Michael,

> The health department, she said, had tried to learn from campaigns
> such as Make Poverty History and Comic Relief ...

While most people support the aims of Make Poverty History, I think we must
face facts: as a campaign it is essentially a complete failure. There were a
lot of fine words at the Gleneagles summit, but only the debt cancellation
actually went ahead. The pledges on trade, aid and HIV treatment were all
quietly dropped.

Presumably the debt cancellation went ahead because everyone knew that the
poorest countries were unable to pay anyway. Western governments could look
good just by accepting the inevitable, without the need to find any new money.

> ... by bringing in a wide
> range of partners to spread a message intended to encourage people to
> change their behaviour rather than lecture them on what to do and
> what to eat.

Thinking about this, I don't see much distinction between "a message intended
to encourage people to change their behaviour" and "[lecturing people] on what
to do and what to eat."

I actually do sympathise with the government on this one. You can make sure
people know what constitutes a healthy diet and a healthy amount of exercise.
You can point out the risks of being overweight and unfit. If people still
don't change, it isn't obvious what you should do.

I suppose you have to start by asking what stops people living a healthy life.
I'd be interested in the experiences of people on this list. Why do you
follow (or why don't you follow) advice on healthy eating and exercise?

Personally I never bothered much until my thirties. At different times in my
life I was more or less active, depending on what I was doing. I walked to
school, cycled at university, but then became less active when I got my first
job. I didn't do much from then until my thirties, when I found I was putting
on weight. To lose that, I started setting aside time to exercise, rather
than trying to stay fit as a by-product of something else like cycling to
lectures.

Pete