to think that losing weight isn't as complicated as it's made out to be?

[upsylazy]

NB I am not saying that losing weight is EASY as i have learned from personal experience. But there do seem to be this plethora of methods, books, videos, personal plans out there about it. Through my lifetime, I've had to listen to people drone on endlessly abouy the grapefruit diet, the F plan diet, the Cambridge diet, diets where you can't mix food groups right up to Atkins and all the low carb stuff.
My understanding from biology at school is that food contains units of energy (calories) and I seem to remember this being demonstrated by burning a peanut and seeing how much it raised the temperature of a test tube of water.
The understanding I have is that if you consume more calories than you burn off, you'll put on weight and vice versa. I've never found that idea particularly complex. I don't doubt that a lot of these diets work but they can only work if you burn up more calories than you consume.
Also, can someone please please tell me why carbs have suddenly become so bad for you? I can understand that saturated fat is bad as it clogs up your arteries and that too much salt is bad as it can raise blood pressure and reduce bone density but what do carbs DO to you that make them so terible?
I'm sitting in an office with that food pyramid thingy on the wall which basically says that carbs are good and that your diet should contain more of them than meat or dairy products. So are they wrong about this?
I don't have a problem with things like weight watchers as I can see that group suport can be invaluable. It's just all the new books and plans and programmes which various people (none of whom seem to be dieticians) are obviously making a packet from. I am perfectly prepared to stand corrected BTW.

I did see that, and when asked what could be done about the other doctor said that loosing weight would correct it. This is where self determination and self control come in.

It is a cause of gaining weight but shouldn't be used as an excuse not to lose weight.

Jins - you are wrong about the cheese!

Yes, I agree, but imagine if you then have another food issue like addiction or even low self esteem, there is rarely ime one simple reason for such massive weight gain. I didn't say it was an excuse, I am just saying that there is some times a hard wall to break through. It Must be very difficult to stop yourself eating when your body is telling you that it is always hungry.

So sorry for my mistake Nancy

I just reproduced it from my copy of the 1972 book

Wasn't 1972 the original book?

I've not found one earlier yet

Wow.

An important point was made earlier.

FAT BASHING MAKES PEOPLE FATTER.

So everyone on this thread throwing blame around, and words like excuse, greedy, lacking will power, what exactly are you trying to do?

Are afraid of losing out to the competition if the fat people in your life lose weight?

"ICBINEG Mon 07-Jan-13 14:41:16
betty I know - you asked who had said that James was greedy and I have pointed out the comment made by Thumb (one of many possible posters) that indicated the answer."

Say what? how on EARTH have you managed to take my comment, made BEFORE James' comment and suggest that I am somehow saying that she's greedy??

And of COURSE metabolic disturbances are different - but they're not caused by an "obesity gene".

I have used those terms when talking about myself. I am fat I am greedy and I was lacking in will power. I have had a realisation that I absolutely can not carry on like this.

FAT BASHING MAKES PEOPLE FATTER

It will make some people fatter. Some people will react to hurt by eating more cos it leaves them feeling worthless/depressed/powerless.

Others will be stung into action.

Shouting nasty things on the street is always unforgivable, and deserves all persons in the vicinty turning around and yelling stuff aimed at orginal shouters less attractive physical attributes.

Vindictive things said on a forum, ditto.

But greed, will power, self control and creating justifications to put off the pain of change put forward as elements, in reasonable and nutral tones, when discussing wieght loss in general terms....not so much. Becuase those elements, amoung others, will be part of the package for some of the people, some of the time, albeit to differing degrees.

Certainly while stopping smoking was the trigger that caused me to gain masses of wieght, greed, lack of will power/self control and gobs loads of excuse making were a fundamental part of the package. Although I would have ripped the skin off (using tongue as flayer) anybody who had had the misfortune to say anything of the kind to me at the time. Becuase what they didn't know was that I was having hungar pangs so strong that they were actually phycially painful. Which did nothing at all to improve my temper.

