Send fat people to slimming classes

jimgoose

Rather than dreaming up endless new ways of slapping ordinary people around, I suggest the powers-that-be dream up a couple of ways to stop asshole food producers stuffing things full of sugar and labelling the result "low-fat", thus creating a whole generation of obese people with Type 2 diabetes who can't figure out why they're like that.

Daith

bumper234 wrote: »

Ahhh i see

So you have probably never walked down Moore street in Dublin.

Yes I have :rolleyes:

I tend not to mimic people though...

But do you judge peoples eating habits as a former fat person?

bumper234

Daith wrote: »

Yes I have :rolleyes:

I tend not to mimic people though...

But do you judge peoples eating habits as a former fat person?

So taking the piss out of the dealers accents as a light hearted attempt at humour offends you?

Why would i judge someones eating habits?

Tarzana

runawaybishop wrote: »

Whats wrong with high fat or high carb? If i need to complete my macros for the day why the fook should i be penalised for people that have no self control?

High fat can be good, except if it's trans fat sh1t which is what is contained in a lot of junk food. High carb, simple carbohydrates in high amounts are absolutely worthless. Hells, we tend to overeat the complex kind too.

runawaybishop wrote: »

Heres a better idea, add tax to a product on the fly based on how overweight that person is.

No, because just you're thin doesn't mean you're healthy. If you eat a lot of junk food, you're probably not, no matter what size you are.

Tarzana

Daith wrote: »

Yes it is.

OK then.

You have your view and you won't be swayed from it and I'm not going to hang around here all evening trying to do that. I gave you an idea of what junk food means. It's not my job to convince you. There a whole world of information out there.

I will say this though: NOBODY requires sugar in their diet, not a single person. A little bit is fine, but it's in no way a requirement. So, nobody has differing requirements on that. We *all* don't need it. We want it though. Clearly.

Tarzana

runawaybishop wrote: »

you can overeat and get fat on pretty much anything.

Pretty hard to do it with broccoli though. :pac:

Tarzana

jimgoose wrote: »

Rather than dreaming up endless new ways of slapping ordinary people around, I suggest the powers-that-be dream up a couple of ways to stop asshole food producers stuffing things full of sugar and labelling the result "low-fat", thus creating a whole generation of obese people with Type 2 diabetes who can't figure out why they're like that.

Now this would be good.

But sadly we live in a world where the US classed pizza as a vegetable a few years so that it could still be served in schools. I hate food industry lobbyists. THAT'S who Bill Hicks should have ranted about...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/18/pizza-vegetable-congress-says-so

runawaybishop

Tarzana wrote: »

High fat can be good, except if it's trans fat sh1t which is what is contained in a lot of junk food. High carb, simple carbohydrates in high amounts are absolutely worthless. Hells, we tend to overeat the complex kind too.



No, because just you're thin doesn't mean you're healthy. If you eat a lot of junk food, you're probably not, no matter what size you are.

High simple carbs are absolute fine, as is high fat or low fat if you choose. Isolating meals like that is just crap, it doesnt take into account peoples overall comsumption.

Junk food is a very loose definition, i can easily fit a McDs into my intake and still remain lean. Why should i be taxed on that?

I think it just comes down to
1) a blanket tax will be unfair on some.
2) excess food makes you fat, not "junk" foods.

Tarzana wrote: »

Pretty hard to do it with broccoli though. :pac:

Yup, I'd do it just to shut someone up though :pac:

Tarzana

runawaybishop wrote: »

High simple carbs are absolute fine

In tiny amounts.

The best metric for deciding if something is junk food is its nutritional value. Junk food is a highly palatable nutritional desert.

Excess foods make you fat. You'll get there quicker with junk food than anything else though. Much quicker. Not just because of its calorific content, but because as said above, it's hyper-palatable, it's designed that way.

everlast75

2 simple steps...

1) education of kids whilst in school with regards to what is in food and what effects it has - will benefit the future

2) reduce portion sizes - will benefit immediately

runawaybishop

Tarzana wrote: »

In tiny amounts.

The best metric for deciding if something is junk food is its nutritional value. Junk food is a highly palatable nutritional desert.

