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

The Men Who Made Us Fat

I was so pleased! At last someone has come out and stated the obvious. Let's hope it stirs things up a bit.

Just a pity that it was never mentioned that sugar is a carbohydrate . . . never mind, one step at a time!

Viv

PS I'd love to have a go at that brain scan thing - would be nice to know what my brain really fancies in the way of food, as half of those flash-slides made my conscious mind want to throw up!
 
hi. just a question or few......

what other names does corn syrup come by?

is glucose syrup the same as corn syrup?
what about gluco gel???
thanks xxx
 
Brilliant programme. I feel vindicated in what I have been saying for 12 years whilst being told i must be cheating cos I havent lost weight.

Interesting that if you substitute the words 'tobacco' for 'sugar' the arguments are eerily similar.......

Looking forward to the next 2 programmes where they explore carbs and fats in more detail : )
 
Suppose it makes sense from a business point of view first you make a addict then you make a fortune.

So the sugar disables the leptin and so you never feel full ... sounds about right :sick:
 
xyzzy said:
When its available going to add a link to my new member post to that program. It is the best thing that's been on the beeb for ages. It validates all that the majority of us have been saying. Show's the whole lot, politicians, sugar industry, fast food industry and especially the low fat food industry and their snivelling sycophant supporters to be complicit in the forced addiction then murder and mutilation of millions of people. No better that Columbian drug lords and just as evil.
Click to expand...
It's actually quite scary when you see all those people in America years ago cramming in those Snack Wells low fat cream cookies not realising they were full of sugar :(
 
Amazing indeed, that so many people are unaware that they are eating too much sugar.

Unlike most here I picked up on the fact that, was it Walker, Nixons minister for food or something that tried to get America to eat less of everything! But interests in the sugar industry managed to get sugar forgotten about so everyone just ate less fat but more sugar when in fact what they should have done was eat less fat and sugar, oddly enough what I have been saying for years.

At the end of the day no one has made anyone eat processed food I never have, well never in any quantity, but I have still always been on the overweight side of the bmi since my late teens. No I am still of the opinion that we make ourselves fat by overeating, no one has ever been told to eat lots of sugar in fact quite the opposite, I was always told not to eat too much sugar I can still remember my mother telling me when I used to put 3 sugars in my coffee that I would make myself diabetic, I know she was wrong but the message was always there, too much anything is bad for you, especially sugar.

Oh and the corn syrup thing has nothing to do with the UK as we have never produced it or used it extensively in our food industry, sugar, yes, but not corn syrup.

I dont think theres any getting away from the fact that today we do much less exercise than previous generations, we are scared to let our children play outside whilst in previous generations kids were never at home except to eat and sleep, 24 hour TV, computers and games consoles have in the last generation made couch potatoes out of all our children and that is very worrying to me. No one walks anywhere any more, when I was a kid I walked to school then home again and then walked to friends houses to meet them so we could go out and play, nowadays we worry about our teenagers going out, let alone our younger children and mum and dads taxi service is always used even for the smallest journeys.

Basically we eat more and do less and it as true now as its always been, to lose weight you need to burn more calories than you consume. Simples.
 
Yes, because the BBC iPlayer times out after a week and a lot of us do not have any of the other technology either.

Once downloaded, it has no DRM and can be watched on your platform of choice whenever you want.

Also it makes it available worldwide.
 
HF Corn syrup is in a lot of things in this country and has been for years. However, it was just noted in the ingredients as 'sugar'. Product labelling in Europe is getting better but way back when Butz had his radical ideas for cheap sweeteners, our food labelling was a joke. In many ways it still is.

If you are a producer of processed foods you're going to go for the cheapest ingredients - it's all about profit, profit, profit. MH worked in the food industry for years and was witness to what went into all sorts of things that the public thought was good, healthy foods.

Ju

PS. Swimmer - that Yudkin book is worth about £200! Make sure you send it out recorded delivery :thumbup:
 
Sid Bonkers said:
Basically we eat more and do less and it as true now as its always been, to lose weight you need to burn more calories than you consume. Simples.
Click to expand...

Is this 100% true ? or is it more complicated than that? Can someone do a Channel4 News style FactCheck on that statement for me?
 
I think the programme told most of us what we already knew or suspected! :D
I would be interested to see the reaction from people who have not had to radically change their lifestyle due to disease (diabetes or anything else) and to see if they show more awareness now of what they eat.

Looking forward to the next 2 episodes!
 
swimmer2 said:
Is this 100% true ? or is it more complicated than that?
Click to expand...

