[Closed] See this is why people are fat...

I don't think cashew nuts are responsible for the obesity epidemic 🙂

Fat doesn't make you fat.

People are fat because they have no self control.

I agree it's stupid but for the opposite reason.

When I'm trying to figure out how much fuel I can pack in I don't want to know how many kcals are in 4/7th of the packet, I want to know how much energy I get when I pour the lot down my neck. Don't make me do maths when I'm starving!

Fat doesn't make you fat.

This.^

I don't think cashew nuts are responsible for the obesity epidemic

True, but you get the same misleading labelling on loads of foods.

Fat doesn't make you fat.

Indeed, but the calories do (IMO).

So prominently labelling something as containing 146kcal per serving, when in reality most people would eat the whole 350kcal pot is deliberately misleading.

(Especially as many of the population would struggle to read the small text and many others would find it tricky to calculate 60/100 * 583 in their head).

I will see your nuts and raise you a

[img] [/img]

It's definitely stupid (and misleading) to package something in a small (apparently) 1 portion box then say that a typical portion is only about 40% of the already small packet. At least they're not sugar coated.

Fat doesn't make you fat.

Also, this is spot on.

Eh? But this is a 60g pot? So a "typical serving" is five-twelfths of a pot? Who eats five-twelfths of a pot? That doesn't sound very typical to me.

I'm assuming it's some kind of government "healthy eating" BS that encourages them to state that a serving of nuts should be 25g.

Indeed, but the calories do (IMO).

Label vs portion size is indeed crap but I'm tempted to think that nuts pose little danger to fat people unless they're in a chocolate bar or a cake.

Sadly, fatty unhealthy food is tasty and cheap.

Trans-fats in processed food make you fat, as the body cannot do anything with them. I lost 3 stone last year by removing all hydrogenated fats from my diet. I used real butter, full fat milk and didn't take much notice of fat content, beyond any hydrogenated fats.
People are fat because they eat flora instead of butter, because they choose lower cholesterol (not really a very big issue unless you are over 50) and un-saturated (trans) fats over natural ingredients and healthy fats.
Sorry, bit of a rant and I do agree with the silly labelling in this case, but I am far more troubled by companies selling people food that is very bad for them (or at best has no benefit) on the promise that it is good for them...

Rant over...

Oh.. what's this? "A typical 25g serving contains"

Fat doesn't [b]necessarily[/b] make you fat.

FTFY

People are fat because they eat flora instead of butter

People are fat for loads of reasons, trying to pin it on one thing, even for a specific person, is foolish and leads to loads of confusion.

Lots of things we do (or don't do) contribute to our weight, as well as our physiological profile.

And being thin doesn't automatcally make you right.

Fat people are great, I always like seeing a big fat porker, especially one eating chips, maybe smoking a fag and drinking some full fat coke. 8)

Portion size is a problem.

I started bringing in a small pot of nuts (well, nuts and raisins to be precise) to eat at work, as I thought they might fill me up better than some of the other stuff I was bringing in. I am buying a big bag and filling my own pot daily.
But, I have noticed that the pot seems to be getting fuller and fuller as the days go on, so I measured it out today and what started out at around 25-30g has probably grown to over twice that - I stopped pouring when I got to 30g and it was at least half what I have been putting in. I think the packet said 130 cals/25g so I was eating well over that as an afternoon snack....hmmmm.

And being thin doesn't automatcally make you right.

Being thin doesn't automatically mean you eat well either.

Eating like a twot makes you fat

Wouldn't it be simpler if the label just told you how many calories were in the whole container and left the portion size up to you?

I suspect most people struggle to divide and multiply decimals in their head whilst they are busy shopping.

It seems to me that you can just reverse-calculate your calories per portion, depending on what you want the label to say. Want your food to be perceived as healthy? Just fiddle the portion size.

Fat doesn't make you fat.

^ +1

Exactly how much of the calories in cashew nuts can the body break down?

Look at it from Tesco's point of view. If they put the calories and fat for the whole pack on the front, no-one would buy them, as they would be "unhealthy". If they only put 25g in the pack, no-one would buy them, as they want more than 5 nuts per pack. So, the happy medium is to put out a decent size pack, but put information for a small serving on the pack. I think Tesco's would call this giving the people what they want (or not giving them what they don't want).
Not saying I agree with this, but I can see how this silliness has come about...

It seems to me that you can just reverse-calculate your calories per portion, depending on what you want the label to say

This is why I'm fat. Could you resist that chubby, hearty welcoming smile? those bingo wings? The beckoning beigeness of the sausagey, pastry-encased goodness? No. Me neither!

