http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01jxzv8/The_Men_Who_Made_Us_Fat_Episode_1/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01k6l6l/The_Men_Who_Made_Us_Fat_Episode_2/
Text article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18393391
I would love to quote the whole article but it's a bit long
Quote
One of the biggest changes in our modern diet stems back to the 1970s when US agriculture embarked on the mass-production of corn and of high-fructose corn syrup, commonly used as a sweetener in processed foods.
This led to a massive surge in the quantities of cheaper food being supplied to American supermarkets, everything from cheap cereal to cheap biscuits. As a result, burgers got bigger and fries (fried in corn oil) got fattier.
QuoteDr Jean-Marc Schwarz from San Francisco General Hospital says it's the sheer amount of fructose being consumed that makes it dangerous.
"It doesn't have a toxic effect like lead. It's not comparable to lead or mercury, but it's the quantity that just makes it toxic," he says.
Fructose is easily converted to fat in the body, and scientists have found that it also suppresses the action of a vital hormone called leptin.
"Leptin goes from your fat cells to your brain and tells your brain you've had enough, you don't need to eat that second piece of cheesecake," says Dr Robert Lustig, an endocrinologist.
He says when the liver is overloaded with sugars, leptin simply stops working, and as a result the body doesn't know when it's full.
"It makes your brain think you're starving and now what you have is a vicious cycle of consumption, disease and addiction. Which explains what has happened the world over," he says.
Exactly what I've been saying for a long time, sugar makes you fat and before you argue it isn't white sugar (sucrose) that is turned directly into fructose and glucose. Perversely we are fat because of low fat products.
'the men who made us fat' ::)
I can't even be bothered to click any of the links above as this stinks of typical 'blame someone else' culture, whilst I appreciate food standards have changed, there has always been an option on what to eat.
The vast majority of consumers have no-one to blame but themselves due to poor research and apathy as to what they put into their body.
I actually watched this programme the other day, and it seemed they were far too eager to start pointing the blame solely at manufacturers so much so that the bias became all too obvious when 'multipack' purchases were being branded as 'supersizing' by the programme, because buying multiple packets of something to eat throughout a week is somehow directly akin to buying a monsterously sized pack.
Quote from: matt5cott on June 23, 2012, 14:08:40 PM
The vast majority of consumers have no-one to blame but themselves due to poor research and apathy as to what they put into their body.
This is the crux of it.
The other point being raised was children are eating more junk. Well duh, if you are giving your children money every day to go and spend on confectionary and unhealthy sh*t at the newsagents every day then more fool you. It is perfectly easy to accustom your kids to eating healthily and not snacking on sh*t all day.
Quote from: Serious on June 23, 2012, 13:59:57 PM
Exactly what I've been saying for a long time, sugar makes you fat and before you argue it isn't white sugar (sucrose) that is turned directly into fructose and glucose. Perversely we are fat because of low fat products.
we?
You realise this is an American problem. Not obesity in general but specifically the use of high fructose corn syrup as a wide scale replacement for sugar hasn't occurred in the EU. Its actually subject to a production quota over here - in the US they've got a series of protectionist policies re: their agricultural sector which has resulted in its prevalence there.
I also agree with what matt and clock'd are saying re: personal responsibility - while we'd likely be slightly fatter as a nation if we had the same prevalence of sugar replacement as the USA fat people still exist over here without this being a huge issue. It largely boils down to personal lifestyle/consumption choices.
Quote from: Dave on June 23, 2012, 15:51:23 PM
Quote from: Serious on June 23, 2012, 13:59:57 PM
Exactly what I've been saying for a long time, sugar makes you fat and before you argue it isn't white sugar (sucrose) that is turned directly into fructose and glucose. Perversely we are fat because of low fat products.
we?
You realise this is an American problem. Not obesity in general but specifically the use of high fructose corn syrup as a wide scale replacement for sugar hasn't occurred in the EU. Its actually subject to a production quota over here - in the US they've got a series of protectionist policies re: their agricultural sector which has resulted in its prevalence there.
During digestion, as I said above in your quote of me, white sugar is metabolised directly into Glucose and FRUCTOSE. your comment here therefore does not apply. We also now have imports of high fructose corn syrup for use in food production.
QuoteI also agree with what matt and clock'd are saying re: personal responsibility - while we'd likely be slightly fatter as a nation if we had the same prevalence of sugar replacement as the USA fat people still exist over here without this being a huge issue. It largely boils down to personal lifestyle/consumption choices.
Up to one third of Britains are clinically obese, that is up from just 16% in 1993. The epidemic is here already. The UK is fast catching up with the US. Treatment costs the US $150 billion. I guess it's time to ask the PM...
QuoteDavid Cameron, 16 May 2011:Take obesity: it already costs our NHS a staggering £4 billion a year. But within four years, that figure's expected to rise to £6.3 billion.
So it does affect everyone, either directly or through your tax. As for it being a lifestyle choice the most fattening choices are actually the cheapest in the UK and the ones that get pushed by the supermarkets. I've seen plenty of biscuits, sugar laden baked beans and fizzy drinks on special offer but not much in the way of broccoli or peas.
Matt, Clock'd. Why not read it? Do either of you work for the food indusry? Perhaps you are just too jaded to realise the truth in the world. The reality is the food industry wants kids to snack on unhealthy foods, they advertise it for that very purpose. When legislation was proposed to stop it they were up in arms about it.
