[Closed] Apparently eating too much makes you obese...... shocker!

It seems to be quite a reasonable reporting of research that differentiates between several factors involved in overeating.

Your post however is dumbed down and reactionary of the type normally associated with the daily mail.

So, why'd you post this?

EDIT: Oh, it's cos you don't understand scientific research, isn't it?

Mmmmmmmm. Snacking and super sizing. Arrggggggg.

I think most fat people know why they're fat, so stop ramming it down their throats 😉

absolute rubbish

cheese is the food of the gods, good for you in fact

i'll hear nothing said against it

ever

😡 + shaking fist

Oh, it's cos you don't understand scientific research, isn't it?

Scientific research I understand, stating the bleeding obvious and then palming it off as scientific research however I don't. Neither do I understand the need to fill column inches with minor studies of even less significance knowing full well that it will provoke reactions such as mine.

I'd be much more impressed with a study into the reasons behind excessive eating, especially into the issues of lack of self worth that are self evident in the condition, but then perhaops that might draw the media into having to recognise its role in undermining body image, but hey thats just my opinion and in no way sceintific.

Well, I found it interesting, if a little simplified.

Several factors are involved in energy intake - the number of calories (energy) in a specific amount of food (energy density), portion size and how many meals and snacks a day eaten. The researchers say that while all of these have gone up, increases in the number of eating occasions and portion size seem to account for most of the change.

I've often heard it said that the excessive use of sugar in processed food, and the increased use of processed food, are the major factors in increased obesity.
This study seems to contradict that, so it does raise an important issue.

the body stores excess carbohydrate as fat whether it's from too much pasta or from too much sugar.

don't eat too much kids, you'll end up a bit of a tubber.

Kev

the body stores excess carbohydrate as fat

Depending on how much insulin is around 🙂

stating the bleeding obvious and then palming it off as scientific research however I don't

If you think that's what they've done then you don't understand it. Firstly you've not read their paper, just the BBC report which isn't necessarily well done. Secondly, if you sit their stating the obvious all day you won't get published or have funding for long.

Well, as someone who's done a fair amount of scientific research, I'm with B_B on this one. This line is particularly excellent for stating the bleeding obvious:

"This study also looked at portion size and studies have shown that having larger portions of food leads to an increased intake."

I wish I could get funding for such easy research!

That's a quote from the BBC website, not the researchers...

don't eat too [s]much [/s] many kids, you'll end up a bit of a tubber.

Sorry, grammar Nazi at work

Well, I've read and re-read the article, desperately tried understanding the complicated scientific analyis and complex conclusion but to no avail.

So, STW'ers... will eating too much food make me become more biggerer?

That's a quote from the BBC website, not the researchers...

I spend my working life reading crap scientific papers, but for you, I read the real abstract of this one too:

Conclusions

While all three components have contributed to some extent to 30-y changes in TE [total energy], changes in EO [eating occasions] and PS [portion size] have accounted for most of the change.

So, pretty much what the British scientist on the beeb website said. Also pretty bloody obvious, apart from the acronyms, which were first defined in an earlier paragraph of the paper

So why d'you think they spent their time doing it then?

That's a quote from the BBC website, not the researchers...

.....thats what I posted wasn't it??

and thats my point, the stating of the obvious simply undermines the real issues underlying the problem. Frankly other than the BBC report I have no idea what the study says, and that'll be true for the majority of media quoted studies. Picking out the tit-bits that will gain a knee jerk reaction is entirely misleading and ought to be banned.

I don't know if anyone watched it, but a few years back there was a documentary about publishing the Sunday Sport. The underlying theme to which was a front headline of the salacious variety about an MP being gay. All week long they were taking advice from a lawyer about the headline and the story, and at the 11th hour the editor having been convinced by the lawyer that he was walking through a legal minefield simply changed the headline to MP not Gay,under which he published exactly the same story as he was going to print anyway. Bascially nothing printed was untrue per se, but it was VERY deliberately, VERY misleading. Same here.

So why d'you think they spent their time doing it then?

Something to do whilst eating doughnuts?

the bbc article headine tickled me most:

"[i]Snacking [b]clue[/b] to obesity epidemic[/i] 😯

Picking out the ****-bits that will gain a knee jerk reaction is entirely misleading and ought to be banned

Absolutely.

Snacking clue to obesity epidemic

Well you could be comparing eating large meals and fasting in between to eating smaller meals and snacking inbetween.. That would seem a reasonable question.

In science, it's not sufficient to say 'well everyone knows that' - you have to actually do a study, even if it's 'common knowledge'. In doing that, often you can uncover new things.

Also pretty bloody obvious

Not really. It's perfectly plausible that the changes are due to the changes in types of foods consumed, rather than frequency or quantity.

That's why this kind of research is useful.

In science, it's not sufficient to say 'well everyone knows that' - you have to actually do a study, even if it's 'common knowledge'. In doing that, often you can uncover new things.