[img] [/img]

this is way down the list of reasons why people are fat.
people trivializing fatness is higher up the list (ref. binner's stock post)

Pigface - Member
I will see your nuts

#childishhumour

To their credit at least Greggs honestly tell you how many calories are in a whole Steak Bake ([url= https://www.greggs.co.uk/assets/Nutritional-Guide-2014.pdf ]403kcal[/url]) instead of pretending that people [i]typically[/i] only eat two-fifths of it.

Politically and morally tricky but someone needs to make the case for the economic impact of obesity & diabetes:
Reduces energy levels and likely therefore productivity
Increases absence and therefore productivity
Increases cost of running NHS and therefore increases taxes or reduces government investment elsewhere.

As a thin person who watches his diet like a hawk and does loads of exercise I do have some sympathy for people who are overweight/obese as it seems like a constant battle against social norms, employers' lack of concern/paying you to sit all day instead of stand and move, and against the food industry and the way unhealthy food is marketed.

If I wasn't so stubborn I suspect I'd be overweight too - it really does take a massive focus to be healthy given current options, choices and expected behaviours.

Big question for me is: how come UK is in such a shocking state but other Western European countries are not? I don't think the UK is significantly less disciplined or lazier than France, Germany, Sweden etc.

I think it's too late to properly get on top of obesity and suspect the economic impact is going to be more significant than many people expect...

Yeah... but fat people are jolly. And jolly people put everyone in a good mood, with their portly good-natured appearance, and bubbly personalities. And they always bring cakes into work, cheering everyone up.

That probably offsets all the negatives, when you think about it

- it really does take a massive focus to be healthy given current options, choices and expected behaviours.

It really doesn't. All it takes is a little more time preparing fresh food instead of buying processed food which is packed with sugar and salt. Not snacking on shite all day long and a little bit of exercise goes a long way too.

I cycle and am generally healthy but put no effort into it at all other than just avoiding the obvious pre-packaged sugar/carb/fat food and drink.

[i]Increases cost of running NHS[/i]

[url] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28779493 [/url]

Edit:
And that's ^^ just for cancer... No mention of stroke and CVD.

The cost of diabetes in the NHS is colossal and a lot is caused by preventable type-2 diabetes.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/12/nhs-diabetes-drugs-800m-obesity-sugar-vat ]Grauniad t'other day[/url]

I reckon the nanny state *should* step in. Subsidies, if any, should be given to healthier options. Until, of course, lobbying to corrupt politicians denotes a large bag of chips to be one of your 'five a day'.

the U.K. will keep on getting fatter all the time people are happy with this kind of lifestyle and see no reason to change

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Off at a slight tangent.

My daughter is type one diabetic so we are have to check the carbohydrate content of everything she eats. The whole “One 25g portion contains…” stuff on a 60g pack bursts my hump, boils my wee, ignites my poo etc… Just tell me how much is in the pack if it is of an amount that is clearly intended to be eaten in one go!

While I’m on… what is the point of telling me the carb content of the dry weight of something that is to be cooked in water?

Nah, this is why people are fat.....

[img] [/img]

remote control? While it'd help I don't think getting up to swap the channel would solve the obesity epidemic

<edit> didn't think it needed it but have a 😉 just in case

How can they get up they are barefoot?
they mean lack of shoes leads to us all being less mobile

Fat doesn't make you fat.

Supermarkets?
Society?
Thatcher ?

I suspect most people struggle to divide and multiply decimals in their head whilst they are busy shopping.

I love the muppets that type "fat doesn't make you fat". I think that is common knowledge.
More fat than than you can use does.

fat doesn't make you fat

fin25 - Member
Trans-fats in processed food make you fat, as the body cannot do anything with them. I lost 3 stone last year by removing all hydrogenated fats from my diet. I used real butter, full fat milk and didn't take much notice of fat content, beyond any hydrogenated fats.

Can you explain what I see as a contradiction in your post? If 'the body' cannot do anything with Trans-fats, how can cutting them out cause you to lose weight? Unless you've lost other fats and the trans-fat remains, never to be shifted? In that case you'd get cumulatively fatter as you age by having trans-fats in your diet.

Nice one losing the weight though, regardless!

I have seen the full fat milk, butter etc. advocated by some body builder, fitness types. I'm sure it was on social media in response to an NHS website saying eat low-fat yoghurts, semi-skimmed milk etc. They were stating this was fundamentally wrong

More fat than than you can use does.

Your body absorbing more calories than you use does.

and at 9 calories in 1g of fat its easy to absorb more calories than you need from fat.

I have seen the full fat milk, butter etc. advocated by some body builder, fitness types. I'm sure it was on social media in response to an NHS website saying eat low-fat yoghurts, semi-skimmed milk etc. They were stating this was fundamentally wrong

dmorts I think its because low fat stuff is often bulked out with sugar which is worse for you than fat. People just assume its a healthy option because theres no fat in it.

Yeah gotta watch a lotta the low fat yoghurts and stuff as it normally means that they've whacked a load of sugar in place of the fats.

