Obesity and the NHS

[SeriousSam]

The Atkins diet is high fat low carbohydrate and followed closely leads to weight loss - not very good for the heart though)

Atkins has been shown to be bunkem in terms of all the various theories about Ketosis etc.

The only reason people actually lose weight on this diet is because protein is an appetite suppressant and so consuming all that meat, eggs etc. makes you eat less and thus consume a reduced amount of calories.

There are much safer methods to reduce appetite, not least chewing your food more as that releases chemicals that tells the brain that you are getting full.

[TooNice]

@peterb: Can't find the link at the moment, but last year, there was a doctor who, just to prove a point, went on a diet consisting of junk food (and as we know, junk food is typically full of simple carbs), but monitoring portion size. It worked for him as far as weight loss was concerned.

The point he was making wasn't that you should ignore all the good dietary practices. Actually, I am not entirely sure what the purpose of that experiment was anymore, though from it you can tell that for an average person at least, the old adage works is quite true. Which is probably why all those fancy diet work. I don't think that -any- of them are tells you that you change and diet and eat as much as you want of the new diet, and expect to lose weight.

I am also not entirely sold that when you eat matter all that much. I've made some adjustments on that note in the last few months, but I feel like they are little tweaks. Like replacing a default thermal paste with another one. Might make a slight difference, but by far the biggest factor is still how much calories you put in. It's not just simple carbs that get turned to fat in excess. Too much complex carbs and too much protein can all do that too.

By the way, 1g of alcohol contains 7 calories. That's almost twice more than protein and carbs (4 per gram) and almost as much as fat (9 per gram). On top of that, a lot of alcoholic drinks are full of carbs. And at least some studies suggest that the presence of alcohol will slow one's metabolism down. So it really should come as no surprise that heavy drinkers are at risk of fattening up.

[peterb]

@peterb: Can't find the link at the moment, but last year, there was a doctor who, just to prove a point, went on a diet consisting of junk food (and as we know, junk food is typically full of simple carbs), but monitoring portion size. It worked for him as far as weight loss was concerned.


The point he was making wasn't that you should ignore all the good dietary practices. Actually, I am not entirely sure what the purpose of that experiment was anymore, though from it you can tell that for an average person at least, the old adage works is quite true. Which is probably why all those fancy diet work. I don't think that -any- of them are tells you that you change and diet and eat as much as you want of the new diet, and expect to lose weight.

That - in roundabout way - was what I was saying. And while I wouldn't go as far as Sammyc in saying Atkins was bunkum, because it does lead to weight loss, it isn't a healthy way to do so.

I am also not entirely sold that when you eat matter all that much. I've made some adjustments on that note in the last few months, but I feel like they are little tweaks. Like replacing a default thermal paste with another one. Might make a slight difference, but by far the biggest factor is still how much calories you put in. It's not just simple carbs that get turned to fat in excess. Too much complex carbs and too much protein can all do that too.

By the way, 1g of alcohol contains 7 calories. That's almost twice more than protein and carbs (4 per gram) and almost as much as fat (9 per gram). On top of that, a lot of alcoholic drinks are full of carbs. And at least some studies suggest that the presence of alcohol will slow one's metabolism down. So it really should come as no surprise that heavy drinkers are at risk of fattening up.

Well the body's metabolic processes do vay with the circadian ryrhm so it seems intuituve rthat how different foods are absorbed would vary too, even if it is just tweaking for those trying to control their mass.

But the main point was that eat more than you burn and you put on weight", while holding some truth, is a very simplistic statement of a very complex process, and not entirely helpful to those with a weight problem, whether it is over or under weight.

[Lucio]

Perhaps a little first hand experience is needed here to counter some of the false assumptions floating around.

To gain weight you eat more calories than your body can use in a day. The type of food or drink rarely makes a difference. For example, I ate on average 20,000 Kcal a week between 2007 and 2010. Part of this was the effects of the anti-depressants I was on changing my hunger but mostly it was down to the size of the meals. I could eat a meal that would have served a family of 4.

To loose weight I'm eating 11,500 to 13,000 a week, and burning off another 750 or so via exercise. And thats a big difference, exercise does not counteract excess calories very well. Certainly not at the levels you can consume if you set your mind to it. Walking burns just 400 an hour, or 2 chocolate bars.

