[Closed] This Obesity Thing

FFS it's not bloody rocket science.

CV Exercise - gently at first, ramping up.
Do resistance exercise - more muscle mass, the higher your metabolism.
Eat Low-GI carbs, when eating carbs.
Eat Healthy Fats.
Take measurements, waist, hips, thighs, chest etc.
Ignore the bloody scales apart from a monthly weigh in.
Write everything down. Exercise, what you eat, drink, everything.

I'm not even arguing that eat less move more is a bad principle - what I'm arguing is that it's bad when shouted repeatedly by people who don't find it difficult to manage their weight and judgementally assume anyone that does is pathetic.

^this^

Also, remember we were initially talking about effective public policy. Shouting "put down the burger and go for a run, fatty" doesn't really work as a way of effecting change at a population level. Enabling people to be active as part of their everyday lives does.

as a former 23 stone person, you do not need to eat less and move more.
you just need to eat right, and do a bit of exercise.

What about all the 15-20 stone people who have tried to lose weight through eating less and moving more, but failed? Obviously, if you only count the ones for whom it's worked, it works. Once you include those that it's not worked for, it ceases to work.

it ceases to work for [i][b]some[/b][/i]
i would guess they stay fat?

What about all the 15-20 stone people who have tried to lose weight through eating less and moving more, but failed? Obviously, if you only count the ones for whom it's worked, it works. Once you include those that it's not worked for, it ceases to work.

Check the details mike?

How many times do you see folk coming out of a gym with a latte in their hands or drinking unnecessary sports (sugar) drinks????

Exactly. The reward effect: "I did exercise so I deserve a cake". So, telling them to exercise more hasn't helped; all they've done is read a magazine while on a stepper machine which has then made them feel they deserve a cake.

So, telling them to eat less and move more hasn't worked.

What if they'd walked to school/work every day for their whole lives instead? And how can we make that happen?

Genuine question from an interested party - is it possible to eat less and exercise more and NOT lose weight? Because that's depressing to contemplate.

It's possible to [i]try[/i] to eat less and move more, but not succeed.

Also, you can not eat [i]enough[/i] less, and move [i]enough[/i] more.

There are plenty of FREE apps and websites that allow you to assess what you put into your mouth and take responsibility for your choices. It's frightening at first when the hidden sugar and calories are shown. And it's hard work but at the end of the day, it comes down largely to personal choices.

In fact pathetic [b]in its true sense[/b] is probably correct...the difficulty in making such choices is indeed deserving of pathos.

For various external reasons, I made bad choices at the end of last year. This year, I am reversing them. Weight on, weight off.

(Heaven forbid), if any of us fell off our bike and the Docs said we'd probably never ride again but they wouldn't know for upto a year etc. I wonder how many of us would eat too much and drink too much alcohol feeling pissed off and depressed?

Especially if you couldn't exercise like you used to?

Exactly. The reward effect: "I did exercise so I deserve a cake". So, telling them to exercise more hasn't helped; all they've done is read a magazine while on a stepper machine which has then made them feel they deserve a cake.

It's the same thing. You can lead a horse to water but....each person has to make the correct choices. You do not deserve a cake. Have it if you want, but then you are simply kidding yourself. That doesn't negate the original message.

There are plenty of FREE apps and websites that allow you to assess what you put into your mouth and take responsibility for your choices. It's frightening at first when the hidden sugar and calories are shown. And it's hard work but at the end of the day, it comes down largely to personal choices.

They must have been what my skinny, truck-driving, fry-up eating, no exercise granddad used to stay in shape.

It's the same thing. You can lead a horse to water but....each person has to make the correct choices. You do not deserve a cake. Have it if you want, but then you are simply kidding yourself. That doesn't negate the original message.

So, we get rid of 40 million obese people by waiting for them to make the right, hard choices? Or, do we make changes to society that make the choices easy?

We could have waited for people to realise that smoking was bad, but we didn't. We changed the rules.