A certain amount of the right fats good for you - trans fats the work of the devil tbh. The more unprocessed your diet the better but again portion controls important eating over maintenance calories makes you fat regardless of whether the foods healthy or not.

My pet peeves what would be healthy food but has been over sugared etc but still gets marketed as healthy.

Ok, low fat yoghurts aside (bad example, I know they're bad due to extra starch for thickeners and extra sugar to make up flavour). Semi-skimmed milk? Flora spread, why are those so bad?

All it takes is a little more time preparing fresh food instead of buying processed food which is packed with sugar and salt.

Rubbish. I can prepare you a fresh cake made from wholesome natural ingredients in about 45 mins. Eat as much as you want - it's freshly prepared!

PLEASE beware of saying 'well I did X and it worked so that's all you have to do'. Our bodies vary a lot, and what works for you may not work for someone else. It's like me saying to get to London you have to take the M4. Great if you're in Swindon, not if you're in Newcastle.

If you do want to put the blame on one thing, I'd say sugar. The largest number of fat peple would benefit the most by cutting it out imo.

Semi-skimmed milk? Flora spread, why are those so bad?

Flora spread, why are those so bad?

Rubbish. I can prepare you a fresh cake made from wholesome natural ingredients in about 45 mins. Eat as much as you want - it's freshly prepared!

Ok I don't, but I COULD have them fresh, in theory. Wouldn't make the cake any better for you 🙂

I think full fat milk has a higher GI, and more omega whatsits too. Point is that fat helps you feel satisfied, so going low fat might make it harder to abstain from bad things, since your body tends to want higher sugar things when it's really hungry (at least mine does).

Ok I don't, but I COULD have them fresh, in theory. Wouldn't make the cake any better for you

Ever wondered how many calories you need?
http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/food-diet-nutrition-info/5071-formulating-your-diet-beginers.html

Fascinating article here with an extract from J Beradi (author of Nutrition: The complete guide) about calculating your calorie expenditure.
Not all fats are created equal, and sugar is the devil.

Ok but the point stands. Just because it's unrefined doesn't mean it's good for you or will prevent you getting fat.

Look at it from Tesco's point of view. If they put the calories and fat for the whole pack on the front, no-one would buy them, as they would be "unhealthy". If they only put 25g in the pack, no-one would buy them, as they want more than 5 nuts per pack.

This is why Tesco shouldn't be allowed to decide.

The whole aspect of potion sizes and food labelling is a massive shambles perpertated by our shower of a governement being presured by food lobyist. Two examples

King sizes: King sizes were banned due to being spectacularly unhealthly. Good. But within months the chocolate brands had all released "duo packs". To anyone with half a brain these are just king sizes in disguse but our impotent regulator has swalled the food industries BS that these sizes are two bars so are for sharing. This nuts packed is just another example of this. Should be illegal.

Food Labelling: There is some very compelling research that shows traffic light based labelling hugely improved people's purhcasing choices. I was going to be law but Tesco lobbied against it because they wanted their inferior % based system. Mainly becuase its easier to con people. 17% of your daily fat does seem as bad a red light for fat. Our incompetant government wouldn't stand up to Tesco and we have a crappy food labelling regulation.

Sure people need to make more responsibility for themselves but that is much harder when at every turn huge corportaions are deliberately trying to confuse and trick you into doing the wrong thing. This is where regulation should step in. Nobody is saying it should be illegal to eat two Mars bars or a whole pack of nuts if you want to but it should be illegal for the packagining to deliberately confuse you into thinking that is OK.

Ok but the point stands. Just because it's unrefined doesn't mean it's good for you or will prevent you getting fat.

You can be fat as you like in my book, but dont be lazy. Or use being fat as an excuse not to do things, like walk.

Medical issues aside.

These things are not mutually exclusive as we all know some large, healthy fit, active people. Contrary to popular belief, they do exist.

Depends on how much you eat really.

How about sucking on sugar cane all day?

Sure people need to make more responsibility for themselves but that is much harder when at every turn huge corportaions are deliberately trying to confuse and trick you into doing the wrong thing.

Worse than this is the normalisation of it. Walk around an office and there's cakes and doughnuts everywhere, half the office is drinking coke and eating chocolate. And there are always vending machines ready to dish it out.

It's a bit like (I imagine) being an alcoholic and having to spend 8 hours a day in a pub full of people drinking lots and having fun.

To anyone with half a brain these are just king sizes in disguse but our impotent regulator has swalled the food industries BS that these sizes are two bars so are for sharing.

I think it's more likely they were advised they couldn't win in a lawsuit if the industry decided to push the issue. So it's lawyers making us fat 🙂

why does the pot contain two and one-sixth servings?

This is a particular bug-bear of mine at the moment, and I'm convinced it's intentionally misleading.

