• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Government Better Health Campaign is now active

In Response said:
I feel pushing one diet upon everyone whether it is the eatwell plate, the WW diet, the LCHF diet, ... ignores the fact that we are all different physically and motivationally.
Click to expand...

When the aim is to "reduce obesity" then you are hardly a prime candidate for any changes nor the target audience for the campaign.

"Eat less, move more" is a non successful strategy for reducing obesity as it does not address root causes.
Suggesting a reduction in carbohydrate consumption for the obese would likely have a far greater impact and be more successful.
Indeed even pre surgery (which sadly seems to be the preferred option for weight loss these days) ketosis is used to shrink the liver. Maybe a ketogenic diet for many would reduce the "need" for the surgery but oddly the surgeons don't appear to like this option ... can't think why.
 
I am a strong advocate of doing what works for you as an individual but the message being put out right now is exactly the same as the previous decades. It clearly has not worked. @In Response, I am similar to you and I count myself lucky in many ways because I know that if I put a few pounds on it is easy for me to lose them and I am normally slim. It sounds like a simple solution, 'eat less, move more' but in and of itself it does not work for many, many people. There are all sorts of issues a person may have that hampers this simplistic approach whether a mental blockage or physiology. If people are told 'you need to go on a diet', all they think about are the yummy things they will have to cut out and it becomes too much. I really do think that the govt should change its advice and try something new. I'm not saying they should say 'eat cheese and meat' in abundance but they could certainly explain how a lower carb diet works and cut out the bread/pasta/rice mantra. Everybody knows that if you are eating cakes/sweets/puddings and all the obvious 'rubbish' your health will suffer so they give that up and then replace it with bread/pasta/rice having been told this is the holy grail of food. I get that the latter is better nutritionally but it is barely any better when it comes to general health. I do not understand why the govt think it will work this time?
 
Unfortunately to be able to eat healthily is an expensive hobby and those people on the "bread line" just cant afford to not eat the super processed food. I was in Asda (other supermarkets are available) on the weekend and a packet of "healthy" apples were £1.20 whereas 2 packets of Asdas own choc chip cookies were 20p. I know that's not the best example but healthy eating is not cheap. I think the Govt needs to be looking at that??
 
I am a Low Carber myself, so, yes, I am disappointed that the 'healthy' food message is the CICO Low fat Eatwell based diet that has been peddled since the 1980's and which many of us here find is unhelpful in our battle with Diabetes and other metabolic disorders. I am surprised that they actually named commercial diet plans in their recommendations. They should be educating and supporting the teaching of nutrition. I would have been happier if they had announced that they wanted to bring back Domestic Science as a curriculum subject in schools,

But I see some positives. Firstly, the move to ban junk food advertising in the media. Second, the removal of sweets and snacks from the checkout counter area. Third, support for bike riding and gym use, but not sure GP prescriptions will do it. Again more education support that explains how many miles per sugar lump you need to run / walk, like they did for the sugar tax (infographics to the fore!!!!)

There is also a glimmer in they are starting to talk about reducing processed foods and snacks, implying that we should go back to home prepared food again. But without the teaching backup that will not work out,

I am minded that the advice given out is a one size fits all solution, intended for all. Here on this forum, we wear blinkers when interacting, in that we have a vested interest that the diet does more than just lose weight and blubber. It is also intended to help us maintain control of our wayward metabolisms. To this end we have tools and monitoring both by GP oversight and home meters that allow us to see within tens of minutes exactly what effect a meal has on our bodies. So we can adjust our intake accordingly. But this is not what the rest of the population will do, They are running blind, and all they see is the scales (well, maybe not in some cases) which are reading last weeks meals. So diet plans that we use ourselves here do not necessarily adapt or scale up to the rest of the world.

Like others here, I note that the rise in obesity seems to begin with the introduction of both the Low Fat mantra and the introduction of Eatwell / food pyramid into the training for NHS nutritionists. By repeating this message yesterday, the gov is not moving off that path in any way, so IMHO the damage and obesity will continue to grow until the new understanding of how carbohydrates are metabolised is accepted by SACN et al. It will not change until the NHS starts educating nutritionists about Low Carbing as a valid tool to use.
 
In which case they need to promote all the alternatives not just the low calorie and surgery options and give the customer the choice.

If you’ve never needed or struggled to lose weight it’s very easy to have opinions on it that are theory based rather than reality.

Not everyone can do intensive exercise for a whole variety of reasons.
 
