Send fat people to slimming classes

TimeToShine

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.

What you said about the metabolism is nonsense I'm afraid but your advice is correct.

Fran1985

runawaybishop wrote: »

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.

If you say so, but I've never met any professional who has said that. I'm not saying stuff your face, 2 eggs in the morning, a chicken fillet and a bit of brocolli for lunch? Keeps the body ticking over.

Plus it's proven to be good for you to eat well and drink water as it give the body energy (plus with all that water ya spend a lot of time running to the jacks so you're burning calories there)

Fran1985

TimeToShine wrote: »

What you said about the metabolism is nonsense I'm afraid but your advice is correct.

No worries, it's just what i've learned from both professionals and clients, but always open to correction from others

TimeToShine

Fran1985 wrote: »

No worries, it's just what i've learned from both professionals and clients, but always open to correction from others

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121099/

I'd like to know what professionals these are. "Stroking the metabolic fire" has been disproven years ago. Obviously eating meals frequently may be more convenient for some/helps them get into a routine but from a purely physiological perspective it makes no difference.

gimmick

SirCreepalot wrote: »

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

There is a lot of benefits form exercise weight loss is one of them. Exercise is very important in terms of self esteem. It is very important in terms of overall health. Just because a person is slim does not make them healthy. They could be as unfit as someone 3 stone overweight.

I used be quite unfit. I was never heavy, but was beginning to go that way. I felt always kind of bloated and I was never sleeping well. A few years back I took up a few martial arts and went back playing football among other things and holistically, I feel an awful lot better. I sleep far better. I am more aware and alert at work. Love life at home is better. And just generally looking better, shallow and all as that sounds.

Too many overweight people are looking to blame something other than themselves for their weight and then when they do decide to do something about it all you hear is complaints about how hard it is. Nothing worth having is easy you might tell them, but no good. They are back on the whinging pile again a few weeks later having quit because they did not get instant results.

On the other side of that I know a few people who spent their 20s eating and had to do medicals before mortgage approval. That woke them up and they saw that if they continued the way they were going, it was a 40 year span they would have. They now have lost lots, but still allow themselves to eat badly every now and then as a treat.

Balance is a big thing, but I truly believe that if you do not exercise properly and regularly you are fighting a losing battle.

gimmick

runawaybishop wrote: »

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.

Every professional would say to always have a breakfast to "wake up" your metabolism.

hatrickpatrick

I found losing weight remarkably easy and I lost around 100lbs in one summer (2007), but I did so by ignoring every bit of weight loss advice I was given, doing my own research into metabolism, and planning accordingly.

I'd oppose the proposal in the OP for many reasons, but chiefly because I honestly believe that mainstream weight loss techniques prioritise entirely the wrong things when there are faster and easier ways to lose weight.

gimmick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I found losing weight remarkably easy and I lost around 100lbs in one summer (2007), but I did so by ignoring every bit of weight loss advice I was given, doing my own research into metabolism, and planning accordingly.

I'd oppose the proposal in the OP for many reasons, but chiefly because I honestly believe that mainstream weight loss techniques prioritise entirely the wrong things when there are faster and easier ways to lose weight.

Friend of mine is a fitness instructor, and told me when you see these BEFORE AND AFTER PICS, you never see a pic of 6 weeks after the "after" pic. Basically said an awful lot of these quick fix places make you lose weight, but not in a realistic or healthy way to maintain. But they have got their before and after portfolio, so they will continue to make the money from it.

Fran1985

gimmick wrote: »

Friend of mine is a fitness instructor, and told me when you see these BEFORE AND AFTER PICS, you never see a pic of 6 weeks after the "after" pic. Basically said an awful lot of these quick fix places make you lose weight, but not in a realistic or healthy way to maintain. But they have got their before and after portfolio, so they will continue to make the money from it.

I suppose if ya pay for a 6 week weight loss program and ya lose weight in this 6 weeks then the before and after pics are correct. If you go back to eating like a pig and gain weight then it cant really be down to the PT

gimmick

Fran1985 wrote: »

I suppose if ya pay for a 6 week weight loss program and ya lose weight in this 6 weeks then the before and after pics are correct. If you go back to eating like a pig and gain weight then it cant really be down to the PT

My point was that (generally speaking) these crash courses do not really set people up on how to maintain themselves after the leave the course.

