What do you think is the reason for our high rate of obesity?

Amtmann

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

If anything obese people lose tonnes of weight quickly when they go on a diet (ever seen the biggest loser?) but the problem is that once the weight loss is done, they are left with cells that still function like an obese cell, the cell is depleted of fat, and when a cell is depleted of fat it releases hormones that upregulate appetite (very simply speaking) so an obese person will always have an appetite of person much larger, even if they lost all the weight.

Interesting. Are you referring to obese people who lose their weight very quickly? What about obese people who lose weight at a sustainable pace and accompany their weight loss with lots of cardio (whereas before they might have been sedentary), and maintain that cardio and a healthy caloric intake after they have reached their desired weight? Would not their cells then have readjusted and now function normally?

El_Dangeroso

Tremelo wrote: »

Interesting. Are you referring to obese people who lose their weight very quickly? What about obese people who lose weight at a sustainable pace and accompany their weight loss with lots of cardio (whereas before they might have been sedentary), and maintain that cardio and a healthy caloric intake after they have reached their desired weight? Would not their cells then have readjusted and now function normally?

AFAIK there's little to no difference, in fact people who lose weight faster may actually have an easier time maintaining, counterintuitive I know.

El_Dangeroso

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Poster this on the sugar thread in politics.


I think a possible (if radical) way of reducing overweight/obesity would be to offer a % tax refund(or bonus if on the dole/student/low earner) for people who can squat/deadlift their own weight for 8 reps. Free/reduced health insurance too

If you are a healthy bodyweight this can easily be achieved after a few weeks of resistance training. The amount being lifted could be tweaked for women and people over 55. Studies could be done first to determine what would be a good/fair weight to use.

If it worked and people took part to save money there could be savings made on drug costs for type 2 diabetics/heart problem related drugs. Plus a lot of freed up hospital beds/frontline medical staff. Though I accept that long term it may not be cost effective because people would end up living longer. Though it may also allow people to retire later too.

State gyms would have to be set up for people who can't afford it of course. Though these places could double as testing centres. You'd register and then be told - ''at some point in the coming year you will have to come in and lift the weight with perfect form under supervision of a fitness instructor''

That plan is rife with issues tbh, will the government pay for all the physio that are going to need from injuries? Even highly trained athletes and well-seasoned lifters get injured when practicing good form, lawsuits a gogo!

Never mind being a bureaucratic nightmare to administrate, something our government has not proved itself on.:)

My solution? Tax the shit out of junk food. Treat it like cigarettes. In the 1950's everyone smoked, it was acceptable to, in fact you were a pariah if you didn't. Fast-forward 50 years and now more people are non-smokers, you'll always get a few smokers but the trend is definitely on the way down. How did we achieve this?

Taxation
Ban advertising (Especially to children)
Keep the product behind the counter so it must be requested. No POS advertising, even in the shops.

If we keep relying on the willpower of the people we'll be as fat as the US in 40 years or so.

I'm libertarian at heart so the idea of introducing nanny legislation like this galls me. But drastic measures need to be taken to protect the public from hyper-palatable addictive nutritionally defunct food.

El_Dangeroso

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056148368&highlight=sugar

Good Jaysus, that thread is messy, glad I didn't spot it :pac:

Inspector Coptoor

Some people would be more genetically predisposed to putting on weight than others. There is lots of talk about proof of a 'fat gene' but at a very basic level, the reason for the upsurge in obesity is the handy lifestyles people have now, not only compared to the 1950s but to early man aswell.
Think about it, early man had to hunt food, fetch water, gather firewood all the while expending calories.
50 years ago, while people didn't have to hunt for food or fetch water, most still had to carry fuel into the house, walk to the corner shop a lot as fridges weren't that common and carry out chores in a much more work intensive manner.
People used to call around to each others houses a lot more and sometimes that could have been a couple of miles away.

21st century man/woman does very few of any of these activities. he/she lives in a world of convenience. Light, heat, water, communication, entertainment, food, all at the flick of a switch and drop of a hat.

