In the last blog I wrote about the expected backlash from the food industry in response to the many recent news stories about how unhealthy cereals are for us, how they provide us with very little nutrients and are essentially just bowls of highly processed grains and sugar, both of which make us fat. 

As an example of this backlash, I highlighted the “survey” conducted by Warburtons, the bread making company, which found, surprise surprise, that we should not cut out bread or starchy carbohydrates from our diets. This is like the oil industry advising us on which fuel we should be using or drug dealers advising school kids on how to spend their lunch money. It was also a perfect, if somewhat lazy, example of how most of the “studies” and “surveys” are pure marketing dressed up as science. Take a look at how many adverts there are on TV that involve some actor dressed up in a white coat and glasses whilst some scientific, often made up, words flash across the screen. Science sells.

Which brings me nicely to the second example of the current backlash, my favorite one so far. I love this one because it shows just how desperate these companies are getting and how ridiculous it is to have these food companies involved in government policy on nutritional health and reducing obesity. The advert in question is the new “Compare your breakfast” ad. The premise is this, the food companies have set up a website where you can go and type in various breakfasts and get nutritional information in order to compare them, see which is better for you. Sounds like a good idea? Well it would be if they compared the cereals with anything REAL! And It would be if the nutritional advice they give had anything to do with health. For example, on the advert they compare a bowl of Cheerios with...wait for it... a croissant! But surely they compare the Cheerios to, ooh lets say a boiled egg or mackerel fillet or perhaps an omelette or even an organic sourced cooked breakfast, or something thats actually a real food? Nope. They compare one grain based, highly processed, does not exist in nature type breakfast with another grain based, highly processed option. And here is the hilarious part, this is why it’s my favorite, they compare the two, the bowl of Cheerios and the croissant, showing the stats for salt, fat, sat fat and sugar content and all of these figures are quite close between the two “foods”,  except sugar, which the Cheerios has almost four times as much ! Now, bare in mind that sugar drives insulin and insulin drives fat, so if we want to avoid getting fat we need to cut out sugar and anything that causes insulin to spike and store fat.  So what this advert does is to attempt to show that cereal is a better healthy option than other breakfast choices, by comparing it to possibly the worst other option they could think of...and then highlighted the fact that their “healthier” cereal is actually far worse for you than the worst thing they could think of to compare it to! That’s just brilliant. They compared themselves to a turd and the turd won! 

However, it also shows just how little they believe the general public understand about nutrition because they feel they can afford to put that stat right up there front and centre, “our cereal has four times more sugar in it than the next worst option” (and that’s without adding the sugar loaded semi skimmed or skimmed milk that goes with the cereal) and the public will be none the wiser to the implications of this statistic. As long as the general public continue to think that fat and salt are the problem, the obesity epidemic, and the profits of the food industry, will continue to flourish. 

On a positive note though, i do think that times are changing. People are, slowly but surely, beginning to learn what’s true and what’s marketing bullshit, they are starting to identify what constitutes real food and what is actually processed crap. Twice last month BBC’s Horizon almost stumbled onto the solution of the obesity and diabetes epidemics, before completely missing the point and falling flat on their narrow minded western faces. Oh yes my friends, the times they are a changing. In the next ten years the realisation that the advice issued in the 1980’s by the AMA and AHA was totally wrong will be prevalent and those who continue to blindly prop up this current non sensical calorie in-calorie out paradigm will either have all died of obesity or diabetes or been sued out of existence for causing 30 years of poor health around the Western world. 

With so much media coverage discussing the deceptions and failings of the current health policies and the foods being promoted for years as “healthy”, such as cereals, grain based products and pasteurised dairy, it was inevitable that the back lash would be just around the corner. Well, true to form, the food companies have hit back this week with their own marketing campaigns to try to undo the harm these revelations have undoubtedly caused to their profits. Unfortunately for them, fortunately for everyone else, the campaigns they have launched are an absolutely perfect example of just how bad their products and advice are. Confused? Well let me give you two examples this week of how extraordinarily awful, and at times hilarious, these latest efforts have been. 

Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, a new report sent down the media wire this morning. The report below is a brilliant example of not only how dodgy studies and surveys can be, but also how utterly blind to the obvious the subsequent advice and advisors often are.  

