Interesting article on BBC News on exercise / obesity

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 48 total)
  • Interesting article on BBC News on exercise / obesity
  • Premier Icon tomd
    Subscriber

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32417699

    Seems to be a lot more stories in the main stream media along these lines.

    – Sugar and junk food are the main issue (there’s even a comparison made between junk food industry and tobacco industry)
    – Exercise is important but needs to be combined with good diet

    Are people starting to wake up to this? Will we look back in 40 years and laugh at today’s junk food adverts the way people look back and laugh at stuff like this:

    Seems to be a lot more stories in the main stream media along these lines.

    Good – still not enough though

    – Sugar and junk food are the main issue (there’s even a comparison made between junk food industry and tobacco industry)
    – Exercise is important but needs to be combined with good diet

    It is about energy balance – you can cut food or you can increase exercise – or a combo of both. However, i’ll accept that not many people could run a F1 car on lard.

    Are people starting to wake up to this? Will we look back in 40 years and laugh at today’s junk food adverts the way people look back and laugh at stuff like this:

    About time too.
    Yes.

    loum
    Member

    It is about energy balance – you can cut food or you can increase exercise – or a combo of both.

    Not the message from this article…

    “An obese person does not need to do one iota of exercise to lose weight, they just need to eat less. My biggest concern is that the messaging that is coming to the public suggests you can eat what you like as long as you exercise.
    “That is unscientific and wrong. You cannot outrun a bad diet.”

    However, i’ll accept that not many people could run a F1 car on lard.

    sugar

    But despite this public health messaging had “unhelpfully” focused on maintaining a healthy weight through calorie counting when it was the source of calories that mattered most – research has shown that diabetes increases 11-fold for every 150 additional sugar calories consumed compared to fat calories.

    geetee1972
    Member

    I read that article also. The most interesting reference, and one that I have seen discussed on here many times, is that the source of the calories is also very important.

    research has shown that diabetes increases 11-fold for every 150 additional sugar calories consumed compared to fat calories.

    This is the ‘not all calories are created equal’ argument that I’ve always struggled to understand when explained on here (as it has often come across as a bit ‘homeopathic-esque’ to me) but is indeed a compelling argument.

    One thing that the article doesn’t explain is whether the reason you can’t exercise your way out of obseity because of poor diet is down to the practicalities of doing enough exercise or something else.

    The way the case is made in the article suggests (but does not explicitly say) that no amount of exercise can compensate for a high sugar calorie diet. It might be the case that you can still exercise your way out of trouble, but the amount you need to do is prohibitive and people just don’t do enough to burn the excess.

    To put it another way, can you comsume 10,000 calories from sugary food stuffs and as long as you ride The Amstel Gold race equivalent and end up burning 10,000 calories in the process you’ll be OK?

    scuttler
    Member

    I’d rather eat pork pies, go out on my bike and grab a pint on the way home than stay in and eat salad. Nothing to do with the good weather mind.

    munrobiker
    Member

    My experience is suggesting this- my diet’s not been great for the last few months and despite riding a lot more to try and shift some weight it’s making no difference. Which is annoying, but predictable really. I think the best way for me to do it would be to have some time off the bike, or run instead, and go on a proper diet. I have tried dieting and riding more but have ended up riding home a shaking mess barely able to move, which isn’t fun.

    Premier Icon slowoldman
    Subscriber

    I think the point of the study is that it’s not just a question of eating a good balanced diet – it’s cutting down sugar.

    Fat used to be considered the big demon and the food industry under pressure eventually started reducing fat content of prepared foods. However, to “improve” the flavour they began to overload it with sugar.

    Of course (tin foil hats at the ready) too much sugar in the diet leads to a nice little spinoff in diet foods and supplements and gym memberships.

    Cook your own food and buy a bike is the sensible appraoch.

    MrSmith
    Member

    people are very myopic when it comes to what they eat, they think they eat healthily but are just kidding themselves and the calories from booze are often not taken into account.
    people are now fatter and lazier than 30-40 years ago and that solely lies with the individual, people often like to blame external factors as thats easy compared to actually doing something about your weight and eating sensibly.

    (6ft, 65kg, cake eater/beer drinker just not 3 times a day, salad is what you add to sandwiches in the summer)

    I feel this thread will have a lot of quoting.

    Here’s the full text:

    A recent report from the UK’s Academy of Medical Royal Colleges described ‘the miracle cure’ of performing 30?min of moderate exercise, five times a week, as more powerful than many drugs administered for chronic disease prevention and management.1 Regular physical activity reduces the risk of developing cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, dementia and some cancers by at least 30%. However, physical activity does not promote weight loss.