We are not meant to be sedentary, it doesn't suit us as a race. Human evolution has pretty much come to a screeching halt.
Bad genes are being passed on all the time as there is no such thing as survival of the fittest any more due to to the development of society and the "all men are created equal" train of thought which I don't want to go into.

Essentially. Humans are predisposed to put on weight in the form of adipose stores in the same way people save money for 'a rainy day', ie, when it's needed. The problem in the 21st century is there isn't ever going to be a rainy day for some obese/oversight people.

People can claim genetics have a role in this all they want but there's only so much nature involved. Nurture has a huge role to play and if our genetics loads the gun of obesity, then our environment pulls the trigger resulting in so many obese phenotypes when we look around us.

One question people need to ask themselves is this:
Do we eat to live or live to eat?

Amtmann

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

AFAIK there's little to no difference, in fact people who lose weight faster may actually have an easier time maintaining, counterintuitive I know.

This doesn't really sound believable to me to be honest. In a lifetime of say 75 years, if you become obese for 1 of those years (say in your 26th), that one year short circuits your metabolism for the rest of your life?

El_Dangeroso

Tremelo wrote: »

This doesn't really sound believable to me to be honest. In a lifetime of say 75 years, if you become obese for 1 of those years (say in your 26th), that one year short circuits your metabolism for the rest of your life?

Going from normal BMI to clinically obese within one year doesn't sound believable to me. Is there an example of a person like this?

Amtmann

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Going from normal BMI to clinically obese within one year doesn't sound believable to me. Is there an example of a person like this?

I'm sure there are, but this would be very uncommon.

I'm referring mainly to people who go from normal BMI to overweight to obese within, say, two years BUT who are then only obese for one year in total, before returning to a healthy BMI.

So:

Healthy BMI --- overweight BMI --- obese BMI --- overweight BMI ---healthy BMI,

all within 3 years, with a healthy BMI maintained thereafter. You did say in your previous post that the notion of permanently damaged metabolism occurs to people only once they had become obese (at least that's how I read what you wrote); but surely, over the course of a 75-year lifetime, a 3-year fluctuation (during which the example is only obese for 1 year) will not permanently damage one's metabolism?

Isn't the body more adaptive than that?

pecker1992

im shocked at the amount of people that are downing carbs...they should be the staple of ones diet......yeah its true if you over indulge its going to make you put on weight.....but i can damn sure guarantee over indulging in high fat foods is 100 times worse..eat a balanced diet..carbs veg meats dairy and stay away from high fat processed foods such as pizzas, sausages, steak & kidney pies and worst of all chipper food and chinese....just cook good food like chicken and fish plenty of good carbs ( brown rice,brown pasta,brown bread, weetabix/all bran) and thats all there is to not being obese..forget this nonsense of low carbing etc

El_Duderino 09

Hi guys

Speaking form personal experience I am a fairly normal guy, kind of an endo-mesomorph. I could be butchering the terms but I put on weight fairly easily when I eat too much and build muscle fairly easily when I exercise.

I have spent about 2 years trying to figure out what foods suit me and what doesn't. Not too scientifically but trial and error. I think the traditional 3 meals a day model doesn't suit me. 4 or 5 smaller meals where I don't allow myself to get really hungry in between seems to be the way for me. I cook almost everything i eat, and don't eat after the last meal of the day usually around 5.30-7. Spuds just seem to make me more hungry funny enough.

In short for me its eat little and often. I imagine what suits will change over time as the body ages.

Irish attitude to food is really poor. The other day cooked i Cooked a meal including rice with a cinnamon stick and kidney beans cooked in veg stock and served it to someone who said 'I hate them yolks' referring to the kidney beans 'I haven't tried them but I hate them'. Grrr

Irish mantra for cooking 'stick it in the pot and boil, keep boiling until meat is crumbly and veg are soggy. cover in bisto and serve'

El_Dangeroso

Tremelo wrote: »

I'm sure there are, but this would be very uncommon.