Excess foods make you fat. You'll get there quicker with junk food than anything else though. Much quicker. Not just because of its calorific content, but because as said above, it's hyper-palatable, it's designed that way.

Simple carbs are not junk though and have their place in a huge variety of diets.

Say you define junk as > 90% simple carbs. Companies will just reduce the content to 89% to avoid the tax. You aren't addressing the root issue which is that people are eating too much.

Tarzana

runawaybishop wrote: »

Simplecarbs are not junk though

They have no nutritional value and you can get energy elsewhere, so they are surplus to requirements.

runawaybishop wrote: »

Say you define junk as > 90% simple carbs. Companies will just reduce the content to 89% to avoid the tax. You aren't addressing the root issue which is that people are eating too much.

Oh, I agree, food companies will get around it. They're feckers. But it's like a quick fix that might work in conjunction with longer term measures.

Overheal

Considering physical fitness issues are often preventable, and they are being treated by an NHS, then I feel like their qualification to receive NHS care may depend on their willingness to maintain satisfactory progress in personal responsibility, no?

I mean as a college student I can get cash from the government to learn, but not only do I have to pay that **** back eventually, but they also measure SAP - satisfactory academic progress. If you don't meet the SAP requirement youre flagged as a waster ie. moocher and kicked off the funding.

periodictable

Tarzana wrote: »

Good point. It's all fine and well to be self-righteous about it but, well, the problem isn't going away! So, it would be better to figure out why it's happening. I do love when people of a healthy weight bang on about discipline, as if being overweight is the only way lack of self-discipline manifests itself. :pac: It's the most visible way though, and people loooove to feel superior so it's an easy target.

Go into any supermarket and observe what many people are putting into their trolley.
Processed food, high sugar content, snacks, confectionery, soft drinks, alcohol and more alcohol. Often the kids are chunky like the parents.
I know enough of people who had weight issues finally get a grip, significantly reduce their calorie input, exercise a little more, and to their amazement the pounds melt away.
Personally, I go through a phase of lucozade and 5-6 chocolate bars/day, and hey presto, my belt won't close. Time to cut the crap food, methinks and the waist size is back to normal.
No need for studies or excuses. You're fat because you eat incorrectly. Time to take a little personal responsibility and stop looking for someone to blame.

Tarzana

periodictable wrote: »

Go into any supermarket and observe what many people are putting into their trolley.
Processed food, high sugar content, snacks, confectionery, soft drinks, alcohol and more alcohol. Often the kids are chunky like the parents.
I know enough of people who had weight issues finally get a grip, significantly reduce their calorie input, exercise a little more, and to their amazement the pounds melt away.
Personally, I go through a phase of lucozade and 5-6 chocolate bars/day, and hey presto, my belt won't close. Time to cut the crap food, methinks and the waist size is back to normal.
No need for studies or excuses. You're fat because you eat incorrectly. Time to take a little personal responsibility and stop looking for someone to blame.

Whoosh. Completely missing the point. And neatly illustrating the thrust of my post too.

There's no denying lack of discipline is an issue with most overweight people. However lack of discipline does not just manifest in overeating.

periodictable

Tarzana wrote: »

There's no denying lack of discipline is an issue with most overweight people. However lack of discipline does not just manifest in overeating.

We're talking about overeating, nothing else.
One overeats, one gets fat, and a host of other problems. Whether or not one's mother hugged one less in childhood is beside the point. One is fat because one overeats.
Solution? Cut back on your calorie intake and exercise.
Or get a gastric band. Don't expect me to pay for your over indulgence.
Now, I had a large coke and two starbars an hour ago, so I'm off on the bike for some exercise.

biko

bumper234 wrote: »

I have now dropped from 225lbs to 195lbs

How many stone is that?

Amalgam

This might be of interest to some here, broadcast this week, Tuesday 27th..

Amusingly, a person on the show, poo-poo-ing criticism of a certain soft drink, is challenged, with rather delicious timing, by Sean Seán O'Rourke, about being an 'adviser for Nestlé'..