It's possible to try to eat less and move more, but not succeed.

Also, you can not eat enough less, and move enough more.

Does it all come down to being honest with yourself, then? The example I've had in my head all along is smoking, being an ex-smoker - how I gave that up was a simple little mantra, all I had to do to give up smoking was to never smoke again; how simple is that? It's binary in its simplicity. But I was discussing this very issue with Mrs Pondo last night, and she said, physical and psychological addiction notwithstanding, it's easier to give up smoking because w=once you give up, that's it - you don't have another one. But if you're on a diet, you still have to eat...

Has anyone else tried the Butterfield diet plan?

http://www.yorkvision.co.uk/lifestyle/my-week-on-the-butterfield-diet-plan/14/01/2014

There are plenty of FREE apps and websites that allow you to assess what you put into your mouth and take responsibility for your choices. It's frightening at first when the hidden sugar and calories are shown. And it's hard work but at the end of the day, it comes down largely to personal choices.

Yes and it just so happens that large percentages of people in developed countries have all started making similar personal choices at around the same time.

So, we get rid of 40 million obese people by waiting for them to make the right, hard choices? Or, do we make changes to society that make the choices easy?

We could have waited for people to realise that smoking was bad, but we didn't. We changed the rules.

Exactly.

It's an extraordinary conversation, and one made all the more so when we could all take a plane ride to places where people don't have enough to eat and are not overweight.

The people for whom ELMM doesn't work are, for the most part, still eating too much and not doing enough.

Yes it's more complex, but if people can't manage the simple stuff, how will they cope with the rest?

...but eventually it will have to give in to the inevitable and let go of them, right?
From where will it let go? What happens when they eat again?

You can drop fat at a reasonable sustainable rate without your body going into "starvation mode". What that rate is depends on the person.
But losing a couple of pounds a week (circa 7000 calories) is achievable if the person makes changes to both the In and Out sides of the equation.

However, people need to change lifestyles not just "diet".

If you crash diet and then go back on the pies/sweets/ale you WILL gain all the fat back and more besides.

Smoking's a good analogy. How much easier is it to give up smoking now that smoking is difficult to do: fewer shops selling them, can't smoke in pubs, more expensive, social pressure to not smoke, etc?

Having spent most if my professional life in the second/third worlds, I would respectfully dispute that notion. In relative terms (and as folk like gee etc have noted above in absolute terms) we have pretty much everything that we need (and don't need) and in varieties that are mind boggling. We then have to make the right choices but rarely do.

I think this is a problem, that we have too much choice around us, too much bombardment. For some people, it's baffling, and stressful. Conflicting advice everywhere, the diet industry is full of snake oil solutions peddled in a very seductive way, and because we are a quick-fix society, we are indeed seduced by them.

Counter that with the advertising for junk food, alcohol, all-inclusive holidays, and you have a recipe for brain scramble. Which makes it harder for people to make the "right choices". You can have an advert for Alli immediately followed by an advert for Maccy D's. Crazy. What kind of message is that, take a fat metabolising pill and eat some burgers?

As we export our lifestyle and products to the second and third worlds, they, too, are starting to have obesity problems. Look at China.

We have everything we want, but not necessarily everything we need in our society. Overeating, like many other addictions, is often related to poor mental health, and I would argue that in many cases that poor mental health is directly correlated to lifestyle - lack of connection to other people, stressful jobs, our high inflation of cost of living in relation to wages, and our total fetishization of the individual and monetary gain above the community.

Of course, I'm not holding the third world up as an ideal, crushing poverty, war and famine is hardly the solution, (although admittedly, it probably would make us thinner, if a lot more miserable). But the solutions don't lie in throwing more choices at people, and peddling more products to try and compensate for our unhealthy lifestyles, whilst simultaneously trying to sell us happiness and friendship in a nice, sugary, nutritionless Coke can, and then expecting the individual to negotiate this bewildering nightmare of conflicting messages and take on the burden of making the right choice.

i am with you on changing the rules for sure. But that still requires the correct choices. On the one hand the choice is desperately easy - what is more important than health? At the same, time it is (in practice) also very hard but our choices over the past two generations (and despite what is available to us in the first world) have made that even harder. Blame others for sure, but largely that comes down to individual responsibility and choices we all make.

largely that comes down to individual responsibility and choices we all make.

