Oh Mike please stay. Your posts are interesting, educational and sometimes controversial (not very) which is healthy anyway. I hope you keep posting, there is so much more out there that needs your perspective. Discussion and argument is what progresses us as intelligent social beings, so much to learn, so much to know, not in our lifetime, but you help a bit......!
I don't think there's an admin as such, but I guess some faceless person at HU is charged with deleting posts that aren't "supportive".
I personally would like this forum to be a place where people can debate contentious topics directly without getting upset about bad words, bad ideas, or whatever.
I think you miss the point, to echo BridgeGirl 's comments, and to paraphrase Bannarama & Fun Boy Three; it ain't what you say- it's the way that you say it
Being polite and respectful costs nothing. There is a difference between controversy and rudeness.
I agree with you here (and with BridgeGirl ), but I'm not sure if this is "the point". It is incredibly irritating that posts can be deleted without giving the original poster the right to reply, or to address their accuser's complaint, or to modify their post. The result is that the forum is effectively controlled by people who are slightly unhinged, and who may not actually have any interest in LCHF. There have been one or two instances where people have dropped in on HU groups with the specific intent of getting offended about something, causing a big argument, and then disappearing.
MikePollard can often be blunt to the point of rudeness, but that's just him. Seems to me he's one of those people who doesn't like beating about the bush (hence his comment about the phrase "with respect", which I agree with - even if it's said with genuine intent, it still sounds weaselly). Argue back in the same style and I'm sure he'll be fine with that.
Mike: I reckon you'll get through to more of the fence-sitters if you can dial it back a bit. I totally get your frustration with the zeitgeist, but it is what it is. If we lose a couple of wingnuts (presumably whoever-it-was who reported you has gone away) well, no loss. But everyone else still seems to be here and willing to engage.
So you reckon, when he calls you a "snowflake", you call him a "gammon" and it is going to be all right??? "Without respect"? Just arguing in the same style?
I reckon language matters. You do not need to use unpleasant language to put a cross a point - with or without respect.
I agree with what you say about deleting posts and that opportunity should be given to clarify your point. However we still can be civil with each other.
I also still think that his post on this particular forum was simply not relevant and not appropriate. He put a grotesque picture of an obese woman followed by a sneering comment. How was this relevant to the LCHF forum? How would it help people struggling to manage their weight and deal with their low self esteem, if you put an awful picture and imply that just because she is as she is, she cannot be a health minister or a GP? I am sure that there plenty of other platforms where he could have discussed the "hypocrisy" of politicians or hypocrisy in general. The same way, you would not discuss current affairs here. Would be much more appropriate to do it on BBC, or Telegraph, or Daily Mail or whatever website you use to read the news.
We all have different interests and hobbies, I am not convinced that this particular forum should be a platform to discuss our other interests.
The words "with respect" are typically used to convey the exact opposite meaning (listen to a few parliamentary debates if you want to get a flavour of that!). Yes, words matter, and sometimes it's better to miss words out.
As for the "grotesque" picture of the Dutch health minister: well, aren't you applying a value judgement right there? Mike could have phrased his post a bit better, but he never used that word or anything like it. I've never said she was grotesque either. I said she was (probably) unqualified, because her appearance betrays her lack of knowledge.
This is relevant to the LCHF forum because we take the position that being fat is not normal. The powers-that-be are trying to convince us that it is, because they want us to swallow their disastrous health advice. Our view here is very simple indeed: eat properly, and you will never look like the Dutch Health Minister. You might never look like a catwalk model - that requires a personal trainer and two hours a day in the gym - but you won't look like that. Some unlucky folk will always be a bit on the chubby side, but there's only one guaranteed way to become obese, and that's to do low-fat, high-carb, calorie-counted diets.
The implication, therefore, is that the Dutch Health Minister does not know about LCHF, or the damaging effects of low-fat high-carb diets. If she did, why would she do this to herself? Stress etc is not an excuse. Nor is disease, because as I pointed out in the deleted thread, she would have simply disclosed the disease to deflect criticism about her weight - and that would have put an end to the matter.