---

RTÉ Radio 1 - Today with Seán O'Rourke
The Great Sugar Debate - 27 May 2014 13:00

http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2014/0527/20140527_rteradio1-seanorourke-thegreatsu_c20586285_20586293_232_.mp3

(links directly to the Podcast .mp3 - Right click > Save Link As...)

..or, browse the Podcast listings for: Today with Sean O'Rourke

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/podcast/podcast_seanorourke.xml

---

'Slimming' is a grotty word/way to approach obesity, because just losing weight, without exercise, is accepting you've finished a puzzle properly, with a few painfully obvious pieces missing.

The problem is in your head.. and the feedback you get from empowering yourself through a better physique, better stamina, better endurance, may feed back into, and cancel out, anxiety issues, which may be at the root of compulsive eating.

bumper234

biko wrote: »

How many stone is that?

2 stone 2 lbs

end of the road

periodictable wrote: »

Stop them gorging themselves and make em walk 10 miles a day.

troll harder, to obvious

periodictable wrote: »

A refusal means no NHS treatment.

yeah, great idea, works so well, oh wait, so what do you do with them then if your not going to treat them because your so self righteous? where we stop at refusing treatment? disabled? those who become injoured? rethink

Renegade Mechanic

At some stage, obesity is going to have to be tackled hard line. We simply wont be able to afford or maintain the health system that will be required to cater for the explosion in health problems in the next 20 or so years. Its hardly fit for purpose as is! There will come a point whereby the freedom to choose your diet will be overshadowed by the burden you put on everything else but, most importantly, yourself. Ambulances in America are literally having to be modified and in some cases, specialised completely for chronically obese patients. Thats obviously not us but we are on that road. Taxing junk food is as ridiculous as taxing fags. Thats not about caring about public health, thats just about raising revenue. Its extremely far right to suggest but the OP has a point. Mabye not "round up the fatties and see who dies in boot camp". But I think something like having a health book given to overweight people, stamped each week to show they are actively participating in fitness courses/diet classes and those that refuse should perhaps pay more for the universally social charge that theyll be statistically much more likely to need to avail of.

runawaybishop

Tarzana wrote: »

They have no nutritional value and you can get energy elsewhere, so they are surplus to requirements.

Absolutely not the case. Fruit and milk are simple carbs and are fine to eat.

Overconsumption is the issue, not simple carbs.

Amalgam

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

At some stage, obesity is going to have to be tackled hard line.

I think you'll have to deal with it inderectly. The food lobby will slow things down to a crawl, for years to come.. yet, the likes of taxing people by weight for flight travel is a very direct and visible, yet, not easily sidelined (*your* weight costs *us* extra fuel/money) way of dealing with it. Do that across the social spectrum, for areas where extra weight is a cost issue, then people will begin to think about their health.

You need to make it 'costly' to be obese, and in many ways, that's not the case at the moment, quite the opposite.

Jawgap

swimming in a sea wrote: »

Never been fat a day in my life, just know that is not black and white.

Dunnes know that will get fat people to buy the multi-pack, so are they deliberately profiting of fat people?

It's not 'fat' people they are targeting - it's people who lack impulse control.

jimgoose wrote: »

Rather than dreaming up endless new ways of slapping ordinary people around, I suggest the powers-that-be dream up a couple of ways to stop asshole food producers stuffing things full of sugar and labelling the result "low-fat", thus creating a whole generation of obese people with Type 2 diabetes who can't figure out why they're like that.

Suppliers respond to the market - if people stopped buying the crap food manufacturers would quickly stop making it.

Btw- it's not fat or sugar that's the problem - it's fat AND sugar. Plenty of studies show that products that contain high levels of sugar and fat in near equal proportions screw up the bio-feedback systems in the body that tell us we're full.

periodictable

end of the road wrote: »

troll harder, to obvious



yeah, great idea, works so well, oh wait, so what do you do with them then if your not going to treat them because your so self righteous? where we stop at refusing treatment? disabled? those who become injured? rethink

becoming obese is a choice-being disabled or getting injured is not..
as for the charge of trolling...accept someone's viewpoint...I'm not touchy-feely nor do I think a group hug or singing Kumbya will solve the issue.
If you're fat look in the mirror and you'll see whose fault it is...I didn't make you fat.

bumper234

periodictable wrote: »

becoming obese is a choice-being disabled or getting injured is not..
as for the charge of trolling...accept someone's viewpoint...I'm not touchy-feely nor do I think a group hug or singing Kumbya will solve the issue.
If you're fat look in the mirror and you'll see whose fault it is...I didn't make you fat.