This seems to be the basis behind most of the [s]papers[/s] dross I reject from journals on a regular basis. Seeing as the other referees and editor usually agree, I guess I'm not the only one who's a little fed up with 'scientists' stating the obvious and expecting it to be published as novel work. What's worse is when it actually is, then gets some brainless press release over the top of it.

I am surprised a population manages to be so fat on what seems a perfectly reasonable intake, roughly what the NHS recvommends. Now consider that 13-year old kids eat double that (I have living proof playing in the garden), active workers need 3000 + and some parts of the US are very cold in winter, I really suspect the figures are an underestimate.

If you actually bother to understand what the paper was about, the conclusion was not at all obvious.

Yes, it's obvious that "super sizing" and "snacking" will make you fat. That's not what this paper was about.

This paper investigated how people were coming to consume more calories than they did 30 years ago. Was it:

a) Eating bigger meals ("super sizing")
b) Eating more meals ("snacking")
c) Eating fattier food

It's not at all obvious to me which of these factors it was. This paper concludes (a) and (b) have had a much bigger effect than (c).

I am surprised a population manages to be so fat on what seems a perfectly reasonable intake

Well, if the closest you get to exercise is the walk from your house to your car, it's not hard to see how your energy usage could be way less than that required by an active worker.

I am surprised a population manages to be so fat on what seems a perfectly reasonable intake, roughly what the NHS recvommends. Now consider that 13-year old kids eat double that (I have living proof playing in the garden), active workers need 3000 + and some parts of the US are very cold in winter, I really suspect the figures are an underestimate

My lad had a bf% of <10% (visible abs). He broke his foot playing football (actually while pissed celebrating their cup win). 6 weeks of enforced sofa sitting and he's up to >20% fat. Amusingly the day after the cast came off he raced in Mayhem. He didn't enjoy being a fat unfit git at all....

Anyway being active is far for significant than diet when it comes to being a chubby. IMO 😉

I am surprised a population manages to be so fat on what seems a perfectly reasonable intake

Well the evidence is now clear that the NATURE of the calories consumed has a greater effect than the AMOUNT.

There was a link on here the other day about that.

Anyway being active is far for significant than diet when it comes to being a chubby. IMO

But not, IIRC, in the O of the Harvard scientists who studied this. Let me check...

Of course its bleeding obvious. Go to Ethiopia or Eritra during famine and spot the fat person. Obesity generally is a function of the intake exceeding the output. There may very well be underlying issues with mental health or whatever, but thats it, and I defy anyone to prove otherwise.

But not, IIRC, in the O of the Harvard scientists who studied this. Let me check...

OH FOR ****S SAKE!

Calories in
Calories out

Please tell us everything that affects this magic calories out figure?

The scientists (poss not from Harvard I forget) suggested that diet was MORE important than exercise, not unimportant bloody obviously. You said that one was more important than the other, I disagreed, which in no way suggested that the other has zero importance.

Christ alive.

Go to Ethiopia or Eritra during famine and spot the fat person

🙄

A bit touchy today molgrips 🙂

Ok, I apologise for that.

But really.. sometimes people take the reasonable points you are trying to make and extrapolate them to nonsense, when really a sensible grown up discussion would be far better.

*sigh*

Ok, I apologise for that.

But really.. sometimes people take the reasonable points you are trying to make and extrapolate them to nonsense, when really a sensible grown up discussion would be far better.

*sigh*

I suspect if you look at the calorie intake of fatties and not fatties there won't be a huge difference. But when you look at their calories out there will be huge variations.

Or put it another way... you can eat any old crap if you're very active.

you can eat any old crap if you're very active

I can't. Trust me, I've been there.

The body is a very complicated system, with lots of inputs, outputs and many systems operating all the time, some in conflict, some in co-operation. It works differently in different people, and what's more it changes depending on what you eat. Couple that with psychological factors and you've got mayhem.

If you read the stories of people who've tried to lose weight on here (an active sport forum) you'll see all sorts of results from all sorts of different things. Sometimes people exercise and try to restrict calories and just can't do it; sometimes people just cut out pies and go biking twice a week and the weight goes. Some folk don't even have any excess weight to begin with regardless.

You've only got to look at skinny lazy people (of whom there are many) who fill their faces to see that it is NOT as simple as eat less, do more. High metabolism, you say? Why? What makes their metabolism high? High in what way? Where does the extra energy they eat go?

The most utterly damaging thing is when those who happen to be skinny think they know it all and pour scorn on 'fatties', or come on here and assume that you're filling your face and being a couch potato despite you telling them otherwise - because they think it's simple and you're stupid. We're not all stupid, you're the one being stupid, because it's not simple.

I wish I knew the proper name for this kind of argument. It's like saying that the shootings in LA are caused by all the guns. True, but completely useless because if you took away all the guns they'd find another way to murder each other of course.