I'm referring mainly to people who go from normal BMI to overweight to obese within, say, two years BUT who are then only obese for one year in total, before returning to a healthy BMI.

So:

Healthy BMI --- overweight BMI --- obese BMI --- overweight BMI ---healthy BMI,

all within 3 years, with a healthy BMI maintained thereafter. You did say in your previous post that the notion of permanently damaged metabolism occurs to people only once they had become obese (at least that's how I read what you wrote); but surely, over the course of a 75-year lifetime, a 3-year fluctuation (during which the example is only obese for 1 year) will not permanently damage one's metabolism?

Isn't the body more adaptive than that?

I don't know about your particular example, it would be an interesting experiment though, any volunteers?:pac:

In any case, I do think if you reach a state of clinical obesity with high levels of visceral fat you have the odds stacked against you of ever maintaining a healthy weight again for the long term. I'm not saying some people don't achieve it, but I am saying some people will have the appetite of a fat person for the rest of their lives. Even on interventions like low carb diets that cause medium term appetite suppression -or equally increasing protein- this effect wears off over time. Depressing thought, but there's no point ignoring reality.

rubadub

metamorphosis wrote: »

say you have 3 lattes a day @ 500mls, your talking 200+ cals if you are using semi skimmed milk per latte. I can easily have 3 a day, thats easily 6-700 cals and id sometimes forget it as counting towards food intake.

Those are big lattes, I would have up to 4 cappucinos a day, I make them myself and put about 100ml in each one, remember the frothing can double the volume of the original milk (a latte will not be doubled though). Its the biscuits & muffins that are the bigger danger for most, just like "beer bellies" which are made in the chipper after the pub.

In our "physical education" class we had no education at all about the physicality of human beings, most of my mates have no idea about nutrition, calories, metabolism etc, even the more sporty ones. I would have the same complaints about the mathematics curriculum, most of my mates would not have a clue about how to calculate mortgages, interest, currency in a different country or very simple maths like scaling up a recipe.

In work I get people commenting on me eating almost a full small chicken, yet their calorie intake in the same sitting could be twice mine! I have seen others convinced they were "dieting" and eating healthily, but eating almost 1000kcal in a sitting, convinced it is a light lunch. One guy only eats "one sandwich", which consist of over 1/2 a vienna roll and rake of sausages.

Bottle_of_Smoke

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

That plan is rife with issues tbh, will the government pay for all the physio that are going to need from injuries? Even highly trained athletes and well-seasoned lifters get injured when practicing good form, lawsuits a gogo!

Potentially a problem. Can you sue a gym if you injure yourself? Outside of law suits the savings made on obesity related problems would easily pay for physios for the low earners and unemployed anyway

Never mind being a bureaucratic nightmare to administrate, something our government has not proved itself on.:)

True - but not impossible. Could start with state gyms for low earners and unemployed - that's a good idea in itself. Then build toward a system of testing.

My solution? Tax the shit out of junk food. Treat it like cigarettes. In the 1950's everyone smoked, it was acceptable to, in fact you were a pariah if you didn't. Fast-forward 50 years and now more people are non-smokers, you'll always get a few smokers but the trend is definitely on the way down. How did we achieve this?

Ban advertising (Especially to children)
Keep the product behind the counter so it must be requested. No POS advertising, even in the shops.

If we keep relying on the willpower of the people we'll be as fat as the US in 40 years or so.

I'm libertarian at heart so the idea of introducing nanny legislation like this galls me. But drastic measures need to be taken to protect the public from hyper-palatable addictive nutritionally defunct food.

I think these suggestions are good too but I'm not sure how you'd go about legally defining junk food. I'm genuinely all ears though if you have an outline about how to go about that.

I think a major stumbling block to any solution is the pharmaceuticals though. They are so powerful and stand to lose so much if obesity was to be reduced.