Not always.

periodictable

bumper234 wrote: »

Not always.

I take it that this thread excludes people who have weight issues due to medical treatment/issues. Any objective person can see that's not what I'm talking about.

periodictable

Vito Corleone wrote: »

What about people who gain weight because of medication they're on. I've gone up a stone (to 11 stone) in about 6 months due to meds.

There are too many variables.

That's not what this thread is about!
It's about people who make a conscious choice to overeat and then wonder whether to make the choice of either going up a clothes size or to eas properly.
When I think of people with little or nothing to eat, and the gluttony that some people indulge in, I wonder.

ash23

periodictable wrote: »

That's not what this thread is about!
It's about people who make a conscious choice to overeat and then wonder whether to make the choice of either going up a clothes size or to eas properly.
When I think of people with little or nothing to eat, and the gluttony that some people indulge in, I wonder.

How can you tell whether a person is overweight because of what you deem "acceptable" reasons and deem unacceptable.

If someone suffered years of abuse and has food issues is that "acceptable" to you?

You judge fat people based on how they look. You can't tell what the underlying reason is for that fat. It could be illness, medication, emotional problems, lack of education or a myriad of other reasons.

bumper234

ash23 wrote: »

How can you tell whether a person is overweight because of what you deem "acceptable" reasons and deem unacceptable.

If someone suffered years of abuse and has food issues is that "acceptable" to you?

You judge fat people based on how they look. You can't tell what the underlying reason is for that fat. It could be illness, medication, emotional problems, lack of education or a myriad of other reasons.

Knew a girl years ago who used to self harm, Ended up in therapy and seemed to come out of it ok. The cutting stopped but then her weight ballooned. Her Mother likened her eating so much to another form of self harm.

corner of hells

alchemist33 wrote: »

Pay them to lose weight. Seriously.

So if I put on a freight load of weight , I willed be paid to lose it ?

Put on weight .
Lose weight, collect earnings .
Put on weight .
Lose it collect earnings .

As above.

Rinse and repeat , as many times as you like .

corner of hells

bumper234 wrote: »

Knew a girl years ago who used to self harm, Ended up in therapy and seemed to come out of it ok. The cutting stopped but then her weight ballooned. Her Mother likened her eating so much to another form of self harm.

And her mother discussed this with you ?

djflawless

I know I'm in for a bashing here but sure feck it this a lubberly morning!

There is waaaaaay too many variables there to make this plan go into action, its just going to backfire

If obese people were simply asked if they wanted to lose weight, get all the ones that agree, and give them some kind of monetary bonus for doing so?
Say tenner a pound???
Probably be cheaper in the long run than constant medical expenses to the tax payer

And for those who say their just big boned, "aye I can see your fcuking belly and arse bone from here" (billy connelly, I'll get my coat......)

bumper234

corner of hells wrote: »

And her mother discussed this with you ?

Seeing as i knew the mother since i was 3 years old and i was in my 30's when she said this......yes. This is not just some random stranger i am talking about

Michael D Not Higgins

corner of hells wrote: »

So if I put on a freight load of weight , I willed be paid to lose it ?

Put on weight .
Lose weight, collect earnings .
Put on weight .
Lose it collect earnings .

As above.

Rinse and repeat , as many times as you like .

Depends how much money they would pay out. It could cost more to buy all the food necessary to put the weight on than what you get to lose it.

Seriously though it's a terrible idea which could be open to abuse as you suggest.

The one other way it could be tackled is that if they do bring in this Dutch health model that overweight people will need to pay a premium until they lose some weight.

