The Men Who Made Us Fat

[phoenix]

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.

Yes and no Stephen, there are all sorts of things that alter when you exercise more, increase your muscle mass and your BMR goes up.
Personally if I sit on the sofa I'll remain there, if I exercise then I'm more likely to do other things. (endorphins?) and I don't eat any more if I'm doing a 'normal mileage, say less than 20 miles a week. I can remember when I was younger taking home my sandwiches that I'd made for orienteering, often didn't want to eat them.
If I run or even walk any more than 20 miles a week I will lose more weight than the 1lb/ 3,400 calories used would suggest (I theoretically use less calories per mile than you do), probably at the rate of about 2lb a week.
At my maximum of about 40 miles a week and paticularly on a backpacking holiday than I eat more and still lose weight.

 

[noblehead]

Not seen it yet and will do so over the weekend, reading everyone's posts it seems that the programme is going over old ground and stating the blatently obvious

 

[xyzzy]

I think the programme told most of us what we already knew or suspected!
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!

From a dietary perspective I agree with you Truffle it just states the blatantly obvious.

What interested me more was the politics of it so:

1) How the sugar industry effectively managed to hold the WHO to ransom over the anti-sugar position statement it wanted to release.

2) How the food industry came to an "agreement" with the US administration to knowingly create and market low fat foods as "healthy" alternatives while understanding that it was replacing fat with sugar thus doing no such thing.

Corruption at its worst and I hold the then politicians and food industry and anyone who still continues to push their murderous message responsible for millions of peoples suffering and early deaths. No better than war criminals in my opinion and should face similar "crimes against humanity" justice.

Then these people and their corrupt and sycophantic sugar and low fat supporters actually BLAME the likes of you and me for eating their products and putting on weight AFTER telling us how healthy they are!

What evil unbelievable unspeakable arrogance.

Have these people no conscience or one iota of morality ? ....

 

[viviennem]

Blatantly obvious to us perhaps, Noblehead, but I have never before seen a programme that covers this ground and the politics and commercialism behind it.

Old ground or not, it's putting this aspect of obesity fully into the public forum, as far as I know for the first time.

Viv 8)

 

[borofergie]

Yes and no Stephen, there are all sorts of things that alter when you exercise more, increase your muscle mass and your BMR goes up.
Personally if I sit on the sofa I'll remain there, if I exercise then I'm more likely to do other things. (endorphins?) and I don't eat any more if I'm doing a 'normal mileage, say less than 20 miles a week. I can remember when I was younger taking home my sandwiches that I'd made for orienteering, often didn't want to eat them.
If I run or even walk any more than 20 miles a week I will lose more weight than the 1lb/ 3,400 calories used would suggest (I theoretically use less calories per mile than you do), probably at the rate of about 2lb a week.
At my maximum of about 40 miles a week and paticularly on a backpacking holiday than I eat more and still lose weight.

That's not necessarily true either. Why do fat people people have a higher BMR than lean people? It isn't because fat uses any energy (it doesn't in any meaningful quantitiy). It's because you need extra muscle to carry all the fat around.

If you exercise, and lose fat, the most likely outcome is that your BMR would go down, not up. This is a challenge for everyone losing weight, and a good explanation for why people hit "plateaus".

The bulk of recent evidence also suggests that post-exercise your metabolic rate decreases not increases. If you walk 40 miles a week, what happens to your appetite?

I don't need to tell you that running, or walking 20-40 miles a week is not sustainable for anyone apart from dedicated athletes (not even with a Paleo rationale). There is evidence that this sort of exercise is deleterious to your health (hormesis).

Here is what anti-Taubeist Marion Nestle thinks:
In her new book Marion Nestle says:

The number of calories [expended due to exercise] are likely to add up to a small percentage of those required for basal metabolism. Their number is also small compared to the number of calories that most people expend in a day.

She has an interesting theory as to why the establishment continues to promote exercise as a weight loss strategy:

This however does not stop food companies and government agencies from emphasizing physical activity as the primary strategy for losing or maintaining body weight. From a political standpoint, the advice to move more is much less threatening than advice to eat less. Moving more does not effect the economic interests of the food companies or any other powerful industry. In contrast, as we keep reminding you, simply eating less is bad for business.