I keep hearing and reading that it is 100% true but I'm not so sure. In my mind the thing that potentially complicates the issue is that there is energy in what you excrete as faeces and urine too. It has to be true, I think, that if the energy you burn plus the energy you excrete is greater than the energy in the food you consume then you must lose weight.

I'm sure someone will be along soon with a better answer

Andrew
 
swimmer2 said:
Sid Bonkers said:
Basically we eat more and do less and it as true now as its always been, to lose weight you need to burn more calories than you consume. Simples.
Click to expand...

Is this 100% true ? or is it more complicated than that? Can someone do a Channel4 News style FactCheck on that statement for me?
Click to expand...
That's the basic equation, you can't make or destroy matter so in order to lose mass, you must either use or excrete more stored energy than you take in.
But it is is more complex in that you have to account for what is digested, what is used and what is excreted.

Energy In (corrected for digestion) = (BMR/RMR + TEF + TEA + SPA/NEAT) + Change in Body Stores

Energy taken in is obviously food.
How much is taken in as energy depends upon digestion and absorption. (one of the problems with some manufactured foods is that they are very much more easily and completely digested enabling more to be absorbed as calories To put it crudely, compare what you think might be digested from a finely ground corn porridge and the same amount of corn on the cob. The same holds true for a piece of rare steak compared to finely ground meat. Raw food is often incompletely digested so cooking makes more calories available.)

Energy used includes that needed for:
BMR/RMR basal metabolism,
TEA: thermic effect of activity ( ie exercise )
NEAT( Non-exercise activity thermogenesis ie fidgeting )
TEF, The thermal effect of food (ie energy used for processing food and storing it in the body,eg It takes more energy to digest tough foods , foods with larger particles, cold foods, it takes more energy to digest protein than carbs, carbs than fat. It takes 23 cal to convert 100g of extra glucose to fat, It takes 2.5cal to store fat as fat )
figures from
http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... -cell2.htm

Water also plays a part, water has no calories so is not involved in the energy equation but water retained or lost through perspiration makes a difference to your 'weight' on the scales. Water balance also depends on the minerals you take in. If you eat more sodium than you' need' you may gain water.

The amount of weight loss also depends on what is lost ie fat or muscle.
Fat has an energy yield of 3500 cal/lb. so If you had a negative balance of 3500 cal you could lose a lb of fat BUT you don't normally just lose fat.
If the loss was 50% from fat and 50% muscle then you will actually lose more than 1lb (1.7lb) because 50% fat/muscle has a yield of only 2050 calories.
If you lost muscle alone then you would have an even higher weight loss. Muscle has an energy yield of 700 cal/lb so you would lose 5.8lbs.
This is why losing weight quickly, losing weight without exercise may not necessarily a good thing. Loss of muscle can leads to sarcopenic obesity http://www.diabetesincontrol.com/articl ... t-exercise

Equation and energy yields from Lyle Mcdonald (he's a writer of bodybuilding books including one on the ketogenic diet)

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-lo ... ation.html
 
swimmer2 said:
Sid Bonkers said:
Basically we eat more and do less and it as true now as its always been, to lose weight you need to burn more calories than you consume. Simples.
Click to expand...

Is this 100% true ? or is it more complicated than that? Can someone do a Channel4 News style FactCheck on that statement for me?
Click to expand...

Yes it's 100% true. It's a statement of the FIrst Law of Thermodynamics. Nobody (with any credibility) would ever doubt it.

However, it doesn't really tell us anything about obesity, because it ignores the influence of appetite and the desire (or unconcious ability) to exercise.

The question is why do some people consume more calories than they expend? The standard answer is obesity and sloth, but that argument doesn't stand up to any scrutiny either.

Fat calories, carbohydrate calories and protein calories are all metabolised in very different ways, and all regulate your appetite in different ways and they all have different influences on the energy that you have available for exercise and day-to-day living. If you tried eating a 50% protein diet, you wouldn't be able to, because your metabolism would decrease your appetite to the degree that any more food was unpalatable.

If you really think that "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" then you should try putting petrol in your diesel car (or even drinking it).
 
I'm bored of saying this, but the "not enough exercise" argument for obesity isn't feasible either...

I burn about 200kcal per mile when I run. To burn off a single pound of fat I'd need to run at least 17miles, and not eat any extra food to fuel it. I'd have to run 250 miles on an empty stomach to lose a stone.

This doesn't happen. If you exercise, you get hungry, you refuel, and your metabolism slows down while you sit on the sofa for the rest of the evening, watching TV and having a snooze.
 
Back
Top