Fran1985

desertcircus wrote: »

Either or both work. My diet is deeply problematic, but I've lost fifteen kilos in a year and am still dropping. If you burn more calories than you eat, you'll lose weight (there are all sorts of variations in terms of what exercise to do, the ratio of proteins, carbs and fat and so forth, but the basic rule stands).

if you ate the right food and sat and home doing no exercise you'd loose weight. If you did exercise and celebrated by having a microwave dinner followed by a bag of malteasers, chances are you'd loose no weight.

runawaybishop

A lot of people go out and do cardio to burn off the calories they are eating during they day. Rather than spending time chasing their own tails they should eat less or lift weights to retain muscle and drop fat.

swimming in a sea

runawaybishop wrote: »

A lot of people go out and do cardio to burn off the calories they are eating during they day. Rather than spending time chasing their own tails they should eat less or lift weights to retain muscle and drop fat.

"You can't out train a bad diet" seems obvious but it is amazing how many people can't accept this.

The people that go for an hours walk Monday to Friday then have the wine\beer and takeaway food at the weekend and honestly can't figure out why the scales are not moving when they jump on them on a Monday morning.

periodictable

ash23 wrote: »

How can you tell whether a person is overweight because of what you deem "acceptable" reasons and deem unacceptable.

If someone suffered years of abuse and has food issues is that "acceptable" to you?

You judge fat people based on how they look. You can't tell what the underlying reason is for that fat. It could be illness, medication, emotional problems, lack of education or a myriad of other reasons.

Read my posts!
I'm talking about people who overeat, not people with medical conditions which make them fat!
Some of you people are so easily offended!
I think it's a fair statement to say there were no fat people in Auschwitz, apart from the SS.

ash23

periodictable wrote: »

Read my posts!
I'm talking about people who overeat, not people with medical conditions which make them fat!
Some of you people are so easily offended!
I think it's a fair statement to say there were no fat people in Auschwitz, apart from the SS.

I have read your posts. They speak about people who overeat in a very general way. You think bad diet and overeating is something easily resolved. You say

periodictable wrote: »

Go into any supermarket and observe what many people are putting into their trolley.
Processed food, high sugar content, snacks, confectionery, soft drinks, alcohol and more alcohol. Often the kids are chunky like the parents.
I know enough of people who had weight issues finally get a grip, significantly reduce their calorie input, exercise a little more, and to their amazement the pounds melt away.
Personally, I go through a phase of lucozade and 5-6 chocolate bars/day, and hey presto, my belt won't close. Time to cut the crap food, methinks and the waist size is back to normal.
No need for studies or excuses. You're fat because you eat incorrectly. Time to take a little personal responsibility and stop looking for someone to blame.

You make zero allowances for the varied and many reasons that people overeat. So maybe you should read your own posts and think about your attitude towards obese people rather than looking into their shopping trolleys and making assumptions about them.

You've no clue what one person has going on and why they overeat so to simply say "just stop eating too much" is too simplistic and not addresses the various reasons that people overeat.

It's akin to saying to an anorexic "just eat". If only it were that simple.

Jawgap

If somebody suffers from a genuine disorder that impacts on their eating habits then yes, they should be treated properly and appropriately rather than simply packed off to 'not eat' or take more exercise.

If you read the NICE document you'll see that the initiative is not aimed at such people, or people who are over-weight.

It's aimed at people who - for no other reason - make a bad or poor lifestyle choices then expect the the public health system to 'bail' them out with a (horrendously expensive) medical intervention when them taking some (not even total) responsibility for their health could avoid the problem in the first place - thus saving them and their family the pain of their illness, and leaving society with more money to spend on those in genuine medical need.

RDM_83 again

swimming in a sea wrote: »

"You can't out train a bad diet" seems obvious but it is amazing how many people can't accept this.

The people that go for an hours walk Monday to Friday then have the wine\beer and takeaway food at the weekend and honestly can't figure out why the scales are not moving when they jump on them on a Monday morning.

It annoys me that exercise seems to be always dismissed when considering weight loss and its all focused on diet.
Now it depends what you mean by bad but I started doing fieldwork last year which involved me living away from home a lot, which obviously resulted in my diet getting worse, yet I lost over a stone (and I wasn;t terrible when I started with a BMI of about 26), later in the year I spent a month living in country B & B's and I was eating a massive fry every single morning and the weight stayed stable.

