[Closed] This Obesity Thing

crikey - Member
All well and good, but let's start by getting people to eat less and exercise more before we start explaining insulin to people who see cake/chocolate/chips/insert food of your choice as a regular part of their diet.

Eat less but more importantly eat [b]differently[/b]NHS guidelines still promote a low fat high carb diet which is increasingly viewed as bad advice. A higher fat/ lower carb/sugar diet can actually substantially lower the appetite for food as well as promoting fat (rather than muscle loss)

All well and good, but let's start by getting people to eat less and exercise more before we start explaining insulin to people who see cake/chocolate/chips/insert food of your choice as a regular part of their diet.

Except it may be more likely to be successful to try and get people to eat healthily (thus making it easier to eat less overall) rather than just eating less of the same crap.

Edit: what MIkeWW said.

fat jeans........got a few pairs of them.

[img] [/img]

Make the time mol. What is more important?

Top priority currently is spending time with my wife and kids, and fixng things that we can't afford to pay someone else to fix 🙂

I only post on STW when bored at work - riding or cooking is not an alternative during work hours, sadly 🙂 Anyway my general diet is fine. My problem is treats.

Eat less but more importantly eat differentlyNHS guidelines still promote a low fat high carb diet which is increasingly viewed as bad advice. A higher fat/ lower carb/sugar diet can actually substantially lower the appetite for food as well as promoting fat (rather than muscle loss)

This ^ a lot of people try to eat well, but fail. More of them would probably succeed if they weren't trying to eat low-fat.

Let me correct you...

If you eat less calories than you burn you will lose fat. However if you crash diet you will induce a starvation state that will pile the lbs back on as soon as you go mack to your normal awful diet and exercise habits.

Correct me by all means, but correct me with MORE information not less 🙂

I've had a lot of success in the past 12 months with a diet that I broadly consider to be 'ELMM' based, albeit eating less in bursts rather than constantly. Yes, the *feted / dreaded* (delate as applicable) 5:2.

But the point I make to anyone i recomend that regime to, is that just because you are not restricted on your normal days, doesn't mean it's carte blanche to stuff yourself, and if you think it is then you're deluded. It's healthy eating for 5 days with flexibility to self-abuse occasionally, and fasting for 2.

But the point of this post is to ask a genuine question. Before i did 5:2 I tried MFP based calorie counting, to stick to about 1500cals/day. In order to eat enough to fill yourself up, that generally means low sugar intake, high lean protein, lots of vegetable (not much fruit) and [i]in general[/i] low fat. Sugar and refined carbs didn't leave me full for long enough, and are also far more calorie dense, so i didn't eat them often / very much of them.

Now I'm allowed a 'full' calorie intake on normal days i still tend to eat broadly the same, because I can then have good sized meals and still have some spare space that i tend to use for a few carbs as well. Is there a recommendation that i should be more inclined to include more fats rather than more carbs? And if so what sort of fats are considered good?

[edit] give me an example of a daily meal plan that you think would be ideal for say 2400cals and optimised with appropriate protein / good carbs / good fats, etc.

s we export our lifestyle and products to the second and third worlds, they, too, are starting to have obesity problems. Look at China.

...

Of course, I'm not holding the third world up as an ideal, crushing poverty, war and famine is hardly the solution, ...

This is a very misguided view of the developing world - it's not all crushing poverty, war and famine - most of it's pretty peaceful and stable, and food supplies are reasonably reliable (albeit with nothing like as much variety).

You're also wrong about the "exporting our lifestyle" bit: it was a real eye-opener to watch a yoghourt advert on Egyptian TV, the main character was very chubby. The advertisers know what they're doing, being fat is seen as something positive. The problem there is basically the same (IMO) as the one we have in the west, where growing wealth and prosperity has led to companies providing calorie rich foods which supplant the original home-cooking.

as we export our lifestyle and products to the second and third worlds, they, too, are starting to have obesity problems. Look at China.

The amount of crap and straight to landfill we import I'm glad we're sending something crap back 😀

so if not being fat is outside the possible realms of people eating less and moving more,

please explain how the human body is capable of not meeting one of the most fundamental laws of physics.

Energy cannot be created !
It can however be transformed into other forms of energy.

What you eat and do not burn will result in excess / increased weight.

You see yourself daily in the mirror, you buy ever bigger clothes and yet still people claim that its not in their control.. accept the facts many people in society do not care and wish to find an excuse for their lack of personal responsibility.

Please explain why the science is incorrect.
How does the human body create energy that was not at some point consumed - i truly do not understand.

Please explain why the science is incorrect.
How does the human body create energy that was not at some point consumed - i truly do not understand.