 

[Patch]

Sky+'d this.

Mrs. was watching Don't tell the bride, or soime similar ****...

Looking forward to it. I'll be flicking through my Leptin Diet Book again tonight, though...

What are the legal ramifications of this, though? If the sugar industry KNEW that blocking leptin would make us eat MORE (especially sugar) then they should be held accountable. It can't be lawful to do what they have done.

Excuse my language, but, ********!

 

[borofergie]

Not seen it yet and will do so over the weekend, reading everyone's posts it seems that the programme is going over old ground and stating the blatently obvious

Nothing is further from the truth. The majority of the audience will be unaware of the history of the "lipid hypothesis".

None of it is new if you are well read in the topic, but Joe Public still subscribes to the "heart diet hypothesis" because no-one has ever told them any different.

I've said before that the "low-fat" mantra is on very shaky ground. There isn't any credible scientific data that supports it, so it's good to see these ideas exposed in the mainstream media.

 

[noblehead]

I've said before that the "low-fat" mantra is on very shaky ground. There isn't any credible scientific data that supports it, so it's good to see these ideas exposed in the mainstream media.

I have yet to see the ground shake but will comment further once I've watched the programme

 

[borofergie]

I can remember when I was younger taking home my sandwiches that I'd made for orienteering, often didn't want to eat them.

Also remember that the calorie debt doesn't have to be balanced immediately, it can hit you the next day, or even after that.

 

[Truffle]

Yes Xyzzy, No morals - rather like the tabacco industry at the time. They obviously assumed that any repercussions would be the problem of another administration or just basically didn't care.... but in the end it is still up to us to maintain a modicum of self control..

 

[xyzzy]

She has an interesting theory as to why the establishment continues to promote exercise as a weight loss strategy:

This however does not stop food companies and government agencies from emphasizing physical activity as the primary strategy for losing or maintaining body weight. From a political standpoint, the advice to move more is much less threatening than advice to eat less. Moving more does not effect the economic interests of the food companies or any other powerful industry. In contrast, as we keep reminding you, simply eating less is bad for business.

Precisely. While reasonable exercise is undoubtedly good for you then marketing it as a solution and therefore implying sloth and laziness are the problem is a brilliant strategy. We see people who are fooled into believing that regularly posting on this forum. Pushing a divide and conquer strategy on the population so that the real issue is not seen is far easier and a lot less costly in terms of political donations etc. than recognising then truth. Like I have said power, corruption and lack of morals at its worst.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, as I said, I enjoyed and was informed by the programme.
If nothing else then it has stimulated another interesting discussion on here. Thanks Phoenix for an informed response to my rather naive question - there is clearly much more reading I have to do.

Sid's statement that (and paraphrasing Sid, sorry) - that if I eat more than I use I will get fatter - is a rather loaded statement, because whilst (with the caveats you've all given) it's basically true, it implies that it's my fault if I become obese. In fact this was the argument given by the lady on the programme who defended the US food companies. Even without the suggestion that sugar affects my brain, we are talking about a commodity that we require to live. If food production uses ingredients that damage our health across such a wide spectrum of food types and this is done for profit reasons, then even if the ingredients weren't addictive the practice couldn't be described as moral. Suggesting I don't eat ANY processed food is hardly helpful, since is very difficult (not to mention expensive) not to.

 

[phoenix]

I don't need to tell you that running, or walking 20-40 miles a week is not sustainable for anyone apart from dedicated athletes (not even with a Paleo rationale). There is evidence that this sort of exercise is deleterious to your health (hormesis

running maybe, and 40 mile is what I have done at a maximum and won't do again; walking yes, 20 miles a week is less than 3 miles a day. I'd rather be like the elderly people I know who are still able to go for a daily 3 or 4 k a day, but then the nearest shops are 8km and school was that sort of distance for most so they're used to it.
“Exercise Won’t Make You Lose Weight,” or so Time magazine claims
http://www.shericolberg.com/exercise-columns15.asp

 

[viviennem]

Dragging back through my memory, there was a time, in the mid-1990s, when I was working on site, walking the dog 21+ miles a week, eating a "healthy" low-fat high-carb diet", and putting on weight steadily. I got up from about 15.5 stone to 18 stone in 3 years.