    In the past 30?years, as obesity has rocketed, there has been little change in physical activity levels in the Western population.2 This places the blame for our expanding waist lines directly on the type and amount of calories consumed. However, the obesity epidemic represents only the tip of a much larger iceberg of the adverse health consequences of poor diet. According to the Lancet global burden of disease reports, poor diet now generates more disease than physical inactivity, alcohol and smoking combined. Up to 40% of those with a normal body mass index will harbour metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity, which include hypertension, dyslipidaemia, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and cardiovascular disease.3 However, this is little appreciated by scientists, doctors, media writers and policymakers, despite the extensive scientific literature on the vulnerability of all ages and all sizes to lifestyle-related diseases.

    Instead, members of the public are drowned by an unhelpful message about maintaining a ‘healthy weight’ through calorie counting, and many still wrongly believe that obesity is entirely due to lack of exercise. This false perception is rooted in the Food Industry’s Public Relations machinery, which uses tactics chillingly similar to those of big tobacco. The tobacco industry successfully stalled government intervention for 50?years starting from when the first links between smoking and lung cancer were published. This sabotage was achieved using a ‘corporate playbook’ of denial, doubt, confusing the public and even buying the loyalty of bent scientists, at the cost of millions of lives.4 ,5

    Coca Cola, who spent $3.3 billion on advertising in 2013, pushes a message that ‘all calories count’; they associate their products with sport, suggesting it is ok to consume their drinks as long as you exercise. However science tells us this is misleading and wrong. It is where the calories come from that is crucial. Sugar calories promote fat storage and hunger. Fat calories induce fullness or ‘satiation’.

    A large econometric analysis of worldwide sugar availability, revealed that for every excess 150 calories of sugar (say, one can of cola), there was an 11-fold increase in the prevalence of type 2 diabetes, in comparison to an identical 150 calories obtained from fat or protein. And this was independent of the person’s weight and physical activity level; this study fulfils the Bradford Hill Criteria for causation.6 A recently published critical review in nutrition concluded that dietary carbohydrate restriction is the single most effective intervention for reducing all the features of the metabolic syndrome and should be the first approach in diabetes management, with benefits occurring even without weight loss.7

    And what about carbohydrate loading for exercise?
    The twin rationales for carbohydrate loading are that the body has a limited capacity to store carbohydrates and these are essential for more intense exercise. However, recent studies suggest otherwise. The work of Volek and colleagues8 establishes that chronic adaptation to a high-fat low-carbohydrate diet induces very high rates of fat oxidation during exercise (up to 1.5?g/min)—sufficient for most exercisers in most forms of exercise—without the need for added carbohydrate. Thus fat, including ketone bodies, appears to be the ideal fuel for most exercise—it is abundant, does not need replacement or supplementation during exercise, and can fuel the forms of exercise in which most participate.8 If a high-carbohydrate diet was merely unnecessary for exercise it would be of little threat to public health, however, there are growing concerns that insulin-resistant athletes may be at risk of developing type 2 diabetes if they continue to eat very high-carbohydrate diets for decades since such diets worsen insulin resistance.

    The ‘health halo’ legitimisation of nutritionally deficient products must end
    The public health messaging around diet and exercise, and their relationship to the epidemics of type 2 diabetes and obesity, has been corrupted by vested interests. Celebrity endorsements of sugary drinks, and the association of junk food and sport, must end. The ‘health halo’ legitimisation of nutritionally deficient products is misleading and unscientific. This manipulative marketing sabotages effective government interventions such as the introduction of sugary drink taxes or the banning of junk food advertising. Such marketing increases commercial profit at the cost of population health. The Centres of Disease Control health impact pyramid is clear. Changing the food environment—so that individuals’ choices about what to eat default to healthy options—will have a far greater impact on population health than counselling or education. Healthy choice must become the easy choice. Health clubs and gyms therefore also need to set an example by removing the sale of sugary drinks and junk food from their premises.

    It is time to wind back the harms caused by the junk food industry’s Public Relations machinery. Let us bust the myth of physical inactivity and obesity. You cannot outrun a bad diet.