Oh look it's the same straw man that's been posted about 100 times already, woop! 🙄

I remember why i dont bother with these threads
Ooh was that a flounce?

Grum you keep saying it is a straw man but I have yet to read your explanation of how the fundamental laws of physics are broken- in fact i am yet to read you even attempt to refute it you just say its a straw man

It is that simple to lose weight their must be an imbalance between the energy your body gets from food and the energy your body uses to survive that day over a longish period of time.

If this is not the case could you attempt to explain why this is not the case?

so if not being fat is outside the possible realms of people eating less and moving more,

please explain how the human body is capable of not meeting one of the most fundamental laws of physics.

Energy cannot be created !
It can however be transformed into other forms of energy.

What you eat and do not burn will result in excess / increased weight.

You see yourself daily in the mirror, you buy ever bigger clothes and yet still people claim that its not in their control.. accept the facts many people in society do not care and wish to find an excuse for their lack of personal responsibility.

Please explain why the science is incorrect.
How does the human body create energy that was not at some point consumed - i truly do not understand.

One last try 🙄
You eat food. Your body responds to the type of food ingested and does a number of things including the breakdown of carbs into sugars, the production of insulin (when stimulated by certain food stuffs), the replenishment of depleted energy stores of glycogen in muscles and the liver, Stores excess sugars as fats and excretes waste. If the calorie intake is insufficient to replenish stores muscle mass or fat will be lost. If muscle mass is lost then the body is unable to burn the same amount of calories. If fat is lost all is good.The common view that 3500 calories equates to 1lb loss of fat has no basis of proof.

I think we have reached the point where everyone realises it is is complicated but can you explain to me what would happen if I took any human being [ or in fact any animal] and gave it 25 % less calories per day than it used for 6 months?*

There are two issues here - how folk gain weight and how folk lose weight

* We may get mixed and interesting results if we gave everyone 25 % too much and mixed for different foods etc as we would get the complicated interaction you describe. However the ONLY WAY to lose weight is to consume less energy than you use

I have no idea why anyone would wish to argue otherwise as it requires the rewriting of the fundamental laws of physics to argue otherwise. You cannot consume less energy than you use long term and have anything other than weight loss

Energy cannot be created !
It can however be transformed into other forms of energy.

What you eat and do not burn will result in excess / increased weight.

He's not wrong, and calling it a straw man doesn't make it wrong.

The only difficulty is that the energy out side of the equation can change quite dramatically for the same individual on different days and at different points in their life.

But this doesn't change the fundamental truth of the statement.
If you consume more then you use you will gain weight and the converse is equally true.

MikeWW, while what you are saying is correct....the intricasies and details of how the body's hormones react to certain foods, how people's metabolism is affected by certain illnesses and defincies....

....the fact still remains that energy cannot be created, your body will not put on weight over a prolonged period of time if it is getting less calories than it needs, to state otherwise is an impossibility....otherwise your body would be some kind of magical perpetual motion machine.

If you put somebody obese on a 500 calorie a day diet they will lose weight, if you make them exercise too then they will lose weight faster....i agree that there will be periods when their body goes into shock and tries to slow the metabolism and hold onto the fat and that with some kinds of obesity testosterone levels (for men in particular) are so depressed that hormonally at that stage the person resembles a woman and carries the same kind of water weight as women often do....

....but over a period of weeks, months, years etc a 500 calorie a day diet will mean somebody who was previously taking 3000+ calories a day will lose weight.
When did anybody in a famine or a forced labour camp on insufficient rations stay fat?
The unpalatable truth that people dont want to accept is that losing weight is hard and not all that fun, who wants to train hard when you're not naturally predisposed to enjoying sport?, who wants to effectively starve themselves when there are lovely foods and drinks available everywhere you look?

Junkyard is correct.
Obviously there are extremes on the scale, super skinny people who eat like a horse and dont gain weight and chubby people who eat like a bird and stay fat but for the majority of us that isnt the case.

I'm beginning to think there are vested interests at work, does the medical/pharmaceutical industry want to turn this into a 'condition/disease' in order to profit from it?....does the health and fitness industry want to keep weight loss as a dark art in order to maintain their 'expertise' and profit from it?....do dieticians, endocrinologists etc etc want to complicate matters by bringing insulin responses, testosterone/estrogen ratios, thyroid problems etc etc into the equation in order to force the general public into seeking 'expert' advice on weight loss?

....it kind of takes the mystique away (and potentially puts lots of people out of work) if the message is simply "move more, eat less".

