Is the Obesity Epidemic fact or fiction?

Gummy Panda

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5kx9FrIhJU

--Kaiser--

Sea Filly wrote: »

Your paper actually advocated eating moderate amounts of carbs, balancing the pros against the cons. Did you read it?

Also, what's with insulting people? If you're secure in your point of view, why do that?

That's your interpretation of the it. I definitely couldn't have read that conclusion as an advocation of grain consumption. Obviously, people can live off grains, we've been doing it for years and it has been the reason we have expanded so much as a civilisation. But it is a 'double-edged sword' as these foods are detrimental to one's health in so many ways and have psyiological effects we are only now beginning to understand

Wibbs

Sea Filly wrote: »

The above-linked article says this in the conclusion:

The ecologic, energetic efficiency
wrought by the widespread cultivation and domestication of cereal grains
allowed for the dramatic expansion of worldwide human populations, which
in turn, ultimately led to humanity’s enormous cultural and technological
accomplishments

True, though this was less to do with the quality of the food and more about the quantity and ability to store it. In many cases archaeologist will tell you that you can spot a hunter gatherer compared to a farmer from the same population. The farmer is shorter, lower bone density, less robust with dodgy teeth and likely younger at death. But because there were more of them and specialisation could kick off we got modern civilisation out of the deal.

seamus wrote: »

Calling grains "unhealthy" is meaningless since grains aren't in isolation detrimental to one's health. You can eat them without suffering any ill-effects, therefore they are not unhealthy. Same goes for sugar and fat and salts and ten million other things the media likes to call "unhealthy". Categorising specific foods into "healthy" and "unhealthy" can be unhealthy in itself as it may lead confused individuals to eat nutritionally insufficient diets.

True again, though you'll find few scientists looking at this stuff who won't tell you that added sugar for example if removed from the diet entirely would have a bigger overall effect on health than most other things we consume including tobacco. So added sugar is in fact unhealthy*. Trans fats are unhealthy and implicated in all sorts of diseases and present in many foods.


The fact is - and it is scientifically valid and known for some time - if you want to live noticeably longer and be as healthy as possible for longer then a diet of a very low calorie intake with - and this is the important bit - with high nutrient foods is the way to go. The so called Cron diet. So far it's the only way known so far to extend longevity beyond an animals natural limits. Basically you can get the eqivalent of a 180 year old rat/mouse and the ongoing monkey trial is showing the same results a decade in compared to the controls. Significantly lower oxidative damage, stronger "young" immune systems, better hormone levels etc. Various longevity studies show it works on humans too. 40 year olds a year on such a diet come back with blood work and other age indicative tests of healthy people 10, even 20 years younger. It rejuvenates their bodies at a very low level. There was a Horizon programme on the telly this week about it, but sadly I missed it. I tried it myself once for six months. Defo saw improvements, but I will say it is not easy at all and that's bearing in mind that I've a very small appetite to start with. Intermittent fasting seems t have similar benefits. Like eating normally all week, with no food at the weekends kinda thing. Even if you eat crap during the week it still has an effect apparently.






*interestingly gerontologists have noted that among centenarians their lifestyles can vary quite a bit. Some are skinny, some are slightly overweight(though low defo outnumber normal or high appetites), some exercise, some lay around like sleepy babies, some even smoke like chimneys(officially the oldest person who every lived was a two packs of untipped Gauloises a day for over 70 years. Just a drag of one of them would have me hacking up a kidney), some are teetotalers, some near dipsos and so on. One thing that's almost a rule is that they all seem to have a genetic advantage in two areas; they have low cholesterol regardless of diet but, even moreso they have a very robust insulin/glucose response that doesn't diminish with age. If you're not so blessed genetically then limiting blood sugar levels as much as possible should mimic this.

the lack of education, and more importantly and dangerously the prevalence of mis-education about nutrition in Ireland and much of the "developed world" is a massive issue.

People gulping down "diet drinks", gorging on "low fat cheesecakes", eating 4x standard portion sizes of rice/potatoes with meals etc. The most worrying part is that the information is readily available, the lifestyle change thoroughly manageable, and the differences in life easily visible within short periods of time, and still people are thoroughly brainwashed by poor ideals and beliefs that are simply backwards.

For the person who remarked that people simply don't do enough, consider this.

If I have an excellent, balanced diet, yet eat two potatoes more a day than I probably should, or a Mars Bar, or a Danish pastry, or a large Latte (all approx 250/300kcal ), that's a weekly surplus of approximately 1800kcals, or approximately the energy required for an average person to run half a marathon.
Which is easier for the average person to do, ignore the cravings for sweet ****e, or run 13miles?

