Families need more help with tackling childhood obesity?!

[anonymous-user]

Mr Whippy said:

Not just what you consume, but what you DO.

I'd argue exercise is more important than diet.

I always thought that way, however I've seen loads of press articles with experts in the past couple of years claiming the drive to exercise is fine, but the really important bit is being careful what you consume. Don't know about you, but I find it easy to justify eating xyz because I've done a bit of exercise, when otherwise I wouldn't have had it. Not saying I'm right, just that human nature makes us account for things 'creatively' when it suits us!

Mind you, same experts have said red wine gives me heart attacks / Cancer / Less cancer / more strokes / less strokes / Alzheimers / no Alzheimers and so on.

S'pose it's calories in vs calories out.

[otolith]

Mr Whippy said:

I'd argue exercise is more important than diet.

It's a hell of a lot easier to consume an excess 500 calories than it is to burn them off. Both exercise and diet are factors, but diet is by far the larger of the two.

[Thankyou4calling]

Mr Whippy said:

Not just what you consume, but what you DO.

I'd argue exercise is more important than diet.

You can argue it all you like but diet (what you consume) is the single most important thing if you want to lose weight.

By a mile.

[otolith]

Derek Smith said:

I'm having a hell of a job to move the weight. I go to the gym three times a week, that's since having to give up cycling due to an injury. I do cardio, and really push it. I don't eat chocolate or sweets except the smallest bar of chocolate on occasion as I suffer from occasional - less than 3 times a month - low blood sugar.

I eat less now than I ever have, and normally quite good quality. I have a meal out once or twice a month but normally ask for smaller potions.

I weigh 17 stone and despite eating frugally I'm still 17 and half stone.

There's more to this weight loss thingy than meets the eye.

Have you tried logging everything you eat or drink in something like My Fitness Pal? Do that, see what your actual calorie intake is. Then reduce it by 500 calories a day and see what happens. It's incredibly easy to be eating more than you realise. And weigh everything, but especially things like cereal or butter.

[Mr Whippy]

Thankyou4calling said:

Mr Whippy said:

Not just what you consume, but what you DO.

I'd argue exercise is more important than diet.

You can argue it all you like but diet (what you consume) is the single most important thing if you want to lose weight.

By a mile.

I'm meaning overall.

Lower body weight is just one metric of importance.

If you are still lazy and don't want to exercise but be thin, then diet is the way to go.


But in my experience doing a lot of physical work makes you want to eat a healthier diet, and eat in a more moderated way.

Exercise improves your mental wellbeing.

Exercise and general fitness and building moderate muscle mass improves BMR.


This is from my experience anyhoo.


To be honest if your diet is that bad that just changing your diet will make a profund change to begin with, then you probably NEED exercise AND a diet change anyway!

Eating a load of crap and doing nothing probably makes you want to eat crap and do nothing.

Exercise is a great way to motivate your body and thus your mind, to sort itself out... again imo.

Dave

[Hoofy]

Or a great way of covering up a st diet.

[MarshPhantom]

Frimley111R said:

FFS! Eat less, eat less st foods and do some fking exercise!

Easy to say, you can eat more and lose weight, surely it's what you eat that matters. Exercise makes me hungry.

[FN2TypeR]

Mr Whippy said:

But in my experience doing a lot of physical work makes you want to eat a healthier diet, and eat in a more moderated way.

Quote snipped.

I'm in that boat, if I go to the gym and do my work out I feel far less inclined to go home and order a takeaway and swill a few cans as I've then wasted all my hard work.

[anonymous-user]

FN2TypeR said:

Quote snipped.

I'm in that boat, if I go to the gym and do my work out I feel far less more inclined to go home and order a takeaway and swill a few cans as I've then wasted all my hard work earned my crap food.

Depends on whether you're strong willed like you, or weak like me (see above)!!

[Fozziebear]

janesmith1950 said:

Mr Whippy said:

Not just what you consume, but what you DO.

I'd argue exercise is more important than diet.

I always thought that way, however I've seen loads of press articles with experts in the past couple of years claiming the drive to exercise is fine, but the really important bit is being careful what you consume. Don't know about you, but I find it easy to justify eating xyz because I've done a bit of exercise, when otherwise I wouldn't have had it. Not saying I'm right, just that human nature makes us account for things 'creatively' when it suits us!

Mind you, same experts have said red wine gives me heart attacks / Cancer / Less cancer / more strokes / less strokes / Alzheimers / no Alzheimers and so on.

S'pose it's calories in vs calories out.

Calories in vs calories out plays a major part, but it needs to be good food calories rather than crap food calories. When I used to run ultra marathons I would eat everything I could force down at feed stations, it worked as long as I only did this during an event, if I went and ate the same cake/brownie/bagel meals and didn't train id pile the pounds on. When I talk to people who say they push really hard in the gym i do question if they are hammering it or holding back. It's hard to really hammer it in the gym/cardio unless you know what your limits truly are

[Mr Whippy]

Hoofy said:

Or a great way of covering up a st diet.

Well what people choose to do is up to them.

I'd argue a great diet with no exercise is just as detremental to your overall health, vs a poor diet with loads of exercise.

As with everything it's about a balance.


After decades of misinformation about food, I worry sugar is the next thing that will be demonised.

Like with butter and margarine, we'll all end up substituting healthy amounts of sugars with artificial st that later turns out to be much worse than the thing they were replacing.

[otolith]

Mr Whippy said:

Change your NI payments based on your BMI?