There was another time, in 2004, when I changed to low-carb high fat and walked the dog 21+ miles a week, not working on site, and dropped 5.5 stone in 18 months.

I don't know what that means, apart from the fact that I can't metabolise carbohydrate properly, but it would be nice if someone could tell me!

Reading over that last sentence - have I at last found the key to a miserable, overweight life of 40+ years constantly trying to lose weight, and failing. Hating myself. "I can't metabolise carbohydrate properly" ! Nothing else matters.

I wish someone had told me that when I was 15, instead of telling me to eat carbs all the time!

Viv 8)

 

[Sid Bonkers]

Sid's statement that (and paraphrasing Sid, sorry) - that if I eat more than I use I will get fatter - is a rather loaded statement, because whilst (with the caveats you've all given) it's basically true, it implies that it's my fault if I become obese. In fact this was the argument given by the lady on the programme who defended the US food companies. Even without the suggestion that sugar affects my brain, we are talking about a commodity that we require to live. If food production uses ingredients that damage our health across such a wide spectrum of food types and this is done for profit reasons, then even if the ingredients weren't addictive the practice couldn't be described as moral. Suggesting I don't eat ANY processed food is hardly helpful, since is very difficult (not to mention expensive) not to.

There is one other thing that was mentioned in last nights program that has until now not been discussed and that was 'snacking' or eating between meals, which is something that was never ever done when I was growing up. And nowadays a whole industry has developed to sell us stuff to eat between meals or to sell us things to eat 'on the go', there is now a Greggs or similar on every high street selling nothing but sandwiches, rolls and pastry items, sausage rolls, pies etc etc. Instead of the Cadbury's chocolate bar that I would get as a treat as a lad, today there are a million different chock bars and sweets that are there to tempt the passing consumer.

But, it is not mandatory to eat these things, when you walk past a Greggs no one rushes out and says "wanna buy some carbs mate" Greggs arent drug dealers they are selling perfectly legal and legitimate food items, but what did we eat before they came along? Well breakfast, lunch and dinner thats what, when we filled the car with petrol a 'man' ran out of the garage and did it for us so we didnt have to queue next to a display of chocolate bars and crisps. Oh and crisps lol, when I were a lad lol, it was Smiths potato crisps that came with a little bag of salt, that was it, there were no other flavours, no choice, today you can buy pretty much any flavour you can think of in any shape you can imagine.

So whats the point of this historical rant, well there is now all this stuff available 24 hours a day to tempt us BUT it is still up to us whether we eat it or not. I have been overweight since my late teens as I stated earlier in this thread or another one, not obese, that came later but certainly overweight, and I got to be overweight by eating and drinking too much, I cant blame the food industry because I ate too much, I have no one to blame but myself for eating 3 chocolate bars a day and having twice as much for lunch as I needed. It wasnt till my diabetes diagnosis that I started looking at what I was eating and I was staggered at the amount of rubbish I was stuffing my face with.

We cant turn back the clock to the 1950's or 60's we have moved on, we have to decide what we will eat and if we chose to overeat that is our choice, I think to blame the food industry for obesity is naive, a bit like blaming the automotive industry for the general lack of exercise today, we need to temper convenience with self discipline, I could drive to the local shop or I could leave the car at home and walk or I could eat a whole packet of Jaffa Cakes or I could just have one and put the rest back in the cupboard or better still just buy them for a treat for the kids to have occasionally, cos lets face it, no one needs a Jaffa Cake, ever, do they?

 

[borofergie]

Reading over that last sentence - have I at last found the key to a miserable, overweight life of 40+ years constantly trying to lose weight, and failing. Hating myself. "I can't metabolise carbohydrate properly" ! Nothing else matters.

I wish someone had told me that when I was 15, instead of telling me to eat carbs all the time!

I think that the key is 160g of carb per day.

Since you can't easily metabolise much more than that, as soon as you start turning to alternative pathways you're in trouble. Some people can cope with a slight excess, but those of us that are genetically flawed cannot, and the pounds start piling on.

I just drank a carton of single cream for lunch (with a few starberries). That's 600kcal in fat alone. I can guarantee that I won't put on an ounce in weight.