Junkyard
It really would depend what the 75% of the calories that you were still consuming looked like- is it carbs, fat, protein, sugar and in what proportion?
Lets say 25% reduction in calories equated to 800 calories that [b]could[/b] equal to 200g of carbs or 200g of protein.
I'd say that if you reduced your carb intake by that amount you would lose some body mass mainly in the form of fat and generally be better off. If you reduced your protein inatake by that amount I think you would lose some muscle mass and "potentially" see no weight loss and maybe some weight gain.
I don't really disagree with the broad thrust of your point but it lacks too much detail to actually help people to reduce their fat levels

A colleague lose a lot of weight on 500 calories diet in the NE diabetic trial and his blood sugar has gone back to normal.

It really would depend what the 75% of the calories that you were still consuming looked like

Granted you may get variations if the 75% diet was all sugar or all fat or all vegetables but every single person would lose weight over time.

I think you would lose some muscle mass and "potentially" see no weight loss and maybe some weight gain

I do agree with you that what you eat and personal biochemistry has an influence on it and may ameliorate or exacerbate [ especially for weigth gain as its true some folk seem more susceptible to this than others]it but the law remains unchanged.
Less energy that you use = weight loss

Deviant
You still miss the point that the body either uses, stores or excretes the food consumed. You seem to view the body as some closed vessel.
Anybody will lose weight on a 500 calorie a day diet. This is because there would be insufficient carbs for the body to function long term regardless of type. I am not sure they would have sufficient energy to exercise. BUT it would need to be enforced on people as it would be incredibly tough and debilitating.
For the vast majority of people if we educated and legislated correctly it is perfectly possible for the vast majority of people to get to a healthy body mass composition without anything like that level of difficulty.BUT so few people seem to really understand metabolism or the influence of the food industry/leisure industry/government on this.
Why do you think dental decay is so much less of a problem now than it was 40 years ago despite what we eat?

One of the other things we could do as a community is ban the use of Calorie/KCal/KJ when talking about food energy, and instead use weights such as "eat no more than x grams of y food per day"

Calories/Kcalories and K joules are too confusing

It does not you if you are not consuming enough energy you will lose weight

Assume it is all sugar. It would be in excess of what you need so it will be stored as fat. You are not consuming protein so no amino acids-muscle mass is lost. Less muscle mass so less ability to burn calories. As you repeat you get to the point where the lower calories intake is actually in excess of what your body can burn and what once was a calorie deficit is now an excess and weight increase accelerates.

nickc - Member
One of the other things we could do as a community is ban the use of Calorie/KCal/KJ when talking about food energy, and instead use weights such as "eat no more than x grams of y food per day"

Calories/Kcalories and K joules are too confusing

Absolutely

It would be easier to say "if it tastes good don't eat it". Just as effective too.

Junkyard
On last point ( and I'm not really disagreeing with the broad principal you make just the lack of clarity)

Imagine if you consumed 5000 calories a day of paper.Do you really think you would put on weight? So how even at simplistic level can people say if calories in is more than calories consumed then the laws of physics say you put on weight?

Paper isnt food and calories are just a unit of measuring the energy contained in foods (mostly)....silly point to make Mike.

How about if somebody consumed 5000 calories a day of a mixed diet?...that is more realistic.

....and i'm well aware of how the body uses, stores and excretes energy, i've been manipulating my weight over the years depending on what my favourite hobby at the time is....for years it was weightlifting and i was eating high calorie meals with the aim of building lean mass, then it was kick boxing which necessitated weight loss and now it is cycling necessitating further weight loss...i know what works for me and what doesnt work for me and i understand the broad principles.
Some of your points about people taking on a diet of solid sugar are only relevant in highlighting a particular quirk of weight loss/gain because realistically not many people actually eat like that....even those who know nothing about nutrition.

excretes energy

Say what?!

The calories listed on packaging are a measure of the energy available if the food is dried right out and then blown up in a bomb calorimeter.

[img] [/img]

Remember burning a peanut or some Mars bar at school and measuring the temperature change in water above it? Like that, but more explodey.

Food labels assume every gram of fat/carbs/protein eaten gives 9/4/4 of usable calories.

We then assume that everyone has a basic calorie requirement to maintain body heat, respiration, etc. and that extra activity on top of this requires more.

We then assume any calorie deficit/excess is taken from or stored in body fat. Calories in, calories out, move more, eat less, laws of physics, etc.

But...

We don't extract every calorie from food in the digestive process. Some passes right through us, some is used up by microbes, we radiate out heat. There are all sorts of processes going on that we don't really understand, with feedback loops, and hormones, and people responding differently and storing fat in different places, and mince pies, and being precious individual little snowflakes.

But, how we get and use energy is of no consequence for public policy, as discussed [i]ad infinitum[/i] above.

