Just out of interest do you agree with KH ??? Only she says pretty much the same thing but people hate her....Helen says it and suddenly it is a revolution . Soany people have said thia dor yeara.
in the nicest possible way my opinion is that even if you find overweight people attractive as an aesthetic, fine but the fact is it is very very bad for you , healthwise, so why people support this is confusing to understand
weight gain has also been linked to breast cancer in females (though i can underestand theres a way of wording things)
They show a selection of self-selected butch lesbians who are slim.
And ...?
In any case, I wasn't asking for a description of the pictures; I meant what do you think they prove / demonstrate / establish re what it seemed you'd linked them in reply to.
I am sorry if I wasn't clear.
People who are rude and judgmental about people with overweight children have no way of telling if they are fat because they have a genetic/ medical condition or not. The default position seems to be 'let's be rude and judgmental anyway, because it would be far worse to be polite about someone who has eaten foolishly than it would be to be rude about someone who is very unwell.' The point about Katie Price is that she is largely protected from this abuse by her fame. If she was not famous, she would constantly suffer abuse and hostile comment because of the fatness of her son.
But you could say all that about what you think is the "default position" -- which is already of only questionable relevance -- without bringing Katie Price into it.
There seems to be a pattern these days -- perhaps started by Katie P herself -- of bringing in her child in when someone talks of the role of parents, diet, exercise, etc in childhood obesity, as if the comments had been an attack on her and her child.
And there's a larger pattern of using the cases where obesity has a different cause, such as a medical condition, to try to shut down discussion of the role of diet, lifestyle and exercise.
There's also a pattern of seeing excessive thinness (and, it often seems, thinness that isn't excessive as well) as a greater problem than obesity -- and as one that calls for environmental changes, such as the use of images of thin women, and even for criticism of such women -- while obesity is seen very differently. Being somewhat overweight can even get someone described as looking like a "real woman", as if slender women somehow weren't real.
Genetic characteristics can be expressed or not expressed. I don't see how anyone can deny that most people (not everyone) are genetically programmed to overeat.
I think that "programmed to overeat" is an extremely unhelpful and misleading way of describing whatever the actual genetic factors and effects are. And what we've seen here is that even an article you've linked yourself does not take the "programmed to overeat" line and instead points primarily to things other than genetics. Even when genetics were given as the primary factor in the twin study paper you linked in the other thread, the paper didn't take the "programmed to overeat" line.
You also seemed to misunderstand the limitations of that twins paper. It was about genetic factors appearing to be major determinants of body-mass index in Western society (and over a very restricted timespan too). That's greatly restricting the rage of environments involved. The less you let environment vary, the more other factors, such as genetics, will seem to determine what happens.
Your reply then was that "there is no particular reason to believe that a different result would apply" outside Europe and the US. But the point isn't that a study in a different restricted range of environments would show a different result -- although it might -- but that a study that covered a much wider range of environments might well show that across that range environmental factors had the greatest effect.
During normal historical times of scarcity, this was very adaptive. The more fat you acquired, the better your chances of surviving cold and disease. It is impossible to overlook the fact that as soon as any area in the world moves from scarcity to plenty, the majority of people seem to overeat, immediately. It is no longer adaptive, but genes are not self-correcting as our environment changes.
Even your posts haven't stuck to that line. For instance, you've said that "in traditionally poor, thin countries," it was exposure "to a wide variety of tasty foods they had never formerly seen." You also said "in societies that are very slim, food tends to be very monotonous and not particularly attractive" and referred to "a multi-billion pound industry devoted to making food every tastier and more deliciously irresistible", food "made to override the appetite and make us eat more of them".
What you said about such cases was "the second they stopped being hungry, they stopped eating it because there was nothing to entice them to eat more". So much for being "programmed to overeat".
This is different from 'a condition', the factor so beloved of fat-shamers.
When people say a "condition", that's just to cover a range of causes without having to list them all and have someone leap in about one they happened to leave out.
It means that a lot of people, those with a higher appetite point, will have to stop eating when they are still hungry, every day.
"Appetite point"? Even if people have an "appetite point", that wouldn't mean it was immune to environmental influences. You've even mentioned foods "made to override the appetite" yourself.
And what is "a lot" in "a lot of people ... will have to stop eating when they are still hungry, every day"? I'm looking for a specific number or percentage, with a source, like someone did for subclinical hypothyroidism in the other thread.
(I hope, btw, it's clear than when hypothyroidism is the cause, the cause isn't being "programmed to overeat".)