 

[xyzzy]

Well, as I said, I enjoyed and was informed by the programme.
If nothing else then it has stimulated another interesting discussion on here. Thanks Phoenix for an informed response to my rather naive question - there is clearly much more reading I have to do.

Sid's statement that (and paraphrasing Sid, sorry) - that if I eat more than I use I will get fatter - is a rather loaded statement, because whilst (with the caveats you've all given) it's basically true, it implies that it's my fault if I become obese. In fact this was the argument given by the lady on the programme who defended the US food companies. Even without the suggestion that sugar affects my brain, we are talking about a commodity that we require to live. If food production uses ingredients that damage our health across such a wide spectrum of food types and this is done for profit reasons, then even if the ingredients weren't addictive the practice couldn't be described as moral. Suggesting I don't eat ANY processed food is hardly helpful, since is very difficult (not to mention expensive) not to.

+1 Swimmer

That precisely how I feel. Without ever consciously realising it I chose a high carb low fat diet and I bought into the "low fat is healthy" marketing message just like millions of other people have in this country. The amount of processed sweet things I've eaten in my life is minimal. I've always drank diet versions of drinks, don't particularly like chocolate and cakes etc. but since the 1980's right up to the day of my diagnosis I did "low fat" as I was told it was healthy. It's not until I was diagnosed and had to take an interest in all of this stuff that you suddenly find out what the truth actually is.

When people begin to state what becomes immediately obvious when you do see the facts regarding the dangers of sugar and low fat their advocates then spin a "it's you're own fault you ate to much of the stuff we told you was healthy so nothing to do with us" message. It's a pathetic argument of the lowest form put across by desperate people.

Then to top it all you discover all the problems WERE known about decades ago and that "low fat" was invented just so that the food industry could claim it was healthy and so could maintain its profits after even a pro food industry US Administration told them they needed to ease off the "sugar is fine" message.

I must hand it to "low fat" I have never seen such a brilliant and effective marketing campaign, totally suckered me. Who would have thought being told to remove some obvious sugar in foods could actually lead to increasing their profits. By replacing what they had to take out in obvious sugars by other sugars that they add back in after removing the fat they make many low fat foods have MORE calories than their high fat equivalents. Like I say brilliant marketing but of course absolutely unscrupulous and amoral.

No wonder their advocates want nothing to do with a return to more balanced and normal healthy fat containing diets. It will cost them money.

 

[borofergie]

There is one other thing that was mentioned in last nights program that has until now not been discussed and that was 'snacking' or eating between meals, which is something that was never ever done when I was growing up. And nowadays a whole industry has developed to sell us stuff to eat between meals or to sell us things to eat 'on the go', there is now a Greggs or similar on every high street selling nothing but sandwiches, rolls and pastry items, sausage rolls, pies etc etc. Instead of the Cadbury's chocolate bar that I would get as a treat as a lad, today there are a million different chock bars and sweets that are there to tempt the passing consumer.

I agree completely Sid. The worse thing is that snacks are mostly high-carb and high-fat.

The great thing about low-carb/diabetes is that it more or less precludes you from snacking because, pork scratchings aside, there is almost nothing esle worth eating. I think that's another reason why diets like Atkins help people to lose weight.

Maybe we should be greatful that the food manufacturers haven't cottoned onto the "low-carb" bandwaggon yet, otherwise we too would be tempted with unecessary snacks.

(This fits in with Stephan Guyenet's food reward theory of dieting).

 

[phoenix]

I've mentioned before, there just isn't the temptation to snack when you're out and about here. You can have a coffee but no food and You can get lunch between 12 and 2pm The only exception is Mc Ds, which is right on the edge of town. Apart from the tourists eating ice creams in summer, I don't often see anyone eating in the street either.

 

[borofergie]

Suggesting I don't eat ANY processed food is hardly helpful, since is very difficult (not to mention expensive) not to.

+1 Swimmer

-1 (sorry Swim).

It's called Paleo. You can do it, and it isn't that expensive. In fact in some ways it is less expensive, processed food isn't cheap compared to the raw ingredient. You're paying for the convenience.

Meat and 2 veg is what your Granny probably ate every night for her dinner. There were no ready-meals or microwaves in site back then. People even used to boil their own rice! Can you imagine such a thing....