We have information about calorie content on every food stuff we eat, we can spend 2 hours one time reading through "how to eat" in places such as Nutritional forums etc and have 85% of the ideals that would create a diet that would be absolutely perfect for our needs, yet instead we see the continued (perhaps enforced) ignorances showing time and time again.

People need to take responsibility for their own health. The basics of eating properly is neither hard to understand, nor hard to make time for, nor needs to be expensive. Yet people choose to ignore that and grow on.

Scanlas The 2nd

Phoenix Park wrote: »

Wander round your local Dunnes/ Tesco/ Wherever. Most families are pushing round a trolley of diabetes. Fluffy white bread, cheap biscuits and fizzy drinks. No wonder kids are so fat, they'll eat what they are given if you start them early enough. Using sugar as a reward is another disaster. Can you imagine the rate of diabetes in Ireland in another 30/40 years time, it will be enormous, all the shhit we eat here. Pensions crisis+ Diabetes Crisis ....

Fruit and veg is expensive though. It goes off quickly too, bars of chocolate and cans of coke last forever (well, almost!). Its tough for families to eat healthily, but that doesn't mean zero effort can be made. The number of primary school boys walking around that are so fat they could do with wearing a bra is unreal :eek:

Its bizarre that its completely normal for every newsagent you walk in to to have so many bars of chocolate and fizzy drinks at the counter...maybe a Fat Tax is needed? Junk food is just so accessible, it almost standard for people to buy a bar and a bottle of coke with their newspaper at this stage.

Money isn't the issue, that's a convenient excuse, the problem is laziness and lack of will power. Any family on a tight budget can heat healthily. Liver costs about 60 cent to feed one person, it's one of the healthiest foods you can eat to name just one example.

Sea Filly

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

But it is a 'double-edged sword' as these foods are detrimental to one's health in so many ways and have psyiological effects we are only now beginning to understand

If consumed excessively. The article talks a lot about deficiencies. These are so rare on this island nowadays that I recall a girl getting scurvy in NI no more than 10 years ago was massive news.

Sea Filly

Wibbs wrote: »

The fact is - and it is scientifically valid and known for some time - if you want to live noticeably longer and be as healthy as possible for longer then a diet of a very low calorie intake with - and this is the important bit - with high nutrient foods is the way to go. The so called Cron diet.

The very low cal thing is far from proven. Which is why research is still ongoing. A search for the Cron diet on PubMed threw up 0 results.

EDIT: Sorry, a handful of papers. Not many though! More work to be done, I'm afraid.

Pumpkinseeds

*Looks at bingo wings and holds head in shame*:(

MistyCheese

This thread has inspired me to check my own BMI.

24.6, phew, just about made it into the "healthy" category. But I don't know my exact height so I may not quite be 8 foot 4...

bb1234567

I'd believe it, there are so many overweight 40's and over its incredible. There are so many its just taken for granted, adults middle aged or older are nearly always overweight,very overweight or obese..so few are in shape, especially women but men arent much better. Altough i think that there are a lot of overweight adults I dont think there are very many fat children,teens, young adults like 20-25. Id say theres definitely no more than 3-5% obesity rate in 20 y/o's and younger. Then I'd say another maybe 10% are just overweight. Then once they get into the 30's and older thats when things go wrong..

boarddotie

If you are interested, please watch this recent 4 part HBO series to see the effects the epidemic is having on the US. They are not just fighting a war in Iraq etc, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pEkCbqN4uo

Ireland may not be there yet but the obesity rates are increaing more rapidly than they did in the US over the last 30 years. Type II diabetes is the key indiactor- it goes hand in hand with obesity but, unlike obesity, has a sound way to diagnose it and track it in both adults and children.

There may not be an epidemic in your particular groups of friends or in your workplace but if you are a minority, are poorly educated, have poor access to health care or all of the above, the epidemic is most certainly alive and spreading (just like a virus).

aligator_am

I'd say it's true, I'm at least 2 stone over weight, and a lot of people I work with would be similar, was on the bus in Dublin recently and noticed that everyone I saw was over weight bar the Eastern European girls (they were good looking, wearing stonewash jeans and weren't lardoes).

It's pure laziness on my part, will always find an excuse not to use the dumbbells or bullworker, and far too many excuses to have a pint, a very bad combo.

Millicent

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Money isn't the issue, that's a convenient excuse, the problem is laziness and lack of will power. Any family on a tight budget can heat healthily. Liver costs about 60 cent to feed one person, it's one of the healthiest foods you can eat to name just one example.

Not necessarily the healthiest -- it can constitute your entire RDA for cholesterol.