Obviously the Danish study is not concerned with this; it is a practical study, and basically it is addressing the issue, not explaining it. How do we deal with children and teenagers who are not used to hunger, and perceive it (reasonably, since it quickly becomes unpleasant) as pain? The answer is clearly to work with them, not to hector, badger and shame them. People need to reclaim the perception that hunger is a normal daily state; we are programmed to address it, because throughout most of human history that was healthy behaviour.
Re "the Danish study is not concerned with this; it is a practical study, and basically it is addressing the issue, not explaining it" --
The Danish-study paper you linked -- "Childhood obesity, prevalence and prevention" -- also discussed causes, which is why I was able to quote some of what it said about the causes. It good proportion of the paper was about causes, and much of the part about prevention was implicitly about the causes it aimed to block, counter, or avoid.
(The only part about causes you pointed to was the one you thought "suggests that children today eat LESS in terms of calories than they did 30 years ago", though it actually seems to me about fat consumption. In any case, if obesity increased while people ate less, that doesn't fit the "programmed to overeat" theory.)
I genuinely think shallow, critical articles like the one in the OP are harmful, not helpful, even when they are better written.
I think it's quite telling that you've now linked a paper that's at least an awful lot closer to the views you've been rejecting than to the one you were advocating.
I think it's also quite telling that the BBC page you linked reports a study of a programme that "requires wholesale changes in lifestyle" and says "Research showed that by following the programme, 70% of patients maintained their weight loss for four years." This is very different from "the fairly constant rate of 97% of people who lose weight regaining it within a couple of years" you said in the other thread, and I hope it's obvious that the programme did not involve changing a patient's genetic inheritance.
Watching Veri and WonkeyDonkey debate is almost like an episode of Question time
Almost....but not quite.
I have just read the Helen Wood 'article'. As a piece of writing it really is dreadful. Does anyone know what she gets paid for this? If it is anything at all she is to be admired.
That's so cruel. It's made me really sad. Some horrible horrible people around
Me too, sometimes I despair at the world.
I know some are overweight for eating, but instead of attacking these people, we need to help with the cause. And to be honest, it's cheaper to get healthy food in France, than it is in the UK.
BELITTLING people because they are overweight, underweight and not what everyone classes as normal, is not going to help these people that need it. To dictate to people on eating habits will never work, shaming just makes people hide it all the more, we need to EDUCATE, and have cheaper healthier options.
Having an ex coke fiend, who has slept with a few of my clients is never going to help a debate, because she does not know the struggles, as I don't know hers back in the day, except she's a nasty bitch, unless you had money to throw at her.
Comments
She doesn't have a big showbiz career, she has a once a week column ghost wirtten in a paper and thats about it. My point is NOBODY these days goes in Big Brother without the hope of it helping their career. Everyone is looking to gain even fifteen minutes of fame from it. Its been that way more than a decade. Its the perfect way for people with little to no talent to get their name in the press for a short time.
So yes I do believe every person who enters that house now does so under the hope they will have a showbiz career out of it.
Yes Max Clifford represented Jade...after she had been on Big Brother not before. Helen had an agent before entering the house, who helped her get on the show to begin with.
I never said the week after wasn't the best earning time, it is. My point the entire time was that Helen going into the house was because of her agent doing his job to get her on the show in the first place. I wasn't talking about the week after.
This is true to an extent, but if they searched out people who already had an agent or a history of being in the headlines its not like they are competing with the 15,000 who applied to get one on one time with producers or anything like that. The producers wouldn't search people out for them just to go through the exact same audition process as everyone else. People who have agents will have skipped a step or two. They wanted them to be in the house based off their history to grab headlines and such.
Where as if someone like Helen woul have auditioned like anybody else, without her having an agent do you think it would have been a sure thing she got in the house? Or do you think they could have looked at a hundred other "confrontational people" and decided one of them would have been better suited.
The reason Helen got in the house was because of the Wayne Rooney incident...whether she was the one who sold it to the papers or not
I think that when BB searches out people as possible HMs, those people are still competing with the ones who audition. They won't be picked if the producers don't think they'll be a better choice than those who aren't picked.
I don't know exactly what process Helen went through. (Does anyone here?) But the way it used to be is that the people who were sought out or fast tracked "the same process of interviews and group events as everyone else", as Philip Edgar-Jones explained in this post during bb11:
He also agreed with a post that said:
I don't think that skipping the first section means they aren't competing with the others.
I don't even think it mean they aren't competing with the ones who went through the "first section". That they don't face all of those people individually doesn't mean they're not in competition. Otherwise, we'd have to say no one competes with anyone who doesn't turn up at the very same audition event.
