Britain's Fat Fight

[Mbaker]

I stocked up while I was there! You can get them from Adonis direct or Amazon, 2g carbs per bar. I smuggle them into coffee shops where there is literally nothing I can eat, (looking at you Costa!)

As it comes to admission time, I smuggle ACV, dark chocolate and home made crackers for the cheese board...well if they are not going to cater for my needs I am still a paying customer.

 

[Mick1959]

And it is being done sensibly in that he isn't saying "eat less of what you currently eat", he's saying eat healthier stuff.

But therein lies the problem, what is healthier stuff.

What is good for one is not good for another, even for those whose health is good, it is confusing, some diets work for some, but not for others, and then comes along the next latest fad turning it on its head.

 

[AdamJames]

But therein lies the problem, what is healthier stuff.

What is good for one is not good for another, even for those whose health is good, it is confusing, some diets work for some, but not for others, and then comes along the next latest fad turning it on its head.

Yes, definitely. The conflicting dietary advice, and even conflicting / questionable scientific studies are a minefield for someone asking "how do I make myself healthier"?

A campaign like the HFW one needs to tread ground carefully and just focus on the things that practically every study and all dietary advice can agree on.

He's on very safe ground attacking sugar first as there aren't many people or studies who advocate a sugar-based diet, quite the opposite! And suggesting that obese people would be healthier if they managed to lose weight by any safe means is also on very safe ground.

If an obese person stops packing their fridge full of chocolate and eating tons of fast food, and switches to more simple, natural things like meat, fish, veg and fruit then all evidence suggests they are going to get healthier. Same with exercise - if an obese person who has a sedentary lifestyle can find something they enjoy, even just walking a dog to get them up and about occasionally, all evidence suggests that is likely to improve health.

I think on this forum we can forget that we have crossed a certain line in terms of our metabolism, to the point where eating an apple a day has become toxic to us, so LCHF / keto diets are a good way of dealing with that. But I don't think the typical overweight person in this society needs to go that far. The typical industrial diet will be so outrageously unhealthy that even just switching to more natural foods - and that includes a bit of fruit - will hugely increase their health.

 

[Alison Campbell]

I think on this forum we can forget that we have crossed a certain line in terms of our metabolism, to the point where eating an apple a day has become toxic to us, so LCHF / keto diets are a good way of dealing with that. But I don't think the typical overweight person in this society needs to go that far. The typical industrial diet will be so outrageously unhealthy that even just switching to more natural foods - and that includes a bit of fruit - will hugely increase their health.

I think that this fails to consider that a large portion of the population in the UK have already crossed the point of no easy return. In 2014 a study by the US on english NHS data found that 1/3 of adults without diabetes have prediabetes (by US standards) whether they know it or not.

 

[AdamJames]

I think that this fails to consider that a large portion of the population in the UK have already crossed the point of no easy return. In 2014 a study by the US on english NHS data found that 1/3 of adults without diabetes have prediabetes (by US standards) whether they know it or not.

That's a good point.

 

[LittleGreyCat]

Just watched it. It was a rerun and I switched over to iPlayer to watch the whole thing.
There were some good bits at the start but after that I found it a little slow and content light.

I thought the doctor (I think) at the start was very good. Clear explanation about how processing food made it more digestible.

HFW talked about trying to lose weight previously and cutting back on fat and sugar which I thought was a potentially bad sign.

If I heard correctly his doctor giving him a checkup said they aimed for a 95 centimetre wais measurement. If so, that is a lot more generous than half your height.

A good demonstration of how just taxing stuff like sugar isn't going to make a difference if people have no idea how to cook and what to eat. They tax booze and fags but I don't think many people give up just because they can't afford it. Education is key.

There is a move to sell healthier (for some views of healthier) ready meals but these seem to be aimed more at the Waitrose and M&S shoppers.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a restaurant chain selling cheap, good, healthy low carbohydrate food? Savoury and full of vitamins and goodness? However you only have to look at the space taken up in the supermarkets with breakfast cereals and confectionery to realise this would cost the food industry a massive amount of money.

 

[slip]

the space taken up in the supermarkets with breakfast cereals and confectionery to realise this would cost the food industry a massive amount of money.

And this is the crux of the problem, only the government can change the food industry, problem is the government is in the food industry's pockets.

 

[kev-w]

Surely weight gain and weight loss get more confused with all the fancy named diets? If the body requires carbs,proteins, fats and minerals then the individual can look at the calories they consume from what they're eating and take a rough measure of the calories they burn during their day, if calories eaten is greater than calories burnt then they put on weight, that's a simple enough fact to allow one to adjust their diet and exercise to suit.