Super-Rush

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Christ, what idocy, especially the bit in bold. Obviously you didn't even glance at the paper I posted (it would require a modicum of intellect to peruse, something which you perhaps not posses) so I'll summarise some of the points:

Grains do not provide nutrients (either macro or micro) in the correct ratio to provide a staple of ones diet
They are low in essential fatty acids
They contain phytates which inhibit nutrient absorption (especially minerals and vitamin D)
They contain protease inhibitors which inhibit protein assimilation
The contain alpha-amalase inhibitors which inhibit carbohydrate assimilation
The contain lectins which are gut irritants (amongst other things)
Then there's the gluten issue, the possibilty that grain proteins enter the blood stream intact and mimic opiates annd other neurological chemicals.......

Quit being a dick.

allibastor

its a fat fact. it is a huge drain on the health system and will be.

hauling fat asses like that

Sea Filly

Millicent wrote: »

Not necessarily the healthiest -- it can constitute your entire RDA for cholesterol.

As liver is something I'd just eat the odd time for an iron hit I wouldn't worry about that at all.

Scanlas The 2nd

Millicent wrote: »

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Money isn't the issue, that's a convenient excuse, the problem is laziness and lack of will power. Any family on a tight budget can heat healthily. Liver costs about 60 cent to feed one person, it's one of the healthiest foods you can eat to name just one example.

Not necessarily the healthiest -- it can constitute your entire RDA for cholesterol.

If you eat it every day it could have negative effects, but once or twice a week is extremely beneficial, it's packed full of vitamins and minerals, much more densely than fruit and veg.

It baffles me that people think it is expensive to eat healthily, fruit and veg is cheap, go to a butcher and buy your meat.

Wibbs

Sea Filly wrote: »

The very low cal thing is far from proven.

Calorie restriction promoting longevity in animal models has been known for many decades. Human trials are ongoing and are showing similar benefits. I found the horizon programme on the subject from earlier in the week. Have an oul watch SF. Well worth it.

For a start these people aren't a bunch of hippies engulfed in sage smoke, eating tofu, while getting soya mile enemas, they're actual honest to god scientists. The diffs between one CR subject the same age as the presenter are marked. The CR bloke has faster reactions, significantly better balance and a host of "young" traits. He also has practically speaking a near zero risk of heart disease and stroke. They also mention the group of folks in South America with a very rare genetic condition who deserve a whole programme IMH. It causes among other things dwarfism, but they stand alone in one very unusual way. They pretty much never get cancer. Yep. They can eat crap, get sunburnt, smoke like chimneys but never succumb to a disease that will claim at least one in three(if not more) of the people reading this forum. It seems it's down to a growth hormone called IGF. Their bodies don't produce it or produce it in tiny amounts. Fasting, the CR diet and alternate day fasting lowers this to a significant degree(eating protein pumps it up so watch out Atkins diet folks).

So in the heel of the reel, eating less/intermittent fasting will make you healthier. Do it right and it'll make you significantly healthier than similar aged peers and will likely enable you to live longer and in better health.

Millicent

Millicent wrote: »

Not necessarily the healthiest -- it can constitute your entire RDA for cholesterol.

dietary cholesterol and body cholesterol are very different things.

I eat a high fat diet, I have low body-fat.

I eat high cholesterol (lot of eggs), I have low cholesterol.

This is another one of the "food myths" that people manage to echo as a fact. Again to do with the mis-education of people on nutrition and diet from an early age.

--Kaiser--

Millicent wrote: »

Not necessarily the healthiest -- it can constitute your entire RDA for cholesterol.

Dietary cholesterol has not been shown to significantly impact serum cholesterol levels

Sea Filly

Wibbs wrote: »

Calorie restriction promoting longevity in animal models has been known for many decades. Human trials are ongoing and are showing similar benefits. I found the horizon programme on the subject from earlier in the week. Have an oul watch SF. Well worth it.

For a start these people aren't a bunch of hippies engulfed in sage smoke, eating tofu, while getting soya mile enemas, they're actual honest to god scientists.

Nobody said they were, but just because they are scientists doesn't mean what they are researching will turn out as they thought. As I said, there is VERY little published research out there on the subject. You gave a few examples there, but there would need to be far more examples for it to be significant.

fishy fishy

wilkie2006 wrote: »

Yea, add them to the list so. I think that anything that promotes obesity should be taxed heavily.

and what about the "no added sugar" items, like jams, jellies, fruit drinks - they are also full of "natural" sugars - i think about the equivalent of thirty spoons of sugar in a "no added sugar" jar of jam.

so tell me - how do you decide what is a junk food or not.

Basically, the only non junk foods are the ones you pull out of the ground and eat immediately.

fishy fishy

Sea Filly wrote: »

Oatey homemade muesli with little sugar added would be.

muesli is full of sugar as it is - look at the back of the pack.

fishy fishy

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Nope. All grains are unhealthy

not quite - the more "natural" they are, the better they are for you - the best one being the plain old porridge, with NO added raisins, dried fruit etc.