While I might ordinarily agree that a diet forum shouldn't be political, the politicians have decided to make it political. Part of what we do here is to shame people who deserve to be shamed: not for being fat, but for being (a) ignorant and (b) in power. People will literally live or die depending on the decisions made by the Minister. We don't have any control over the Dutch parliament, but we do have some limited control over ours. We can and should withhold votes from people who are making the British Public fat, ill, and miserable.
I mean, I don't want to start the whole health minister debate again, but it does need to be highlighted that there is a big difference between knowing what's good for you, and actually doing it. Smoking was a good example of that.
We can disagree about the whole thing, and it's absolutely fine if we do. Some of the rebuttals did get a bit personal though.
I think you are wrong. Why would politicians would want to make us fat? The time of Churchill type politicians - fat and with a big cigar in their mouth are long gone.
Tom Watson is half (or even less) of himself. You can mistake Boris Johnston with his younger brother - he lost so much weight. Gove is slimmer. They all lost weight, they are all shown cycling and running. So why would they want the nation to be fatter? It does not make sense.
Many factors contribute to a person being fat.
From down to dusk, we are bombarded with processed food and sweets adverts. People have busy lives, stressful jobs, family issues, kids to deal with and cannot spend their entire weekend or evenings cooking and preparing healthy high fat meals in plastic boxes for the week ahead. So, often they might end up eating whatever is available.
If you find yourself in an A&E at night in a hospital, there is hardly any choice. There is a vending machine, so you can get a soft drink full with sugar, or artificial sweetener and crisps or biscuits. If you end up there during the day, in addition, you might get some chips and a sandwich or a pie from the canteen. No surprise that so many nurses are overweight - stressful job, shifts and rubbish food? Would you call them ignorant? Would you sack them?
Apparently Prue Leigh was hired by Boris Johnston to improve hospital food, so we will see what would happen. Loyd Grossman was not very successful in the past.
Genetics play role in how big you are. So if you combine being genetically "chubby" with some unfavourable external factors you might end up rather big. On the other hand, there are people who can eat whatever they like including sugar and carbs and stay slim.
There are also some health conditions and hormonal issues that affect people's weight. Most women going through menopause struggle with their weight - not out of ignorance or gluttony, but because their hormones are messed up.
High fat diets are not the silver bullet that would easily eradicate obesity. It not as easy as you try to make it sound.
While I agree with you, that being fat should not be accepted as normal, people should not be judged based on their BMI and weight circumferences only. The Danish woman was not applying for being a poster girl for Sliming World or WW, she was a GP and health minister. Shaming her for being ignorant is unproven. Also shaming her for being in power is something for her constituents in Denmark to decide.
By the way, in my previous post, I explicitly called the picture grotesque, not the person on it. So, I would appreciate if you do not twist my words on this one.
I also think, that whoever written and published the initial article, Mike was referring to, must have put considerable efforts to find the most demeaning and humiliating picture of this lady.
>> Why would politicians would want to make us fat?
Good question. I have absolutely no idea. I could offer some possibilities (along the lines of "follow the money") but I'd sound like a nutcase.
I suppose one could argue that they're doing it unintentionally, and that they really just want what's best for us, but as they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The evidence that low-fat, calorie-controlled diets don't work is absolutely overwhelming. Even mainstream nutritionists admit that only 3-5% of the general population can stick with it. It's an unmitigated failure. And yet they keep promoting it. So I'll ask the question back at you: why? It really does not make sense.
So, often they might end up eating whatever is available.
Indeed. Nevertheless that "we all have busy lives" line has been put into our heads by supermarkets who want to sell us rubbish. The bottom line is that eating rubbish is still a choice; you could, if you wanted, switch off the TV and cook a meal instead. If you don't want to, well, it's your life; but don't expect sympathy or public funding to fix the inevitable consequences.
Genetics play role in how big you are. So if you combine being genetically "chubby" with some unfavourable external factors you might end up rather big. On the other hand, there are people who can eat whatever they like including sugar and carbs and stay slim.
True. But the fact remains that if you eat proper meals, with adequate fat and limited carbs, it's physiologically impossible to become obese whatever genetic disadvantages you may have been dealt. Those "unfavourable external factors" are completely within the individual's control.