[TheAnimus]

750 kcal as a measure of a weeks exercise can not be healthy surely?

Also I'm not for a second saying that if you do some jogging you'll be thin, afterall on the average week i'll burn at least 8,000kcal on exercise (my cycle commute + gym), but I could still do with loosing some weight (thou more importantly I could do with building better core strength, the effects of been bedridden, even if it was 10 years ago and only for half a year are still evident at times).

It is probably due to my alcoholic intake, as anyone who's been on the lash with me will testify.

[tiggerai]

Animus... you've been warned about using derogatory terms in this thread.

If I have to clean this thread up after you again, you'll get a ban.

[TheAnimus]

*pfft* didn't even think i'd used it applying to anyone other than myself this time.

honestly, if they spent more time running and less time wasting mod's time taking offense, they wouldn't have anything to take offense about.

[Lucio]

Actually, my estimate is to show how little exercise consumes, thats 2 x 30 minute aerobics sessions a week (excluding warming up/cooling down). I also challenge your estimates on your calorie allowance used by your gym session TheAnimus.

My point is lack of exercise isn't a factor compared to over eating

[TheAnimus]

I think your on another planet. 10to15 hours cycling a week, 2 hours training in gym. Its conservative, very much so. Some weeks I'm lazy and don't really push myself, this is one such week (i've still got the aftereffect of a cold which always wrecks my cardio even on double steritide)

Assuming I do an hour at 20kph, I weight a 94kg, that via a rough rule of thumb is about 940kg (its very crudely 10 per kg per hour at 20kph). Obviously my terrian is not flat, and that is my average speed, there are parts where I'm doing a good 30 kph for a couple of minuites at a time. Conversly some of my route is very much downhill (but what goes down, must go up n all that).

But ultimately I'm aiming for a fitness level so I can complete another pointless challenge that maybe will bring some purpose to my ultimately empty life, so for me its a case of making sure I get enough energy from my food.

It really does seem to me that wasting mods time with 'offensive' terms for what is entirely a self induced complaint (one which I am fully guilty of suffering from, but hey, I'm at peice with my shortcomings) is just incrediblty stupid.

[Lucio]

Another bad assumption I'm afraid; I've not contacted the mods regarding this thread except for the posts I've made in the thread asking for consideration of the terms used.

[TheAnimus]

erm I didn't say it was, my last sentence was clearly directed to no one in particular, as was the point in the post above, just that every time I use a word seemingly regardless of context some whiny little person takes offense, it wouldn't suprise me if they themself were not overweight just wasting time between writing a complaint letter to the beeb over top gear.

Its just that obese people (is that term offensive? or is that OK?) seem to take little responsiblility and simply state that they just eat to much and burn to little. Now I'm not saying there aren't sometimes good reasons for that, medically certain conditions require you to be in complete rest and still have an intake, sometimes people who are fat are too ill to actually diet much because of the stress any change of behaviour could bring onto the body.

It is ultimately their responsibility, we know with smokers that taxation has helped not only reduce the number of them, but also provide money to care for them.

It is also in many circles now socially unacceptable to be a chain smoker, its sinful and naughty. Most smokers also accept this view even if they continue to persue their own habbit.

This thread is about how you can perswade people to make a lifestyle choice, or if it is right too. Ultiamtely someone has to pay for the people who eat fatty foods for every meal, people who dodge all the healthy portion sizes good diet and exercise. It was almost ment to try and discuss the possibilities of a direct taxation on those responsible for it.

The problem comes with as mentioned taxing certain food stuffs is hard because you can be unhealthy with even the most basic of staple.

How do you reward people for taking good care of themselves rather than just punishing those which take less?

Not about a bunch of crap because some people don't like a spade been called anything other than a shovel, which to my mind is boggling because the derivation of the term fatty is just that fat, something we all have in some portion. I'd much sooner be branded a fatty than as obese, the latter has scary medical connetations (regardless of how true it is).

[ajones]

Tasty little thread this...

Unfortunately, I've spent 15 minutes rewriting this post for fear of upsetting someone so I've given up.

I can't see this helping as it will be abused (like most other public services) by people who don't deserve it.