SirCreepalot

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

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

It's actually about 1450 as I am 5'6 and lead an incredibly sedentary lifestyle. I practise intermittent fasting because it works for me, so on my up days I eat 1600 and on down days, I eat about 1100 and it balances out. I could take up weight training to build muscle and raise my metabolism as well as the amount of food I can eat but I am currently unmotivated to do so and I just find it so much easier to restrict my food intake instead.

ash23 wrote: »

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.

Read up on intermittent fasting and calorie restriction and you will find that one meal a day or any other variation of intermittent fasting is actually quite healthy (as long as you don't binge and make wise food choices of course) as it raises one's HGH, levels out insulin sensitivity, betters a plethora of other blood markers, etc., etc.

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.

Eating one meal a day actually in the initial stages raises your metabolism by a bit. There are very recent studies to confirm this and you can google them if you are interested. What works for weight loss, outside of people with issues that impede normal weight loss, is what one can stick to. There are many, many ways in which one can lose weight, some better than others obviously, but the one that works is the one that you can actually do. For me, eating that many times a day only leads to bingeing and bloatedness and a domino effect of other negatives. Eating once is doable and just so much less complicated. Plus my health markers say I am incredibly healthy so it can't be too bad.

runawaybishop wrote: »

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.

Agreed.

Tarzana

runawaybishop wrote: »

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

Fruit have been cultivated to have a high amount of sugar, the wild forms were much less sweet. You're actually encouraged to eat much more veg than fruit.

Milk is grand, most people don't ingest huge amounts of the stuff.

I'm not preaching here, by the way, I fcking love sugar. But it's pure crap.

RDM_83 again

runawaybishop wrote: »

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.

Ok for the average man anything I have read says while its awkward to work out it should be about 400-600 calories for an average man and much higher if running.
Like taking the mapmyrun app figures I burned 620 calories in 45 minutes the last day, even if those figures are off by about 20% you can still easily burn 500 calories via exercise a day.
Yeah it probably won't work for people that are over eating to a higher degree but if some one moderates their diet and start a lot of exercise they will loose weight.
Do you have a disagreement with my figures in terms of running a 1000 calorie deficit via exercise and some diet adjustment.

Why do you say cardio is bad for fat loss anyway? I am not someone that hates resistance training and I said exercise not simply just running but this seems like one of those "myth busting" statements from someone trying to flog a an exercise program.
yeah you may put on more muscle and therefore burn more fat that way and it may be quicker in terms of workout time, but you can keep up a jog for longer than a weight training session so as far as I can see it balances out.

runawaybishop

Fran1985 wrote: »

If you say so, but I've never met any professional who has said that.

Really? How professional are they

gimmick wrote: »

Every professional would say to always have a breakfast to "wake up" your metabolism.

No they would not, and if they did they would be wrong. Your metabolism doesn't need waking up ffs.

runawaybishop

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ok for the average man anything I have read says while its awkward to work out it should be about 400-600 calories for an average man and much higher if running.
Like taking the mapmyrun app figures I burned 620 calories in 45 minutes the last day, even if those figures are off by about 20% you can still easily burn 500 calories via exercise a day.
Yeah it probably won't work for people that are over eating to a higher degree but if some one moderates their diet and start a lot of exercise they will loose weight.
Do you have a disagreement with my figures in terms of running a 1000 calorie deficit via exercise and some diet adjustment.

Why do you say cardio is bad for fat loss anyway? I am not someone that hates resistance training and I said exercise not simply just running but this seems like one of those "myth busting" statements from someone trying to flog a an exercise program.
yeah you may put on more muscle and therefore burn more fat that way and it may be quicker in terms of workout time, but you can keep up a jog for longer than a weight training session so as far as I can see it balances out.

Calorie estimates tend to be hugely variable. Unless you are using a heartrate monitor dont go by them.

No myth about it. Cardio burns calories but burning off what you just ate is daft.

Cardio calorie burn stops once your cardio stops
When dieting muscle has a high calorie requirement so in a deficient your body will take both muscle and fat
resistance training retains muscle
resistance calorie burn continues for up to 36 hours after exercise
more muscle = higher calorie requirements.

