Forum menu
I'm not really thinking about 'exercise'.
I'm thinking much more about 'lifestyle'.
I'm thinking about walking instead of driving, about stairs instead of lifts/escalators, about generally moving about instaed of sitting. My feeling is that concentrating on what goes in while ignoring what comes out in the form of activity is only looking at half the problem.
It's like talking about mpg by discussing what petrol and ignoring driving style, engine size, load and so on.
You are quite right, but the lifestyle stuff is pretty straightforward, and there are fewer misconceptions about that 🙂 And the science is well understood of course.
However you have to do quite a bit to make a difference. Remember when you were a student and you would walk 20 mins to uni, 20 mins to a friend's house, another 20 to the pub for a couple of different pubs, 15 back to their house, and 20 back to yours? I used to cycle those trips, once I borrowed a bike computer and clocked up 10 miles in a normal evening alone.
When you're an adult, you work 20 miles away, there's no bus route, it becomes a lot more difficult to get that kind of casual exercise in.
[i]When you're an adult, you work 20 miles away, there's no bus route, it becomes a lot more difficult to get that kind of casual exercise in.[/i]
In my case there is a bus route, and it convieniently adds a 5 and then a 10 minute walk, which seems to provoke much hilarity among my colleagues, and I'm considered a second class citizen. These same people are all on the latest fad diet involving fasting or there abouts for two days a week, yet they criticise when I skip an evening meal because I eat at home.
I think I'm trying to say that the problem is not so much about what we eat; it's much more about how much we eat compared to how much we do. Watching the procession of visitors to the hospital who wait at the front door to be picked up when the car park is 100 yards away only adds to this.
Weight loss/food/exercise is a complex societal issue, and discussing the type of intake is only a small part of the problem.
I'm not arguing with most of that. However I don't think diet is a small part of the problem.
The wrong diet compared to your exercise levels is the problem. Of course it's preferable to exercise for other reasons, but for weight and health diet is most critical imo. Even if you do no exercise at all beyond the minimum, you can still control your weight with appropriate diet.
Welcome back crikey. 🙂
I've moved house and was being a grumpy knobber, so I had a self imposed exile for a while... 🙂
I'm going to disagree molgrips, I think exercise, or rather just physical activity is at least as important as diet.
Yeah? I know quite a few people who eat quite sensibly and are still overweight.
I used to believe that 'those' people ate quite sensibly too but invariably they snack or quite simply pig-out when no-one is looking and are in self denial about what they actually eat. Anyone/everyone who is overweight has a tendency to do this and make excuses eg. I have a slow metabolism etc. but the fact is that most overweight people either eat too much/eat the wrong things/sit on their arse all day, or a combination of all three. Very few people have a genuine medical reason for being overweight.
Agreed but I would say it's more important as the benefits of exercise, even if the person is overweight, can compensate for a poor diet. Depends on how poor the diet is and what the bad stuff consists of, of course!I think exercise, or rather just physical activity is at least as important as diet.
[i]I'm going to disagree molgrips, I think exercise, or rather just physical activity is at least as important as diet.[/i]
Yeap, exercise has been blamed for improving HDL levels for one and there are a raft of other benefits from moving about a bit. Its what we've evolved to do.
Caveat: Obviously, if someone is massively overweight, or even just out of condition. Then easing themselves into exercise is the sensible thing to do and shouldn't be exclusive to sorting out their diet.
[i]Agreed but I would say it's more important as the benefits of exercise, even if the person is overweight, can compensate for a poor diet. Depends on how poor the diet is and what the bad stuff consists of, of course![/i]
Not in my opinion. What I have seen are cardio addicts who cram what I consider to be poor food choices into their mouths, yet [i]appear[/i] to be healthy, cos they are slim / lean. Which is of course, nonsense.
A poor diet is a poor diet. That a person may exercise sooooo much as to mitigate the weight gain effects of a poor diet, but this doesn't absolve them from the effects a poor diet may be having on their bodies. Effects that can't be seen with a tape measure or a set of weighing scales.
Another way of looking at this, perhaps, is to look at the wider range of life on the planet. Most species evolve to align themselves with certain foods, the availability of those foods and even when those foods are available, ie, seasonality.
Humming birds have evolved to rely on plant nectar, squirrels eat seeds and nuts, Lions feed on other animals, etc, etc. But in each case, it can be argued that a particular species has evolved to thrive on certain, available foods. And so it is the same for Humans. We evolved to do very well thank you, on plants and animals and perhaps not so well on Transform A snacks.
😉
Perhaps I'm nit-picking, but I think it's more accurate to suggest that evolution is driven by the food available, rather than us evolving to thrive on certain foods.
One of the advantages that humans seem to have evolved is our ability to overcome seasonal, geographical, climate related obstacles in order to exploit the ecological environment.
Unfortunately, that same adaptability makes us prone to over exploitation of food sources and so we get fat, or ill or both.
I still think an over concentration on intake is not as helpful as looking at getting people to expend more calories in their day to day lives, although I admit that if we can't stop eating too much, the chances of us doing enough are even more remote.
Oh dear solo.