Wibbs

Sea Filly wrote: »

Nobody said they were, but just because they are scientists doesn't mean what they are researching will turn out as they thought. As I said, there is VERY little published research out there on the subject. You gave a few examples there, but there would need to be far more examples for it to be significant.

Yep there is. It's been known and researched and published for many decades. First in small mammals, followed by an ongoing rhesus monkey study(three links there). Human studies naturally take far longer, but the results so far echo all the previous findings in other mammals including primates.

It's clearly significant and results are testable and repeatable. It's the only known way outside of genitic engineering of extending lifespans beyond the biological average.

fishy fishy

fishy fishy wrote: »

not quite - the more "natural" they are, the better they are for you - the best one being the plain old porridge, with NO added raisins, dried fruit etc.

for what?

As in, better for you for .... ?

Gaining weight? Maintaining weight? Losing weight? Good for your digestive system? Good for your Endocrine system? Good for your energy levels? Easy to break down? Difficult to break down? Low calorie content? High calorie content? Full of vitamins? Protein rich? Fat rich? Carb rich?

There is no "better for you" without a quantifier. A lot of what people eat is in stark contrast to what their body goals require, yet people believe that there are "catch all" foods such as porridge that is "good for all" goals?

But one persons goals are often in complete contradiction to another's. It's not possible to simply say to an entire audience "eat meat Y, eat vegetable X, don't eat product Z"

All that's required though, is 2/3 hours of reading and researching about what types of foods are required for what.

Start here - read through it, ask questions.
result - an understanding of how to fuel your body for whatever you want it to do.

fishy fishy

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Money isn't the issue, that's a convenient excuse, the problem is laziness and lack of will power. Any family on a tight budget can heat healthily. Liver costs about 60 cent to feed one person, it's one of the healthiest foods you can eat to name just one example.

i agree it is the "couldn't be bothered" syndrome - most of the very healthy foods are relatively cheap in comparison to the "quick, convenient, processed" food that people pick up in store

Liver, as you said...mackeral, tuna, fruit and veg, porridge, water - all at rock bottom prices. Only thing is you may have to prepare them yourself - instead of having some company prepare them and put their additives and salt and flavorings in.

Wibbs

fishy fishy wrote: »

not quite - the more "natural" they are, the better they are for you - the best one being the plain old porridge, with NO added raisins, dried fruit etc.

While porridge is a good un in small doses, maybe have a read of his linked paper on the subject of grains. It's worth a look. Grains do contain a number of components hard, even impossible to digest and our bodies over the last 10,000 odd years have raced to keep up with this novel change in our diet. Well... more the increasing reliance on this novel food. We ate grains going back a long way, however it was in much smaller amounts and they were wild grains. The grains we eat today are in the majority of cases highly selectively bred for yield and ease of farming. The wild grains Neandertals and our own species ate 60,000 years ago were a very different kettle of fish to the carb bloated, mineral and vitamin reduced grains we find on our plates today.

bbam

Gee Bag wrote: »

Of course its not true, they just have big bones.

Didn't their mammy say it was their hormones? Or was it just puppy fat? Won't they grow into it ( yea, if they end up eight feet tall!)

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

for what?

As in, better for you for .... ?

Gaining weight? Maintaining weight? Losing weight? Good for your digestive system? Good for your Endocrine system? Good for your energy levels? Easy to break down? Difficult to break down? Low calorie content? High calorie content? Full of vitamins? Protein rich? Fat rich? Carb rich?

There is no "better for you" without a quantifier. A lot of what people eat is in stark contrast to what their body goals require, yet people believe that there are "catch all" foods such as porridge that is "good for all" goals?

+1. What a bodybuilder requires is going to be different to a marathon runner and different to an office worker. Take protein (very basically) the bodybuilder is going to require significantly more than a marathon runner or an office worker and if the IGF-1 connection proves true and it looks very much like it does, if you want to avoid/delay tumour formation you'd be best served by reducing it to barely above min RDA.

Plus we have to consider that humans are more than partly where we are today because we're about as omnivorous as you can get. We're like rats in primate form diet wise. We can survive/thrive on a multitude of foodstuffs and rapidly adapt our DNA to consume novel foodstuffs(the modern human genome has evolved more in the last 10,000 years than in the previous 80,000 and at least half of those changes were in relation to diet).

fishy fishy wrote: »

Liver, as you said...mackeral, tuna, fruit and veg, porridge, water - all at rock bottom prices. Only thing is you may have to prepare them yourself - instead of having some company prepare them and put their additives and salt and flavorings in.