You can lose about 35% more weight doing strength work that cardio and all the weight loss is fat,not fat and muscle. Do cardio if you like it and to improve aerobic fitness, not to burn calories. HIIT is far more efficient than cardio (about 6 times more), its similar to strength work.

Calibos

Aunts running app posted to Facebook just there. She just did a 10k run while on holiday. 580 calories burned. i.e. she probably just about managed to burn off last nights Prosecco....from a 10k run....F....e....c....k........T.....h...a....t !!

Amalgam

Calibos wrote: »

She just did a 10k run while on holiday. 580 calories burned. ..F....e....c....k........T.....h...a....t !!

That's quite good, Google My tracks rarely gives me above 400 after a 16km walk.

It's just an app, at the end of the day, your Aunt is better for the run.

Interesting to see Milano boasting that a lot of their starters and (single person) dishes are around or under 500 calories.

looking_around

slimming classes..why not?

We have no problem sticking someone who's anorexic into a hospital/out-patient facilities to get them to a "normal" weight. Why should obese people not get the same treatment? because its acceptable to be fat but not underweight?

Both have very serious long term implications.

Shakespeare's Sister

I'm all for public health initiatives towards healthy weight, but aren't anorexia patients placed in hospital/out-patient clinics because their lives are in immediate danger?

flutered

start with the snouts at the trough, let them give us fatties a little good example, why not make them embarress us.

mikemac1

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I lost around 100lbs in one summer (2007), but I did so by ignoring every bit of weight loss advice I was given, doing my own research into metabolism, and planning accordingly.

Fair play

UCDVet

I don't know anyone who is fat because they don't know how to lose weight. Maybe in the 70s people really didn't know. But now? Come'on. It's not rocket science.

Show me someone who runs 3x a week, lifts 3x a week, and eats anything close to a reasonable diet (give me a height/gender and I can give you per-day calorie limit) and they won't be fat. Laws of physics and all.

Whenever I see documentaries on extremely obese people, they are eating 8,000+ calories per day. They might not admit it, but when the camera crew is adding it up, they realize it.

Pwindedd

It's really not as easy as sending fat people to slimming classes. Losing weight and getting fit require a change to come from within, you have to work hard every day and change your relationship with food. By all means make assistance available to those that want it. Incentivise people to avail of it if you like. But using it as a form of penance won't work.

I've battled with my weight most of my adult life (insulin resistance caused by PCOS - it's not an excuse, but a contributing factor) - with careful diet and exercise I can manage to control it, but it's requires a certain mental and physical effort that is not always compatible with day to day life.

We all surely know we need to eat less and move more to stay healthy. It's all the other stuff going on in the brain and body that clouds the waters of reason.

There is no blanket cure-all for obesity issues.

Penny Tration

Pwindedd wrote: »

It's really not as easy as sending fat people to slimming classes. Losing weight and getting fit require a change to come from within, you have to work hard every day and change your relationship with food. By all means make assistance available to those that want it. Incentivise people to avail of it if you like. But using it as a form of penance won't work.

I've battled with my weight most of my adult life (insulin resistance caused by PCOS - it's not an excuse, but a contributing factor) - with careful diet and exercise I can manage to control it, but it's requires a certain mental and physical effort that is not always compatible with day to day life.

We all surely know we need to eat less and move more to stay healthy. It's all the other stuff going on in the brain and body that clouds the waters of reason.

There is no blanket cure-all for obesity issues.

PCOS really does make it hard.

I'm close enough to my goal weight and tbh I'd be happy even if I stayed at the weight I'm at now, but it's bloody difficult.

Have you been eating low insulin foods? My doctor and dad recommended it to me, but haven't started yet

Pwindedd

green_screen wrote: »

PCOS really does make it hard.

I'm close enough to my goal weight and tbh I'd be happy even if I stayed at the weight I'm at now, but it's bloody difficult.

Have you been eating low insulin foods? My doctor and dad recommended it to me, but haven't started yet

I was diagnosed over 10 years ago, but since moving to Ireland haven't really had the money to delve further with my doctor. Lots of internet research instead.