No man is an island.

Smoking's a good analogy. How much easier is it to give up smoking now that smoking is difficult to do: fewer shops selling them, can't smoke in pubs, more expensive, social pressure to not smoke, etc.

Littlemisspanda - last night I went to the cinema. Between my car and my seat, there was a Morrisons (where we bought water and (ouch) some minstrels (bad choice) 😉 ) and then a series of resturants - all you can eat Asian, Pizza, Frankies, Nandos etc. Then the coffee bars and worst of all the confectionary stand in the cinema itself.

We made choices all along. That's life. On the face of it the choices seem hard, but on reflection not at all. I made better but still imperfect choices. The minstrels were a bad choice. But there was no one else to blame. I could easily have walked past them as I did with the buy 2 get one free cinammon rolls at the entrance to Morrissons. Equally, I could have replaced the choc with a more healthy choice. But [b]I/we[/b] didnt.

No man is an island.

some are big enough......... 😉

Genuine question from an interested party - is it possible to eat less and exercise more and NOT lose weight?

Yes. As was mentioned earlier, there are feedback loops run by hormones that result in your body wanting to hang into its fat stores. Your body may be more or less sensitive to those hormones, to produce more or less.

So we all have different tendencies towards lipostasis (I just made that one up 🙂 ). That is,some find they don't gain weight easily, but they also don't lose it easily. Miketually is an example, and I am to a fair degree.

If I try and restrict my calorie intake, my riding slows down. Or rather, it takes me a lot longer to recover so I am always tired. And I don't lose weight. I lose more weight if I stop exercising altogether.

It may be that riding without enough calories causes my body to become more efficient and use less energy to ride, but I don't know. What suffers is my top-end power, so overall on a ride I probably do expend fewer calories.

I think careful carb intake management coupled with lots of low intensity riding is my best bet, but that takes more time than I can spare currently.

some are big enough.........

Indeed. At my current weight, I have my own moon.

THM - why are you so keen on emphasising personal responsibility yet seem to feel that businesses shouldn't have to exercise any responsibility?

Given we are aware of the massive societal harm caused by obesity shouldn't those promoting unhealthy foods (especially to kids) be seen in the same light as crack dealers?

Make the time mol. What is more important? Replace posting on STW with preparing the food you have identified. Job done.

So you do tell depressed people to cheer up MrSmith - not a massive surprise.

that is obviously not the case, lies and presumption Glum - not a massive surprise.

I am not. They complement each other. But the latter cannot compensate/replace the former.

FWIW, on the 'evil' stakes, 😉 I would put the food industry plus the [s]lying[/s] advertising industry ahead of banking and estate agency!!!

THM - why are you so keen on emphasising personal responsibility yet seem to feel that businesses shouldn't have to exercise any responsibility?

thm - I don't think individuals should abdicate responsibility at all. I am saying that the better choices are harder with all the noise around us. You are evidently a bright individual who is capable of drowning it out and making your own decisions. Other people might not be, so much.

Jamie earlier.

[img] [/img]

A company's responsibility is to it's shareholders.

Oh well, that's alright then.

I agree about the noise and wish I could drown it out completely. I could kill something other than my banana with my coffee (oops) right now!!! But with two bike races and a half mara in the nest 8 weeks, I have compensating noises as well!!! The devil and the angel on each shoulder !!

Pondo.

You asked if anyone had not achieved weight loss with the ELMM.

I was eating a strict 1000 calories a day, by doctors orders to "qualify" for treatment for a back condition. I'd lost 12kg and had been hovering at 102kg for 2 months. Despite riding 120 miles a week and swimming 4 times a week, each time doing 1500 metres. The weight loss only kicked off again when I increased to 1500 calories.