Very true, though even there things like tuna are questionable. Tuna being apex predators are best avoided in anything like daily quantities as by virtue of their ecosystem position they concentrate poisons present in the environment. This whole subject can be an effin minefield.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

So in the heel of the reel, eating less/intermittent fasting will make you healthier. Do it right and it'll make you significantly healthier than similar aged peers and will likely enable you to live longer and in better health.

Yeah but who wants to be fasting regularly, its no life.

People here appear to suggest that eating, what most people consider to be healthy foods is whats making people obese etc. Its nonsense. Its eating rubbish food constantly like take aways, sweets and chocolate and fizzy drinks etc that are doing the damage.

I really laugh when I see people ranting on about how "unhealthy" grains are, they might not give you everything you need but what single food does. Grains are certainly not going to do you any harm and have many benefits. People should be concentrating on foods that are actually unhealthy.

Food also has to be based on what you activity levels are, like carbs for instance. People who are not active need to keep down their carb intake to prevent putting on weight, but heavily active people need carbs for energy. To take an extreme example look at the massive carb intake of some of the Olympic athletes.

fishy fishy

Deleted User wrote: »

for what?

As in, better for you for .... ?

Gaining weight? Maintaining weight? Losing weight? Good for your digestive system? Good for your Endocrine system? Good for your energy levels? Easy to break down? Difficult to break down? Low calorie content? High calorie content? Full of vitamins? Protein rich? Fat rich? Carb rich?

There is no "better for you" without a quantifier. A lot of what people eat is in stark contrast to what their body goals require, yet people believe that there are "catch all" foods such as porridge that is "good for all" goals?

But one persons goals are often in complete contradiction to another's. It's not possible to simply say to an entire audience "eat meat Y, eat vegetable X, don't eat product Z"

All that's required though, is 2/3 hours of reading and researching about what types of foods are required for what.

Start here - read through it, ask questions.
result - an understanding of how to fuel your body for whatever you want it to do.

have a nice bowl of porridge in the morning time and you will feel full until lunch - you won't need one of those "energy bars" to fill you up - also porridge releases its energy SLOWLY making sure that you won't go on a big sugar high from eating it and then crashing down and feeling crap - as you would do with a high sugar breakfast.

its an overall good food - has been around way before all these "fat free" cereals have been discovered, way before all these modern "rules" have come into play, and will still be a fantastic stable years after the others have lost their place on the shelves.

Forget the nonsense and get sensible - get back to healthy natural foods.
Overall its a good healthy option for EVERYBODY.

fishy fishy

fishy fishy wrote: »

have a nice bowl of porridge in the morning time and you will feel full until lunch - you won't need one of those "energy bars" to fill you up - also porridge releases its energy SLOWLY making sure that you won't go on a big sugar high from eating it and then crashing down and feeling crap - as you would do with a high sugar breakfast.

its an overall good food - has been around way before all these "fat free" cereals have been discovered, and will still be a fantastic stable years after the others have lost their place on the shelves.

Overall its a good healthy option for EVERYBODY.

My celiac friend disagrees, as does my friend with IBS. In fact, I personally would steer clear of it too.

I agree that it's certainly preferable to a processed cereal breakfast (for most people) as I can't think of many/any types of people who need sugar in such quantities.

Breakfast choices are not simply "what goes in a bowl" though.

LC2010HIS

On Operation Transformation ,PE as a compulsory exam subject - the fitness test - for extra points is a good idea!
I know that people shouldn't have to be rewarded for being healthy and normal weight/fitness but it would be a kickstart

LC2010HIS

LC2010HIS wrote: »

On Operation Transformation ,PE as a compulsory exam subject - the fitness test - for extra points is a good idea!
I know that people shouldn't have to be rewarded for being healthy and normal weight/fitness but it would be a kickstart

As before, diet is far more relevant to a person's size and health than fitness.

It's far far easier to eat yourself skinny / healthy than it is to out-train a bad diet.

One snack a day over your BMR amounts to requiring approximately a half marathon worth of exertion done per week to balance it.

(Obviously combining a healthy diet and exercising correctly makes a massive difference, but it's important to note that the more difficult part of "fixing" ones lifestyle if it is an unhealthy one is the training regime, and not what the person consumes)

Wibbs

Uriah Bald Waterfall wrote: »

Yeah but who wants to be fasting regularly, its no life.

Oh no way would I do the daily calorie restriction. Tried it once and while there were benefits, there were also losses. Libido went south for a start. Fcuk that. Or rather I didn't want to fcuk that. Psychologically it as a pain in the bottom too. All too easy for people to get obsessive about it. On the other hand the intermittent version is a whole other ballgame and actually calming.

People here appear to suggest that eating, what most people consider to be healthy foods is whats making people obese etc. Its nonsense. Its eating rubbish food constantly like take aways, sweets and chocolate and fizzy drinks etc that are doing the damage.