Bottle_of_Smoke

pecker1992 wrote: »

im shocked at the amount of people that are downing carbs...they should be the staple of ones diet......yeah its true if you over indulge its going to make you put on weight.....but i can damn sure guarantee over indulging in high fat foods is 100 times worse..eat a balanced diet..carbs veg meats dairy and stay away from high fat processed foods such as pizzas, sausages, steak & kidney pies and worst of all chipper food and chinese....just cook good food like chicken and fish plenty of good carbs ( brown rice,brown pasta,brown bread, weetabix/all bran) and thats all there is to not being obese..forget this nonsense of low carbing etc

That's fine but they are not the carbs people eat. ie white bread/pasta/potatoes/white rice/pizza/chips

People should also have smaller helpings of carbs. Particularly if they need to lose weight. I'm the opposite - trying to gain muscle so I'm eating loads of carbs.

--Kaiser--

pecker1992 wrote: »

im shocked at the amount of people that are downing carbs...they should be the staple of ones diet......yeah its true if you over indulge its going to make you put on weight.....but i can damn sure guarantee over indulging in high fat foods is 100 times worse..eat a balanced diet..carbs veg meats dairy and stay away from high fat processed foods such as pizzas, sausages, steak & kidney pies and worst of all chipper food and chinese....just cook good food like chicken and fish plenty of good carbs ( brown rice,brown pasta,brown bread, weetabix/all bran) and thats all there is to not being obese..forget this nonsense of low carbing etc

LOL. Carbs are the only one of the 3 macro-nutrients (fat, protein, carbs) which are completely non-essential, yet they should be the staple of the diet?

It's very hard to over indulge in high fat foods as fat makes you feel more full. That means actual high fat foods (not like pizza/chips/chinese which is actual high carb food).

The good carbs you list are all made from grains, which are chock-full of of anti-nutrients (phytates, lectins, protease inhibitors) before we even get on to gluten. Maybe you should do some homework and come back.

El_Dangeroso

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Potentially a problem. Can you sue a gym if you injure yourself? Outside of law suits the savings made on obesity related problems would easily pay for physios for the low earners and unemployed anyway

If it was a government mandated program, there would be lawsuits I'd wager.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think these suggestions are good too but I'm not sure how you'd go about legally defining junk food. I'm genuinely all ears though if you have an outline about how to go about that.

I think a major stumbling block to any solution is the pharmaceuticals though. They are so powerful and stand to lose so much if obesity was to be reduced.

That is an issue, lots of gray areas, for example is Subway junkfood? I would say yes, but I do take your point, I do think there's low hanging fruit that could be targeted first, softdrinks, chips, burgers, pretty much anything deep fried. I think everyone would agree on them being not very nutritious.

I used to be a big believer in 'big pharma is out to get us' but not really, they'll just try and make money by coming up with drugs they think will sell. What you really have to be wary of is big agriculture. They really have a lot to lose and have a huge level of influence on government dietary policy. 10 serving of complex carbs a day on the food pyramid is no accident. They benefit from massive subsidies on grain crops. Did you ever see Food inc.?

metamorphosis

Guess im just greedy when i have a latte - i always go for the big

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Did you ever see Food inc.?

Great watch, highly recommend it for anyone to see. I am also not a fan of agriculture, but it's run by money, so the cycle will continue on a large scale basis.


Mod note: While I love this forum for great debate and how we like to back our facts up by science, there are sometimes replies by a poster with quite a 'smart arse' vibe to it. Less of it please. It's not a place to show and tell your smart arsery (yes, i'm aware this is not a word) please. / Mod note

seamus

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

In any case, I do think if you reach a state of clinical obesity with high levels of visceral fat you have the odds stacked against you of ever maintaining a healthy weight again for the long term. I'm not saying some people don't achieve it, but I am saying some people will have the appetite of a fat person for the rest of their lives.

I don't think the problem is so much appetite (i.e. feeling hungry). The stomach is a flexible bag, so given enough time eating smaller portions, the stomach will contract and consequently feel full quicker. Likewise, an extended period eating large portions will cause your stomach to stretch and allow you to eat larger meals without feeling as full.