We know that our current culture/policies/lifestyles/regulations leads to chubby funsters. We know that telling people to put down the pie and run doesn't generally enable that person to lose weight. We know that we've all been gradually eating more and more crap, and driving everywhere, and working long hours, and not cooking.

Part of that will be telling people "give salad a try, and why not go for a walk too?".

I applaud the use of the word "explodey." 😀

Part of that will be telling people "give salad a try, and why not go for a walk too?".

"Take some speed" on the other hand might work.

What would happen if only ate Bananas and Cheese then?

What would happen if only ate Bananas and Cheese then?

Why not give it a try?

Sounds OK to me.

Walking is dull and salad tastes like crap.

Walking is a useful means of getting from one place to another, and salad tastes lovely.

The calories listed on packaging are a measure of the energy available if the food is dried right out and then blown up in a bomb calorimeter

So how even at simplistic level can people say if calories in is more than calories consumed then the laws of physics say you put on weight?

Ps if i ate paper I would be full of shit wouldn't I 😉

There is a simple solution to this and other problems surrounding obesity, the benefit system, energy costs and the NHS..

Human Power Generating stations.

Bicycles and or treadmills, attached to dynamo's.

Need benefits? Go down the Power station and earn them.

Obese? Go down and walk it off in a treadmill.

Disabled? Use the rowing machine.

Simple, pay nobody anything and make them earn it whilst generating power, sort of a modern workhouse.

Every town should have one, attached to the local hospital.

Oh and in the cases of extreme obesity? Jail the feeders, some of those seriously fat types would die (or rapidly lose weight) if they had to feed themselves.

Oh and whilst I'm in full rant. - Air travel, people should be charged by their all up weight, thereby facilitating those of us that work on keeping their weight in check, more baggage allowance for sporting equipment.
/Rant

the resulting figures then adjusted to take into consideration the efficiency of digestion and absorption using the A****er system. The raw calorific value of a substance is NOT the same as it's food energy, even though both are given in the same unit of measurement.

A****er derived weighted values for the gross heat of combustion of the protein, fat and carbohydrate in the typical mixed diet of his time. It has been argued that these weighted values are invalid for individual foods and for diets whose composition in terms of foodstuffs is different from those eaten in the USA in the early 20th century.

IANOFS* but there seems to be an assumption that we get 85% of the combustible energy, assuming we eat a 'mixed diet', as used by A****er? What if this figure has changed, because of changes in gut flora as a result of antibiotic use? What if we're eating a very different diet now?

*I am not a food scientist

Oh and whilst I'm in full rant. - Air travel, people should be charged by their all up weight, thereby facilitating those of us that work on keeping their weight in check, more baggage allowance for sporting equipment.

I'm 6'2", and you can piss off, cause my ticket will never cost the same as someone 5'2".

so the a****er system is a guesstimate of how burning correlates to food absorbtion?

so for instance, does it adjust the calorific value of burning, for processed sugar - which it probably shouldn't

IANOFS* but there seems to be an assumption that we get 85% of the combustible energy, assuming we eat a 'mixed diet', as used by A****er? What if this figure has changed, because of changes in gut flora as a result of antibiotic use? What if we're eating a very different diet now?

*Me neither.

TLDR the whole thread, only the last two pages.

My sister in law sees a lot of overweight and obese people. She reckons that they all tell her they hardly touch as much as a lettuce leaf yet still put on masses of weight.

Part of her task is to make them accept they are living in denial, failing to admit that they actually spend all day eating. Once they accept they are in fact their own worst enemies, and start to restrict their food intake, as if by magic, they begin to lose weight and their general health improves.

This sort of backs up the oft quoted relationship between weight loss and food input.

But there again...what do I know?

Part of her task is to make them accept they are living in denial, failing to admit that they actually spend all day eating.

Does she yell "put down the pies fatty!" at them?

To turn the ELMM thing on it's head, how would you go about putting on weight?

Would you go running three times a week and restrict your calorific intake, or would you sit down a lot and eat lots of pies?

ELMM; you're not trying hard enough.

Grum you keep saying it is a straw man but I have yet to read your explanation of how the fundamental laws of physics are broken- in fact i am yet to read you even attempt to refute it you just say its a straw man

It's a straw man because I've never claimed the fundamental laws of physics are broken, and I'm not sure anyone else has either. I've just argued that ELMM is an oversimplification and is unhelpful for many people - I certainly find it far easier to lose weight by focussing on eating the right foods rather than on the quantity (or exercise).

People keep suggesting that I/others are claiming theres no relationship between calories in/out then slagging it off as a position - classic straw man.

It's also a bit of a shame that so many people completely ignored sugarnaut's heartrending post - luckily no-one had the gall to call him weak and pathetic (despite that being exactly what they've said elsewhere in the thread about people in his/her situation).