I got a bag of chocolate buttons the other day. The nutritional guidelines listed "per 100g" (good for comparisons) and "per 25g serving" (good for marketing BS). So far so froody.

Except, the bag contained 119g of chocolaty goodness. Ie, four and nineteen twenty-fifths servings. WTAF? Surely, [i]surely[/i] that completely counters the 'servings' concept? How many calories are in the bag? How's your 1.19 times table?

How about sucking on sugar cane all day?

[i]Apparently raw sugar cane is low-GI[/i].
No, its just unrefined. The people who harvest sugar cane will chew on it during the day. However, harvesting sugar cane by hand is apparently hard, physical work.

[i]I'm struggling to picture a scenario where someone who only eats unrefined/unprocessed foods is unhealthy[/i]
I'm not sure I'd like to find out how healthy I'd be if I tried to survive on unrefined grains and unprocessed pulses.

Nice try, but not really relevant as they aren't human foods are they? You might as well argue that you wouldn't survive eating unrefined rocks. 🙂

Try eating a punnet of fresh, unrefined apricots...... I don't think I've ever felt so close to death

I bet you've only done it once though!

and I'm convinced it's intentionally misleading.

Of course it is, it's a total con.

Supermarkets et al sign up to the voluntary traffic light scheme then purposely abuse it by doing this sort of bollocks.

[i] as they aren't human foods are they? [/i]
I'd agree, but the baker will tell you different 😉

😆 @ Batfink

Politically and morally tricky but someone needs to make the case for the economic impact of obesity & diabetes:
Reduces energy levels and likely therefore productivity
Increases absence and therefore productivity
Increases cost of running NHS and therefore increases taxes or reduces government investment elsewhere.

You could add that fatties tend to peg out earlier than skinnies, so while short term they may cost the NHS a fair whack, Society saves dosh by not having to pay their pensions or store them in an old folks home until they're 120.

WackoAK.
Well put, things in that respect haven't changed from the 70s. When told to reduce fat content. Food manufacturers turned it around & made low fat a selling point, ie, they turned a threat, into an opportunity and boy does low fat sell !

I think it's more likely they were advised they couldn't win in a lawsuit if the industry decided to push the issue. So it's lawyers making us fat

But who makes the laws? The goernment made a crappy law that the evil lawyers are exploiting.

This is a good example.

Except, the bag contained 119g of chocolaty goodness. Ie, four and nineteen twenty-fifths servings. WTAF? Surely, surely that completely counters the 'servings' concept? How many calories are in the bag? How's your 1.19 times table?

You can't make it illegal to sell a large bag of chocolate but you can force the manaufacturer to label it properly. So rather than the manufacturer getting to pick a portion size that means the bag seems healthy they should be forced to make it relate to what people will actally eat.

So rather than a crappy little warning saying if you eat 25/119th of this bag you will have eaten 9% of your daily fat allowance there should be a big warning saying if you eat half this bag that is RED = bad for you.

People aren't stupid, they know chocolate is bad for you. But then they read a warning like there currently is, which basically says "go on... they're not that bad for you"

I've been using the my fitness pal app for a couple of weeks now..... It's genuinely surprising how many calories are in [i]what you previously thought were[/i] healthy foods.

I previously subscribed to the whole "everyone knows what's healthy and what's not" school of thought.... But now I don't.

The labelling of products is exactly the same in the Dutch supermarkets, most of the products are the same but the level of obesity is about half that of the UK - I'm not convinced that it's product labelling thats the root of the issue.

Labelling Guidelines:

"[i]Just tell them what's in the f'ing pot and don't be a deceitful shit about it[/i]".

I'm a massive fan of MyFitnessPal too - you're right it really opens your eyes to less-obvious calories and stupid portion sizes (both large and small).

A set of digital scales is an excellent investment too.

The labelling of products is exactly the same in the Dutch supermarkets, most of the products are the same but the level of obesity is about half that of the UK

Activity levels play a part obviously. A few extra calories matters a lot less when a large part of your population cycle everywhere.

it's genuinely surprising how many calories are in what you previously thought were healthy foods.

Lots of calories doesn't necessarily mean unhealthy though. I think most things only become unhealthy when you eat an awful lot of it or don't do enough physical activity to burn off the extra calories. For your average joe eating fast food once a month only becomes unhealthy when he's doing it every other day.

I think most things only become unhealthy when you eat an awful lot of it or don't do enough physical activity to burn off the extra calories

That's the whole point of MyFitnessPal: track estimates of Calories In versus Calories Out and keep the numbers in your favour.

It's crude and people will argue that calories in versus calories out is an oversimplification (which I'm sure it is) but it works and is easy to understand.

But who makes the laws?

Sugar:

[url= http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/Fructose/sugar-consumption2.jp g" target="_blank">http://www.indiana.edu/~oso/Fructose/sugar-consumption2.jp g"/> [/img][/url]