Unsurpisingly I see a lot of overlap between losing weight and stopping smoking. I think there is a balance to be had with

1. the "outsiders" taking on board the real difficulty and painful nature of the obsticles some people face

and

2. the "sufferers" not overegging their powerlessness to the extent they convince themselves there is almost fuck all within their power to change things especially if too much energy is placed on claiming that the power of outsiders' words is trapping the sufferers in the problem, all in the name of building up a defence against all and any unpalatable value judgement.

Changing that status quo would probably be better all round than what we have now for both giving up smoking and wieght loss issues.

There is a different issue going on here as well though.

Whilst there are people who clearly over-eat, for the rest of us - we have been given the wrong advice by our government for the last thirty years, and told to base our diet on carbohydrates. Fat has been demonised. In fact, it's carbohydrate that causes the weight gain.

We eat carbs, the blood sugar spikes, the body releases insulin. When we eat a lot of easily accessible carbs, like pasta, bread, fruit, the blood sugar spike is quick and huge, so the body pumps out loads of insulin. It sweeps the sugar out of the blood stream. Some of this blood sugar is used for immediate energy (e.g. the 'boost' you get from eating a piece of chocolate), some of it is stored in the liver and muscles for deferred energy needs - the rest is sent to the fat cells as fat.

Worse, the amount of insulin released to deal with the blood sugar spike means that blood sugar levels drop very quickly, and drop very low - making us shaky, irritable and hungry. This explains why you feel the need to eat something at 11.00 and 3.00. And what will you, typically, be eating when you're hungry at these times? More carbohydrates. Biscuits, chocolate, cake, a piece of toast ...

It's very long, but the first ten minutes should give you sufficient information.

Therefore, ultimately, gaining weight is not because people are greedy or lacking in willpower. It's the type of food that we are eating that is making us hungry - and fat.

It's time to stop demonising people and blaming weight gain on behaviour.

the "sufferers" not overegging their powerlessness to the extent they convince themselves there is almost fuck all within their power to change things especially if too much energy is placed on claiming that the power of outsiders' words is trapping the sufferers in the problem, all in the name of building up a defence against all and any unpalatable value judgement

I agree with this, bad diet advice and other circumstantial problems notwithstanding.

BigStickBIWI

do you use a blood sugar monitor as it should be used, routinely ?

Ditto do you POAS to check for keytosis ?

Without those tools being used how on earth could anybody really what is actually going on inside based on their diet given the degree of symtom overlap/confusion between the above?

You are presenting quite a large wad of therory, oft touted by people with a diet/product to sell, as FACT! The video you linked to is produced by the man flogging this

He even publically boasts about being a "close freind" of Deepak Chopra in denfense of his cancer quackdom.

Is there some kind of food allergy towards fact checking against slightly less biased and profit orientated sources before swallowing something whole?

Some people here are all up in arms about the terms some people have used caling them activly harmful, and yet so amny are happily sleepwalking into the arms of snakeoil salepersons who are a damn sight more likely to do you (and your diet/health) real harm.

You CANNOT claim to have researched something if your "evidence" is in the main the biased product of people who need to persuade as many as possible for the sake of their income stream.

I am in the wrong business. I am giving up my job and going into the diet business. Or at least I would for that one little fly in the ointment, I have a consiounce. Even if I can't spell it.

I'd say that the Diet Industry has contributed hugely to the obesity epidemic, with their low-fat emphasis. ESPECIALLY things like the Jane Asher range, which was rammed with sugar.
Fat reduces the GI of foods by slowing the absorption of the carbohydrates, reducing the sugar spike; this doesn't help anyone.

Years ago, I watched an interesting documentary that was discussing obesity and heart disease. It talked about a Govt review that was done in the early 70s, that originally found that there were 4 dietary factors involved - excess saturated fat, salt, cholesterol and sugar. But (and I realise that this could fall under conspiracy theory ideas) apparently the Tate family lobbied to have sugar removed from the report, presumably with subtle suggestions that they would withdraw funding.