Yes, we are responsible for our actions - to a point and providing we know the risks. If someone takes drugs then commits crimes to pay for them then they are guilty. If someone smokes then they are guilty of addicting themselves.
But what about their peer pressures? If their friends all smoke then the pressure is for them to do it too, in order to fit in. What about advertising pressures? Cigarettes were once advertised as a healthy lifestyle option. Some people were even given them as medical treatment, my mother was for allergy asthma. What about covering up the truth about something? Lead in petrol or cancer from tobacco?
In this case fat was blamed for making us, err, fat. The reality is far more complex that just that. Any calorific intake can affect the situation and some are worse than others. Sometimes other people really are guilty.
Quote from: Serious on June 23, 2012, 18:21:40 PM
Up to one third of Britains are clinically obese, that is up from just 16% in 1993. The epidemic is here already. The UK is fast catching up with the US. Treatment costs the US $150 billion.
But why tar everyone with the same brush? Yes, eating habits are a lot worse than say 30 years ago, however of those clinically obese people you mention, how many have a metabolic condition? You don't know, so you can't say what we eat and the ingredients that are put in those foods are the sole reason we're a nation of fatties. Sometimes our bodies are just as to blame when they don't work in the correct way
Quote from: Beanissocoollike on June 23, 2012, 18:32:26 PM
Quote from: Serious on June 23, 2012, 18:21:40 PM
Up to one third of Britains are clinically obese, that is up from just 16% in 1993. The epidemic is here already. The UK is fast catching up with the US. Treatment costs the US $150 billion.
But why tar everyone with the same brush? Yes, eating habits are a lot worse than say 30 years ago, however of those clinically obese people you mention, how many have a metabolic condition? You don't know, so you can't say what we eat and the ingredients that are put in those foods are the sole reason we're a nation of fatties. Sometimes our bodies are just as to blame when they don't work in the correct way
I'm not excluding that, and I agree that some few people will have medical problems that cause it directly. The question is how many of the percentage presently regarded as obese are overweight because of medical problems? I suspect that it isn't the full 33%. It could be less than 1%. So I'm not saying everyone is fat simply because they overeat, you can eat a great deal of certain foods and still not put on any weight at all.
What I am saying is that certain foods do make people fat, that they are addictive, and that there has been a cover up by big business to preserve their profit margins.
I can't work out how to quote a specific line (cus this forum sucks balls) but
QuoteUp to one third of Britains are clinically obese, that is up from just 16% in 1993.
This goes up every year because the bar that is set to test obesity goes lower every year, i have seen my personal weight on a grid one year i was in the red, the next i was off the scale and those that have met me in person will tell you i am overweight but i don't look off the scale fat.
I went to my GP's for a routine healthy check earlier this year seeing I'm over 40 and I was flagged as obese by the system, the girl started giving me "lifestyle" tips to get my weight under control and explained how not doing something about it could shorten my life!... after I finished laughing at her I took my coat off and asked if she thought I looked obese? The answer was no! but no option on the screen to say "no this person isn't obese even if the numbers say otherwise".
I'm 5.10, well built and go to the gym 3 times a week, it was not long after Xmas in Jan so I was about ½ a stone heavier than what I consider my normal weight (which is 14.5 stone) my BMI was 30.15 just creeping into obese.
I wondered afterwards if that information would be added to the list as another obese person, I know and see plenty of guys down the gym and out and about who are far larger than me and hardly have any fat on them, guess they are obese too!
And those two reasons are why I stated up to, nobody really knows the precise number of genuinely obese people.
Trying to use the BMI is hopeless. The system was broken when it came into use. Then, some normal weight people do have dangerous levels of internal fat, which is invisible to the BMI. The only reliable option is to properly scan you and use the results of that to work out how much fat you have.
I already mentioned I watched the full programme on Beeb2 this was based on, while there is a problem with snacks and treats obviously being targetted at kids via advertising, this is hardly new; haven't these ads been given a watershed for some time now anyway? In any case, it still doesn't negate the fact that it's mummy's decision to load the trolley with sh*t for little Tarquin and Denise to scoff on every day.
Eating habits, lifestyle and healthiness all starts and ends with our children. If they were educated properly to begin with this wouldn't be a problem. These obese people that need walls taking out to airlift them to hospital are that way mostly because of their own stupidity but also because their family are moronic feeders. No one can or should be abolished of personal responsibility for controlling their own weight.
The only thing I would agree on out of any of this is that the contents of food should be clearly labelled and monitored for extremes of sugar and salt so it is not needlessly unhealthy, but we already do this.
Quote from: Serious on June 23, 2012, 18:21:40 PM
We also now have imports of high fructose corn syrup for use in food production.
we have production quotas like I've already said....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-fructose_corn_syrup#European_Union
QuoteIn the European Union (EU), HFCS, known as isoglucose or glucose-fructose syrup, is subject to a production quota. In 2005, this quota was set at 303,000 tons; in comparison, the EU produced an average of 18.6 million tons of sugar annually between 1999 and 2001.[40] Wide scale replacement of sugar has not occurred in the EU.
hmmm 303,000 vs 18,600,000.... less than 2% like I pointed out the HFCS problem is largely an American one. They're replaced sugar with HFCS in a lot of areas - its why things like coke taste different in the USA. That in itself, the use of HFCS, might well be a significant cause of the greater obesity issues they have in comparison to other western countries.
Dave, you are just trying to avoid the facts. Just because the EU has production quotas doesn't mean that a lot of additional product is imported.