Nope, afraid not it's the amount of food you eat, not the type. You can lose weight if all you eat are Maccy D takeaways and you can gain weight on healthy foods. One of the heaviest people I know eats about the healthiest diet I know too. She has the whole food pyramid down pat. Eats no processed food, plenty of fruit and veg and healthy fats and proteins, she just eats far too much of it.

I really laugh when I see people ranting on about how "unhealthy" grains are, they might not give you everything you need but what single food does. Grains are certainly not going to do you any harm and have many benefits. People should be concentrating on foods that are actually unhealthy.

Seriously go back through the thread and actually read Kaisers link. Of course grains aren't some poisonous food item(unless you're allergic), but they're also not the sun kissed healthy foodstuff Kellogs commercials would have you believe.

Food also has to be based on what you activity levels are, like carbs for instance. People who are not active need to keep down their carb intake to prevent putting on weight, but heavily active people need carbs for energy. To take an extreme example look at the massive carb intake of some of the Olympic athletes.

True. Like I said earlier looking at professional cyclists who would have about the highest continuous output of athletes out there, will chow down on 5000 calories a day and a lot of that are carbs, yet you won't have to go far to find office workers sitting on their bum all day necking 3000 calories a day and then wonder why they can't see their willy anymore.

seamus

Uriah Bald Waterfall wrote: »

Yeah but who wants to be fasting regularly, its no life.

I don't entirely understand that tbh. But maybe because not eating for hours on end isn't that big a deal for me. Back in my college days, when I ate far too much, conversely I would also go quite long periods without eating anything. Probably have the last thing to eat around 10pm, then into college late, rushing into a lecture and eating nothing till 12pm or maybe later. Another ten hours without eating, and that's 24 hours. And aside from the hunger I wouldn't have had a bad day. I never did it, because "not eating" wasn't in my vocabulary back then

While I can acknowledge the existence of hunger, I can ignore it. I know other people can't, they have to eat when they get hungry.
I'm considering giving the intermittent fasting thing a go, but it's quite difficult unless you can arrange to have a relatively solitary life for a couple of days. If you're arranging to meet people, or simply going home to your family, we structure our days around eating which makes it hard to interact with people if you're not eating.

But intermittent fasting = no life? Don't really get that.

--Kaiser--

Uriah Bald Waterfall wrote: »

Yeah but who wants to be fasting regularly, its no life.

People here appear to suggest that eating, what most people consider to be healthy foods is whats making people obese etc. Its nonsense. Its eating rubbish food constantly like take aways, sweets and chocolate and fizzy drinks etc that are doing the damage.

I really laugh when I see people ranting on about how "unhealthy" grains are, they might not give you everything you need but what single food does. Grains are certainly not going to do you any harm and have many benefits. People should be concentrating on foods that are actually unhealthy.

Food also has to be based on what you activity levels are, like carbs for instance. People who are not active need to keep down their carb intake to prevent putting on weight, but heavily active people need carbs for energy. To take an extreme example look at the massive carb intake of some of the Olympic athletes.

I regularly fast, it's pretty easy when you get used to it.

And again you've completely ignored the scientific evidence I have provided asserting that grains are not healthy. They provide nothing you can't get from meat, vegetables, fruit and eggs, none of which have the antinutrients that grains contain

LC2010HIS

Deleted User wrote: »

As before, diet is far more relevant to a person's size and health than fitness.

It's far far easier to eat yourself skinny / healthy than it is to out-train a bad diet.

One snack a day over your BMR amounts to requiring approximately a half marathon worth of exertion done per week to balance it.

(Obviously combining a healthy diet and exercising correctly makes a massive difference, but it's important to note that the more difficult part of "fixing" ones lifestyle if it is an unhealthy one is the training regime, and not what the person consumes)

Completely agree. But in regards to fitness, I think that would be a great idea to tackle fitness levels.
PE in schools should really put an emphasis on healthy eating and diet too...But I guess that's highlighted in Home Ec?

Dunno about PE in schools right now but I remember PE was all running around for 30 minutes.. You always had the majority of girls on sidelines cause of parents writing notes with excuses every week. Looking back, it was a disgrace!

Anyway - Just saw a mention of Fat Tax - I agree with that. Sweets and crisps etc are not a right they are a "luxury" from time to time!
Everything in moderation but when people are eating chocolate and crisps EVERY DAY - somethings wrong

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope, afraid not it's the amount of food you eat, not the type. You can lose weight if all you eat are Maccy D takeaways and you can gain weight on healthy foods. One of the heaviest people I know eats about the healthiest diet I know too. She has the whole food pyramid down pat. Eats no processed food, plenty of fruit and veg and healthy fats and proteins, she just eats far too much of it.