(Survey conducted for Warburtons) 

 The average 45-year-old woman in Britain has been on 61 diets since she was 16, according to new research.

 The study has also found 75-percent of adults try a different diet every two-and-a-half months.

 Nutritionist Fiona Hunter says fad diets are unhealthy and don't usually keep weight off in the long-term.

 She also says diets often encourage people to cut carbs - but that's not good for your body:

 “As well as cutting out carbohydrates, they’re cutting out fibre from their diet; vitamins and minerals like B-vitamins and calcium. Carbohydrates really are an important food group for everyone, but particularly for people that are dieting.

 “For anyone who wants to lose weight, they need to cut back on their food, not cut out any major food groups - certainly not bread, certainly not potatoes. They need to watch their portion size and they need to become more active.”

Ok, so i am just going to work through this report briefly and, with a little bit of thought, you will be able to see, in a nutshell, exactly why we have a nation of obese diabetics and how standard advice and policy has led us into these epidemics.

Of course the first thing to notice is that the survey is funded and conducted by Warburtons, a bread company. Hmm, so lets see if we can guess what the conclusion will be. Well you have already read the report so of course you know the conclusion. I remember the studies conducted by tobacco companies that “proved” that smoking was good for asthma! Any time a study is conducted by a vested interest, BE SUSPICIOUS!

The next thing to notice is that the study found that a “45-year-old woman in Britain has been on 61 diets since she was 16” and “75-percent of adults try a different diet every two-and-a-half months”. Nutritionist Fiona Hunter says “fad diets are unhealthy and don't usually keep weight off in the long-term.” Ok, keep that in mind for a moment, we will come back to that.

She then goes on to say that many diets encourage people to reduce carbohydrates “but thats not good for your body” because, she claims, as well as reducing carbohydrates they are also losing fibre, B vitamins, calcium and other important nutrients. This is a perfect example of someone who knows apparently nothing about the reality of our modern day foods, and even less about human physiology, advising us on how to eat well. 

Firstly, the body does not need carbohydrates. The muscles and the brain will happily use fat and protein for fuel and there is no such thing, ever, as an essential carbohydrate. This does not mean that we should not eat any carbohydrates, rather that their importance is often extremely overstated. Yes fibre, vitamins and minerals, such as calcium, are important, and we find those things in fresh fruits and vegetables, the types of carbohydrates we should be consuming. We do not get fibre or useable vitamins from grains or cereals or bread etc. Anyone who understands how foods are made would know that. 

There are three parts of a grain: The germ, the bran and the endosperm. The germ and the bran are the important parts. They contain magnesium, riboflavin and niacin (B vitamins), phosphorus, zinc, iron, vitamin E and fibre. The endosperm has almost zero nutrient value. During the processing of grains, to make bread and cereals etc, both the germ and the bran are removed, leaving only the nutrient baron endosperm. When companies advertise “whole grain”, it is only the source product they are referring to, the grain before processing. Once the grain has been processed it is no longer a whole grain, it is a nutrient baron husk that acts just like a sugar in the body

Fiona Hunter’s comments, intend to convince us that without starchy carbs like bread and cereal we would be losing out on these important nutrients. What she actually reveals is just how little she knows about food. It is the consumption of these nutrient baron foods, that effectively leave you eating nothing more than sugar, that has helped make this nation fat. There are no vitamins and minerals in those types of carbs. In fact  the term “fortified with vitamins” was coined because many years ago the America government was embroiled in a court case with the AMA because they were trying to force food companies to make their foods, in particular cereals and grain based products, more nutrient dense. They discovered that most cereals coming off the production line were so devoid of nutrients that they could not even be classed as foods! The industry’s answer to this was to coat the products in synthetic vitamins (Vitamin B3) and add some iron back into the mix. Fibre is generally removed from processed foods because it reduces the shelf life of the product. Rather revealingly, in Scandanavia cereals and grains that are “fortified” were banned several years ago for precisely this reason, they are NOT healthy. So Fiona Hunters suggestion that by removing carbohydrates (and lets be clear, she is talking about breads,cereals and starchy carbs) we are losing out on important nutrients is so far from the truth it is laughable.