Just identifying what contains it is difficult enough because it goes under several different names.
Quote from: Clock'd 0Ne on June 24, 2012, 12:48:23 PM
I already mentioned I watched the full programme on Beeb2 this was based on,
This isn't a single program, it's a three part series. The second program is based on the Historical horizon program looking at how the fast food industry changed due to pressures. The first is new and based on sugars.
If you don't want to eat it then don't. If the rest of us are all going to end up morbidly obese because of it then it's our own fault. There's always going to be stuff that is supposed to be immensely good for us and terribly bad for us (although these constantly change depending on who's doing the research). Food and drink will apparently give us all cancer, yet prevent cancer at the same time. It's supposedly doing a lot of things to us, and no one's sat up and listened to it before so I don't see how this is going to be any different.
At the end of the day, people who spend all their time being fit and healthy sometimes end up more unhealthy than those who don't even bother - what message does that give out?
Quote from: Beanissocoollike on June 25, 2012, 10:50:57 AM
If you don't want to eat it then don't.
It isn't wether you want to eat it or not, it's how easy is it to avoid the stuff.
Quote from: Beanissocoollike on June 25, 2012, 10:50:57 AM
If the rest of us are all going to end up morbidly obese because of it then it's our own fault.
Same old statement, some people on here would do really well as Christians doing the collective self blame stuff. It's 2,000 years after the death of Christ near enough but we're all collectively guilty! :panic: :panic: :panic:.
If you don't know about something then how can you stop? If something is named several different ways then how easy is it to tell if it is present?
If junk filler is presented as 'something good for you' then unless you know different there is no avoiding it.
Come on, let's not pretend anything like this resides in anything other than junk food.
The whole 'low fat' labelling culture we have in the UK is out of order imo and should be changed. Cereal bars, yoghurts, crisps etc all labelled "50% less fat" or "1% fat" or conversely "1 of your 5 a day", "high in fibre", "wholegrain" when in fact they're incredibly high sugar or calorie dense snacks that should be eaten very occasionally as a treat - not a healthy treat replacement as the packaging and advertising would have you believe.
The show made some interesting points but was also very biased, as with most mainstream 'documentaries' which makes it hard to know where the truth lies in their claims.
Dominos have started putting a kcal per slice value on their website, I ate a 2140kcal pizza to myself last night and I have no one to blame but myself.
I think the best point the programme made on that note was that times have changed and lives have got 'faster' so people eat on the move and pick up quick bites to eat with an apathy to what goes into it as matt5cott put it. How many people grab a curry sauce jar instead of making their own? How many people pick up a pack of frozen chips instead of cutting up some potatoes and making them? It's at the point where you stop cooking for yourself with your own ingredients and rely on fast/easy produce that the knowledge of what you're consuming quickly starts to breakdown. The labelling can be misleading but it is still consumer choice and if you're not picking up fresh ingredients to make a meal then really you do only have yourself to blame.
I've stopped eating those dirt cheap value packet noodles every day because I realised I was getting about 80% of my RDA of salt in one lunch sitting. All my own choice and doing out of being a lazy tightwad :lol:
Quote from: Serious on June 25, 2012, 04:31:36 AM
Dave, you are just trying to avoid the facts. Just because the EU has production quotas doesn't mean that a lot of additional product is imported.
I'm providing facts....
your program is on the topic of HFCS... prevalent in the US as a replacement for sugar and potentially one cause of the greater obesity problem they have (yes we have an obesity problem too LDO...) - point is, re: this topic in particular its mostly a US problem - HFCS is significantly worse than sugar, and isn't anywhere near as prevalent in the EU - I've even provided you the figures....
here is an article outlining the problem with HFCS vs sugar
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
if you don't believe that this problem with HFCS is largely a US issue then you ought to actually provide figures to back up that assertion as I'll still stand by my point that its no where near as prevalent in the EU
Thing is Serious, you've obviously got your own opinions and we have ours. Problem is, the majority of are on the same side because for the most part we don't really care. It's our bodies, as everyone has said we've only ourselves to blame you can try to reiterate your point as many times as you like, we're not going to suddenly start behaving differently as I'm sure the majority of people watching these documentaries won't.
I won't watch the documentary as it doesn't interest me, but seeming as I've just spend the past 6 months doing a final major project on documentaries and factual programming it's clear to see this man has a very staunch view on the topic and unfortunately was allowed to make a considerably biased programme.
Clock'd, it's not the stuff being in food, it's the fact you, me and everyone else isn't told about it being put there. Note addictweb's post above, anything which says low fat is invariably going to include a lot of sugars. They are promoting something which definitely isn't healthy as healty. And even if you and everyone else on this forums wants to be in ignorant bliss about the poisons being fed to you at the pig trough I don't conform to that idea.
Then again, when anyone complains about the people on the sick or unemployed, please remember not to care then. Both use up your taxes.
Dave
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1275498/Soft-drinks-linked-pancreatic-cancer.html
Pancreatic cancer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7219473.stm
Gout
You can add any insulin deficiency issue to that, and a few more things. White sugar, sucrose, call it what you will, is changed into fructose in your body.
Beaniscoollike, you say that you don't really care, so why not just ignore the thread? You obviously think I want to change what you eat. What you actually shove down your throat is up to you. I'm just presenting a bit of education which you could read/watch or ignore. Had everyone simply ignored me this thread would have just one post. Instead there are a load of people trying to defend what they eat.
Although, perhaps the food can actually taste better without the crap being in there.