Nobody said Helen has a big showbiz career. That's purely down to your own issues towards Helen that you chose to raise that. Helen is a very successful salon owner. That is her job. That is what pays the bills. However, her success on Big Brother has led to other opportunities like modelling and journalism.
Big Brother is now about the experience for the majority of housemates. Yes, they can make a few quid when they leave but it's not long-term. Helen has been more successful than most due to her character and personality. She's probably one of the most memorable housemates in many years. A very controversial figure who split opinion throughout the series but totally dominated debate.
She's not afraid to give an opinion and that's what makes her such an amazing journalist. You only need to read her threads on here to see that. Everyone has an opinion and that's the most important element for any journalist. When people no longer have an opinion, that's the time to worry.
Helen had to go through the audition process the same as anyone else. She beat thousands upon thousands of hopefuls to enter the house. To win the show after the journey she had been on was quite remarkable. She must have gone through every emotion possible throughout the series. Her popularity went up and down but like any true champion she came strong at the end and managed to capture the hearts of the nation.
Wasnt her son, it was her dog Dude that was put on a diet,
Oh dear. Those pesky facts again....
I dont know how you keep your cool on here!!
Which Helen refers to in her article.
''Illnesses out there can cause people to be overweight, I get that, of course I do, I get that people turn to food through depression too. ''
No, I meant what I initially stated actually.
The day I take anything, regardless of the subject matter that Helen 'writes' about seriously is the day I give up in all fairness. After her own appalling behaviour that I witnessed on BB I don't think she's that far up in my estimation of what she thinks and doesn't think.
She'd have her work cut out for me to think she could ever be sincere in what she states and gets someone else to prepare for the newspaper.
Not quite sure. But I remember him saying he put a few bob on Helen to win as did other members of the 'family' and that due to her winning they had coined it in.
Odd though as I distinctly remember Helen saying she didn't get on with her family.
So tis all a tad confusing really.
And my current pet dislike in the area is the pretence that it is fine to be harsh and bullying towards overweight people because only a few of them had 'a condition'.
It just sounds like something someone wrote over two separate occasions, losing the thread of what they were saying between the two parts. Very odd.
I'm sure she was telling the simple truth. People of my generation were often obliged to eat everything on their plates, and very sickening it was at times. I just think she isn't bright enough to distinguish between 'if we didn't eat our dinners, we got nothing else' (which is true and fine) and 'we had to eat everything on our plates whether we wanted to or not' (which is also true and not fine at all.) I guess it goes back to parents who grew up during the war, when food was pretty hard-won and wasting it was not a casual matter.
She is boasting about using it as an insult.
It is obviously supposed to be better. There really isn't any equivalent to the large and fertile lexicon of fat-hating words. 'Stickleback fish' sounds quite cute. People are always moaning that someone dared to call them skinny, but the truth is that unless you look practically dead, thin is the socially valued way to look. Someone who is called skinny, assuming that they are not practically dead, can well afford the smug smile and the 'jealous' sneer.
Anyway, Helen Wood lost weight and got too thin. Then she got too fat. None of which has given her any patience with or sympathy for other people who have got too fat, no doubt because reformed sinners are generally the most intolerant and judgmental of all.
I don't agree. I'm not overly comfortable with the word, but no doubt those who put together the It's All Butch calendar don't mind it.
http://itsallbutch.com/images/2012_butch_calendar/2012_its_all_butch-(3).jpg
http://itsallbutch.com/images/2015_butch_calendar/2015_its_all_butch%20(6).jpeg
http://www.autostraddle.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/its-all-butch-2010.png
I don't suppose the Star Online readers mind someone chortling that they had to make changes because they looked like a butch lesbian, but that doesn't mean it is not a tiresomely negative stereotype in action.
But she doesn't distinguish. Like every other similar 'let's bash fat people' columnist, she pays lip service, but how can we? We all know that if Katie Price was, say, a humble healthcare assistant, she would not be able to leave the house with Harvey without busybodies clucking and saying things like, "look at the state of that! Disgusting! Someone should tell social services!"
There is a useful article to be written about childhood obesity and how to address it. This is not it.
This one's good: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-29755469
Here's the original paper: http://www.nutritionj.com/content/4/1/24
I like this very much. Doesn't pretend that the issue is simple, even suggests that children today eat LESS in terms of calories than they did 30 years ago. Does not say anything that would lead to the words 'lard-arse'. Takes an adult, nuanced view of the issue, addresses it compassionately, and achieves truly remarkable results.