However, perhaps the most incredible part of this report is that Fiona Hunter has, in her own words and apparently without seeing the irony, clearly stated why her advice, the same naive and nonsensical advice thats been pedaled since the 1980’s, is so completely wrong ..because it does not work! She clearly states herself, a fact that has been known since we embarked on the ridiculous calorie in - calorie out paradigm, reduced calorie diets do not work and are unsustainable. She speaks of low carb diets as if they are the crazy fad and yet history, and well conducted studies, have clearly shown that since we reduced fat consumption and increased carbohydrate consumption, we have got fatter! Studies have also shown time and again that reducing calories to lose weight fails every time. In the short term people lose some weight but it is mostly muscle, not fat, and very quickly they put that weight back on. Why? because reducing calories is unsustainable and always results in more fat storage and a reduced metabolic rate. The crazy fad diets she talks of are exactly the kind of diets that involve reducing calories and consuming higher levels of starchy carbohydrates, exactly the kind of diets that most of those 75% of adults have tried and failed on. She is actually arguing against her own advice! Hilarious.

There is so much wrong with this study and Ms Hunter’s comments that it highlights perfectly why we are in this mess. It is “bought and paid for” advice like this that is at the forefront of obesity. Let me say this clearly, obesity and excess fat are not caused by  eating disorders, in the same way that diabetes is not an eating disorder. Excess fat is a problem of fat regulation, fat is regulated by insulin and insulin is regulated by sugar and starchy carbohydrates.  Now, consider once again the foods being prescribed here as healthy and slimming, consider the fact that the average person in this country consumes 1150 calories per day of flour (grain) and sugar (starch) based carbohydrates each day, take a look again at the funders of this study and ask yourself “whats wrong with this picture?” Ms Hunter is the very personification of everything thats wrong with standard nutritional practice and a perfect explanation of why we have an obesity epidemic. 

Be alert to this kind of nonsense, it is dumb, it is wrong, it is shameful and it should be illegal. I expect nothing less from the food companies but please, do not swallow this crap. Use your brains and watch out for this kind of shoddy reporting.

So once again we have a study out that shows “conclusively” that if you eat red meat you will die! Well, the study actually concluded that if you eat one extra portion of red meat per day, that will equate to a 13% rise in early death and around 18% increase if you eat an extra portion of processed meats. This study was “conclusive proof” according to Dr Rosemary of the BBC, that red meat should be mostly avoided. 

Once again , i think this study says far more about studies themselves, the method used to draw these conclusions and, most worrying of all, the narrow mindedness of people like Dr Rosemary who present these studies to the public as “conclusive proof”, a public which then take these pronouncements to be honest and truthful, which they are certainly not. 

As i have already gone through many of the problems with these studies in previous blogs, i will try to keep this short and highlight why this study is as flawed and misleading as many of the other studies on this topic. True to form, it makes many of the basic mistakes that lead to damaging information being fed to the general public and, just as in the case of cholesterol and saturated fat studies, the reality is often very different from the public perception of the results. So, in order to arm you with some common sense, these are just a few points that should be considered.The study was conducted over several years and took into account the eating habits of almost 250,000 people. Therefore:

• For the people who were eating one extra portion of red meat per day, was this the only difference in their eating habits? Were they, for example, eating more food in general? Were they eating more grains as well as more meat, or perhaps more sugar or more dairy or just more of everything?

• Were these people already fat or obese or diabetic? Did they have fully functioning digestive systems that were able to break down proteins and fats or did they have poor digestive function from consuming a lifetime of processed grains and dairy and sugar, which would have made it very difficult to digest fattier meats? If so, the problem may not be red meat but poor digestive function which has far more to do with the amount of processed grains and dairy we eat than it does red meat.

• Where were the multiple risk interventions? When you do a study to determine which factors are the cause of a certain problem you do whats called “multiple risk interventions” which means you give two groups of people exactly the same (in this case) foods, with just one single exception, say the addition of red meat. So both test groups have exactly the same factors, except one. Then you measure and observe to see if that one extra addition causes the problem you are studying, in this case increased mortality. If it does cause that thing, you then change the single different factor to something else. say an extra portion of grains, to see if the same thing happens again. You repeat this process with as many factors as possible, or are relevant, to see if you can identify the one thing that, when added to the diet, results in the desired outcome, such as increased mortality. So, one group, the control group, always stays on exactly the same diet and lifestyle factors such as sleep and exercise and general healthy habits, smoking, drinking ect, and the other group does exactly the same but with the addition of just one difference, the “multiple risk factor”, each time you run the test, This study has no multiple risk factors and no true control group. Are we to believe that of the 250,000 people, those who ate red meat made only that one single difference to their lifestyle? That the diet and lifestyle they maintained was exactly the same in every way except that they ate one portion of meat extra? Or is it possible that those people also had other factors in their lives that could have caused the increased mortality?