Quote from: Serious on June 26, 2012, 23:52:21 PM
Dave
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1275498/Soft-drinks-linked-pancreatic-cancer.html
Pancreatic cancer
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7219473.stm
Gout
You can add any insulin deficiency issue to that, and a few more things. White sugar, sucrose, call it what you will, is changed into fructose in your body.
So excess sugar in both forms (looking at UK and US studies) greatly increases the risk of cancer - that's great etc.. but a rather different health related topic. If you're trying to point out that excess sugar is bad then you're stating the obvious tbh...
Your documentary covered a more interesting point which was the replacement of sugar with HFCS... this is a US problem which has had a greater effect on obesity....
Quote from: Serious on June 26, 2012, 23:52:21 PM
Clock'd, it's not the stuff being in food, it's the fact you, me and everyone else isn't told about it being put there. Note addictweb's post above, anything which says low fat is invariably going to include a lot of sugars. They are promoting something which definitely isn't healthy as healty. And even if you and everyone else on this forums wants to be in ignorant bliss about the poisons being fed to you at the pig trough I don't conform to that idea.
Quote from: Serious on June 26, 2012, 23:52:21 PMInstead there are a load of people trying to defend what they eat.
I don't see anyone defending the food itself or one claiming any degree of healthiness, all that has been discussed is choice and responsibility. I agree that these things aren't healthy and should be labelled but I also noted that it is still your own fault for not educating yourself/your family if you are quick to buy snack junk or convenience foods and not make fresh food with ingredients bought yourself. I guess arguing that some of this packaging represents lies and is deceiving people is the thin end of the wedge, but only if you choose not to look at what is in what you're eating and go off the marketing. We have much stricter regulations than America and there is all the information you need to decide if something is good for you on most packaging.
Try taking into account when it started, not last year but in the 1970s. Since then there hasn't been much if anything changing. So where is the information to 'educate yourself' coming from?
Adverts on TV and other media clearly use the 'low fat' idea - they don't tell you about the high sugar content. There has been lots of statements from the government about fat being bad for you, but very little about sugars.
If there is a lack of accurate education then where is the informed choice? Who's information are you going to trust? Industry? The Government? You will find that the first has a multi-billion pound reason to lie to you called profits. The second is influenced by the first. 'Healthy eating' sites? I've seen some really bad information on some of those.
As Dave has been pointing out the EU has limited HFCS. It has also put out information that because HFCS is limited in Europe that it can't be to blame for people getting fat. Unfortunately Sucrose is directly converted by human bodies into glucose and fructose. HFCS or Sucrose, the effects are the same. American eats HFCS - they get fat. Euro eats Sucrose - they get fat too.
Everyone knows sugar is not good for you and makes you fat, its basic health knowledge I think they might even teach in primary school, if not at least secondary school. The fact that people don't bother to check how much sugar content is in food and drink is still their own fault, blindly following a label that says "Low Fat!!1" without checking the rest of the ingredients is naive. Don't forget Mc D's and all the evil fast food corporate monsters also have to list all the foods ingredients/nutritional value now. Surprisingly most of the food is not that bad either if consumed in moderation, but we know this is where people are going wrong already.
Quote from: Serious on June 29, 2012, 04:18:33 AM
Try taking into account when it started, not last year but in the 1970s.
where what started? - oh yeah the replacement of sugar with HFCS....
"One of the biggest changes in our modern diet stems back to the 1970s when US agriculture embarked on the mass-production of corn and of high-fructose corn syrup, commonly used as a sweetener in processed foods."
Quote
As Dave has been pointing out the EU has limited HFCS. It has also put out information that because HFCS is limited in Europe that it can't be to blame for people getting fat. Unfortunately Sucrose is directly converted by human bodies into glucose and fructose. HFCS or Sucrose, the effects are the same. American eats HFCS - they get fat. Euro eats Sucrose - they get fat too.
effects aren't quite the same... HFCS significantly worse - this is part of the topic of your documentary and the BBC article you linked to... also see paper I linked to earlier for more details...
Quote from: Clock'd 0Ne on June 29, 2012, 08:33:28 AM
Everyone knows sugar is not good for you and makes you fat, its basic health knowledge I think they might even teach in primary school, if not at least secondary school.
QuoteEveryone Knows Argument
Here is a nice refutation of the everyone knows argument kindly submitted by Jim Smith.
The argument "everyone knows" to substantiate a belief is not one that will withstand logical examination. Here are a few examples of what "everyone knows" that are observably false.
At one time, over 99% of the people on earth "knew" the earth was flat. This is in spite of the fact that the curvature of the earth is observable from any seashore or mountain top. No matter where you go on earth, the curvature, to the eye, remains the same. This shows that it is not a local phenomenon but a consistent feature of the globe. Yet, "everyone knew" the earth was flat.
As recently as 1900, at least 99% of the population would tell you that, "Man will never fly". Even more recently many would have said, "If God wanted man to fly, he would have given us wings". Nonetheless, we do fly despite what "everyone knows".
Even in 1960, most people would not believe that men would ever walk on the moon. Even after the fact, many swore it was a stunt filmed in a Hollywood studio. Because "everyone knows" that is just "Buck Rogers stuff".
Even more recently, something as ubiquitous today as cell phones were a fantasy from the Dick Tracy comic strip. Because "everyone knows" you can't have a phone without wires that will send voice, text, and pictures.