People should not be judged based on their BMI and weight circumferences only.
We're not talking about people. If we were, I'd agree with you. We're talking about one specific individual, who has put herself forward to take on an incredibly important responsibility. As I said, it's a matter of life and death. What she knows or believes will have far-reaching repercussions.
High fat diets are not the silver bullet that would easily eradicate obesity. It not as easy as you try to make it sound.
That's not precisely what I'm asserting. I'm saying that high-carb low-fat diets, full of artificially-modified food-like substances, are guaranteed to make you fat and ill. David Unwin has found that you can tell people to eat good old-fashioned meat and vegetables, and not be afraid of fat, and they'll get well (and lose weight). It works for virtually everyone, because they find it natural and enjoyable. That's a pretty modest proposition, isn't it?
We hold onto this one single fact - that excessive carbs make you fat - not because life is simple but because it's complicated. It's a chunk of driftwood to grab onto in the turbulent sea of life. Out of all the many things you might do to lose weight (and stay slim), dropping the carbs is the single most effective option.
I know this works because I live in a country where people would laugh out loud at the idea of "low fat" diets. They enjoy their fat and treat carbs with caution (the words for "sugar" and "carbs" are often used interchangeably - people know they're basically the same thing). Most people are slim. About 5-10% of them (post-menopausal women, in many cases, as you noted) are a bit fat. About 1% are obese.
I hope you stay. Life would be very boring if we all agreed with eachother! And lively debate forces you to think more deeply about your personal standpoint, check your information, and clarify your arguments- all extremely positive, whether you agree with the original post or not.
You are correct flo. I am a moderator on a HU forum as it happens. It is also moribund I don't have any input with nowadays.
I've been involved with HU for many years and got booted off one HU forum when I was accused of being racist on my stance regarding Aurvedic 'medicine'. People there wanted an easy fix for their diabetic circumstance (check out 'Long Wheat') but didn't want to do the work.
I know EXACTLY what is needed to correct the obesity/diabetes crisis and can stand toe to toe with any ignorant doctor or dietician who supports the current paradigm but do nothing to correct the situation.
I am totally open to debate, but deleteing my posts is beyond the pale.
'With respect, you sound a bit offended or maybe frustrated yourself?'
So yes, it's only so much I'm prepared to take and here's a bit of advice. Never use the term 'with respect'. It's a term that is used to soften a slap to the face but never does.
You see, my comment was not meant to be "a slap in the face". I put "with respect", because I respect you and I did not want to offend you. I find many of your comments sound, (like the one how overeating fat can hinder weight loss on LCHF) and I agree with you. Even when we disagree, it is still good to have an opportunity to discuss why and learn new things.
If you are willing (without emotions flying high), we can actually discuss here why people got upset with your posts about the Danish health minister and the Greek geezer.
As I understand it, there aren't any Administrators from within the forum so any complaints will be handled directly by HU. I think we should be given the right of reply if there are any reports about any of us.
I'm all for differing views being aired and discussed - the most useful content is often that which challenges us initially.
I'm against personal attacks, and disparaging language and comments aimed at individuals, rather than the position they're stating. Even if I think the other person is talking nonsense and hasn't got a leg to stand on.
As a follow up to this, I wonder if it is the tone of your posts that has "upset the apple cart" for some of your fellow forum members. Maybe it's not, as you think, about you being controversial but about taking a dismissive or even aggressive approach.
You say you are totally open to debate but then, just in this thread, you use disparaging terms like "snowflake" and "ignorant", and you respond very abruptly to someone (flo72003) who is generally being supportive to you.
Maybe you don't recognise this or maybe you don't care if you offend people who you see as misguided. In my experience, debate over conflicting ideas is carried out more productively in a more measured manner. Also, in my experience, minds are very rarely changed by people being told they are wrong. But that's just my experience, yours may be different.
I've rubbed people up the wrong way on occasions when I've dug my heels in and determined I was going to get my point across. I haven't been rude but I have been persistent past the point of any useful communication. I'm sure it did absolutely nothing to change the opinion of the member on the receiving end.