• As the study was conducted on USA citizens it is highly likely that the portion sizes were huge. So are we talking about an extra fist sized portion of meat or are we talking about an extra plate sized portion of meat?

• Was the study conducted on red meat that has been commercially farmed, loaded with RBGH (a bovine growth hormone), steroids, toxins from grain feed, antibiotics and all sorts of other crap that cant be properly detoxified and digested, or did it test those eating only grass fed organic meats that are free from all that pharmaceutical toxic garbage? 

In conclusion, it does not matter how many people you have in a study if the basic premise and practice of the study is flawed from the start. If you want to know how meat effects our health check out the 2000 anthropological study conducted by an Australian University and check out the 10 year long study conducted by Weston A Price in the early part of the 20th century. In both these studies, carried out by observing the eating habits and subsequent health of indigenous people from around the world, both studies found that throughout history, wherever meat has been available it has been the major part of the diet. Furthermore, the amount of meat consumed was only ever limited by the amount available, the more there was the more the populations ate, in some cases making up as much as 95% of the diet. These studies also showed that populations that ate the most meat, often in the absence of almost all carbohydrates, such as the Masai and the Inuit Eskimos, were exceptionally healthy with almost no cases of our modern day ailments. Vegetarians were extremely rare and were only ever found in areas were meat was in very short supply or unavailable and they were never as healthy as their meat eating neighbors. In short, the history of our existence clearly shows that not only is red meat not bad for us as humans, it is vital for survival and good health. What on earth did we eat during the ice age...spinach and potato? There are essential fats and essential proteins, there are no essential carbohydrates! 

What this study may perhaps tell us is that eating modern red meat, commercially farmed and full of crap, should be avoided. However, in typical Western myopic fashion, those dishing out advice, like Dr Rosemary, have completely missed the point. If you mess around with the food chain and start using drugs to boost profits, it will, without doubt, come back and bite you in the arse. In thousands of years, when future archeologists look back at this time in our history, they will label us the dumbest humans to have ever existed. Why ? Because we did the one thing you should never ever do as a living creature, we poisoned our own food supply! And as if that was not enough, the medical industry then told everyone to stop eating anything that actually got us here as a species in the first place, such as eggs and meat and fat etc, and start eating things that had no place in our diets, such as cereals, processed and refined grains, margarine, pasteurised and processed dairy, unfermented soy, GM foods and, well, the list goes on. Hilarious...stupid humans !

So the results are in for the 21 Day Rapid Weight Loss programs “Biggest Loser” and oh my goodness it was soooo close! In fact, it was so close we had to check the numbers twice, then check the wording on the rules, then check the numbers again and then double check them with a third party, just to make sure we had it absolutely correct. The winning criteria was whoever lost the most weight, relative to their starting weight, would win the coveted prize.

So now I can announce the winner of the “Biggest Loser” for February 2012 is ………Dale Richardson! (applause, applause). Dale managed to lose 7kg, yes 7kg of pure fat on the course, that’s over a stone of fat, gone. Dale shifted more fat in a month than most people do in several years. And we are not talking just weight loss, which can often be a lot of muscle loss, oh no, we are talking 7kg of pure fat, with ZERO muscle loss! Incredible. So well done to Dale and a big thanks to him for all the effort he showed in sticking to the plan and for being a fat loss legend!

We must, however congratulate everyone who did the 21 Day program, not least young Dan Donaghue who ran Dale so close we had to check the rules and regulations and double check our figures. Not wanting to rub salt in the wound but if we had chosen the winner on relative body fat % lost , Dan would have won. If we had chosen the winner on fat weight lost relative to starting fat weight  it would have been a draw…seriously, it was that close. In fact it was so close we have decided to award Dan a prize as well, just for being so committed to the plan and keeping it ridiculously competitive.