The truth is, just because a lot of people say a thing is true, does not make it true. As Abraham Lincoln once said, "If I am right, everyone will know it soon enough. If I am wrong, a hundred angels swearing I am right will not change it."
This brings me to Rule seven in my list of universal truths. "Beliefs, no matter how sincerely held, do not alter facts." Even if millions of people share those beliefs, it does not change the facts. The one thing that never can change is that very few people ever bother to consider facts when forming their beliefs. Mark Twain remarked, "Common sense is the sum total of all prejudices acquired by the age of 16."
http://www.endevil.com/everyoneknows.html
I think you will find that stating 'everyone knows' is an assumption as well as an unfair argument. No matter what it is you will *almost* always find someone willing to truthfully say 'I didn't know that!"
Go have a look at ingredients in 'Weight Watchers' 'dieting products'. Many are high in sodium/salt but also sugar. Find a product that says it is low in fat and you will find that most are high in sugar. Find a good number of things that are described as 'only x calories' and it will invariably contain a lot of things with a very high amount of calories for the weight of product.
Weight Watchers Blueberry Muffins or Double Chocolate Muffins: 1 muffin (2.2 ounces) = 18-21 grams sugar, 180-190 calories
Weight Watchers Mint Chocolate Chip Ice Cream Cups (and other flavors): 1 small cup = 22 grams sugar, 140 calories
Weight Watchers English Toffee Crunch: 2 bars = 20 grams sugar, 220 calories
Weight Watchers Giant Chocolate Fudge Bar: 1 bar = 16 grams sugar, 110 calories
Weight Watchers Giant Cookies & Cream Bar: 1 bar = 15 grams sugar, 140 calories
And as for schools educating people about sugar - they are pushing the damn stuff! Just look at the vending machines installed in most schools.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-489613/Is-sugar-killing-you.html
It was an assumption and slightly facetious statement, yes, and of course you might find some blithering retard beyond hope that thinks sugar is healthy and chocolate makes you thin, but 0.01% of people does not mean you need to try and throwaway the fact that this is still common knowledge by referring to some random article about people defending their stupidity when I am actually agreeing with the whole point of this ;D
Maybe its a new practice but when I was at school there were no vending machines to feed little piggies throughout the day. You had the 'tuck shop' for break time and lunch but that was it, although admittedly they served typically unhealthy burgers and chips.
I think most people on tekforums are in the top 20% of the educated. The bottom third will probably have no idea what Sucrose or Fructose is. I seem to remember a clip where people were asked to sign a petition saying DiHydrogen Monoxide should be banned...
Remember, DiHydrogen Monoxide is bad for you! :rofl: Actually it can be, if you take too much of it! :w00t:
Edit: And now I'm opening a 250ml tin of Pepsi. 26.5 grams of sugar. I'm only drinking it cause my bro bought the non-diet and he prefers the 'calorie free' option. Normally I will only drink cola outside of the house.
I suspect , as Clock'd said, most people, if asked, will know sugar is bad for you. However that is different to spotting that most products marketed as healthy are in fact very high in sugars and not good for you.
The focus is on things being low fat and packaging and marketing deliberately market unhealthy things as healthy when they're not. I dont blame the masses for not reading the ingredients lists on everything they eat, the reality is that when the marketing and packaging suggest the product is good for you most people will take that as fact.
So this is a topic (hmm topics...) very close to my heart - I've always been hugely overweight my whole life from way back before I can remember and I'm currently in the middle of changing my life and sorting my mess of a body out. My post will probably only be relevant to overweight people trying to lose weight, and it might go a little off topic but humour me....
I've tried it many MANY times over the years to lose weight, with all manner of fad diets and also just simply applying the rules that 'everyone knows' and since they never work I'd always lose motivation and genuinely you get to a point where you don't physically believe you're capable of doing it. This is where you get depressed, which makes you eat more and its a horrible cycle. Trust me - thats where these 'well known' ideas (i.e.. eat salad and walk 30 minutes a day, or hit the treadmill etc..) can get you and its exactly why so many people fail miserably. We should never be afraid to question things that are common knowledge - I mean its common knowledge to eat three set meals a day but actually its healthier to eat 5/6 small meals a day (but less practical). Probably the worst misconception right now is the whole 'carbs are bad for you' thing. Carbs aren't bad - carbs are wonderful, life giving energy bearing things that we need! But like everything else they need to be in proportion to the amount of fats and protein also being consumed. One of the major problems with Atkins is that no ones got enough carbs to properly workout because they're just drained. There's also the whole 'diet' or 'no sugar' versions of your favourite brands which we're led to believe are the healthy option, but then fill you with so much other sh*t that you're body is just as badly off anyway. One of the other major problems I've seen is people cutting back too much when they diet - the body goes into starvation mode and bang - you're burning muscle, reserves, anything but fat. This is where I believe the education to the masses is severely lacking.
I've been fortunate to comes across Tony Horton and Team Beachbody and through their p90x workout and nutrition programme I'm finally on my way. I've dropped nearly 10 inches off my waist and just over 1.5 stone in the first 31 days. This has happened because they've taught me a whole new set of rules, and frankly given me some tough love over how much exercise I have to do and how hard I have to work at it - 30 minutes a day light activity isn't cutting it people! Treadmills and salads are not going to sort out the obesity problem in the world - its just going to create a load of miserable people confused why they're not losing weight. I believe that the information being communicated to the masses isn't necessarily wrong, but its not optimal - I mean I consider myself a slightly above average intelligence person and yet I was 30 before I've really learnt what actually works, and thats had to come from a private company in the US. Really is that good enough when we've a growing obesity problem across the nation?