I don't disagree with this however, eating poor food like mcd's would be a much bigger problem. Its also easier for a person who already eats a healthy diet to reduce the amount than for a person on a poor diet to change to a healthy diet.

seamus wrote: »

But intermittent fasting = no life? Don't really get that.

I cant function when I'm hungry, especially when I'm working on things that require high levels of concentration. If I know I will be working late I will bring dinner with me and eat it in the evening at work otherwise I will get nothing done.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I regularly fast, it's pretty easy when you get used to it.

And again you've completely ignored the scientific evidence I have provided asserting that grains are not healthy. They provide nothing you can't get from meat, vegetables, fruit and eggs, none of which have the antinutrients that grains contain

You might be able to get the same thing from others but its nice to have a mix of stuff in your diet. I also find cereal keeps me going until lunch better than any of the above would unless the above were eaten in big quantities.

Also, I probably eat too much meat as it (including a cooked breakfast every sat and sun) so wouldn't want to eat it for breakfast during the week. Veg I eat with dinner and frankly if I ate any more of it than I do then I would get very sick of it. Fruit I have with lunch and in the evening and sometimes with breakfast too but I like something more substantial in the morning and eggs I eat a lot of eggs at weekends with my cooked breakfasts so try not to eat them during the week, I also eat breakfast in work at my desk so cooking eggs isn't practical.

fishy fishy

Deleted User wrote: »

My celiac friend disagrees, as does my friend with IBS. In fact, I personally would steer clear of it too.

I agree that it's certainly preferable to a processed cereal breakfast (for most people) as I can't think of many/any types of people who need sugar in such quantities.

Breakfast choices are not simply "what goes in a bowl" though.

emmet, sorry, I can understand celiacs not having it. but in general the majority of people have no problems with eating what they want - and porridge is one of the best things they can have in the morning. If people were to be reading all the nonsense that is written about diets and what is good for what these days they would give up with all the confusion.

keep it simple, natural, unprocessed and keep the portions to ONE portion - which is roughly 25 - 20 grams of anything and you will be fine.

fishy fishy

Wibbs wrote: »

+1. What a bodybuilder requires is going to be different to a marathon runner and different to an office worker. Take protein (very basically) the bodybuilder is going to require significantly more than a marathon runner or an office worker and if the IGF-1 connection proves true and it looks very much like it does, if you want to avoid/delay tumour formation you'd be best served by reducing it to barely above min RDA.

Plus we have to consider that humans are more than partly where we are today because we're about as omnivorous as you can get. We're like rats in primate form diet wise. We can survive/thrive on a multitude of foodstuffs and rapidly adapt our DNA to consume novel foodstuffs(the modern human genome has evolved more in the last 10,000 years than in the previous 80,000 and at least half of those changes were in relation to diet).

Very true, though even there things like tuna are questionable. Tuna being apex predators are best avoided in anything like daily quantities as by virtue of their ecosystem position they concentrate poisons present in the environment. This whole subject can be an effin minefield.

lol wibbs - you would be the typical example of why people would give up on trying to eat healthy - you have a negative for everything. I hope you don't teach classes on it.

Im not talking about bodybuilders, marathon runners or any other "fanatics" (said in a good way).

I'm just talking about the regular joe soap on the street who is trying to be good, by eating low fat this and that, unaware of the content of sugar is involved.

fishy fishy

fishy fishy wrote: »

emmet, sorry, I can understand celiacs not having it. but in general the majority of people have no problems with eating what they want - and porridge is one of the best things they can have in the morning. If people were to be reading all the nonsense that is written about diets and what is good for what these days they would give up with all the confusion.

keep it simple, natural, unprocessed and keep the portions to ONE portion - which is roughly 25 - 20 grams of anything and you will be fine.

best thing for what?

You've still yet to answer that.

wrt the underlined, the Nutrition101 thread in the Nutrition and Diet forum would take anybody no more than 2/3 hours to read through, analyze and question. Is that too much to spend, one time ever, on your health? If it is confusing, ask a question.

Ignorance is only an excuse if answers are not readily available.

fishy fishy

Deleted User wrote: »

best thing for what?

You've still yet to answer that.

wrt the underlined, the Nutrition101 thread in the Nutrition and Diet forum would take anybody no more than 2/3 hours to read through, analyze and question. Is that too much to spend, one time ever, on your health? If it is confusing, ask a question.

Ignorance is only an excuse if answers are not readily available.

i actually answered it above, maybe not in the "I know everything" sort of way, more in a simple common sense way, which eating is.....people have been doing it for centuries you know - it's a simple process

keep it simple, natural and in portion - leave out the processed sh*te. and you will be doing grand.

Some people like to turn things in to brain surgery.