In total, the 21 Day program resulted in over 2 stone of fat loss, not weight loss, fat loss! At least two of the 21 Dayers actually put muscle on during the course and everyone had reduced body fat %. All in all the program has been a fantastic success and given the whole group a great start to the year and the tools to continue their success for the rest of the year. So, a huge congratulations to everyone who took part and stayed committed to the plan. You have all helped to show what incredible changes can be made with a little knowledge and a ton of enthusiasm. Well done everyone.

 We will be announcing the dates for the next course later this month so stay tuned to book your place and get yourself lean and ripped for the start of spring. 

This recent news story highlited something that should have been made public knowledge a long time ago and should certainly be at the heart of any government health initiative to reduce and reverse the obesity and diabetes problem, But instead, the health minister invited the cereal companies to head up the team that funds those initiatives !! Conflict of interest anywhere? Is it any wonder we have a Food Pyramid, now the Food Plate, that is made up largely of cereals and grain based products, despite the fact that they are loaded with sugar and processed flour? 

And a quick note on the food industry spokeswomens comments that "people know Frosties is loaded with sugar.... and there are healthier options out there if you wish to choose them" etc etc. Well why are Frosties adverts aimed at kids with a bloody great cartoon tiger? These foods are targeted at kids so that the kids can use whats known in the marketing industry as "Pester Power". This is when adverts are directed toward kids in order to drive the parents nuts with constant demands for that product, the parents often give in for the sake of a peaceful life and then the marketing people say "well its your choice". And if the food industry is so concerned about the health of kids that they want to be a part of the governments health plans in order to be useful allies in ridding the nation of obesity, why are they putting 40% sugar in the cereals, like Frosties and Coco pops, that are being directly aimed at kids? I just wonder at what stage these people will draw the line or the government, any government, will step in and actually do something in the peoples interests. There will be cereal dealers, sugar pushers, standing right outside the school gates within 5 years, ill put a fiver on it!

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16171090

OK, so with 1 month down and 5 to go for the first crowned Kings of Awesomeness, here are the Stickyeyes Superstars Leaderboards so far.

Frankly, we think there is much better to come and with a few people still to throw their hat in, the competition is bound to get tougher

You may well have heard the reports this morning regarding the "Bacon" study, a new study that has shown a 20% increase in the chances of getting pancreatic cancer if you eat processed meats such as bacon. Now, i am no fan of processed meats, i advise clients not to eat them and i rarely eat them myself, however, this study is an excellent example of  how seemingly good information is presented to the public in a sincere way, swaying and shaping public opinion and "knowledge" of dietary matters, but can actually be flawed from the very start. So, in order to highlight how these studies, or the presentation of the results,  should be carefully considered here are two important factors that must be taken into account

1. The reports make no mention of any distinction between organic or commercially raised produce.

2: They make no mention of whether those eating more bacon or red meat were also eating more food in general , including more grains, more sugars and other antigenic foods . 

The pancreas is responsible for many things including enzyme production (responsible for digesting foods),  B cell production to make antibodies to fight off what the body sees as foreign invaders, and hormones such as insulin to regulate blood sugar levels and subsequent fat storage.

Both bacon and red meat are fattier meats and one of the jobs of fat in the body is to draw in, and store, toxins accumulated through poor diet and poor environment. Therefore,  commercially farmed animals have more fat, loaded with more toxins.  This is great if you are selling your animals by the weight but is, of course, harmful to anyone eating that animal and can be carcinogenic . This is one of the reasons why obese people are more susceptible to disease, they are simply far nore toxic. These toxins will also effect digestion which means proteins, such as those found in meats, are much harder to digest and the pancreas has to work extra hard to produce protease enzymes to improve digestion. This can lead to undigested protein, higher acidity in the gut and a very stressed out pancreas

Now if that person is also eating more grains they will already have poor digestion as most people have real trouble digesting grain proteins (gliadin), hence bloating.  Also, if they are eating the standard diet loaded with sugar their pancreas will be working overtime producing insulin  Add to this the fact that if they are eating more volume of grains their pancreas will also be working overtime to produce B cell antibodies to fight off gliadin and it's derivatives. All in all this makes for a very overworked and susceptible pancreas .