The doctor wanted me to be less than 90kg to be in the correct BMI band to warrant the surgery. I did manage to get low enough, but only thanks to dysentery. Managed to get down to 87kg. Although I was hospitalised to get my weight back up to a healthy level.

A company that only satisfies its shareholders will not survive. That is a fallacy.

It's incredible how difficult something as simple as eating has become. It's a basic mechanism that we need to undertake to survive, yet it almost does more harm than good for alot of people it seems.

I have suffered with depression, anxiety, bulimia, anorexia, BED and other issues for a number of years. It controls my life (what I have of one anyway). I struggle to work, socialize, exercise, look after myself. I struggle to eat when I know I need to lose weight, but the only thing that gives me any comfort/relief from feeling so low is eating lots. It's a vicious cycle, I often hope I never wake up in the morning.

I imagine there's a large number of people with some similar issues who probably all do wish they could just eat less and move more.

mate, if food makes you feel like that, you need to speak to someone.

A company that only satisfies its shareholders will not survive. That is a fallacy.

Thanks for sharing that sugernaut. Sorry to hear of your problems and I hope things gets better for you, and I agree with ton that you should get some help if you're not getting it already.

Hopefully some of the judgemental types on here might feel a slight twinge of empathy when reading that, but probably not.

mate, if food makes you feel like that, you need to speak to someone.

^this^

Hopefully you're already seeing someone, but if not please speak to your GP.

I think careful carb intake management coupled with lots of low intensity riding is my best bet

I think you/we/us have to be careful not to equate moving more only with exercise that we dress up for. As above, the gym twice a week shouldn't be seen as the only thing to do. Watching people is instructive, from the way they park as close as they can to the supermarket doors, to their choice to use escalators rather than stairs.

When I bought my house we viewed it after a younger couple. The lady came out saying 'Oooh, too many stairs!'.

It has 2 sets of stairs.

She was fat.

Moving more is at least as important as diet, and at least as well neglected.

mate, if food makes you feel like that, you need to speak to someone.

Just make sure that someone isn't MrSmith.

Yes. As was mentioned earlier, there are feedback loops run by hormones that result in your body wanting to hang into its fat stores. Your body may be more or less sensitive to those hormones, to produce more or less.

Let me correct you...

If you eat less calories than you burn you will lose fat. However if you crash diet you will induce a starvation state that will pile the lbs back on as soon as you go mack to your normal awful diet and exercise habits.

Pondo.

You asked if anyone had not achieved weight loss with the ELMM.

I was eating a strict 1000 calories a day, by doctors orders to "qualify" for treatment for a back condition. I'd lost 12kg and had been hovering at 102kg for 2 months. Despite riding 120 miles a week and swimming 4 times a week, each time doing 1500 metres. The weight loss only kicked off again when I increased to 1500 calories.

The doctor wanted me to be less than 90kg to be in the correct BMI band to warrant the surgery. I did manage to get low enough, but only thanks to dysentery. Managed to get down to 87kg. Although I was hospitalised to get my weight back up to a healthy level.

It really isn't as simple as people make out. Remember also that not only does your body hold on to certain food stuffs ( building muscle mass and/or fat depending upon the nature of the calorie intake) but it also excreets material as well. Sugar and carbohydrates ( which are broken down into sugar) if consumed in excess are stored as fat.Proteins are broken down into amino acids and can't be stored in the same way Also if you have too much of a calories deficit then you loose muscle mass which reduced the ability of your body to consume energy. Then there is the impact of insulin on the body and increasing views that the high levels of insulin production triggered through high sugar/carb diets actually switches off the brains response to insulin which would normally send a signal acting as an appetite suppressant.

Then there is the impact of insulin on the body and increasing views that the high levels of insulin production triggered through high sugar/carb diets actually switches off the brains response to insulin which would normally send a signal acting as an appetite suppressant.