Monty Burnz

LCD wrote: »

Everything you read or see on TV these days tells us world is in the middle of an obesity epidemic, read somewhere 60% of Irish overweight. Then is all these programmes saying cause is not too much fat is too much sugar. Yet half the country seesm to be doing a 5km run or triathlon every weekend.

Question is, is it actually happening? I came across a local secondary mag the other day & flicking through the class photos (6years, 4 classes of +/-30 per year) was a few fat kids but something similar to my day. Looking round the place yet plenty of people with a bit of meat on the bones, but very few obese I reckon. When it come to US every since I was a kid, 30+ years ago you always heard that Americans tended to be fatter.

So is it real??

Spend a year in Japan or South America and then come back to Ireland. You'll be astonished by how fat Irish people (and especially women) actually are on average. The obesity epidemic is real. I could do with shedding a stone myself.

Monty Burnz

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Spend a year in Japan or South America and then come back to Ireland. You'll be astonished by how fat Irish people (and especially women) actually are on average. The obesity epidemic is real. I could do with shedding a stone myself.

Japan is an unfair comparison as they have a much smaller body structure than Europeans. Most normal, healthy Europeans would be borderline obese by Japanese standards. I think anything over waist size 30 triggers an employer to have to pay the employee "fat fine" over there.

fishy fishy

fishy fishy wrote: »

i actually answered it above, maybe not in the "I know everything" sort of way, more in a simple common sense way, which eating is.....people have been doing it for centuries you know - it's a simple process

keep it simple, natural and in portion - leave out the processed sh*te. and you will be doing grand.

Some people like to turn things in to brain surgery.

so it's good for ... what?

What you've said is

it has no sugar - this is good (I agree)
It releases energy slowly - relative to cereals correct, relative to other food sources, not so much

It also is lacking in any protein or fat content worth talking about though.

With respect to the slow release energy you'd be far better off having a protein laden, fat rich breakfast of a similar calorie content.
(2 egg ommellete with ham, cheese and some peppers) or (scrambled eggs with two slices of bacon) or (greek yoghurt with avocado and blueberries)
These would also have a very small sugar content but have far more macro and micro nutrients that the average person would require.

I'm not getting into an "anti-porridge" argument with you, because yes, it is better than processed cereals as it has less sugar than them. If you can do nothing but have a bowl of X for breakfast, then porridge is far better than most of the junk sold in boxes with cartoon characters on it.

But just because chickenpox is less dangerous than German Measles doesn't mean that we should all embrace it as a "healthy state for a body to be in".

Monty Burnz

Uriah Bald Waterfall wrote: »

Japan is an unfair comparison as they have a much smaller body structure than Europeans. Most normal, healthy Europeans would be borderline obese by Japanese standards. I think anything over waist size 30 triggers an employer to have to pay the employee "fat fine" over there.

I don't think that's true. The 'small Japanese' stereotype is a hangover from a time when their diet included very small amounts of protein by Western standards. Since WW2, their diet has changed and I'd imagine that the average size of Japanese people under 20 would compare closely enough to the average size of Irish people under 20.

fishy fishy

Deleted User wrote: »

so it's good for ... what?

What you've said is

it has no sugar - this is good (I agree)
It releases energy slowly - relative to cereals correct, relative to other food sources, not so much

It also is lacking in any protein or fat content worth talking about though.

With respect to the slow release energy you'd be far better off having a protein laden, fat rich breakfast of a similar calorie content.
(2 egg ommellete with ham, cheese and some peppers) or (scrambled eggs with two slices of bacon) or (greek yoghurt with avocado and blueberries)
These would also have a very small sugar content but have far more macro and micro nutrients that the average person would require.

I'm not getting into an "anti-porridge" argument with you, because yes, it is better than processed cereals as it has less sugar than them. If you can do nothing but have a bowl of X for breakfast, then porridge is far better than most of the junk sold in boxes with cartoon characters on it.

But just because chickenpox is less dangerous than German Measles doesn't mean that we should all embrace it as a "healthy state for a body to be in".

good for you.
I;ll stick to my porridge tho - you can stick to your fat cholesterol laden eggs and cheese.

fishy fishy

fishy fishy wrote: »

good for you.
I;ll stick to my porridge tho - you can stick to your fat cholesterol laden eggs and cheese.

and as I've explained before, and has been addressed in the Nutrition101 thread which I've asked you to read, eating fat, and eating cholesterol do not have a significant effect on a body's cholesterol or fat content.

Cholesterol content in the body is a function of overall diet and exercise.
Fat content in the body is a function of overall diet and exercise.

I'm very easily able to keep both my fat and cholesterol levels very low while consuming approximately 45% of my calories from fat, and eating 15+ eggs per week.

Again, the Food myths perpetuate.