An hours jogging (or other exercise on alternate days) a day will burn about 500-600 calories a day combine that with a change of diet to something healthy but not restrictive and its pretty easy to build up a 1000 calorie a day deficit. That will loose you a stone in around 2 months.

IK09

Watched a show called "i used to be fat" on MTV yesterday. I hate reality TV, but figured I might pick up some tips. I'm not "fat", but at 74kg, 177cm and 23.4% body fat i wanted to make a change.

I have no strict diet, i eat what i want basically but i work my ass off in the gym. I watched this girl on TV workout 4 hours a day for 4weeks to get from 225lb to 209lb. 4 hours a day, 6 days a week for a month. Only to lose 16lbs. Her diet made shít of any exercising effort she had made, and she wasn't willing to give up her comfort foods. Over 3 months she was down to 195lbs. What a monumental waste of time.

Imagine what she could have achieved if she stopped eating junk. We are a nation obsessed with "mouth pleasure". Its the way we were brought up. We are conditioned to get pleasure through something we eat, not something we do. As children we were bribed with sweets to behave correctly. A program for how to live a healthy life needs to be drawn up and implemented through our school system. PE gets 1 hr a week in school, and you run around a hall with no objective(im not blaming teachers, i used to be a teacher). But if we are to address the issue, there needs to be a line.

I draw that line at 18 years old. No one above 18 should be forced to exercise nor should the State be forced to intervene in the persons life because of their weight. If you are reading this and saying "I need help im over 18, thats discrimination", get off your ass and do it yourself, you are an adult, you do know better, it is a decision. I will change or I will stay the same. Make the decision and stick to it. It will be harder than anything you have ever done, so try not to do it alone, find a gym buddy or get a trainer. The internet has everything you need to know about how to lose weight. If something doesn't work for you, try something else, do not just give up.

As for the children, I am trying to educate my nephew on how to eat healthy and exercise. His mother is over weight and does not exercise, so he is not going to learn about good nutrition or exercise from her. He is not going to learn about it in school because there is no system. The issue is that we have no foundation to build upon when we become adults. There is nothing there to develop, we have no knowledge or experience of nutrition or exercise. Outside school sports do a great job at getting children active and fit, but again the common line is "10 push ups", not "this is how you do a push up...now do 10 of them". The clubs are their for the people who want to use them. The education system needs to be put in place so that you don't have a choice but to exercise and learn about what good nutrition is. A common example of the level of school input into healthy eating is banning fizzy drinks in school but allowing high sugar alternatives. Just because something is not fizzy doesn't mean it is healthy.

Mobility and stretching is something that should be in playschool, why not have some yoga classes? (that was just a thought i have no experience of yoga, but i have the impression that there is flexibility and stretching involved). Body weight exercises also. TRX in playschools would go down a treat with the children, they would love it, you could link exercise with learning how to count.

SirCreepalot

Hermy wrote: »

No, because diet is the key to losing weight - not exercise.

This is correct.

I have extreme social anxiety and because I work from home, I almost never leave the house unless it's absolutely necessary.

When I first started working from home, I gained about 2 stone in around 10 weeks. When I decided to do something about it, it took me about 3 months of eating 1 meal a day plus dessert for the weight to come off. I made sure not go over a daily average of 1300 calories about 400 of which came from chocolate as I am also a certified chocoholic. I now maintain at about 1600 and the most exercise I do is walk around my house.

Point? Exercise is beneficial but not necessary for weight loss.

Temptamperu

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Junk food tax. It'll generate money for the country rather than increase spending.

But when the people are fit there will be less spent on healthcare. Way more revenue than a suger/fat tax

Michael D Not Higgins

SirCreepalot wrote: »

This is correct.

I have extreme social anxiety and because I work from home, I almost never leave the house unless it's absolutely necessary.

When I first started working from home, I gained about 2 stone in around 10 weeks. When I decided to do something about it, it took me about 3 months of eating 1 meal a day plus dessert for the weight to come off. I made sure not go over a daily average of 1300 calories about 400 of which came from chocolate as I am also a certified chocoholic. I now maintain at about 1600 and the most exercise I do is walk around my house.