Sugar is one natural food substance that we have absolutely no need for, as we can get all the glucose we need from complex carbs, or if necessary create our own (slower, but still an acceptable supplementary source of glucose).

My earlier comment re. excuses was made knowing that SOME people who have no willpower and overeat will USE the idea of an obesity gene as an excuse, rather than acknowledge their own complicity in their condition. I didn't by any stretch of the imagination mean that ALL overweight people were looking for excuses.

Obesity is too complex to blame on any one factor: -
some people may have a genetic profile that predisposes them to obesity, but not all obese people will;
some people will have PCOS or other metabolic disruption that predisposes them to obesity but not all obese people will;
some people are just greedy, but not all obese people are;
some people lack willpower to change their eating habits, but this isn't true for all obese people;
some people have Prader Willi syndrome but this is rare;
some people have addiction to over-eating based on their hedonistic responses and reduction in dopamine receptors in parts of the brain, requiring them to increase their intake to gain the same amount of pleasure (same goes for other types of addiction such as gambling, alcohol etc.) but this doesn't apply to all obese people.

One factor is not true for everyone; obese people may have one or more of the above contributing factors and others that I haven't listed.

No, I don't test my blood nor do I POAS. For me, I don't need to. Low carbing is working very well for me. Weight loss is my personal evidence.

I get what you're saying about bias, but it's very difficult to avoid.

I liked Gary Taubes' book "The Diet Delusion" for that reason though, given its thoroughness - the bibliography alone was something like 60 pages long.

I haven't claimed to have researched anything at all - although I have (unlike a lot of people on this thread) done a lot of reading around the subject.

thumb so what is your definition of "obesity gene"?

I would think a good definition is a genetic reason for people to gain weight even when eating normally?

PCOS is considered to have strong evidence implicating a genetic cause.

Hence my assessment that PCOS is caused by an "obesity gene".

When you said you didn't believe in "obesity genes" you were saying that you don't believe in a genetic cause for people gaining weight while eating normally. PCOS is just one example of a very real "obesity gene"

You were insulting people like James when you said you disbelieved a genetic cause of obesity exists whether or not they were currently on the thread.

PCOS may affect as many as 10% of women. If 25% are obese then it isn't a stretch to imagine that if you add in all the other suspected genetic causes of weight gain the MAJORITY of people struggling with weight may have genetic causes of their problems.

thumb in fact I would go further than that.

It is just as insulting to say you don't believe in an "obesity gene" (people are just fat because of greed etc), as it would be to say you don't believe in PND (people just need to grow up and get a grip) or to say you don't believe in asthma (people are just lazy and unfit) or to say you don't believe in ASD (people are just rude and can't be bothered to learn interpersonal skills) or to say you don't believe in dyslexia (people just can't be bothered to learn to spell / are just a bit thick).

Of course some people claiming all the above conditions do not actually have them and are just lazy etc. but to claim the conditions don't exist? Very insulting.

As I said 10% of the female population may have pcos. It isn't exactly a rare problem is it?

BIWI is pretty much right, but there are several different causes / potential causes of being fat, and several of them are being (REPEATEDLY) conflated in this thread.

• firstly, no one is pretending that you can be fat without eating too much. Obviously if you eat too much you get fat, and if you can correct this with enough of a deficit over time, you should get slim (within your natural limits). (Disclaimer: there may be special cases like PCOS where the amount you need to eat is ridiculously impractically low, but I don't know much about this)

• secondly, everyone is different. but within that, broadly speaking, there are certain body types, or certain propensities to metabolise food in different ways

• thirdly, I will not attempt to opine on why this is (whether inherent, or a result of other things, like diet to date, being heavy or slim, stress, eating at certain times of day) - because it just doesn't matter. It doesn't matter whether people became the way they are, or just are the way they are, as long as they know how to manage diet to their best advantage.

• There are psychological reasons why people may eat too much (comfort eating, conditioned to finish what's on the plate, eating through boredom etc). A person who eats too much for these reasons may need significant help to get over them and may find it very very hard. NO ONE IS SAYING THEY DON'T EAT TOO MUCH.