But in each case, it can be argued that a particular species has evolved to thrive on certain, available foods. And so it is the same for Humans.
No. Some species evolve as specialists, some as generalists. Foxes, crows, raccoons, bears etc. Arguably it's our lack of specialism that has made us so successful.
I used to believe that 'those' people ate quite sensibly too but invariably they snack or quite simply pig-out when no-one is looking and are in self denial about what they actually eat.
Invariably? You know that for a fact? Or are you just making assumptions based on nothing?
We all sit on a spectrum with regards response to food. There are plenty of people who eat whatever they like and don't get fat - half my family for a start. There are people in the middle, like me, and there are people who tend to put on weight very easily despite eating carefully.
Assuming anyone fat is a lazy slob in denial is a pretty unkind way of being wrong.
Very few people have a genuine medical reason for being overweight.
Actual pathology might not be common, but I am talking about response to food. It's the same for response to exercise too.
[i]No. Some species evolve as specialists, some as generalists. Foxes, crows, raccoons, bears etc. Arguably it's our lack of specialism that has made us so successful.[/i]
Molgrips.
You're very amusing, I particularly like your confrontational, opening statement of just "[i][b]No.[/b][/i]".
It implies that [b]you know and that you alone are correct[/b]. So I should listen to you regarding archaeological anthropology and not anyone who is a professor in that field ?.
😆
I like also, how you take a stance which is contrarian with very well educated people, people who have done the real research, Doctors, professors. But its OK, you know better. Oh, but hang on, you're still, by your own admission, carrying more B/F than you'd prefer.
😆
So......
[i]Some species evolve as specialists[/i]
Exactly my point with the plankton feeding whale, but evolution still had to play its part and the result is a creature who's general well being only requires that the creature consumes the foods it has evolved to eat.
[i]some as generalists[/i]
They'll be omnivorous then (give me strength), but those creatures still have limits, there are still foods which their digestive systems aren't best evolved to exact optimal nutrition from. However, there is a wide range of food from which they will obtain enough sustenance to survive upon.
[i]Arguably it's our lack of specialism that has made us so successful.[/i]
I wonder if there are more things in the world that we can't survive on, than there are that we can survive on. However, it is proposed that optimal nutrition for a Human, if the rule of evolution applies as it does to other creatures. Will come from foods that Humans have evolved to thrive upon. These do not include cheese cake, Transform A snacks or Pepsi.
Now whos being [i]obtuse[/i] ?.
But heres a starter for you.
[i]Biology may make little sense to some folk, until it is placed under the light of evolution.[/i]
Go figure.
[i]but I think it's more accurate to suggest that evolution is driven by the food available, rather than us evolving to thrive on certain foods.[/i]
That doesn't make sense, you seem to have said the same thing, from two different directions ?.
[i]evolution is driven by the food available[/i]
Agreed, that is what I was saying, water filtering whales have evolved mouth parts for filtering water to harvest plankton.
[i]rather than us evolving to thrive on certain foods.[/i]
No, that's exactly what the whale has done (that particular species of whale), it has evolved to thrive on that certain food, plankton.
However, because I know so few fit/healthy people I now pretty much disregard everybody else around me in this sense.
Yeah I know what you mean. I've had several (obese) people tell me that I've "lost enough weight", that I'm starting to "look too skinny" and it is time to start "eating normal food again" (despite my lunch described earlier!).
I got most of these comments while my BMI was still in the Overweight range.
I think some folk are getting so used to people being obese that even someone with a high-end-of-normal BMI like me looks unhealthily skinny to them. 😯
But calories in vs calories out is important, and concentrating only on calories in is simplifying the issue to a strange and almost daft degree.
I think that has just been the focus of this discussion. The whole simplified equation of "Calories In < Calories Out" means just that. Increasing Calories Out allows for greater Calories In without weight gain.
And again that is what MFP supports. I'm commuting on the bike today. 11 miles each way grants me an extra 800 or so calories.
So my breakfast roll this morning is Sausage and Egg instead of just Sausage and I might have an afternoon flapjack before I head home.
We evolved to do very well thank you, on plants and animals and perhaps not so well on Transform A snacks.
Hey, they are made from corn. Corn is a plant.
They count as one of my five a day 😉
[i] Foxes, crows, raccoons, bears etc. [/i]
What ?, those creatures who now scavenge [b]Man made, processed food[/b] from refuse bins and hence since have been found to be suffering with T2D ?.
Pandas?
An animal that can (and does occasionally) eat anything that any other bear can eat, but chooses instead to eat pretty rubbish nutritionally speaking, bamboo.
[i]Hey, they are made from corn. Corn is a plant.
They count as one of my five a day[/i]
😆
Fair play to you Graham. You've found an approach that works for you and is giving the results you want.
🙂
[i]instead to eat pretty rubbish nutritionally speaking, bamboo[/i]
Well now you post that. But if the Panda's digestive system has evolved to extract what its needs and we get a Panda. Then theres your biology and evolution working out just fine.
Look at us, we evolved to be able to synthesize Carbs from protein, for example. Pretty cool.
😉
It's diet is nutritionally low, and its behaviour reflects that, lives alone, stuffs its face, avoid exersize, sleeps most of the day....