Point? Exercise is beneficial but not necessary for weight loss.

What's your base metabolic rate? 1600 calories would be below most people's calorie requirements.

ash23

SirCreepalot wrote: »

This is correct.

I have extreme social anxiety and because I work from home, I almost never leave the house unless it's absolutely necessary.

When I first started working from home, I gained about 2 stone in around 10 weeks. When I decided to do something about it, it took me about 3 months of eating 1 meal a day plus dessert for the weight to come off. I made sure not go over a daily average of 1300 calories about 400 of which came from chocolate as I am also a certified chocoholic. I now maintain at about 1600 and the most exercise I do is walk around my house.

Point? Exercise is beneficial but not necessary for weight loss.

Just because it works doesn't make it healthy though! I mean, what's the point in advocating eating one meal a day? It's probably as bad for you as being overweight.

runawaybishop

RDM_83 again wrote: »

It annoys me that exercise seems to be always dismissed when considering weight loss and its all focused on diet.
Now it depends what you mean by bad but I started doing fieldwork last year which involved me living away from home a lot, which obviously resulted in my diet getting worse, yet I lost over a stone (and I wasn;t terrible when I started with a BMI of about 26), later in the year I spent a month living in country B & B's and I was eating a massive fry every single morning and the weight stayed stable.

An hours jogging (or other exercise on alternate days) a day will burn about 500-600 calories a day combine that with a change of diet to something healthy but not restrictive and its pretty easy to build up a 1000 calorie a day deficit. That will loose you a stone in around 2 months.

Weight loss is 80% diet, thats why the focus on it. An hours jogging is not 600 calories for the average person. Its far easier to not eat a snickers than it is to run for 2 miles. Cardio sucks for fat loss anyway.

Fran1985

SirCreepalot wrote: »

This is correct.

I have extreme social anxiety and because I work from home, I almost never leave the house unless it's absolutely necessary.

When I first started working from home, I gained about 2 stone in around 10 weeks. When I decided to do something about it, it took me about 3 months of eating 1 meal a day plus dessert for the weight to come off. I made sure not go over a daily average of 1300 calories about 400 of which came from chocolate as I am also a certified chocoholic. I now maintain at about 1600 and the most exercise I do is walk around my house.

Point? Exercise is beneficial but not necessary for weight loss.

problem here was you were eating one meal a day. Your metabolism slowed down because the body was storing fat knowing it wouldn't get another feed for 24 hours. Eat a healthy breakfast (porridge or a couple of eggs) lunch (1 or 2 chicken fillets (season them by all means) with brocolli and or brown rice) and dinner (chicken fillets, turkey burgers, fish, the odd steak with plenty of veg) you'll find you'll actually lose weight quicker because the food is clean and your metabolism, no matter your age, will speed up again. Also drink 2 ltrs of water a day. The only problem with all of the above is that it's not a patch on a bar of chocolate and, at first, a lot of effort to cook each time, but if you're worried about weight try it. I've seen people losing a couple of stone in about 5-6 weeks of that.

runawaybishop

Fran1985 wrote: »

problem here was you were eating one meal a day. Your metabolism slowed down because the body was storing fat knowing it wouldn't get another feed for 24 hours. Eat a healthy breakfast (porridge or a couple of eggs) lunch (1 or 2 chicken fillets (season them by all means) with brocolli and or brown rice) and dinner (chicken fillets, turkey burgers, fish, the odd steak with plenty of veg) you'll find you'll actually lose weight quicker because the food is clean and your metabolism, no matter your age, will speed up again. Also drink 2 ltrs of water a day. The only problem with all of the above is that it's not a patch on a bar of chocolate and, at first, a lot of effort to cook each time, but if you're worried about weight try it. I've seen people losing a couple of stone in about 5-6 weeks of that.

Completely untrue, 1 meal a day is fine and the difference to your metabolism is trivial. If you are hungry then eat breakfast, if you are not then do not. Your body does not store fat if you do not eat breakfast, it stores fat if you are at a calorie surplus.