    What I take from that is this: People have got really fat. Activity levels haven’t changed for 30 years. This means that increased calorie intake is to blame. All of that is correct. However, it misses a big part of the picture: if you are doing a shed load of exercise you can lose weight and still eat a load of shite as long as the amount of shite is less than what it burned off by physical activity.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    To put it another way, can you comsume 10,000 calories from sugary food stuffs and as long as you ride The Amstel Gold race equivalent and end up burning 10,000 calories in the process you’ll be OK?

    In short, no.

    The article suggests that you can’t exercise your way out of a bad diet, this says:

    They said there was evidence that up to 40% of those within a normal weight range will still harbour harmful metabolic abnormalities typically associated with obesity.

    You may be within a normal range for weight, but if your diet is carbs and sugar based, you’ll still have symptoms of obesity (NAFLD, diabetes etc)

    Premier Icon rickmeister
    Subscriber

    As an aside, anyone see Eating Through The Years on teh BBC / iplayer….

    I found it pretty interesting being a compressed narrative on life and diet from 1950 through to 2000.

    I think there has also been a rise of ‘energy drinks’ which people glug down, I believe these are also a contributing factor. The stuff Red Bull/Monster etc contains is shocking and with them supporting/sponsoring extreme sports their exposure level is high.

    Plus even though we are more aware of ‘good diet’ (everyone gets taught it at school) people will still default to KFC megabuckets etc. So many kids I teach go home and have takeaway of some form because their parents think it is quicker/easier/cheaper – it isn’t.

    I think a lot of the issues seems to be that people want something convenient and lead a more sedentary lifestyle.

    I agree with the buy a bike and eat a balanced diet but I think our psyche is not very good at doing things in moderation – also issues on wider topics – I am glad that this has been highlighted publicly but I can’t see it making too much of a change just yet.

    I remember reading something that said that we had not evolved on a diet high in sugars and so they are still deemed a novelty by our bodies – hence why people will crave and want them.

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    This government rolled over to the food industry demands

    They ditched the compulsory traffic light system that was going to be brought in and Gove oversaw the change in regulation that meant accsdemies weren’t subject to the same ban on selling junk food and fizxy drinks from snack machines seen in all other schools

    The food industry has this government in their pockets

    wrecker
    Member

    None of this is new. This was made 3 years ago (watch all of the episodes; compelling stuff)
    https://vimeo.com/44450267

    Premier Icon kimbers
    Subscriber

    The gut is the largest hormone producing organ in our bodies, and hormones are incredibly powerful begsviour modifier’s

    Here’s my personal experience. I am aiming to lose around 45lbs or 3 stone or 20KG depending on your unit of measure of choice.

    Method

    1 – Reduce alcohol intake
    2 – Mildly reduce food although I normally only have one main meal a day anyway and general diet is good
    3 – Exercise

    Results

    Analysis

    1) There seems to be about a weeks lag between action and result so weight gain or loss depends on the food/exercise the week before

    2) Increasing food and drink intake increases weight (Holiday Week)

    3) Reducing exercise while maintaining reduced alcohol and food still gives some weight loss but not as much (Bad Ankle weeks)

    4) Keeping up the exercise and reduced food but slipping back onto the booze a bit also slows weight loss (Boozy evenings week)

    Conclusion

    Ah, this is STW so you can draw your own conclusions. You would only ridicule mine anyway 🙂

    *The graph flat lines at the end because that is in the future so I have no data for it and assume steady state

    hilldodger
    Member

    This is the ‘not all calories are created equal’ argument that I’ve always struggled to understand when explained on here (as it has often come across as a bit ‘homeopathic-esque’ to me) but is indeed a compelling argument.

    A certain mass of petrol will have the same calories as a certain mass of diesel oil – put the innapropriate one in your car to demonstrate “not all calories are equal”

    A calorie is a unit based on the ability of a fuel to heat water when completely combusted, so really not that helpful for making anything but the crudest estimation of the biological “fuel value” of a foodstuff.

    So not homeopath-esque at all, just what happens when physicist/engineer types try to apply their simplistic thinking to biological systems
    😉

    jfletch
    Member

    My own personal experience suggests that this is very very true.

    We have always cooked our own food and naturally eaten low sugar foods at meal time etc. However I had a penchant for crisps and snacks between meals at work. Easy access to a tuck shop which sells crips and chocolate and not much else mean every afternoon energy lull prompted a trip to the shop.

    Some motivation in the form of a looming cycling challenge and I cut out the suggary junk between meals at work. 10kg down since xmas.

    Trafic lights have got to be the answer and I can’t belive we let Tesco get away blocking them in favour of their crappy % system.