 

[bulkbiker]

Surely weight gain and weight loss get more confused with all the fancy named diets? If the body requires carbs,proteins, fats and minerals then the individual can look at the calories they consume from what they're eating and take a rough measure of the calories they burn during their day, if calories eaten is greater than calories burnt then they put on weight, that's a simple enough fact to allow one to adjust their diet and exercise to suit.

Except that it's not really that simple...at all.

 

[LittleGreyCat]

Surely weight gain and weight loss get more confused with all the fancy named diets? If the body requires carbs,proteins, fats and minerals then the individual can look at the calories they consume from what they're eating and take a rough measure of the calories they burn during their day, if calories eaten is greater than calories burnt then they put on weight, that's a simple enough fact to allow one to adjust their diet and exercise to suit.

In the program it was pointed out that "calories in equals calories absorbed" is not correct. Food which has been processed a lot makes more calories available. Less effort to eat, less effort to digest, more calories available.

Unfortunately it is not such a simple sum, and can be very misleading.

As I understand it, if you eat a lot of calories as sugar or highly processed carbohydrate most of this will go straight to fat. If you eat the same nominal calories in fat then firstly it doesn't immediately go to fat cells in the body, and secondly if it does go to fat cells it needs to go through several complicated chemical processes each of which require energy to take place. So "calories in calories burned" can be a red herring.

 

[kev-w]

I didn't watch the program as it doesn't interest me, my 175g daily carbs are complex ones, my proteins from eggs tuna and white meat, fats from olive oil, supplemented with vegetables, my calorie intake roughly matches my calories burnt, keeping me at a steady 80kg with a BMI of 25 and cholesterol of 4, aged 51, so I'd say what I say is right simply as it does seem to work.....

 

[bulkbiker]

I didn't watch the program as it doesn't interest me, my 175g daily carbs are complex ones, my proteins from eggs tuna and white meat, fats from olive oil, supplemented with vegetables, my calorie intake roughly matches my calories burnt, keeping me at a steady 80kg with a BMI of 25 and cholesterol of 4, aged 51, so I'd say what I say is right simply as it does seem to work.....

For you...

 

[lucylocket61]

I didn't watch the program as it doesn't interest me, my 175g daily carbs are complex ones, my proteins from eggs tuna and white meat, fats from olive oil, supplemented with vegetables, my calorie intake roughly matches my calories burnt, keeping me at a steady 80kg with a BMI of 25 and cholesterol of 4, aged 51, so I'd say what I say is right simply as it does seem to work.....

It works for you. I am glad it works for you. It doesnt work me me and several others on here.

 

[bulkbiker]

I didn't watch the program as it doesn't interest me, my 175g daily carbs are complex ones, my proteins from eggs tuna and white meat, fats from olive oil, supplemented with vegetables, my calorie intake roughly matches my calories burnt, keeping me at a steady 80kg with a BMI of 25 and cholesterol of 4, aged 51, so I'd say what I say is right simply as it does seem to work.....

I'm actually quite interested in what you are saying. Does your insulin intake remain pretty constant together with your stable diet?
If so it could well be proving that insulin as a fat storage hormone works well if the body is in homeostasis. If you were to have 3 or 4 extra units I wonder if you would gain weight even if your caloric intake and exercise regime remained constant. I'm in no way suggesting that you do that but have you ever noticed that if you have more insulin your weight goes up?
Those of us with deranged Type 2 metabolisms obviously don't have such rigid insulin control as someone who produces no endogenous insulin and only uses exogenous insulin. The fact our bodies are producing probably varying amounts depending on a multitude of circumstances whilst probably being resistant to it as well goes a long way to explaining our weight gain as a symptom rather than a cause of Type 2. So you see it's far more complex than a simple calories in calories out for Type 2's. Which is why eat less and move more is not a solution.

 

[Mr_Pot]

I think that this fails to consider that a large portion of the population in the UK have already crossed the point of no easy return. In 2014 a study by the US on english NHS data found that 1/3 of adults without diabetes have prediabetes (by US standards) whether they know it or not.

I wonder what NHS data that was? For most of my adult life I didn't need to go to the doctors and I certainly didn't have any blood tests. They generally only collect data from people who have medical problems.

 

[Guzzler]

If I raised my carbs to 175g per day I really would be looking at bg lowering drugs or possibly insulin therapy.