I've been experimenting, with a combination of low carb, low GI foods. Plenty of water, avoid sugar like the plague. Nuts and berries as snacks. It seems to be paying off. I miss donuts - I love donuts. I still have the odd one as a treat but if I do I make sure to cut back somewhere else. Swimming and cardio for exercise. It's a battle but totally worth it. Feel a million percent better and my symptoms are not as bad. You just need to keep trying till you find something that works for you. Stick at it and well done for getting close to your target weight.

Wibbs

Pwindedd wrote: »

insulin resistance caused by PCOS - it's not an excuse, but a contributing factor

Some research is suggesting that those two conditions can be a chicken and the egg idea. Which comes first? The idea that it's a pre diabetic(type two) environment that is much more likely to give rise to PCOS, than the other way around(though PCOS can arise spontaneously). Both have risen quite appreciably in the last couple of decades. I'll bet the farm that in a few years time as well as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes another class of illnesses will be lumped under the banner of "Type 3 diabetes" including PCOS and conditions like alzheimers and others. I'd also bet that when taken overall the damage excess carbs and bad fats cause is equal if not higher than the damage of things like smoking.

Luckily someone can reverse these processes in the body, though it must be fiendishly hard to do. I know when I'm hungry I'd chew through the kitchen door to get to the fridge. I'm just lucky I'm rarely that hungry and that's all it is, luck. TBH if I was hungry all or most of the time I reckon I'd be the size of a house.

I do know a chap who was diagnosed with type 2 and a bad dose of it with it. He wasn't particularly fat either. A bit chunky, but he wouldn't stand out in the street type fat. He was offered the meds, but they didn't agree with him, so he went a bit obsessive about his diet(and then exercise) and he essentially "cured" his type 2. After a year measurements of his insulin response showed he was normal, if not better than normal(IIRC they take a blood sample and then you drink some glucose and then they take another and see how fast your body reacts). He has admitted the first 6 months were the hardest of his life though. I have a lot of admiration for folks who successfully change their lifestyle to lose fat/get fit/etc to that degree. Takes some stones IMHO. The fact that the majority don't succeed and many don't even try shows how hard a road it is to walk.

As for sending fat people to slimming classes? Highly unlikely to work. Someone must want to change and that kinda need will work, slimming classes or not. Never mind that it would be extremely presumptuous and holier than thou of society to try. Society has already become holier than thou it doesn't need to be egged on. Better to hit the crap food producers and force them to lessen or drop the crap from their products, or stick them in supermarket aisle marked in neon "this shíte tends to be addictive and will wreck your life and likely reduce it as much as smoking a pack of fags a day".

Larianne

looking_around wrote: »

slimming classes..why not?

We have no problem sticking someone who's anorexic into a hospital/out-patient facilities to get them to a "normal" weight. Why should obese people not get the same treatment? because its acceptable to be fat but not underweight?

Both have very serious long term implications.

There is a weight management clinic based in Loughlinstown Hospital, but as with most things in the HSE, there is a long waiting list (i.e. 2-3 years).

Many of the patients attending have a history of physical and/or mental abuse, which has led to their massive BMIs.
Sometimes there is also an element of partners who are 'feeders'.
So, it is not as simple as attending a few slimming classes, unless these classes were run with input from specialised doctors, dieticians, physios and psychologists.

Pwindedd

Wibbs wrote: »

Some research is suggesting that those two conditions can be a chicken and the egg idea. Which comes first? The idea that it's a pre diabetic(type two) environment that is much more likely to give rise to PCOS, than the other way around(though PCOS can arise spontaneously). Both have risen quite appreciably in the last couple of decades. I'll bet the farm that in a few years time as well as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes another class of illnesses will be lumped under the banner of "Type 3 diabetes" including PCOS and conditions like alzheimers and others. I'd also bet that when taken overall the damage excess carbs and bad fats cause is equal if not higher than the damage of things like smoking.

Quite possible. I was raised on a very healthy diet and was always what society calls "slim". I did sports at school, was active outside of school. No telly in my room, so went out a lot. My problems started when I was living on my own with a new baby. Processed food was cheaper than the fresh alternatives. For years I lived with my symptoms thinking it was my situation making me tired, irritable and tired all the time. Then when I was diagnosed I used PCOS as an excuse to not even try. I had a medical condition, surely I wasn't to blame. Its a vicious circle really.