    My wife is obsessed with “low fat” versions of things, no amount of “but suggar is worse than fat” arguements from me is going to pursuade her not to buy the low fat version of something. But a big red blob on the sugar segment would.

    ninfan
    Member

    Sugar and junk food are the main issue

    Thirty years ago we were told saturated fats were the main issue, and told everyone to eat less fat

    Since then we have seen a ten times increase in obesity at the same time as a halving in coronary heart disease (I’m not implying causation)

    it turns out the research on which thry founded the saturated fat advice was flawed and did not support the conclusions

    geetee1972
    Member

    So not homeopath-esque at all, just what happens when physicist/engineer types try to apply their simplistic thinking to biological systems

    Yes I can see that now. FWIW, it was the threads on there that originally changed my mind.

    Premier Icon BigDummy
    Subscriber

    Hmmmm. I’ve just started seeing a trainer who feels pretty strongly I should be on the “Whole30® Program“.

    I confess to being a bit sceptical that grain, which has been widely eaten by humans for about 10,000 years without entirely obvious ill-effects, is a key nutritional problem for most people, but it seems equally unlikely that swapping it for broccoli is going to do anyone much harm.

    🙂

    hilldodger
    Member

    I confess to being a bit sceptical that grain, which has been widely eaten by humans for about 10,000 years without entirely obvious ill-effects

    Even though the grains “we” eat now aren’t the same as those eaten in olden days I’m a bit sceptical about these food elimination regimes, especially whenm there’s a “best selling book” behind them.

    However, this one doesn’t look that crazy, all the foods mentioned have potential for allergenic/infalmmatory involvement and skipping them for a month might be an interesting exercise in food/meal management.

    brooess
    Member

    To be fair to people who’re out of shape, it takes a huge amount of discipline and independent thinking to stay healthy given our current food choices.

    I have a real sweet tooth – I get massive cravings sometimes and the only way to stay clear of sugar is to walk straight past the chocolate and biscuits aisle in the supermarket. If I have it in the house I’m through half a pack of chocolate digestives before I know it.

    The only reason I’m healthy weight is that I love exercise and I’m able to be very disciplined when I need to be… and I’m single so my decisions and my time are all my own to focus on exercise and diet as I see fit…

    Premier Icon BigDummy
    Subscriber

    especially when there’s a “best selling book” behind them

    Yes. It often feels like nutritional science is a complex field full of people with commercial interests cherry-picking questionable studies to sell product.

    🙂

    Mine’s not a sweet tooth but I was born with a mighty thirst…

    ninfan
    Member

    I confess to being a bit sceptical that grain, which has been widely eaten by humans for about 10,000 years without entirely obvious I’ll-effects

    [video]https://youtube.com/watch?v=5HUgBhzmXMU[/video]

    hilldodger
    Member

    Yes. It often feels like nutritional science is a complex field full of people with commercial interests cherry-picking questionable studies to sell product.

    Unfortunately so, but it’s more that “people with a book to sell” seem to pick this area to plunder – guess it reflects poorly on how scientific information is made availible to those who fund it (ie the general public).
    The current flurry of BBC “sound bite science” programs on this area doesn’t help either, a subject this important surely merits a little more than a few rugby players being given a glass of milk or lucozade and the “results” being broadcast as “fact” 😕

    Premier Icon slowoldman
    Subscriber

    Trafic lights have got to be the answer

    How many people actually study food labels? How would it relate to takeaways?

    MrSmith
    Member

    How many people actually study food labels?

    all the time, so i know the refinedsugar/carb percentage of things and how much salt, the fat i’m less picky about as long as it’s not a huge percentage of saturated fat.
    i dont read the label on reese’s peanut butter cups though.

    jfletch
    Member

    How many people actually study food labels? How would it relate to takeaways?

    Nobody studies food labels, that’s why the current “% RDA” is such a bullshit system. Who knows if eating 28% of your RDA in sugar in a bar of dairy milk is a good or a bad idea, it’s certainly not compelling or in your face. To make matters worse the information is colour matched to the packaging and hidden away as much as is possible.

    A big red segment is much more compelling, and when this is on a “healthy” low fat food it’s even more obvious. People don’t need to study a traffic light system, they just need to notice them.

    There is a fairly easy easy way to test the effectiveness of this, Sainsbury use the traffic lights on their own brand, tesco do not. Compare the relative rates of sale of products in the stores as see the results. I doubt they’d release the data though as it would be too damning “sensitive”.