I know some people just won't ever understand that this is anything more than 'stop eating cake fatty' but its that ignorance that is half the problem, and its also that attitude that kills peoples confidence to do anything about it. I've got my goals, and now I believe I have the knowledge to hit them how ever long it takes, and when I do I truly hope I can find a way to help other people learn it to.
I've never posted this on the internet before (its not even on my blog) so here's a tekforums exclusive:
Me at my biggest a year or two back, and me last Thursday night - still absolutely miles to go but definitely the right direction:
(http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/9259/petebeforenow.jpg)
I've been simply amazed reading on FB how quickly you've lost weight, it is all down to hard work and watching carefully what you are eating and personally if I had lost that much weight I would be horrified to think that some fad diet or cleverly marketed health food was taking the credit for my determination.
You should be amazingly satisfied with yourself for what you've accomplished already and I think your post is proof that education is key to understanding your weight and healthy lifestyle.
Three cheers for posting that though :cheers:
Quote from: Rivkid on July 01, 2012, 10:46:30 AM
I've been fortunate to comes across Tony Horton and Team Beachbody and through their p90x workout and nutrition programme I'm finally on my way.
I see that guy doing his thing on infomercials all the time! They play them on the 'babe' channels up in the 900s on sky, I can now say HEY THAT ACTUALLY WORKS! :D :bow:
Can you share some of the big concepts of this guy/process? Would be interested to know if there are any key things that you found useful.
Cheers guys :)
Matt - I'd just like to say that is NOT where I discovered him lmao!! Although actually my boss recommended him so maybe I should ask that question....
When you're talking about the concepts of P90x you have to remember that its not really a weight loss plan. Its an extreme fitness programme that essentially is designed for already fit people to get super ripped - but obviously since the hardest part of getting ripped is losing the fat that covers the muscles it works great all round. It does however mean a fat git like me gets the shock of his f'ing life in the first week or two!!
Tony's principles are fairly old fashioned - lean meats, fish, veggies and if you can't pronounce it don't eat it. He's also very much against the whole sugar / modified crap etc... Very much a sore point with him (and don't get him started on Coca-Cola....) I'd say the main thing that I've learnt is that you can't do one or the other in terms of diet or exercise - it has to be both. "You can't out exercise a bad diet" was one line I remember reading. He hates fad diet plans, and he hates people 'dieting' - you should be changing your eating habits and making better food choices, not just holding off on certain foods until you've lost a bit of weight. He is not at all a fan of Weight Watchers...
His big thing though is the concept of muscle confusion. The logic is that basically since the body is so adaptive, any repetitive exercise (applies to diet too) will work at first, then get less and less effective over time as the body adapts. The trick is to keep it guessing by constantly changing the muscles that you're working out. This is why he's against gym kit -treadmills, stationary bikes etc.. - he believes they're the main reason people hit the 'plateau effect' where you lose weight at first then it stops. All his workouts on the plan are do at home workouts that require little space and nothing more than a few weights and a chin up bar or resistance bands. So what you end up with is a plan from day 1 to day 30 mapping out which workout you are going to do on each day, and obviously you never do the same one twice in a row. Also its not just weights and squats - his workouts cover Kenpo, Yoga, Plyometrics (jump training), Core Synergistic's, and old school PE lesson stuff like arm circles and superman/banana. I can only speak from experience but its the first time in my life I haven't hit the plateau so frankly I believe it.
What really helps me personally though is him - he's very motivational during the workouts and you genuinely want to keep going even when you're in agony! Its very easy to motivate yourself for the workout each day and I think thats whats made the difference with me.
I'm glad that you've found success with a particular program but its not the only solution - there will be cases of people having success with various different programs (and no doubt others who will say those don't work - that they're fads etc..). I guess if you've found a framework that you believe in and can stick to then that must help immensely - it really does seem to be a psychological barrier that prevents people losing weight.
Loosing weight in itself isn't rocket science - eating healthily and doing exercise... taking in less calories... sticking to it on the other hand is no doubt much harder in practice for people who've gone so far that they've become massively obese. Having something to stick to, lots of encouragement/motivation and the belief that it will work likely helps a lot. You could achieve similar effects through a change in diet and running* (in theory) whether you'd stick to it, not become bored and have as much motivation as you'd perhpas get from some motivational American fitness bloke is another matter.
*see Sam for instance - he was very big at one point, started running and moved onto doing marathons etc...
Forgot to say massive congrats to Rikvid, keep it up. Sounds like a good enough plan to me. Soon you'll be able to make one of those before and after photos you see on pron site adverts.
Quote from: Dave on July 01, 2012, 18:13:56 PM
I'm glad that you've found success with a particular program but its not the only solution - there will be cases of people having success with various different programs (and no doubt others who will say those don't work - that they're fads etc..). I guess if you've found a framework that you believe in and can stick to then that must help immensely - it really does seem to be a psychological barrier that prevents people losing weight.
Loosing weight in itself isn't rocket science - eating healthily and doing exercise... taking in less calories... sticking to it on the other hand is no doubt much harder in practice for people who've gone so far that they've become massively obese. Having something to stick to, lots of encouragement/motivation and the belief that it will work likely helps a lot. You could achieve similar effects through a change in diet and running* (in theory) whether you'd stick to it, not become bored and have as much motivation as you'd perhpas get from some motivational American fitness bloke is another matter.