 

[AdamJames]

Surely weight gain and weight loss get more confused with all the fancy named diets? If the body requires carbs,proteins, fats and minerals then the individual can look at the calories they consume from what they're eating and take a rough measure of the calories they burn during their day, if calories eaten is greater than calories burnt then they put on weight, that's a simple enough fact to allow one to adjust their diet and exercise to suit.

I'd say that controlling weight (fat mass at least) by keeping track of calories eaten and an estimate of calories burned, is like estimating the speed of a car by measuring how far down you have the accelerator pedal pressed. It works great, until it doesn't, because of things like hills and wind resistance and fuel types.

That's not to say it's a useless tool - I'm using it right now to great effect. But just like hills and wind and fuel types can affect the speed of the car regardless of keeping the accelerator pressed down the same amount, things like resting metabolic rate and insulin resistance will affect weight gain regardless of calories input.

Re resting metabolic rate, someone who was overweight then loses it can expect to have a far lower resting metabolic rate than someone who never had to lose weight. Even though they are now at the same weight.

Re insulin levels, it's been shown in a study recently that two groups can eat exactly the same calories, with one group losing weight and one gaining weight. The experiment was designed to reveal differences between eating in the morning vs the evening, but the obvious correlation between the groups was the ones gaining weight were injecting more insulin. For people not injecting insulin, they have very little control over how much insulin their body is pumping into them.

 

[kev-w]

I'm actually quite interested in what you are saying. Does your insulin intake remain pretty constant together with your stable diet?
If so it could well be proving that insulin as a fat storage hormone works well if the body is in homeostasis. If you were to have 3 or 4 extra units I wonder if you would gain weight even if your caloric intake and exercise regime remained constant. I'm in no way suggesting that you do that but have you ever noticed that if you have more insulin your weight goes up?
Those of us with deranged Type 2 metabolisms obviously don't have such rigid insulin control as someone who produces no endogenous insulin and only uses exogenous insulin. The fact our bodies are producing probably varying amounts depending on a multitude of circumstances whilst probably being resistant to it as well goes a long way to explaining our weight gain as a symptom rather than a cause of Type 2. So you see it's far more complex than a simple calories in calories out for Type 2's. Which is why eat less and move more is not a solution.

You'd have to define 'pretty constant', but yes my insulin requirements for food are pretty stable but maybe 2u a day less on a training/swimming day, eat more then inject more, 20 years back I was using a lot more insulin to eat a lot more but was over 10kg heavier lean, if I had 4 extra units I'd hypo without eating extra carbs, so for me eating more increases my weight, but not in visceral fat.
I knew a non d guy who did bodybuilding competitions, he pestered me for insulin to use to help weight gain, along with far too many imho anabolic chemicals.

Now here's a thing, he didn't want the insulin for weight gain per se, but to maintain his body in an anabolic state post work out, as in with a positive nitrogen balance using insulin for a lower blood sugar , which allows more protein to be synthesised and muscle growth to happen, whereas normally after a work out we become catabolic with a higher blood sugar, and have a negative nitrogen balance which draws nitrogen from the muscles preventing growth, at least that's long story short, which is why moving more and eating less is always a good start for weight loss....

 

[bulkbiker]

why moving more and eating less is always a good start for weight loss

Except when your metabolism is screwed and doesn't work like it should maybe...and when fewer calories leads to BMR slowdown making it even harder to lose weight.

 

[Guzzler]

You'd have to define 'pretty constant', but yes my insulin requirements for food are pretty stable but maybe 2u a day less on a training/swimming day, eat more then inject more, 20 years back I was using a lot more insulin to eat a lot more but was over 10kg heavier lean, if I had 4 extra units I'd hypo without eating extra carbs, so for me eating more increases my weight, but not in visceral fat.
I knew a non d guy who did bodybuilding competitions, he pestered me for insulin to use to help weight gain, along with far too many imho anabolic chemicals.

Now here's a thing, he didn't want the insulin for weight gain per se, but to maintain his body in an anabolic state post work out, as in with a positive nitrogen balance, which allows more protein to be synthesised and muscle growth to happen, whereas normally after a work out we become catabolic, and have a negative nitrogen balance which draws nitrogen from the muscles preventing growth, at least that's long story short, which is why moving more and eating less is always a good start for weight loss....

Would you agree that there are people who are outliers when it comes to Calories in, Calories out?

The law of thermodynamics (first put forward as a theory in the 19th century, I beleive, then updated in tne 1930s) just doesn't add up. Firstly because the maths doesn't fit and secondly because fats and carbs are metabolised in different ways.