Some studies have shown that artificial sweeteners may have a similar effect. So, the jokes earlier about Diet Coke making people fat could actually be true.

All well and good, but let's start by getting people to eat less and exercise more before we start explaining insulin to people who see cake/chocolate/chips/insert food of your choice as a regular part of their diet.

Some studies have shown that artificial sweeteners may have a similar effect. So, the jokes earlier about Diet Coke making people fat could actually be true.

and this is part of the debate within the WHO as they look to lower recommended sugar intake levels as artificial sweeteners may not be included and there is concern that this could make the problem even worse.

It's incredible how difficult something as simple as eating has become.

Easily explained though. And I think some folk miss how important this is.

Millions of years of evolution have given us a pretty simple programme when it comes to eating: if it's food, eat it. This is precisely what you need when there's bugger all food available for six months of the year. Summer? Quick, get fat, otherwise you won't survive the winter.

The influence of that subconcious programming is pervasive and follows us everywhere, including into Nandos and BK. We've not yet evolved to deal with the plentiful year round supply of pizza and cake that the modern world provides. The result is, we're living an eternal summer of fattening up for winter.

I don't think you can overstate how important the result of all that evolution is. Hormones drive everything.

"fat genes"? Actually might just be true, in a sense.

crikey - Member
All well and good, but let's start by getting people to eat less and exercise more before we start explaining insulin to people who see cake/chocolate/chips/insert food of your choice as a regular part of their diet.

Eat less but more importantly eat [b]differently[/b]NHS guidelines still promote a low fat high carb diet which is increasingly viewed as bad advice. A higher fat/ lower carb/sugar diet can actually substantially lower the appetite for food as well as promoting fat (rather than muscle loss)

All well and good, but let's start by getting people to eat less and exercise more before we start explaining insulin to people who see cake/chocolate/chips/insert food of your choice as a regular part of their diet.

Except it may be more likely to be successful to try and get people to eat healthily (thus making it easier to eat less overall) rather than just eating less of the same crap.

Edit: what MIkeWW said.

fat jeans........got a few pairs of them.

[img] [/img]

Make the time mol. What is more important?

Top priority currently is spending time with my wife and kids, and fixng things that we can't afford to pay someone else to fix 🙂

I only post on STW when bored at work - riding or cooking is not an alternative during work hours, sadly 🙂 Anyway my general diet is fine. My problem is treats.

Eat less but more importantly eat differentlyNHS guidelines still promote a low fat high carb diet which is increasingly viewed as bad advice. A higher fat/ lower carb/sugar diet can actually substantially lower the appetite for food as well as promoting fat (rather than muscle loss)

This ^ a lot of people try to eat well, but fail. More of them would probably succeed if they weren't trying to eat low-fat.

Let me correct you...

If you eat less calories than you burn you will lose fat. However if you crash diet you will induce a starvation state that will pile the lbs back on as soon as you go mack to your normal awful diet and exercise habits.

Correct me by all means, but correct me with MORE information not less 🙂

I've had a lot of success in the past 12 months with a diet that I broadly consider to be 'ELMM' based, albeit eating less in bursts rather than constantly. Yes, the *feted / dreaded* (delate as applicable) 5:2.

But the point I make to anyone i recomend that regime to, is that just because you are not restricted on your normal days, doesn't mean it's carte blanche to stuff yourself, and if you think it is then you're deluded. It's healthy eating for 5 days with flexibility to self-abuse occasionally, and fasting for 2.

But the point of this post is to ask a genuine question. Before i did 5:2 I tried MFP based calorie counting, to stick to about 1500cals/day. In order to eat enough to fill yourself up, that generally means low sugar intake, high lean protein, lots of vegetable (not much fruit) and [i]in general[/i] low fat. Sugar and refined carbs didn't leave me full for long enough, and are also far more calorie dense, so i didn't eat them often / very much of them.