*see Sam for instance - he was very big at one point, started running and moved onto doing marathons etc...
Absolutely agree there's various methods of loosing weight and it is just a case of finding what works, largely because the principles are the same - eat healthily and get burning calories. There is slightly more to it in terms of avoiding the plateau and fuelling yourself correctly with carbs and having enough protein to replace muscle tissue - but I absolutely agree that the physchological barrier is the real killer. TBH if you can beat that barrier you're home free in many ways because even the plateau effect will only last so long - its just unfortunate that its so de-motivational that it requires an awful amount of will power to push through it. This is the main reason I personally get on well with P90x because it takes this out of the equation. Running to take your example, is an absolutely fantastic exercise and I've been running on and off for the last couple of years and really love it, but as a weight loss tool I haven't had much success because I've always hit the plateau. I have seen many people lose weight in that manner but it didn't work for me. I'm looking forward to going running again once I've shifted a lot more of my existing weight though! :)
Quote from: addictweb on July 01, 2012, 19:55:23 PM
Forgot to say massive congrats to Rikvid, keep it up. Sounds like a good enough plan to me. Soon you'll be able to make one of those before and after photos you see on pron site adverts.
Haha that would be awesome - I was going to clear my wardrobe out but maybe I should keep some of my old jeans for that photo where you put them on and hold the waist out!! :D
Quote from: Rivkid on July 02, 2012, 09:15:49 AM
Haha that would be awesome - I was going to clear my wardrobe out but maybe I should keep some of my old jeans for that photo where you put them on and hold the waist out!! :D
Or you never know when you need a pair of clown pants ;)
Quote from: Leon on July 02, 2012, 09:30:43 AM
Quote from: Rivkid on July 02, 2012, 09:15:49 AM
Haha that would be awesome - I was going to clear my wardrobe out but maybe I should keep some of my old jeans for that photo where you put them on and hold the waist out!! :D
Or you never know when you need a pair of clown pants ;)
Ohhhh the possibilites!!
Quote
Britain came close to adopting a traffic-light system of compulsory food labelling to grade the health impact of food products - but, as Jacques Peretti reports, opposition from within the food industry prevented it happening.
In the crucial 15 seconds a consumer takes to decide on a supermarket purchase, the labelling is often the deciding factor.
It means being able to know - at a glance - what goes in to what we eat. But for the food industry, it means being told what they must put on their packaging.
A significant part of the food industry is against legislated labelling. They want the freedom to decide how best to disclose the levels of fat, salt and sugar in their food so that it doesn't damage sales.
Labelling can easily lead to unintended consequences for the consumer according to Pierre Chandon, a visiting Scholar at Harvard Business School, whose research focuses on the ways in which fattening foods can be marketed as healthy.
Prof Chandon tested his theory by re-labelling familiar chocolate treats as "low fat".
"We found that just because [the treats] were called low fat, people consumed up to 50% more of them," he said.
"This is something I call 'the health halo'. It's the idea that when the food is marketed as being healthy, people think it has less calories."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18767425
The traffic light system suggested would have benefited people by making it easy to tell how bad a product was for you. It was vetoed and then the tories removed the FSA's food labelling responsibilities within 6 months of getting into office.
Traffic light systems are already on our food products often voluntarily. Look at tesco packaging. It also means f**k all. Britain isn't obese because it ate a single cake. It's obese because its whole entire lifestyle is unhealthy a pretty traffic light on your loaf of bread showing amber is going to do f**k all to stop obesity in this country.
"This bread has been rated as amber (per 1 slice)"
"Right so I use 4 slices for sandwiches does that mean it's still amber? I also had 2 slices of toast for breakfast and i'm having some rolls with some soup for dinner. sh*t...what colour is the bread now?!"
I got to 295lbs by eating what I wanted, whenever I wanted without thinking just what I was putting in my body.
You cannot say that they are "hiding" these things from us, I've lost 1st 6lbs in the last 3 weeks and you know how I've done it?
I've read the bloody packaging.
I initially followed the Dukan plan which I think is actually a great idea, not 100% suitable for my lifestyle but I follow it's core ethics. i.e. not too much carbs (carbs are sugars btw, don't treat them differently), more protein and even less fat.
The first week is exceptionally hard and atkins like. Expect to be knackered and don't try working out while doing it you'll collapse in a heap like I did, its not meant to be easy but what it does do is drop you 6-10lbs in a week really fast. Giving you that massive buzz you get from getting on the scales at the end of it.
The second week onwards is a lot more reasonable and the thoughts behind how your body gets used to being at a balance point actually ring true. I've been surfing the 300lb mark for the last half decade. Expect to drop 2-3lbs per week from this point on.
The 3rd stage lasts for 5 days for every 1lb you've lost. Basically forces your body to re-think its balance point and makes it your newly achieved goal weight.
It's a plan, not a fad diet and it's entire premise is getting you to think more about what you're eating.
The key to everything in life is moderation. If you really want pancakes and syrup for breakfast with some bacon on the side then stick to porridge or cereal for the rest of the week.
If you're out for a meal, do you have a starter at home? No? Then wtf are you doing eating a starter at a restaurant?
Spent all day sat on your arse? Get outside and go for an hour stroll or go run/jog 5km.
Your workplace is on the 3rd floor? That's 6 flights of stairs... stop taking the lift you lazy bastard and walk up them, leave extra time to get to your desk if you have to.
Britain is fat because Britain wants to be fat.
You've got metabolic issues?