    As for takeaways, how much of an issue is this or is it just a niche problem to try to derail and overall good idea? The big chains already display the nutritional info so it would be trivial for them to display the traffic lights. Highlighting your local chippy realy is niche and shouldn’t be used as a reason for the rest of the multi billion pound industry not to do it (but what about the ice cream van, my local deli, the birthday cake my colleage bought into work, wah wah wah)

    hilldodger
    Member

    How would it relate to takeaways?

    I think most of the pizza/burger-chains now give NI about their produce, either in store or via web site.

    footflaps
    Member

    This is the ‘not all calories are created equal’ argument that I’ve always struggled to understand when explained on here

    We have many different systems which break down and process different food types and use then differently. So sugar calories are not processed the same a protein or fat calories. Given this, it’s not hard to imagine that not all calories are equal.

    That’s before you even consider all the closed loop systems which exist and counter react to changes in diet. We are an incredibly complex system not just a simple engine with fuel in, work out….

    Premier Icon rone
    Subscriber

    The twin rationales for carbohydrate loading are that the body has a limited capacity to store carbohydrates and these are essential for more intense exercise. However, recent studies suggest otherwise. The work of Volek and colleagues8 establishes that chronic adaptation to a high-fat low-carbohydrate diet induces very high rates of fat oxidation during exercise (up to 1.5?g/min)—sufficient for most exercisers in most forms of exercise—without the need for added carbohydrate. Thus fat, including ketone bodies, appears to be the ideal fuel for most exercise—it is abundant, does not need replacement or supplementation during exercise, and can fuel the forms of exercise in which most participate.8 If a high-carbohydrate diet was merely unnecessary for exercise it would be of little threat to public health, however, there are growing concerns that insulin-resistant athletes may be at risk of developing type 2 diabetes if they continue to eat very high-carbohydrate diets for decades since such diets worsen insulin resistance.

    I think this is a very interesting bit of text.

    So is this why I ride well on fish and chips?

    Premier Icon bigblackshed
    Subscriber

    So is this why I ride well on fish and chips?

    Probably due to the fact you have just eaten fish and chips, so you put a bit more effort in because, deep down, you know you’ve been just a little bit naughty.

    The fact you have eaten a pile of carbs, fat, and a bit of protein has nothing to do with it.

    😉

    Premier Icon midlifecrashes
    Subscriber

    Or could it be that people actually like cake and beer more than they like being thin?

    Bunnyhop
    Member

    As mentioned above, calories are a measurement of heat. People now have centrally heated homes, where the thermostats are often turned up higher than the temp of a warm summers day. The body therefore is too warm to burn off excess fat.
    As a child I was put outside in my pram (yes I’m really that old) in all but the worse of weather. Parents no longer do these sorts of things. Our bodies are meant to work to keep us warm.
    Eating a large healthy breakfast sets one up for the day, hopefully taking away the need for more food until lunch.
    Another problem is the complete change of work we do compared to 30/40 years ago. Most jobs nowadays are static.
    Even things such as having a telly/ CD/ dvd control takes away need for movement.
    As humans we need to move more.
    Growing your own veg for example, walking children to school, shopping locally (taking away the huge choice that supermarkets push on us), cooking own foods from scratch, a bit of gardening, joining a dance class are things that were normal for most families 50 years ago. I believe we need to get back to these basic things. Getting plenty of sleep, staying away from screens after a certain time at night.
    These are things that are simple to do.

    There was an interesting point on the recent BBC programme’ Back in time for dinner’, where a scientist was suggesting that takeaway foods, sugary drinks and unhealthy snacks should be taxed, then the money raised could be spent on making healthy foods less expensive.
    Something has to change,to make us move more and snack less.

    mrchrispy
    Member

    the cost to the NHS (and by extension us) is already massive and it’s only getting bigger (much like peoples wait lines). Its pisses me off that I watch what I eat and do more than my fair share of exercise and the limited resources of the NHS are being spent on people who just dont give a shit about their health.

    I’m reckon I should get priority over some bloater if I was ever in hospital.

    scotroutes
    Member

    What if you were in hospital as a result of falling off your MTB?

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    In the past 30?years, as obesity has rocketed, there has been little change in physical activity levels in the Western population.

    Bunnyhop, the point the research is making is that it’s almost entirely down to diet, and NOT exercise or the type of work, or sitting at a desk, it’s pretty much just an excess of carbs and sugar.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 48 total)

The topic ‘Interesting article on BBC News on exercise / obesity’ is closed to new replies.