This is the how those obese people you see on TV eat the equivalent of 3 enormous meals which would cause the rest of us to puke and how my wife complains of being "stuffed" when she's eaten about half the food I would eat before I feel stuffed.

The problem is primarily that people who are obese have developed an addiction to food. There's a reason why we overeat, and it's not because we're hungry. If we only ate because we physically felt hungry, obesity probably wouldn't be half the problem. It's an addiction, a habit. Constant grazing on food is the equivalent of a smoker popping out for a cigarette every 30 minutes. It's partially because it provides pleasing chemicals and sensations and partially because it's a habit.
People like "Motivation" claim that there's an underlying mental illness which causes overeating, but I disagree for the majority of people. Like smoking, eating causes pleasant sensations and chemical releases in the brain, and we can get addicted to these.

The reason why it's so hard for an habitual overeater to stay within normal boundaries is because they can't quit cold turkey. A smoker can give up, stop altogether. But if you asked all smokers to stop smoking except that they must have 3 cigarettes per day, you'll find that the quitting rates would be abysmal. It requires constant self-checking, constant vigilance because the habit can form again gradually over time. You don't find yourself suddenly overeating again. It's an extra bun here, a piece of chocolate there, a side order with your dinner every now and again, before it becomes constant extra bits here and there and a side order with every meal.

I would be suspect of the statement that the number of clinically obese people who lose the weight for more than 5 years is negligible. My suspicion is that very few of the people who manage this, actually report it. If someone has been officially admitted to a hospital or program, then they have a serious problem.

Interestingly, I would expect the success rates in official programs to be abysmal. Studies have shown that the rate of relapse for alcoholics in official programs like AA is extremely high. Rates of relapse for alcoholics who quit without a support group are far lower, which suggests that someone can only beat their addiction if they're doing it off their own bat. You can't be coerced into doing it, you have to do it yourself.

So I would see no reason why the same wouldn't apply to obesity. Those who need hospitalisation or to be "forced" into weight-control programs, aren't taking control themselves. Those who do it without the coercion aren't going to report their success.

I was clinically obese at my heaviest, BMI 34. I've not been at 25 or under (yet), but I've been closer to 25 than 30 for the last six years and I know for a fact that even if I live to be 200, I won't be going down that path again.

Timothy Bryce

I could be way off the mark here but I think our drinking culture has an awful lot to do with the obesity pandemic. Take for example the following scenario which I’m sure is fairly common in this country….Friday night on the sauce could very well look like this….

8 Pints in the pub – c. 2000 calories
Dinner in the pub – c. 1000 calories
2-3 Jaegerbombs in coppers – c. 800 calories
Garlic cheese chips on the way home – c. 700 calories (maybe more?)

c. 5500 over the course of an evening….and I think I’m being fairly conservative here!

Maybe the next day you go for a McD’s to sort out the hangover - add another 1500 calories. I believe that if you’re indulging in a heavy night on the booze once per week, you have the potential to be hitting 10,000 calories over the course of 24 hours from your first drink. Obvious knock-on effects of not being able to exercise for a day or two due to hangover….

Even if you’re calorie neutral for the remainder of the week you’ll obviously start piling on the pounds. Personally I think this has a lot to do with why obesity is a big problem in Ireland. I’ve changed my drinking habits drastically over the last 2 months (limiting myself to 5 pints, healthy meal before I go out, no drunk food) and have lost just under a stone.

I believe that this is not the sole cause of the problem and that portion sizes / proliferation of processed foods etc. all play a part too.

Just my 2c.

metamorphosis

rubadub wrote: »

In our "physical education" class we had no education at all about the physicality of human beings, most of my mates have no idea about nutrition, calories, metabolism etc, even the more sporty ones. I would have the same complaints about the mathematics curriculum, most of my mates would not have a clue about how to calculate mortgages, interest, currency in a different country or very simple maths like scaling up a recipe.

.

This is another great point I think. My P.E experience in school was so horrific that if it were raining on the way to school, I would drop my gear in a puddle so I could tell the teacher that it got wet so I could sit it out!