Fair play to you Graham. You've found an approach that works for you and is giving the results you want.
Cheers. I think the main thing is that psychologically I didn't want to feel like I was "on a diet" or eating "special foods" - that just wouldn't motivate me - hence why why I'm still eating crisps instead of flax seeds.
I do [i]know[/i] that I could get more health benefit if I made more radical diet changes and cut out more of the processed stuff - but I worry that I'd find that much more difficult to sustain and fall off the wagon. Whereas doing what I am now has worked well for a year and doesn't feel overly restrictive.
Also, I like sausages. 😀
[i]It's diet is nutritionally low, and its behaviour reflects that, lives alone, stuffs its face, avoid exersize, sleeps most of the day....[/i]
They'll fit right in on here then.
😉
[i]Also, I like sausages[/i]
Its positively a requirement !. You carry on.
😀
Then theres your biology and evolution working out just fine.
No, it's not working fine, they are dying out. Yes they are dying out because of humans (partly) but we're just another environmental stressor.
They specialised in one poor food source, as soon as that gets threatened they are toast. The successful animals are the ones that can eat anything.
those creatures who now scavenge Man made, processed food from refuse bins
What's your point? They are all very successful animals, largely due to their flexibility. Take away the man made processed food, they will have plenty of other food to eat. Take away a panda's bamboo or a wildebeest's grassland and they're in trouble.
This thread is getting a bit OT now.
The successful animals are the ones that can eat anything.
Finally I'm a success! 😀
[i]No, it's not working fine, they are dying out.[/i]
Yes, Trolgrips, its working out as it should, THINK about that...
😉
[i]What's your point? They are all very successful animals, largely due to their flexibility. Take away the man made processed food, they will have plenty of other food to eat.[/i]
Super Trolling. Is that a new phrase ?.
You know exactly what my point is Trolgrips.
[i]Take away man made food[/i]
Ummm, yes, thats what we've been saying, that processed food is not good.
Heck, I bet that if we removed the cheese cake and pepsi from your mitts, even you might lose some B/F.
😉
Man Made food is the problem, you know this, you are trolling.
I'd still like to know on what basis your opinion on evolution in relation to diet is superior to the recognized experts in the field of evolution in relation to Human diet.
EDIT:
[i]Take away a panda's bamboo or a wildebeest's grassland and they're in trouble.[/i]
LMFAO.
You're not seriously comparing outright starvation by removing an animal's food source, to having a choice of food and choosing what food is correct, wrt to evolution ?.
😯
I've honestly got no idea what you are talking about.
I was making a point about evolutionary biology. That is, [b]animals with flexible eating habits are well suited to cope with change[/b].
Man made food is often bad for you, yes, that's not under debate here. I'm not trolling, I'm just very confused about what you are trying to say.
You are saying that humans have a predefined diet that they are best suited to evolutionaryily speaking. I am saying that rather than evolving to a set diet (like pandas or bison or whatever) we've evolved to be flexible.
So whilst a paeleo diet is certainly healthy, it's not necessarily the only criterium for choosing a good diet.
On a related but slightly more down to earth note, how far do I have to walk to burn off a pint of beer? I've done 3 miles, and need some refreshment...
[i]I'm not trolling, I'm just very confused about what you are trying to say.[/i]
Well, then perhaps do not correct people with a response of "[i][b]No[/b][/i]" when you haven't got a sufficient grip on how the prevailing environment, in conjunction with evolution. Shapes the optimal dietary profile of a species.
Humans are not exempt from enjoying this legacy, but seem hell bent on scoffing man made, processed foods which result in obesity and reduced life expectancy.
[i]how far do I have to walk to burn off a pint of beer? I've done 3 miles, and need some refreshment...[/i]
Well, you've certainly earned it. Try MFP for the Cal stats on your beer.
I'm guessing that MFP may also give you a rough approximation of how much work you will have to do (walking) in order to create the caloric deficit you now intend to poor your pint of beer into.
😉
[i]You are saying that humans have a predefined diet that they are best suited to evolutionaryily speaking. I am saying that rather than evolving to a set diet (like pandas or bison or whatever) we've evolved to be flexible.[/i]
Firstly you undermine the validity of looking at our diet, wrt, to our evolution. Our dietary flexibility as you put it does not extend to eating the processed crap filling shop shelves today.
But, even ignoring this as you do, the results are speaking for themselves. Current, modern, western diet is making people too heavy.
Their bodies are reacting badly to the foods being consumed. This should tell you something, no ?.
I'm popping out for a coffee.
how far do I have to walk to burn off a pint of beer? I've done 3 miles
1 pint ale is around 200kcals (obviously depends on the beer)
Walking should burn around 224 kcal per hour (at 3mph and assuming you are about 150lbs).
So you should be ready for another round now.
Other exercise is available though:
[img] 
[/img]
Well, then perhaps do not correct people with a response of "No" when you haven't got a sufficient grip on how the prevailing environment, in conjunction with evolution. Shapes the optimal dietary profile of a species.
But I have got a grip on evolution. What I don't have a grip on is your point.