*sigh*

Drink a pint of lucosade (~500 calories), now go for a ride for an hour (~500 calories).

Tomorow drink the same calories in olive oil and go ride.

The next day drink the same calories, but diesel, and go ride.

Calories in Vs Caloires out says you'd be the same weight after all 3.

"Fat is bad" would tell you that you'd weigh the most after the olive oil.

Common sense tells you you'd be dead after the diesel.

In reality (well my understanding of it), you'd lose the most weight on the olive oil diet. There's a study quoted in Ferris' book that compared 3 groups of dieters on 1000 calorie/day diets.

90% of calories from carbs put on weight (despite being in a supposed 1500calorie deficit).

90% calories from fat lost the most weight.

90% of calories from protein lost somewhere inbetween.

Quite right, tinas. Although I found out that study was done in 1956 and then was seemingly forgotten. Although I think some people doubted his methods.

I suspect if you look at the calorie intake of fatties and not fatties there won't be a huge difference. But when you look at their calories out there will be huge variations.

Yea, fat people have a 'high' metabolism because they're bigger, we also eat more to compensate :p

Michael Phelps eats 12000 calories a day, he looks in pretty good shape

Breakfast

Phelps kick starts his day and his metabolism with three fried-egg sandwiches, but with a few customised additions: cheese, lettuce, tomatoes, fried onions and, of course, mayonnaise.

Amuse-bouche out of the way, he throws back two cups of coffee and sits down to an omelette - containing five eggs - and a bowl of grits, a porridge of coarsely ground corn. He's not finished yet. Bring on the three slices of French toast, with powdered sugar on top to make sure there's no skimping on the calories. And to finish: three chocolate chip pancakes.

Lunch

With breakfast wearing off and the hunger pangs biting, Phelps downs half a kilogram - ie a whole packet - of enriched pasta and two large ham and cheese sandwiches. On white bread with loads of mayo on top. To remove any chance that his body will run out of fuel, he washes this down with about 1,000 calories of energy drink.

Dinner

Time to load up on carbs for the next day's training. Another half kilo of enriched pasta goes down the hatch with a chaser of an entire pizza and another 1,000 calories of energy drinks. And so to bed. As Phelps told US television channel NBC yesterday: "Eat, sleep and swim, that's all I can do."

Still kind of make sense though,

Eat carbs, body burns them, stores any it can as fat, and stores the remaining fat in the diet as fat due to the insulin response.

Eat oil, and the genreal restriction in calories willmake you lose weigh as its burnt but not stored as theres no insulin to help store it?

Eat protein and the same calorie restrictive effect as oil, only no/less muscle wastage hence lower weigh loss?

Just my hypothesis.

Eat nothing and then see what happens.

That Phelps diet seems almost the wrong way around, all the protein in the morning, carbs in the afternoon?

Although I'm not convinced, last olympics everyone was saying he drank nothing but chocolate milk (google the GOMAD for why this should work)

What's French toast (says the man with a French passport)?

Well today's activity has included sex, converting trees into firewood, a couple of kms in the pool and bicycle transport. On the average American calorie intake I'd have already run out of calories and be incapable of accompanying Madame to the sales. "Be right with you dear!".

This could be expensive. :-/

I have nothing to add.

This is because I'm not overweight and seemingly this means that my methods of weight control are irrelevant to those that are overweight.

Eat nothing and then see what happens.

Not a lot (litteraly)

1st - you have no energy, so no excercise, so the body moves onto stage 2

2nd - the body eats its own energy stores, muscle and fat

3rd - you eventualy binge and put on the weight as fat again but your metabolisms now lowered due to the muscle loss.

Michael Phelps eats 12000 calories a day, he looks in pretty good shape

Yeah, I don't expect be burns up that much in exercise tho. That'd be like cycling flat out for 12 hours. Which backs up my point. Something's going on inside his body that means that lot doesn't get stored as fat.

Eat carbs, body burns them, stores any it can as fat, and stores the remaining fat in the diet as fat due to the insulin response

Broadly.. according to wiki insulin has many effects - one of which is that it promotes your body to burn carbs (rather than fat), another is that it promotes the storage of fat. So you're not burning up your stores of fat, and you're depleting the blood sugar you have. And guess what, one of the triggers for hunger is lower blood sugar...

If I give in and have a twix in the afternoon, 60 mins later I am very hungry. If I don't, I will be less hungry and last until dinnertime. Eating more sugar makes me hungrier than if I'd eaten nothing at all...

My sister doesn't eat breakfast because she says if she does it makes her hungrier mid morning and she needs to eat again. I thought she was talking arse but now I see there's a mechanism behind it.

Eat nothing and then see what happens

What's your point caller?

This is because I'm not overweight and seemingly this means that my methods of weight control are irrelevant to those that are overweight.

Not necessarily. It clearly works for you. More evidence and information allows us to build a better picture 🙂