It was a scenario of throw a ball at kids, no education regarding anything at all.

At the moment, I am up with Fas kids talking to them about nutrition and anatomy and physiology. I knew that they would know nothing about anatomy but I was really shocked at how little they knew about nutririon. Some of them never heard of a calorie and these are 16, 17 and 18 year olds. Some thought things like red bull couldn't make you fat.

I still think diet is the biggest of all culprit but it's like a jigsaw puzzle for the remainder of why we are so obese. Diet imho takes up most of the prices and then the last few pieces constitute other reasons ie lack of education, inactivity etc etc

El_Dangeroso

seamus wrote: »

I don't think the problem is so much appetite (i.e. feeling hungry). The stomach is a flexible bag, so given enough time eating smaller portions, the stomach will contract and consequently feel full quicker. Likewise, an extended period eating large portions will cause your stomach to stretch and allow you to eat larger meals without feeling as full.

Stomach size is a factor, but only because a full stomach releases a hormonal cascade that sends the 'stop eating!' signal to the brain. But what if that stop eating signal doesn't make it to the brain because of inflammation in the hypothalamus as is common in a lot of obese people? Even if the stomach contracts, as in lap band surgery, the long term weight loss is similar to other weight loss methods. Appetite does rule all unfortunately.

Edited to add, check this out, follow up data from people undergoing Gastric Bypass surgery (a really serious last resort operation with serious implications for health long term)



At 5 years, the average weight loss still fell short by 30% of targeted weight loss. You can't get more extreme than gastric bypass.

Re: Addiction, I don't think you can be addicted to food per se, junk food yes, but freshly prepared wholefoods, doubtful.

In any case I do believe every mental condition has a physiological unpinning. We know this from psychiatric disorders, the brain chemistry doesn't work as it should.

Well done on the weight loss. Even if you never make it down below the magic number 25 you've still done your health a big favour. Come back here in five years and prove me wrong would you? I do actually want to be wrong about this, but so far the data is supporting my position at least in more than 99% of cases.

tHE vAGGABOND

I will just do a general post here, as I could be here all day responsing to specific points folks have made, and they are nasty with the internet at work, so i don't have time! The core point is that I have lost over 5 stone in 7 or 8 months. I was over 20 stone, Im in the late 14's.

As someone who was a bloke over 20 stone my problems were a result of: [in no order]

1) I know my concept of a portion size was insane, my portions were far too big [no one tells blokes these things!].
2) I ate *far* too much suger [processed and unprocessed] and far too many carbs [via processed food, fast food and every other way you can get it!]
3) I spent too much time on my ass, in front of TV or computer [read: 99% of my waking hours!!]

Correcting those 3 things were 3 of the 4 things which has lead me to loose so much weight [the forth is a popular nutritional supplement type company, and we are not allowed plug such companies]

tHE vAGGABOND

re: BMI

I wont go into the whole BMI thing. But suffice to say that Im with the large body of people who think that BMI is utter rubbish.

For many people with big frames, hitting the BMI of 25 and below would have them as skin and bone, which is why many medical professionals are talking that 27.5 is just fine.

The same argument is said for the lower numbers for short, or petite people, where BMI may have them as underweight, when they may be fine.

Its a general, one size fits all, guideline, where one size does not always fit all

El_Dangeroso

I think people would agree with you there on BMI VB. BMI was never meant to be used as an individual diagnostic tool and I think anyone can tell by looking at themselves whether the categorisation applies to them personally. As I mentioned before I'd be reluctant to categorise everyone with a BMI of 30 as clinically obese, a lot of them aren't, they're just quite overweight.

Well done on the weight loss, you have much more to lose?

alibaba12

From my own experience growing up (which were only talking about 15-20 years ago) my folks didnt have much money so we had basic but nutrious food put in front of us. Consisted of breakfast (cornflakes) - lunch a sandwich but the was generally white bread - dinner usually contained at least 2 veggies, meat or fish portion & potatoes or rice - only treat we ever got was on a friday it was a bar, packet of crips & a glass of lemonade. None of us were ever overweight.