WTF are you doing eating so much crap? You should be even more careful. My mum is an insulin dependant diabetic and she doesn't carry on eating cakes saying "im a diabetic" when she ends up in hospital. You have an even more important reason to not be eating crap and to be undertaking perscribed exercise, because if you don't you'll balloon and put yourself at massive risk of health issues later in life.
Additionally have you ever stopped to think that maybe the reason you have metabolic issues is due to your weight? Its a known fact that people's metabolism can be changed through healthy eating and exercise.
Quote from: M3ta7h3ad on July 21, 2012, 20:01:55 PM
You cannot say that they are "hiding" these things from us, I've lost 1st 6lbs in the last 3 weeks and you know how I've done it?
I've read the bloody packaging.
So you didn't read the packaging before? Perhaps you decided 'I'll look really good if I'm nice and fat.'
And yes, they do "hide" as much of it as they can from you. If they could get away with it they wouldn't put any nutritional information on at all.
Quote
Britain is fat because Britain wants to be fat.
Britain is fat because it is against corporate profits for us to be slim. Most hardly notice their gaining weight, they wake up one morning and suddenly realise how many pounds they have put on.
Then they go on a diet, and because they eat the wrong stuff they fail, and fail again.
I've seen a video news clip of two American women tucking into huge amounts of sweets. When asked they said that the stuff was 'low fat and couldn't make them put on weight' :dunno:
Advertising wins over education every time, because it's in front of people every day.
Quote from: Serious on July 22, 2012, 10:00:29 AM
Quote from: M3ta7h3ad on July 21, 2012, 20:01:55 PM
You cannot say that they are "hiding" these things from us, I've lost 1st 6lbs in the last 3 weeks and you know how I've done it?
I've read the bloody packaging.
So you didn't read the packaging before? Perhaps you decided 'I'll look really good if I'm nice and fat.'
And yes, they do "hide" as much of it as they can from you. If they could get away with it they wouldn't put any nutritional information on at all.
Quote
Britain is fat because Britain wants to be fat.
Britain is fat because it is against corporate profits for us to be slim. Most hardly notice their gaining weight, they wake up one morning and suddenly realise how many pounds they have put on.
Then they go on a diet, and because they eat the wrong stuff they fail, and fail again.
I've seen a video news clip of two American women tucking into huge amounts of sweets. When asked they said that the stuff was 'low fat and couldn't make them put on weight' :dunno:
Advertising wins over education every time, because it's in front of people every day.
You got it. I didn't bother reading the packaging before. The moment I started taking an interest in what was shoving in my gullet I started losing weight.
Britain is not fat due to corporate wallets. As you correctly state in the very next sentence, Britain is fat because they don't take an interest in what is already in front of their faces, be it their appearance or the detailed ingredients and nutritional information on the side of the packet they're about to tear open.
Low fat means exactly that. It's lower in fat than regular product. Not that it's impossible to gain weight. Advertising cannot be blamed for idiocy, instead our failing education system can take that one on the chin.
Just like the six second abs advert with the giant white text saying "this product will only aid weight loss if used as part of a full exercise program and with a healthy balanced diet". You're still going to get the idiots that will say they thought they were going to get a six pack by simple pulling a piece of plastic into their belly.
Sure there are cases of misleading advertising which is why we have ASA. However in the main most companies are actually very open regarding the nutritional value of their food products. There's an increased focus nowadays on the "corporate social responsibility" that a company has to its customers and the world as a whole, which has led to more disclosure about what goes into the products we eat.
Low fat may mean low fat but it covers up the fact that people don't really like the taste of low fat. Try feeding skimmed milk to kids, they don't like it. That means they replace the fat with high sugar - which is worse for those eating it and a flavour. They then extol how the calcium and low fat content is good for kids. It is a lie by omission, which isn't covered by the ASA. I could put a low fat statement on a 2 kilo bag of sugar.
The companies gain because sugar, of any kind, gets mass produced and is really cheap for them. They have no reason to do otherwise than pack it in. Sugar affects people's eating habbits, it gets digested very quickly, stops people feeling full and encourages them to eat more. That means corporates have absolutely no reason to change and every reason to promote eating sugars.
If they wanted to be truthful they would put a big sticker on HIGH SUGAR - THIS PRODUCT WILL MAKE YOU FAT. They don't want to be truthful, it is against their shareholder's profits to be truthful. Corporate management can and has been sued for doing it by their shareholders.
Quote from: Serious on July 28, 2012, 12:08:55 PM
Low fat may mean low fat but it covers up the fact that people don't really like the taste of low fat. Try feeding skimmed milk to kids, they don't like it. That means they replace the fat with high sugar - which is worse for those eating it and a flavour. They then extol how the calcium and low fat content is good for kids. It is a lie by omission, which isn't covered by the ASA. I could put a low fat statement on a 2 kilo bag of sugar.
The companies gain because sugar, of any kind, gets mass produced and is really cheap for them. They have no reason to do otherwise than pack it in. Sugar affects people's eating habbits, it gets digested very quickly, stops people feeling full and encourages them to eat more. That means corporates have absolutely no reason to change and every reason to promote eating sugars.
If they wanted to be truthful they would put a big sticker on HIGH SUGAR - THIS PRODUCT WILL MAKE YOU FAT. They don't want to be truthful, it is against their shareholder's profits to be truthful. Corporate management can and has been sued for doing it by their shareholders.
Not sure where you are buying your low fat diet foods but normally you'll find they use sweeteners not sugar in its place.