[Lucio]

I prefer the term obese precisely because it's a medical term, like penis, vagina or homosexual, it's the correct word to use as it's got a specific meaning (e.g. someone whose BMI is over 30). You can't argue with the definition, or whether or not it applies to you because it's black and white.


To approach your question on how to help people loose weight, you need to understand why someone is overweight or obese. As I've been trying to illustrate, in my specific example, I ate far too much food, to the extent that I'd have to do aerobics for 3.5 hours a day, 7 days a week to make a difference. This is why the idea that the NHS needs to pay out for exercise classes isn't going to work.

In my opinion, the easiest way to help the nation loose weight is to push the idea of pre-portioned food stuffs. Make it easy for people to eat a sensible amount, instead of piling onto their plates whatever they think they want to eat. There's far smaller % of people who'd willingly eat more than a single meal at a time, or eat more than 4 times a day than there are overweight people.

[TheAnimus]

So what about chrips and such then, the larger bag size can be fine if its part of a diet that allows for it.

I would hate to live in some kind of world were I wasn't cooking my own food! Also on portion size I'm 6"4 thanks, I need more food just for my BMR thank an a Dave87.

Also obese is a wide term that its often used to mean fat, myself I'm not clinically obese, yet whilst in common language its used just to mean fat, it has more negative connetations.

[G4Z]

I am of the opinion that leisure activities that improve fitness should be free to everybody and not just those with enough cash to pay for a personal trainer in a David Lloyd gym.

I know it might sound like a radical idea, but I already pay a fortune in council tax and I don't get any services for it (save for my bin collection).

I used to be a bit of a chubster myself as some on here will know, these days I play 5 a side football 3 - 4 times a week and sometimes throw in a game of squash on top of that. It costs me about £30 per week just to keep up this level of activity and I can't really understand why there aren't more subsidised services available locally. I am keeping myself fit, I will be less of a burden in terms of healthcare (injury aside..) in the long term yet I have to pay for it myself.

I would like to see no barriers in the way of anybody keeping fit, pretty sure back in the day you used to get these things ran by the local leisure centre which were cheap. These days the cost of local authority facilities easily matches private ones.

I realise there is a cost to running and building these things, personally I could easily find a few cuts to make to military spending or council CEO salaries to pay for it. Somebody should let me have a go at the budget..

[TooNice]

But the main point was that eat more than you burn and you put on weight", while holding some truth, is a very simplistic statement of a very complex process, and not entirely helpful to those with a weight problem, whether it is over or under weight.

The thing is, somehow over half the population in this country have a 'overweight problem'. For about a quarter of the population, this issue is severe. In contrast, how much of the population have an underweight problem? And how much does do we compare to other countries?

When I look at those data, it's hard not to think that most people with a weight problem actually have a fairly 'normal' body with average metabolism where the simplistic statement applies fine. I may believe a small, single digit % of the population are unusual cases, but not 25-50%.

@Lucio: 750kcal per week, is really little. It's probably just about right for 2x30min Aerobic session, but do you ever commute on foot? If you go for a 30min brisk walk every day, if only to go to/from work/supermarket/gym etc., you can easily add an extra 150-200kcal per day (that's over 1000kcal per week). And it's not only that. Every exercise you do may burn X kcal for the duration (e.g. 750kcal for aerobic based on your weight), but that's excluding the effect it has on your metabolism for a period of time after your session.

But you are right that it is far easier to ingest a few hundred Kcal via snacks, than it takes burning them. 8000 kcal per week does sound quite a lot for me, but that's probably because I am much lighter and am used to see more modest numbers. Using an calculator I found (http://www.prohealth.com/weightloss/...culator1_2.cfm), and it does sound about right.

I don't see any 'false assumptions'. We all more or less agree that how much calories we put into our body is a major factor in weight gain. I've mentioned that I believe (though do not advocate*) that one can lose weight with hardly any exercise, I reckon that TheAnimus is more active than the average person in this country, so he blames his size on portion size. You advocate controlling portion size, which I agree, and recommend going getting one of those http://www.amazon.co.uk/Salter-Desig...7222345&sr=8-2 if you are ever get tired of not-that-healthy-yet-easy-to-calorie-count microwave meal.

*There are obviously other benefits to exercise I am sure everyone knows so I won't elaborate here.