• this seems to be the tricky bit for some of you. THERE ARE ALSO PHYSICAL REASONS WHY PEOPLE EAT TOO MUCH. BIWI has outlined how carbs can lead (in some people) directly to EXTREME PHYSIOLOGICAL HUNGER SYMPTOMS. Which, in this strange anomolous corner of the world where you can get food any time cheaply, means that, over time, people eat too much. By physiological hunger symptoms I mean: dizziness, fainting, headache, black dots in front of the eyes. If you are sufffering from these symptoms it is very hard not to eat, because over time, you will not be able to do anything. You will lose your job, your children will go feral, people will start leaving broken fridges in your front garden, it's all over. You feel you have no choice but to have a banana / biscuit / low fat special K whatnot and soldier on.

• There is no diet advice available which is not influenced by the profit motive. The NHS is not directly a profit-making organisation but it is very close to the govt who are very close to "business" and there are a lot of big business interests wrapped up in all this. Cereals, sugar, confectionary - the big players are HUGE, poeple like Mars, Nabisco, Nestle, etc. There is a lot of money to be lost to them if people stop snacking and start eating fresh meat & veg at home, with tap water, instead. An incredible amount of money. Think of all those cereal bars, all those soft drinks, all those things picked up along the way at kiosks by people having their 4pm dip. It's absolutely vast.

(not that this is quite that simple of course. I do not really imagine Osborne and King Nestle are really locked in their strategy room with maps and charts, cackling, saying, "And after we have killed the babies in Africa, we can addict the world to sugar - and then sneer at them for being fatteys!")

• Finally it would be very nice if people would stop conflating the psychological with the physiological; and it would also be nice if people would stop pretending that people like me are trying to say fatness happens without overeating.

indeed curry. You can be overeating on 800 kcals a day if you are genetically unlucky.

Anyone saying someone eating 900 kcals a day and feeling ravenously hungry is greedy is going to get a up the nose from me.

I would also add another couple of factors, which I think are key.

First, we do not know how to cook in this country.

I run a lot of market research sessions about food, and people talk about their inability to cook. Sometimes with pride.

Cooking from scratch these days can be opening a packet of pasta and a jar of sauce to go with it.

Consequently many of us have very little understanding of what is actually in the food that we are eating. Most processed food (anything in a tin/packet/jar/ready meal etc) has stuff added that wouldn't be in there if you made it yourself. Especially sugar.

Second, we are constantly grazing - probably because of all the sugar/carbs we eat. Look at any high street nowadays and count how many of the shops are actually opportunities to fill our faces. How many times do you go for a coffee, and have a cake/biscuit/cookie to go with it? And how much of our time on-the-go is spent eating? Any takeaway food 'option' on any high street or in any railway station will be selling you primarily carbs. Sandwiches, pasties, burgers, soft drinks, confectionery, crisps, cakes .....

First, we do not know how to cook in this country

Actually I think while the ability is being lost that is overegging it.

It's more that people don't NEED to cook. They can buy ready made, be microwavable, chuck in oven to heat up, add boiling water, or piping hot from the take away.

That is what is cooking Italy's goose. There is still a strong food culture and the art of cooking hasn't been lost, but the siren song of the wider ranges and lower priced convience food is fucking everything up.

probably because of all the sugar/carbs we eat

All your examples are refined, simple carbs. Which are not quite the same thing as a slice of wholemeal toast or a baked potato with a blob of butter and a generous grind of white pepper on it. Which is why I think I get so fed up with the lo carb evanglicism.

If the argument against carbs is based primarily on a justifed hate of refined junk, then wouldn't it make more sense to focus on making sure people understood that refined white flour mixed with oil, sugar and some colours is not equal to a whole boiled potato or a normal helping of bulgar wheat/rice/lentils ?

Cos I think what might happen is that people steer away of the healthier "time consuming to prepare" complex carbs and reach for the grazable refined shite when they can't hack the lo carb option for another minute, believeing that since carbs are "bad" they might as well get hung for a sheep as lamp cos "it's all just sugar anyway!"