Has Helen Wood read it? I think that would be a no somehow.
Almost never, in my experience.
I don't buy the theory about an "irreducible pool of malice that has to go somewhere", and I suspect your belief that "unless you look practically dead, thin is the socially valued way to look" is involved; but ok.
Who knows? I suggested some possibilities in my previous post. Here's another: perhaps it was originally longer and coherence suffered when it was cut back. *shrugs*
You're still ignoring the context, which was about having to eat the food her parents had prepared, including "greens", rather than being "allowed to go and help (herself) to fast food."
She isn't.
To make that seem to work, you've had to leave out the part about looking like she "was on the verge of snapping in half". 'Stickleback fish' is an odd choice of image, but it's irrelevant that to you is "sounds quite cute"; there's no reason to think Helen thought it a positive image.
That's a curious bit of mind-reading.
Sorry, but what do you think those pictures show?
If all you meant was that it was a tiresomely negative stereotype, you should have said that rather than the distorting sarcasm.
She does distinguish. You don't want to accept that, so you label it "lip service".
I am baffled re why you're determined to bring Katie Price into this. It's irrelevant. No matter what anyone said, no matter how clearly and undeniably they distinguished between those with illnesses and those without, it would still be the case that "if Katie Price was, say, a humble healthcare assistant," etc. then "busybodies" might cluck, etc.
It's interesting that those articles are so different from the genetic programming / determinism position you were defending in the other thread, and citing research papers to back. For instance, the paper you're referring to this time says:
It notes that "while about 50% of the adults are overweight and obese in many countries, it is difficult to reduce excessive weight once it becomes established" and says "Children should therefore be considered the priority population for intervention strategies."
In the section on causes, it says:
Note that it (rightly, imo) has the role of genetic factors as influencing "the susceptibility of a given child to an obesity-conducive environment"; it attributes only a "small number of cases" to things like medical causes; and it says "Most of the time, however, personal lifestyle choices and cultural environment significantly influence obesity."
It looks closer to Helen's position than to the one you were defending.
I am sorry if I wasn't clear.
People who are rude and judgmental about people with overweight children have no way of telling if they are fat because they have a genetic/ medical condition or not. The default position seems to be 'let's be rude and judgmental anyway, because it would be far worse to be polite about someone who has eaten foolishly than it would be to be rude about someone who is very unwell.' The point about Katie Price is that she is largely protected from this abuse by her fame. If she was not famous, she would constantly suffer abuse and hostile comment because of the fatness of her son.
Genetic characteristics can be expressed or not expressed. I don't see how anyone can deny that most people (not everyone) are genetically programmed to overeat. During normal historical times of scarcity, this was very adaptive. The more fat you acquired, the better your chances of surviving cold and disease. It is impossible to overlook the fact that as soon as any area in the world moves from scarcity to plenty, the majority of people seem to overeat, immediately. It is no longer adaptive, but genes are not self-correcting as our environment changes.
This is different from 'a condition', the factor so beloved of fat-shamers. It means that a lot of people, those with a higher appetite point, will have to stop eating when they are still hungry, every day.
Obviously the Danish study is not concerned with this; it is a practical study, and basically it is addressing the issue, not explaining it. How do we deal with children and teenagers who are not used to hunger, and perceive it (reasonably, since it quickly becomes unpleasant) as pain? The answer is clearly to work with them, not to hector, badger and shame them. People need to reclaim the perception that hunger is a normal daily state; we are programmed to address it, because throughout most of human history that was healthy behaviour.
I genuinely think shallow, critical articles like the one in the OP are harmful, not helpful, even when they are better written.
That's so cruel. It's made me really sad. Some horrible horrible people around
Agreed. Same as that bloody "if you can't handle me at my worst" etc, quote
"It's a moo point. Like a cows opinion. It means nothing... It's moo "
(Joey tribiani ) :-)
She's right, although abuse is a strong word.
Just out of interest do you agree with KH ??? Only she says pretty much the same thing but people hate her....Helen says it and suddenly it is a revolution . Soany people have said thia dor yeara.
weight gain has also been linked to breast cancer in females (though i can underestand theres a way of wording things)
And ...?
In any case, I wasn't asking for a description of the pictures; I meant what do you think they prove / demonstrate / establish re what it seemed you'd linked them in reply to.
But you could say all that about what you think is the "default position" -- which is already of only questionable relevance -- without bringing Katie Price into it.