We need to educate the young now, and I think that this is slowly happening, but not aggressively enough. We need to make fresh good food an economical viability for those on limited incomes. Re-introduce the local greengrocers to towns and villages. It's easy enough to run to the spar for a frozen pizza and oven chips. Not so easy to nip out for the ingredients for cauliflower cheese or whip up a seafood salad.

Problem is supply and demand dictates what our shops are selling.

Veg is sexy ! No it's really not going to cut it as a slogan.

strobe

Tbh, no I don't think it will help. Everyone knows exercising and not eating cake and washing it down with a litre of coke is how you stop being fat. Some people just don't want to do that. I think it's the equivalent of telling junkies that not taking heroin is how you stop being a junkie. They aren't junkies because no ones happened to tell them not to take heroin.

Amalgam

strobe wrote: »

Everyone knows exercising and not eating cake and washing it down with a litre of coke is how you stop being fat. Some people just don't want to do that.

The people that need to exercise will use the following wording in response:

'I don't have time for all that..' ..when it is painfully obvious that they do, hence the weight issues, as a result of sofa sessions and bad food.

I think there's a wider issue in approaching people, you can't be critical of someone without risk of a lashback (teacher > pupil, doctor > patient etc..), the very nature of how we interact now, makes things harder to broach this problem.

I'm always amazed by the popularity of the soft drink bargains in Bargain Alerts, here on boards.. yet if you asked a member to swallow down the same amount of sugar, as there is in a can or two, in granular form, they'd flat out refuse. Go figure.

---

I might have mentioned this before, but there was a talk by Dr. Louis Francescutti on RTE Radio 1's Mooney Goes Wild, back in October (21st), 2013.

Dr. Louis Francescutti & Derek Mooney in conversation - 21.10.2013

Direct link to (.mp3 14.4MB) podcast: http://podcast.rasset.ie/podcasts/audio/2013/1021/20131021_rteradio1-mooney-medicinein_c20458718_20458721_232_/20131021_rteradio1-mooney-medicinein_c20458718_20458721_232_.mp3


' ..if I was to say to you, that 50%, five zero per cent of the disease burden that exists within our society is attributable to three risk factors.. and those three risk factors are: smoking, inactivity and poor nutrition.'

---

The interview covers a lot of ground and was a real ear worm, for me personally, when I listened to it back in October, 2013.

Fighting Irish

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

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

No thank you, that's like taxing stupidity but everyone loses

rubadub

Dravokivich wrote: »

Taxing junk food, or the main junky ingredients to junk food isn't the answer, because again it's just focusing managing on the result and becomes an extra income for the Government without actually doing anything.

Also one big problem is coming up with a legal definition of junk food. Most people know what it is but how do you legally define it? in such a way as it does not include stuff like avocados or butter.

I see lots of people "on diets" who would not dream of eating a mcdonalds burger but might still go for a sandwich in obriens, which often could be considered worse by that same person if they just called them "item A" and "item B" and blindly broke down the ingredients & nutritional info.

WilyCoyote

Bring back rationing. It worked after the war. You didn't see many obese people then.

Plus, you could leave the key in your front door

jimgoose

WilyCoyote wrote: »

Bring back rationing. It worked after the war. You didn't see many obese people then.

Plus, you could leave the key in your front door

Coincidence? I think not!! :pac::pac::pac:

smoking_kills

rubadub wrote: »

Also one big problem is coming up with a legal definition of junk food. Most people know what it is but how do you legally define it? in such a way as it does not include stuff like avocados or butter.

I see lots of people "on diets" who would not dream of eating a mcdonalds burger but might still go for a sandwich in obriens, which often could be considered worse by that same person if they just called them "item A" and "item B" and blindly broke down the ingredients & nutritional info.

Was talking about this the other day to some friends, Micky Macks is considered junk food, but no one could seem to think why. If its just calorie count then what about restaurants, even Michelin star restaurants, their food would have a huge calorie count. (They cook everything in butter from what I have seen on Masterchef :eek:)

The only solution i think is calorie count displayed on everything.

YFlyer

EU's top court may define obesity as a disability

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27809242

Not only will they get two seats on the bus, they'll get both of them free :mad: