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

Letter in Telegraph today

H

hanadr

Expert
Messages
8,157
Dislikes
soaps on telly and people talking about the characters as if they were real.
Who has seen it? The letter from Helen Sutter of "Go Lower".
Perhaps the TV series will REALLY open this can of worms. I'm waiting to see the tactics that the "dietary establishment" will come up with.
[and their evidence]
Hana
 
I see what you mean about the comments :shock:

So not only is the programme rubbish put about by those wanting to avoid having to stuff their faces with pastys and coke, while sitting on their lardy arses all day, they also have tattoos and are chavs!!! This is discrimination and vitriol gone mad.

unbelievable.
 
As Ive said several times in the last few days eating carbs doesnt make you fat, its eating too many that does :D
 
lucylocket61 said:
I see what you mean about the comments :shock:
Click to expand...

People get pretty uncomfortable when an orthodoxy is challenged don't they!? I've posted on there as well; it makes this site seem like an oasis of sense and courtesy :shock:

Best

Dillinger
 
Any fool knows that we all need fats, carbohydrates and protein on our diet. It is not any one of these that makes someone fat. It is too much of one or other (or all) of these.
 
smcc said:
Any fool knows that we all need fats, carbohydrates and protein on our diet. It is not any one of these that makes someone fat. It is too much of one or other (or all) of these.
Click to expand...

But there is no information in this statement. You're just restating the problem.

The question is why to be eat too many calories? Not many people choose to be fat.

If you don't want to read about low-carbing, then don't read the low-carb forum. Simples.
 
It really is very simple. If you take in more food than you need, you will put on weight. People's needs and metabolism vary; therefore some will gain weight more easily than others and find it more difficult to lose weight.
My personal experience may be relevant. As a student in my late teens in the early 1960s I studied physiology. As a class we spent a week recording our food intake and activities 24 hours per day. Prior to this we had used scientific methods to assess how much energy we expended doing various activities.
At the end of the week our energy intake was calculated by a dietician at a detailed interview and our total energy expenditure calculated. My calorie intake averaged around 5000 cals/day but but my energy expenditure was around 3000cals/day. Despite this my weight had been steady around 67Kg for some years. Presumably I was not "taking advantage" of all the calories in my food and therefore did not put on weight. I have continued to be able to eat relatively more than many of my friends without gaining weight, and now, at nearly 70 years of age, I weigh 72Kg.
The fact is that we still do not know why some people put on fat while others whose calorie intake is apparently lower do put on fat. Despite this, whatever your metabolic make up, the more you eat the more you will put on weight. Some people will gain weight more easily than others and find it more difficult to lose weight as the result of differing metabolism
 
smcc said:
It really is very simple. If you take in more food than you need, you will put on weight. People's needs and metabolism vary; therefore some will gain weight more easily than others and find it more difficult to lose weight.
Click to expand...

Nobody denies that you have to eat more calories than you consume in order to add body mass. It's just a statement of the First Law of Thermodynamics. It doesn't explain why people consume more than they expend, and it doesn't account for dynamic effects like appetite and the desire to do exercise.

If it was simple, no-one would be fat (unless you subscribe to the greed and sloth theory).

smcc said:
The fact is that we still do not know why some people put on fat while others whose calorie intake is apparently lower do put on fat. Despite this, whatever your metabolic make up, the more you eat the more you will put on weight. Some people will gain weight more easily than others and find it more difficult to lose weight as the result of differing metabolism
Click to expand...

So now you're saying that it's not so simple after all. The "variable metabolism as a cause for obesity" thing might have been the theory when you studied physiology, but it's been pretty comprehensively disproved by subsequent scientific research.
 
My calorie intake averaged around 5000 cals/day but but my energy expenditure was around 3000cals/day. Despite this my weight had been steady around 67Kg for some years.
Click to expand...

so you accept that the reverse is also true - that some people can have an intake of 1000 calories, expenditure of 1700, and still put on weight.

In my simple mind, if one way round works, so does the other.

I dont have any studies to refer to, but it seems that the "calories in- expenditure out" theory doesnt work.
 
Most people seem to be skipping the key thing:

"Jmo, fat satisfies hunger whereas carbs and sugar increases it."

This is certainly the case for me.
Carbs give me cravings for more carbs.
Low carb and mainly protein and fat seems to supress my appetite.

Obviously the amount you eat (as well as what you eat) impacts on your weight.
There is no healthy high calorie diet which will promote rapid weight loss without exercise.
The main problem is what motivates people to continually overeat.

People with diabetes have an additional issue which is that carbs can spike your BG quite quickly - and have more impact that for a person without diabetes.

However, the bottom line remains - keep your calorie intake on a par with or lower than your calorie burn.
Any diet which offers this is good.

IMHO LCHF is a way of eating that makes it easy to keep your overall calorie consumption low.
However if you follow LCHF and eat four big meals a day with no exercise then you are unlikely to lose weight!