There seems to be a pattern these days -- perhaps started by Katie P herself -- of bringing in her child in when someone talks of the role of parents, diet, exercise, etc in childhood obesity, as if the comments had been an attack on her and her child.
And there's a larger pattern of using the cases where obesity has a different cause, such as a medical condition, to try to shut down discussion of the role of diet, lifestyle and exercise.
There's also a pattern of seeing excessive thinness (and, it often seems, thinness that isn't excessive as well) as a greater problem than obesity -- and as one that calls for environmental changes, such as the use of images of thin women, and even for criticism of such women -- while obesity is seen very differently. Being somewhat overweight can even get someone described as looking like a "real woman", as if slender women somehow weren't real.
I think that "programmed to overeat" is an extremely unhelpful and misleading way of describing whatever the actual genetic factors and effects are. And what we've seen here is that even an article you've linked yourself does not take the "programmed to overeat" line and instead points primarily to things other than genetics. Even when genetics were given as the primary factor in the twin study paper you linked in the other thread, the paper didn't take the "programmed to overeat" line.
You also seemed to misunderstand the limitations of that twins paper. It was about genetic factors appearing to be major determinants of body-mass index in Western society (and over a very restricted timespan too). That's greatly restricting the rage of environments involved. The less you let environment vary, the more other factors, such as genetics, will seem to determine what happens.
Your reply then was that "there is no particular reason to believe that a different result would apply" outside Europe and the US. But the point isn't that a study in a different restricted range of environments would show a different result -- although it might -- but that a study that covered a much wider range of environments might well show that across that range environmental factors had the greatest effect.
Even your posts haven't stuck to that line. For instance, you've said that "in traditionally poor, thin countries," it was exposure "to a wide variety of tasty foods they had never formerly seen." You also said "in societies that are very slim, food tends to be very monotonous and not particularly attractive" and referred to "a multi-billion pound industry devoted to making food every tastier and more deliciously irresistible", food "made to override the appetite and make us eat more of them".
What you said about such cases was "the second they stopped being hungry, they stopped eating it because there was nothing to entice them to eat more". So much for being "programmed to overeat".
"Appetite point"? Even if people have an "appetite point", that wouldn't mean it was immune to environmental influences. You've even mentioned foods "made to override the appetite" yourself.
And what is "a lot" in "a lot of people ... will have to stop eating when they are still hungry, every day"? I'm looking for a specific number or percentage, with a source, like someone did for subclinical hypothyroidism in the other thread.
(I hope, btw, it's clear than when hypothyroidism is the cause, the cause isn't being "programmed to overeat".)
Re "the Danish study is not concerned with this; it is a practical study, and basically it is addressing the issue, not explaining it" --
The Danish-study paper you linked -- "Childhood obesity, prevalence and prevention" -- also discussed causes, which is why I was able to quote some of what it said about the causes. It good proportion of the paper was about causes, and much of the part about prevention was implicitly about the causes it aimed to block, counter, or avoid.
(The only part about causes you pointed to was the one you thought "suggests that children today eat LESS in terms of calories than they did 30 years ago", though it actually seems to me about fat consumption. In any case, if obesity increased while people ate less, that doesn't fit the "programmed to overeat" theory.)
I think it's quite telling that you've now linked a paper that's at least an awful lot closer to the views you've been rejecting than to the one you were advocating.
I think it's also quite telling that the BBC page you linked reports a study of a programme that "requires wholesale changes in lifestyle" and says "Research showed that by following the programme, 70% of patients maintained their weight loss for four years." This is very different from "the fairly constant rate of 97% of people who lose weight regaining it within a couple of years" you said in the other thread, and I hope it's obvious that the programme did not involve changing a patient's genetic inheritance.
Bagsy not be Melanie Phillips. Can't stop now...
Almost....but not quite.
I have just read the Helen Wood 'article'. As a piece of writing it really is dreadful. Does anyone know what she gets paid for this? If it is anything at all she is to be admired.
Lesley Brain
Me too, sometimes I despair at the world.
I know some are overweight for eating, but instead of attacking these people, we need to help with the cause. And to be honest, it's cheaper to get healthy food in France, than it is in the UK.
BELITTLING people because they are overweight, underweight and not what everyone classes as normal, is not going to help these people that need it. To dictate to people on eating habits will never work, shaming just makes people hide it all the more, we need to EDUCATE, and have cheaper healthier options.
Having an ex coke fiend, who has slept with a few of my clients is never going to help a debate, because she does not know the struggles, as I don't know hers back in the day, except she's a nasty bitch, unless you had money to throw at her.