Now I'm allowed a 'full' calorie intake on normal days i still tend to eat broadly the same, because I can then have good sized meals and still have some spare space that i tend to use for a few carbs as well. Is there a recommendation that i should be more inclined to include more fats rather than more carbs? And if so what sort of fats are considered good?

[edit] give me an example of a daily meal plan that you think would be ideal for say 2400cals and optimised with appropriate protein / good carbs / good fats, etc.

s we export our lifestyle and products to the second and third worlds, they, too, are starting to have obesity problems. Look at China.

...

Of course, I'm not holding the third world up as an ideal, crushing poverty, war and famine is hardly the solution, ...

This is a very misguided view of the developing world - it's not all crushing poverty, war and famine - most of it's pretty peaceful and stable, and food supplies are reasonably reliable (albeit with nothing like as much variety).

You're also wrong about the "exporting our lifestyle" bit: it was a real eye-opener to watch a yoghourt advert on Egyptian TV, the main character was very chubby. The advertisers know what they're doing, being fat is seen as something positive. The problem there is basically the same (IMO) as the one we have in the west, where growing wealth and prosperity has led to companies providing calorie rich foods which supplant the original home-cooking.

as we export our lifestyle and products to the second and third worlds, they, too, are starting to have obesity problems. Look at China.

The amount of crap and straight to landfill we import I'm glad we're sending something crap back 😀

so if not being fat is outside the possible realms of people eating less and moving more,

please explain how the human body is capable of not meeting one of the most fundamental laws of physics.

Energy cannot be created !
It can however be transformed into other forms of energy.

What you eat and do not burn will result in excess / increased weight.

You see yourself daily in the mirror, you buy ever bigger clothes and yet still people claim that its not in their control.. accept the facts many people in society do not care and wish to find an excuse for their lack of personal responsibility.

Please explain why the science is incorrect.
How does the human body create energy that was not at some point consumed - i truly do not understand.

Please explain why the science is incorrect.
How does the human body create energy that was not at some point consumed - i truly do not understand.

Oh look it's the same straw man that's been posted about 100 times already, woop! 🙄

I remember why i dont bother with these threads
Ooh was that a flounce?

Grum you keep saying it is a straw man but I have yet to read your explanation of how the fundamental laws of physics are broken- in fact i am yet to read you even attempt to refute it you just say its a straw man

It is that simple to lose weight their must be an imbalance between the energy your body gets from food and the energy your body uses to survive that day over a longish period of time.

If this is not the case could you attempt to explain why this is not the case?

so if not being fat is outside the possible realms of people eating less and moving more,

please explain how the human body is capable of not meeting one of the most fundamental laws of physics.

Energy cannot be created !
It can however be transformed into other forms of energy.

What you eat and do not burn will result in excess / increased weight.

You see yourself daily in the mirror, you buy ever bigger clothes and yet still people claim that its not in their control.. accept the facts many people in society do not care and wish to find an excuse for their lack of personal responsibility.

Please explain why the science is incorrect.
How does the human body create energy that was not at some point consumed - i truly do not understand.

One last try 🙄
You eat food. Your body responds to the type of food ingested and does a number of things including the breakdown of carbs into sugars, the production of insulin (when stimulated by certain food stuffs), the replenishment of depleted energy stores of glycogen in muscles and the liver, Stores excess sugars as fats and excretes waste. If the calorie intake is insufficient to replenish stores muscle mass or fat will be lost. If muscle mass is lost then the body is unable to burn the same amount of calories. If fat is lost all is good.The common view that 3500 calories equates to 1lb loss of fat has no basis of proof.

I think we have reached the point where everyone realises it is is complicated but can you explain to me what would happen if I took any human being [ or in fact any animal] and gave it 25 % less calories per day than it used for 6 months?*

There are two issues here - how folk gain weight and how folk lose weight

* We may get mixed and interesting results if we gave everyone 25 % too much and mixed for different foods etc as we would get the complicated interaction you describe. However the ONLY WAY to lose weight is to consume less energy than you use

I have no idea why anyone would wish to argue otherwise as it requires the rewriting of the fundamental laws of physics to argue otherwise. You cannot consume less energy than you use long term and have anything other than weight loss

Energy cannot be created !
It can however be transformed into other forms of energy.