That was in part the issue with the fat angst wasn't it ? People ensuing whole yogurt, milk, cream and full fat milk and eating that horrible low fat or stuffed with sugar imitation stuff, feeling virtuous and cashing in that virtue for something far worse than a bit of real butter on your peice of toast and full milk on your cereal.

I think it is complicated. Everyone is different. Low carbing is very popular on mumsnet right now, there are so many people on threads who will say 'eat a carb, your blood sugar peaks and then crashes then you crave more carbs.' But that bears no relations to my experience. I eat complex carbs. I have my porridge for breakfast, potato or pasta or rice for supper, and you know what, they keep me completely full. After my small bowl of porridge, I can go for ages till lunch and not feel hungry (it was a different matter when I ate cereal, which is obviously much sweeter). Again a nice small bowl of wholewheat pasta makes me feel full for ages. I eat lots of veggies too. I know that lots of people lose lots of weight and feel great low carbing. I also know that lots of people do so and then put all the weight back on eventually.

I also think there is the simple matter is that we can't all low carb. It's disastrous for the planet. Have you seen how much water/land is needed to raise animals? What intensive animal farming looks like? How low fish stocks in our seas are getting? It isn't sustainable for us all to do it. Different matter if there are only a million people on the planet. Also, for peole who argue that the grains we eat are very different to those eaten by our ancestors; well that may be true, but there is evidence that they ate far more grains/carbs that people assume. And the meat that is produced now is going to be very different from what our ancestors ate too (wild animals, very lean, compared to the enormous size of them now after years of genetic mucking about, full of anti-biotics, not always grass fed) so the same could be said to you.

I also get a bit when people say that we've become fatter over the last 30 years because the government has encouraged people to eat low fat/high carb. There was a very interesting documentary the other day on glucose-fructose syrup and corn syrup being used in everything. There is very compelling evidence that this is a major reason for our obesity epidemic.

By all means do low carbing. If it works for you that's great, that's all that matters isn't it? But it's not for me. I eat in moderation, not too many carbs, not too much fat (but try to eat oily fish, seeds, and olive oil occasionally), not too much fruit, but lots and lots of veggies. I know several people who have lost masses of weight following this diet, and if it was true that eating carbs was such an issue, they couldn't have done so. They're all glowing with health on a low fat diet.

/end massively long post (sorry!)

All your examples are refined, simple carbs. Which are not quite the same thing as a slice of wholemeal toast or a baked potato with a blob of butter and a generous grind of white pepper on it. Which is why I think I get so fed up with the lo carb evanglicism.

Well, I DO use a blood sugar monitor as Dr Andreas Eenfeldt (thedietdoctor) suggests (he describes how to do this on his free blog, and explains why it is useful to do this), and one of the biggest learning points for me from doing these blood sugar tracking experiments is the way it shows complex carbs are no better than simple ones, and may actually have a worse effect on your insulin response, especially if you eat them several times a day (as we are told to!).

A dose of simple carbs will spike my blood sugar to the high end of normal, within about 40min and within 2 hours, it's back to baseline. A dose of complex carbs (containing the same amount of carbohydrate as the previous experiment), will take much longer (2hrs or so) to reach the spike (still just withing normal), and much longer to return to baseline (up to 5hrs depending on which grain or carb it was)... and actually this is really bad news for long term health as the number of hours a day your blood sugar is significantly over the base line has a very strong relationship with your risk of all of the metabolic diseases associated with overconsumption of carbs in the modern diet.

With a Paleo based diet, my blood sugar rarely moves off that baseline, when it does it returns to baseline very fast. My results (with the blood sugar testing experiments) are typical - Dr Eenfeldt suggests people do this testing as it demonstrates very well that the "wholegrain", complex carb message is misleading .

Just to point out - stable, low blood sugar is a predictor of long term good heath.

A friend has just posted a status on FB that I think is quite appropriate for this thread. It reads
'How to eat healthy-don't eat anything that has its own TV commercial'