With the so called "boom" in the economy ppl had a lot more disposable income so can now afford to get a takeaway, go to fast food places. Also then we have an explosion in processed foods & takeaways not just the chippie. Only thing I ever remember as processed as a kid was fish fingers. ppl are eating bigger portions than ever. There wasnt really a lot of overweight kids growing up but now there seems to be a lot. Also I agree a lot of it has to do with not getting enough exercise. During summer time we would be outside from morning to night, even in winter you wouldnt be able to get us in. Now all kids want to do is play playstation or what not.

There is a petition on the operation transformation FB page to get calories displayed in food places, some food places are already doing this.

padraig_f

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

My solution? Tax the shit out of junk food. Treat it like cigarettes. In the 1950's everyone smoked, it was acceptable to, in fact you were a pariah if you didn't. Fast-forward 50 years and now more people are non-smokers, you'll always get a few smokers but the trend is definitely on the way down. How did we achieve this?

Taxation
Ban advertising (Especially to children)
Keep the product behind the counter so it must be requested. No POS advertising, even in the shops.

I think this is a good idea. I was struck by it when paying for petrol the other day. The whole front wall of the shop was laid out with 50 different types of sweets, all in bright colours. I'm an adult who's health conscious and I found the effect very powerful, for a kid with little appreciation for healthy eating (as most I imagine most are), it must be overpowering.

pecker1992

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

LOL. Carbs are the only one of the 3 macro-nutrients (fat, protein, carbs) which are completely non-essential, yet they should be the staple of the diet?

It's very hard to over indulge in high fat foods as fat makes you feel more full. That means actual high fat foods (not like pizza/chips/chinese which is actual high carb food).

The good carbs you list are all made from grains, which are chock-full of of anti-nutrients (phytates, lectins, protease inhibitors) before we even get on to gluten. Maybe you should do some homework and come back.

show me where the proof is that carbs are non essential.........i dropped 2.5 stone about 2 years ago... im fit as a fiddle have a 6 pack etc and never cut carbs..just switched to some low fat alternatives and 1 top little secret i use.......also i stay away from bad food like sausages takeaways etc..id challenge anyone to debate with me that a high fat low carb diet is healthier that a high carb low fat..... its nonsense...ever look at the food pyramid man??...now unless your gonna argue with me that top nutritionists are wrong in which case im not even gonna respond because it clearly shows wholegrain & carbs as a staple with 6+ servings a day....so i suggest not only do you do your homework but go look at the basics & whats best:)......a well balanced diet which hits all sections on the food pyramid accordingly......also some pizzas are up to 14.5g of fat per quarter....making it 58g per pizza...thats almost a days intake..id consider that high...and my family owned a chinese for 10 years and i used too cook in the kitchen..i know how high fat they are..and believe me the amount of fat in Chinese is far more worrying than the carbs

stephendevlin

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Food inc.?

Watched it last week . .SHOCKING. Theres another one out too about nutrition. FOOD MATTERS. Very interesting show! Reccommended watch.

I will be consuming suppliements from the health food shop every week now.

fatmammycat

I think you'll find the original food pyramid is not approved by many health experts these days. Certainly I would not follow it. Here you go.


http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2009/06/whats-wrong-with-our-current-food-pyramid.html

http://www.rense.com/general12/wrong.htm

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/research/pyramid.htm

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Food-Pyramid-is-Wrong-For-Fat-Loss&id=1438562

Lornen

- Portion sizes go over so many people's heads.
I remember this picture helped me out when I was a little bleary eyed at the concept, but it's dead handy and a good way to explain to kids and teens.
http://trishahealthylifestyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/portion-control.jpg

Also, junk food is turning out to be a damn sight cheaper in super markets than fruit and veg. The amount of B.O.G.O.F biscuits and crisps in Tesco is unnatural. Especially on the processed frozen foods.