What you eat and do not burn will result in excess / increased weight.

He's not wrong, and calling it a straw man doesn't make it wrong.

The only difficulty is that the energy out side of the equation can change quite dramatically for the same individual on different days and at different points in their life.

But this doesn't change the fundamental truth of the statement.
If you consume more then you use you will gain weight and the converse is equally true.

MikeWW, while what you are saying is correct....the intricasies and details of how the body's hormones react to certain foods, how people's metabolism is affected by certain illnesses and defincies....

....the fact still remains that energy cannot be created, your body will not put on weight over a prolonged period of time if it is getting less calories than it needs, to state otherwise is an impossibility....otherwise your body would be some kind of magical perpetual motion machine.

If you put somebody obese on a 500 calorie a day diet they will lose weight, if you make them exercise too then they will lose weight faster....i agree that there will be periods when their body goes into shock and tries to slow the metabolism and hold onto the fat and that with some kinds of obesity testosterone levels (for men in particular) are so depressed that hormonally at that stage the person resembles a woman and carries the same kind of water weight as women often do....

....but over a period of weeks, months, years etc a 500 calorie a day diet will mean somebody who was previously taking 3000+ calories a day will lose weight.
When did anybody in a famine or a forced labour camp on insufficient rations stay fat?
The unpalatable truth that people dont want to accept is that losing weight is hard and not all that fun, who wants to train hard when you're not naturally predisposed to enjoying sport?, who wants to effectively starve themselves when there are lovely foods and drinks available everywhere you look?

Junkyard is correct.
Obviously there are extremes on the scale, super skinny people who eat like a horse and dont gain weight and chubby people who eat like a bird and stay fat but for the majority of us that isnt the case.

I'm beginning to think there are vested interests at work, does the medical/pharmaceutical industry want to turn this into a 'condition/disease' in order to profit from it?....does the health and fitness industry want to keep weight loss as a dark art in order to maintain their 'expertise' and profit from it?....do dieticians, endocrinologists etc etc want to complicate matters by bringing insulin responses, testosterone/estrogen ratios, thyroid problems etc etc into the equation in order to force the general public into seeking 'expert' advice on weight loss?

....it kind of takes the mystique away (and potentially puts lots of people out of work) if the message is simply "move more, eat less".

Junkyard
It really would depend what the 75% of the calories that you were still consuming looked like- is it carbs, fat, protein, sugar and in what proportion?
Lets say 25% reduction in calories equated to 800 calories that [b]could[/b] equal to 200g of carbs or 200g of protein.
I'd say that if you reduced your carb intake by that amount you would lose some body mass mainly in the form of fat and generally be better off. If you reduced your protein inatake by that amount I think you would lose some muscle mass and "potentially" see no weight loss and maybe some weight gain.
I don't really disagree with the broad thrust of your point but it lacks too much detail to actually help people to reduce their fat levels

A colleague lose a lot of weight on 500 calories diet in the NE diabetic trial and his blood sugar has gone back to normal.

It really would depend what the 75% of the calories that you were still consuming looked like

Granted you may get variations if the 75% diet was all sugar or all fat or all vegetables but every single person would lose weight over time.