So, are we dealing with people who are eating the exact same diet but with the addition of 2 extra slices of organic bacon per day or are we dealing with people who are eating more of everything,  including more commercially farmed bacon and processed meats , more sugars, more grains, more antigenic food, more chemicals , more toxins and subsequently poorer digestive health resulting in a pancreas that is having to produce far more digestive enzymes,  far more B cells ,  far more insulin and is consequently far more stressed out and overworked ? without that distinction the study is meaningless  

This study says far more about the practices and processes of these types of studies and the influence they have over public perception  than it does about processed foods and bacon.  I am in no way a fan of processed foods but i am an advocate of thoughtful, honest presentation,  and giving the public the means to make the right choices when it comes to diet and health for them and their families. Eat well and use your brain!

Ok, so as promised, in order to get this years competitiveness underway, we are announcing the Stickyeyes Guy of the year for last year in 3 categories.

1. Strongman

2. Most Improved Player

3. Most Valuable Player

Drum roll, drum roll, drum roll........

The Strongman of the year...This was closely fought all year between Dale and Steve but ultimately the winner was ...

Steve Lee with a 107.5kg Bench / 180kg Deadlift and 8 Pull ups

The Most Improved Player...After much deliberation we could not seperate these two, for very different reasons they both improved vastly throughout the year. One started the year unable to squat at all, in fact pretty much unable to bend his knees. The other started the year very capable but improved throughout the year in pretty much every category including bodyweight, chins, deadlifts, bench press, even reduced back pain, and ended up the year with the lowest body fat in the group. The winners are

Paul Hill  (17% body fat) and Jonathan Hemmingway (squatable, bendy knees)

The Most Valuable Player of the year...This one was a no brainer. For his tireless effort and enthusiasm, plus the fact that he does a lot of my marketing work for me, this Stickyeye Guy was miles ahead of the rest in terms of contribution to the smooth running of our classes.

Percy Vear (about 20 members and a whole bunch of pt candidates)

Well done to all the winners, i am sure that this year will see even more effort and for certain some new challengers and winners in the Stickeyes Superstars Challenge

This year sees the stat of the new Stickeyes Superstars Challenge. In order to prove for once and for all who is the ultimate Stickeyes Superstar, PT-Health has put together 3 new events to sort the men from the boys and the best from the rest.

So, It’s time to shake off the Christmas food babies and show your colleagues and us what you can do

There are 3 contests for you to win with prizes in each one.

1. Strongman Challenge

2. Fitness Challenge

3. 480X Challenge

Each contest will run throughout the year with a champion decided every 6-months.. They will start on the Feb 1st and finish on the 20th Dec, with an interim champion decided on July 1st 

The person with the best score in each category will win a prize and the honour of being the champ. We will also pick an overall champion who will be crowned as the Best of the Best 

We’ll let you know what each contest involves in more detail along with the rules and regulations for each later in the week. The results and scores will be posted each month in a league table, with any events of note, such as great feats of strength or new PB's posted as they happen on the PT-Health Blog

Get your sweat bands at the ready...Who's your money on?

So with Old Man Winter shoveling our hard earned cash into the pockets of the energy companies, many people are putting away their training gear in favour of their Winter woolies. But not those Stickyeyes guys, oh no! Those guys just keep smashing down the challenges and setting Personal Bests like a bunch of crazy training nutters, often with no thought whatsoever for their own personal safety. Can they keep this up? Who can say. Will they end up in a big pile of sweaty mess? No one knows. Will their handsome and dashing trainers recieve some excellent Christmas presents this year? Quite possibly.

One thing we do know for sure is who will be the next recipient of the much coverted Triple C Award. This award, exclusive to PT-Health members, is given only to those who can achieve a 100kg lift in the squat, deadlift and bench press. So far there have only been three winners of this award. Now there are four. Young Dale Richardson, pride of the stickeyes backline, has smashed his way into the CCC club and becomes the second member of the Stickyeyes crew to achieve this milestone of supremecy. This comes just in time to redeem the reputation of the Stickyeyes guys following the recent and untimely departure of the former winner, who was last seen pestering shoppers in town for scraps of pizza and left over baguettes. Well done Dale!

In other news the Stickeyes runners took part in the annual Abbey Dash last weekend. Whilst i have always been suspiciuous of anyone who runs farther than 400m, congratulations go out to all those who took part and finished this years run. Wih Percy topping the bunch, everyone performed excellently as the times below show. Rumour has it that Craig will be leading the pack next year, although these rumours have yet to be confirmed