Before I get accused of being a snowflake, I should say I didn't report the post. It did take quite a few days for anyone to take it down though, so it's a shame it wasn't a big enough window to reply within
I think the key to effective debate is to be open to the possibility that you might be wrong, even if only slightly wrong. Over the course of many conversations, I've sometimes had to go away and do some research, or rethink my argument, and often learned something useful in the process. I can recall only one occasion where I went full MikePollard on someone (not here); that individual came across as both ignorant and arrogant, and seemed completely uninterested in scientific facts despite purporting to be an NHS researcher. It was quite satisfying (even if childish and pointless!) to just give him/her an almighty telling-off
MikePollard - don’t go! I’m fairly new to this forum so I haven’t seen any posts where you’ve upset anyone but I’ve just read your bio and agree with what you say about lchf
Please stay! I enjoy reading the content and seeing videos that you post - even if I'm not actively engaging in the discussion. It all helps so that we can investigate ideas and information and form our own opinions from a broader base. If we all just say think and say the same thing life would be very dull. I understand why some people commented on the postings about the Greek Minister, and the Health Minister, but I did not take your postings to be personal attacks, and was not offended by it. I took it to be you raising an interesting topic of debate on a subject we are all interested it.
I guess I've probably not seen the other posts if they were deleted!
Thank you Cosmo, your support is very much appreciated.
Hi Mike
You often talk a lot of sense and have a lot of knowledge that you give freely and generously.
Sometimes you are offensive and I will respond with my views about that; which I did re the overweight minister. Your post about the smoking minister just seemed a bit silly.
It must be hard to be a moderator, however, it seems a bit extreme to delete your posts. Obviously if you said something illegal that would need to be dealt with.
Calling people ‘snowflakes’ is also a bit unnecessary; if you have the right to free speech, then people have the right to disagree without being disparaged.
So I may be offended about what you say(or the language you use) but I defend your right to freely express yourself within the law
Absolutely! You hit the nail on the head! We must defend the right of others to express freely their opinion even if we disagree with them. That is what free speech is all about.
I do hope that you stay. I have found your posts helpful and informative. Sometimes when I'm reading posts to my husband I give him a little background to the author of the post. So my summary of you has been,'He's one of the knowledgeable ones.' Thank you for your contributions. Much appreciated.
What exactly do you mean by snowflake? If it means that someone is easily offended than I get it. But if it means you can foist your opinion and if someone objects or disagrees with you then you refer to them as a snowflake than I think its wrong.
No, they don't. It's happened to me once or twice. There is no contact at all from HU. I get the impression that the moment someone flags a post - even just one person - then that post is deleted more-or-less automatically.
Hi Mike please don't go! Given the comments so far I guess you should try asking HU direct for some answers .... but it could be automatic - post reported as offensive = delete? In fact it would be pretty surprising if it isn't given the no. of forums involved. Out of interest when "they" chucked you out of one what did they say?
I think the admins have a tough responsibility and they handle it fairly well. I think we all have a responsibility to keep the discussion civil. There are lots of sites with no rules, but I like that there are rules, even if occasionally it doesn’t go everyone’s way.
This is a very valuable forum with very valuable commenters, and I have learned a lot. I wouldn’t want to turn people off or away from the site because they don’t like the tone. And it does happen. I recently quit the Couch25k forum because of a vulgar post. It wasn’t intentional, but someone used a sexual analogy that I find particularly offensive and disrespectful to women. However in that case the admins decided there was nothing wrong with it. Which is certainly their right but I personally have given up the forum because I don’t want to see or support that kind of thing.
I don’t know what you wrote or what got deleted, and I guess I’d just encourage you to keep sharing your knowledge, and know that a civil tone means your message gets spread far and wide. If people cross the line and admins don’t censor them, people will stop coming on their own accord anyway so posters still won’t get heard.
I think it depends if someone has reported you for something! It’s a shame that freedom of speech and good debate seems to upset some people if you don’t 💯 believe in the same things they do.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
LCHF and the menopause
In support of HU and why it works. 
The *TRIGGER WARNING* discussion