Cheers

LGC
 
lucylocket61 said:
My calorie intake averaged around 5000 cals/day but but my energy expenditure was around 3000cals/day. Despite this my weight had been steady around 67Kg for some years.
Click to expand...

so you accept that the reverse is also true - that some people can have an intake of 1000 calories, expenditure of 1700, and still put on weight.

In my simple mind, if one way round works, so does the other.

I dont have any studies to refer to, but it seems that the "calories in- expenditure out" theory doesnt work.
Click to expand...

Nah - if you measure the calories that go in through your mouth, then you are not measuring the calories that are absorbed by your body. There is no guarantee that all the calorie content will be extracted.

However the calorie intake indicates the MAXIMUM energy you can extract.
So you can't put on weight (apart from by water retention) if you are burning more than you are taking in.

When I look at what I eat now (weight stable and decreasing very slowly) compare with what I was eating a few years back (a stone heavier but weight stable) suggest that I was not extracting the full amount of available calories from my food then.

This is one of the hard things about losing weight - when you realise you are eating half what you used to but your weight just won't go down.

Cheers

LGC
 
borofergie said:
If you don't want to read about low-carbing, then don't read the low-carb forum. Simples.
Click to expand...



Sorry Stephen but Hana has posted it in Diabetes Discussions.
 
Sloth and greed as an explanation for obesity is about as convincing as explaining that people are short because they are mean.

Calories in / calories out is only a part of the issue and in my opinion an almost trivial part of the issue. The real areas to focus on are the hormonal responses to food and in particular the insulin response (the only hormone to cause fat to be laid down) and the leptin response (leptin inhibits your appetite; i.e. makes you feel full).

Carbohydrate consumption increases the amount of serum insulin and there is evidence that increased calorific intake and in particular the consumption of fructose decreases your serum leptin levels; i.e. makes you hungry.

The reason exercise makes you thin is that it increases your sensitivity to insulin, it is not because you are burning up calories; otherwise how could there be fat people in the army (which there are) for instance?

Now, if you are awash with calories from carbohydrate, fat and protein then there is a good chance that you will be constantly hungry (because your leptin response will be inhibited) - that's interesting for overweight people, but the real issue here for diabetics is the carbohydrate point.

We all stand shoulder to shoulder with the fact that we cannot properly metabolize carbohydrate; some not at all (Type 1's like me) others a bit or badly (Type 2's). The response then must be to minimise the carbs in our diet, the whole 'eat to your meter' thing. A balanced diet is fine for people without diabetes; if you have diabetes you must unbalance your diet by dropping the carbs; and once you do that weight, blood lipids and blood sugars will drop too.

Best

Dillinger
 
Dillinger said:
Sloth and greed as an explanation for obesity is about as convincing as explaining that people are short because they are mean.
Click to expand...


I'm taking it you didn't agree with episode 2 of 'The men who made us Fat' :)
 
Sloth and greed as an explanation for obesity is about as convincing as explaining that people are short because they are mean.
Click to expand...

Oh, how I laughed!
 
LittleGreyCat said:
"fat satisfies hunger whereas carbs and sugar increases it."
Click to expand...

+1 LGC

That's the point many of the low fat exercise sloth and greed brigade miss entirely.

By living in a society where sugar and processed carbohydrates are actively encouraged, are cheap and in many cases promoted as healthy in "low fat" products then given that these food stuff promote appetite is it any wonder that people put on weight? Many people are eating them because they think they should not because they are greedy or slothful and implying that is completely outrageous.

Calling people slothful or greedy is avoiding the deeper issue. It's so very easy for our political masters (whoever they happen to be at the time) to scapegoat overweight people as slothful and greedy rather than address the real underlying issues which are to do with regulating the food and drinks industry etc. That is what I took from the second "The men that made us fat" episode and the evidence such as the study that showed pre teenage children are no less active than they were 30 years ago backs that up.
 
I have read the letter.
As a high percentage of people know, eating far too much of certain foods and not doing enough exercise WILL put weight on, its not rocket science. You only have to look around you, at work, in supermarkets, people in fast food shops and establishments,in the street,out shopping, many more people are overweight, and its eating TOO much of the wrong foods like carbohydrates. If I stuffed my face with a high amount of carbs ( with or without diabetes) eg sitting here in front of a computer, or the TV or a DS, X box,texting on a mobile, driving everywhere, not walking , hardly any exercise, then I will get fat, there's no getting away from it, unfortunately we live in a lazier society than we used to, it is a fact. I dont like what I see :( and I do see alot of of it :shock: I will never ever get like that. I'm in my 50's and I am saddened by what I see.
 
Robinredbreast said:
As a high percentage of people know, eating far too much of certain foods and not doing enough exercise WILL put weight on, its not rocket science.
Click to expand...

So everyone that eats lots of calories, and doesn't do lots of exercise gets fat do they?

Do you know any skinny people that sit on the sofa all day, and never exercise?
 
Back
Top