In Response said:
That is the way you have addressed your problem.
I was asking about the problem of the nation - and avoiding it happening to more people.
Click to expand...
The proposed focus seems to be on calories or energy balance as a way to tackle weight. However many of us know anecdotally, and backed by science, that the vast majority of calorie controlled diets do not help people keep to a stable healthy weight but you are correct to point out that people need to find the way that works for them.
The tactic of blaming excess calories is just that - a tactic to take the focus away from food quality. It will be bad news for low carb, high fat meals which may end up having more calories than a high cabr,low fat option albeit with far more taste, satiety and nutrtion!
My solution would be to encourage the eating of real food in general with special advice to metabolically ill people (most of the population) to eat proportionately more fat and protein. Exercise is a good idea to keep healthy but not as a weight loss tool in itself
Oh ad what about some Vitamin D supplements to ward of the upper respiratory lurgies that await us this Winter!
 
In Response said:
Rather than complaining about what your government has proposed, has anyone any ideas how the nation can address this shocking statistic?
Click to expand...
Well, I've been doing my bit for a number of years now by ignoring the Eatwell Plate nonsense and eating a low carb diet normal fat instead, as are many others on this Forum. And this is much closer to the way we used to eat before all the fat phobia nonsense was rammed down our throats.
 
This is what Susan Jebb, who is a consultant on the SACN Committee that is advising IJK government on diet strategies. has to say about weight loss diets. She is also a Chair of NICE Public Health Advisory panel
https://www.ox.ac.uk/research/research-in-conversation/healthy-body-healthy-mind/susan-jebb

She is a strong proponent for CICO.

Edit to add a rebuttal article I found that does not agree with her POV just for completeness
http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/02/17/...ents-obesity-advisor-dish-out-useless-advice/

Susan Jebb is also a contributor to the latest Oxford Martin push to encourage us all to eat less meat and pile on the veggies. This is her other hat that she wears. She was also one of the founders of the School's SUSTAIN programme to convert British Agriculture to the same end via the Climate Change Committee of which she is also a member.

This now confirms two of the SACN members are advocating a vegan diet for all which is not declared in their SACN credentials, Susan is the Chair of the NICE Committee on diet and is also on the panel advising the government panel on obesity.

Note the additional info in the article listing possible commercial conflicts of interest she may be suffering from. I have not confirmed these yet[
 
Dark Horse said:
Do you have any evidence for that?
Click to expand...
People are eating more veg oils, less red meat and less dairy as measured by consumption volumes. This doesn't account for food wastage but is a useful way to compare our diets across the years. Those stats come from the Food Standard Agency and Parliament which reports a 30% decline in red meat and 27% in the number of dairy cows.
 
That doesn't mean that they are following the guidelines, though. This survey of the UK found that they don't. For example, only 31%of adults met the recommendation to eat 5 portions of fruit and veg per day and the average fibre intake is only 19g per day, substantially below the recommended 30g. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/phe-publishes-latest-data-on-nations-diet

Similarly, in the USA, it was found that people are not following government guidelines on nutrition https://health.gov/our-work/food-nu...current-eating-patterns-in-the-united-states/
 
Do you think that if we followed the guidelines we would be less diabetic or less obese? I think those guidelines are better than SAD (standard American diet) but that is not saying much! Interestingly fruit and veg numbers are reported to be stable across the decades yet we are markedly less healthy than we once were and the idea that this is down to fibre insufficiency has been robustly challenged when the only science that can defend it is the associational kind.
this one made me think about my dogmatic consumption of greens and my guilt over not being a fruit bat!
 
HSSS said:
I took it from here
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/national-diet-and-nutrition-surveyView attachment 43015
Click to expand...
The link you provided does not link to the infographic in your post so I can't look at it in context. The infographic shows that fruit and veg intake are below recommended levels. It also shows calorie intake as being below recommended levels - hopefully there will be a comment elsewhere in the presentation explaining that self-reported calorie intakes are, for various reasons, substantially below actual calorie intake and this should be taken into account.
 
Dark Horse said:
If you are implying that the rise in obesity is due to people eating less fat, this graph suggests otherwise:-

View attachment 43033


https://ourworldindata.org/diet-compositions
Click to expand...

That's supply not consumption..and with a large proportion of that supply being wasted then I'm afraid your graph doesn't really show what you think it does.

As this points out
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake

Odd that Austria is No 2.. I have been a couple of times but can't recall seeing huge amounts of the morbidly obese..

Edit to add.. I don't think that table represents what it says it does.. for clarity.
 
The infographic itself contains the reference it uses as source of the data. i,e, the one pointed to by the embedded link in the post. They appear to be using the same data.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…