I think you would lose some muscle mass and "potentially" see no weight loss and maybe some weight gain

I do agree with you that what you eat and personal biochemistry has an influence on it and may ameliorate or exacerbate [ especially for weigth gain as its true some folk seem more susceptible to this than others]it but the law remains unchanged.
Less energy that you use = weight loss

Deviant
You still miss the point that the body either uses, stores or excretes the food consumed. You seem to view the body as some closed vessel.
Anybody will lose weight on a 500 calorie a day diet. This is because there would be insufficient carbs for the body to function long term regardless of type. I am not sure they would have sufficient energy to exercise. BUT it would need to be enforced on people as it would be incredibly tough and debilitating.
For the vast majority of people if we educated and legislated correctly it is perfectly possible for the vast majority of people to get to a healthy body mass composition without anything like that level of difficulty.BUT so few people seem to really understand metabolism or the influence of the food industry/leisure industry/government on this.
Why do you think dental decay is so much less of a problem now than it was 40 years ago despite what we eat?

One of the other things we could do as a community is ban the use of Calorie/KCal/KJ when talking about food energy, and instead use weights such as "eat no more than x grams of y food per day"

Calories/Kcalories and K joules are too confusing

It does not you if you are not consuming enough energy you will lose weight

Assume it is all sugar. It would be in excess of what you need so it will be stored as fat. You are not consuming protein so no amino acids-muscle mass is lost. Less muscle mass so less ability to burn calories. As you repeat you get to the point where the lower calories intake is actually in excess of what your body can burn and what once was a calorie deficit is now an excess and weight increase accelerates.

nickc - Member
One of the other things we could do as a community is ban the use of Calorie/KCal/KJ when talking about food energy, and instead use weights such as "eat no more than x grams of y food per day"

Calories/Kcalories and K joules are too confusing

Absolutely

It would be easier to say "if it tastes good don't eat it". Just as effective too.

Junkyard
On last point ( and I'm not really disagreeing with the broad principal you make just the lack of clarity)

Imagine if you consumed 5000 calories a day of paper.Do you really think you would put on weight? So how even at simplistic level can people say if calories in is more than calories consumed then the laws of physics say you put on weight?

Paper isnt food and calories are just a unit of measuring the energy contained in foods (mostly)....silly point to make Mike.

How about if somebody consumed 5000 calories a day of a mixed diet?...that is more realistic.

....and i'm well aware of how the body uses, stores and excretes energy, i've been manipulating my weight over the years depending on what my favourite hobby at the time is....for years it was weightlifting and i was eating high calorie meals with the aim of building lean mass, then it was kick boxing which necessitated weight loss and now it is cycling necessitating further weight loss...i know what works for me and what doesnt work for me and i understand the broad principles.
Some of your points about people taking on a diet of solid sugar are only relevant in highlighting a particular quirk of weight loss/gain because realistically not many people actually eat like that....even those who know nothing about nutrition.

excretes energy

Say what?!

The calories listed on packaging are a measure of the energy available if the food is dried right out and then blown up in a bomb calorimeter.

[img] [/img]

Remember burning a peanut or some Mars bar at school and measuring the temperature change in water above it? Like that, but more explodey.

Food labels assume every gram of fat/carbs/protein eaten gives 9/4/4 of usable calories.

We then assume that everyone has a basic calorie requirement to maintain body heat, respiration, etc. and that extra activity on top of this requires more.

We then assume any calorie deficit/excess is taken from or stored in body fat. Calories in, calories out, move more, eat less, laws of physics, etc.

But...

We don't extract every calorie from food in the digestive process. Some passes right through us, some is used up by microbes, we radiate out heat. There are all sorts of processes going on that we don't really understand, with feedback loops, and hormones, and people responding differently and storing fat in different places, and mince pies, and being precious individual little snowflakes.

But, how we get and use energy is of no consequence for public policy, as discussed [i]ad infinitum[/i] above.

We know that our current culture/policies/lifestyles/regulations leads to chubby funsters. We know that telling people to put down the pie and run doesn't generally enable that person to lose weight. We know that we've all been gradually eating more and more crap, and driving everywhere, and working long hours, and not cooking.

Part of that will be telling people "give salad a try, and why not go for a walk too?".

I applaud the use of the word "explodey." 😀

Part of that will be telling people "give salad a try, and why not go for a walk too?".

"Take some speed" on the other hand might work.