Something I posted on the health forum the other month - I used to be quite sceptical of people who thought BMI misrepresented their fatness, because while we all know that it doesn't work for extremely muscular athletes, most people aren't built like that. It clearly doesn't work very well for me, I suspect because I have a long torso and short legs.

otolith said:

OK, I have just calculated what I "should" weigh according to BMI.

I'm 5'6. That gives;

BMI of 20 - bottom of healthy : 56kg
BMI of 22.5 - middle of healthy : 63kg
BMI of 25 - top of healthy : 70kg

I recently had a DEXA scan. My body composition was;

Total Mass : 76.7kg
Fat : 17kg
Lean tissue : 56.4kg
Bone mineral : 3.3kg

Body fat percentage (overall) 22.3%
Body fat percentage (excluding bones) 23.3%

I'm not sure which of those two figures is comparable to the numbers estimated with calipers/displacement/BEI, but I'm going to assume it's total fat mass / total body mass.

On that basis, for a BMI of 25, maximum "healthy" weight, I would weigh 70kg and have a body fat percentage of 15%.

For a BMI of 22.5, middle of the healthy range for my height, I would weigh 63kg and have a body fat percentage of 6%.

For a BMI of 20, bottom of the healthy range, I would weigh 56kg, have 0% body fat, and would have had to lose either 3kg of lean tissue or my skeleton.

I think that's quite interesting - we all know that BMI can be a crock of st, but we also know that most people pointing out that elite sportsmen are overweight by BMI are not international rugby players or body builders but fat people. I wouldn't say I was particularly muscular. I have (apparently) very good bone density and I have short legs and a long torso. Still, I wouldn't have expected the BMI guidelines to be so far out for me.

[Mr Whippy]

Fozziebear said:

janesmith1950 said:

Mr Whippy said:

Not just what you consume, but what you DO.

I'd argue exercise is more important than diet.

I always thought that way, however I've seen loads of press articles with experts in the past couple of years claiming the drive to exercise is fine, but the really important bit is being careful what you consume. Don't know about you, but I find it easy to justify eating xyz because I've done a bit of exercise, when otherwise I wouldn't have had it. Not saying I'm right, just that human nature makes us account for things 'creatively' when it suits us!

Mind you, same experts have said red wine gives me heart attacks / Cancer / Less cancer / more strokes / less strokes / Alzheimers / no Alzheimers and so on.

S'pose it's calories in vs calories out.

Calories in vs calories out plays a major part, but it needs to be good food calories rather than crap food calories. When I used to run ultra marathons I would eat everything I could force down at feed stations, it worked as long as I only did this during an event, if I went and ate the same cake/brownie/bagel meals and didn't train id pile the pounds on. When I talk to people who say they push really hard in the gym i do question if they are hammering it or holding back. It's hard to really hammer it in the gym/cardio unless you know what your limits truly are

There is too much science sometimes.

I still think the best starting point is a healthy body and that will *only* come with exercise of all varieties. Endurance, mild, heavy short bursts etc... ie, a bit of everything in moderation.

Once you have that then your body will tell you what it wants and needs.

It's then up to you to give it what it wants.


You then get the body you want and the diet comes from that want.


If the body you want is one that can sit all day and do nothing and remain 'thin' then you're gonna find the diet required is probably spectacularly boring and not enjoyable.

[Halb]

otolith said:

Have you tried logging everything you eat or drink in something like My Fitness Pal? Do that, see what your actual calorie intake is. Then reduce it by 500 calories a day and see what happens. It's incredibly easy to be eating more than you realise. And weigh everything, but especially things like cereal or butter.

I'm up to about 600 days on MFP, used to it now. D:

Mr Whippy said:

But in my experience doing a lot of physical work makes you want to eat a healthier diet, and eat in a more moderated way.
Exercise improves your mental wellbeing.

That is my experience as well. The cycle goes in both ways, with desirability of types of food.
Less active -> crapier food
more active -> 'healthier' food.

[MarshPhantom]

I've long thought the 3000 calories day is too much. I mean that's 3 Whooper
meals with chips and coke a day.

[walm]

MarshPhantom said:

I've long thought the 3000 calories day is too much. I mean that's 3 Whooper
meals with chips and coke a day.

That's because it is!
It's 2,500 for men recommended.

Also - snacking.

[otolith]

walm said:

It's 2,500 for men recommended.

Besides which - that's like saying the recommended shoe size is a #10 for men and a #6 for women.

[Derek Smith]

Mr Whippy said:

KTF said:

Derek Smith said:

There's more to this weight loss thingy than meets the eye.

What did you eat/drink over the weekend - inc snacks, etc. or on a typical day?

Not just what you consume, but what you DO.

I'd argue exercise is more important than diet.

Today, my breafast was cereal with <1/3rd pnt skimmed milk and a banana. An hour or so later I had a pear. I then went to the gym for a 50 min workout. I normally do some floor work but I've had a minor op on my arm and mustn't put any weight on it, so it was mainly cardio. I felt a bit of a headache, a sign of low blood sugar, so I had a Starburst, chosen as I don't really like them, but binned it after less than half eaten.

Coffee, meaning a medium skinny latte. Lunch was a bit of chicken breast, no skin, about the size of half a slice of normal sized bread and some egg fried rice. More tasty than it sounds as I was feeling hungry.

Around four I sometime have a very small bar, the smallest available, of chocolate, but won't today as I've had a sweet.

Tonight I'll have a bit of toast with jam probably, a sort of treat.

On Sunday I really pigged out with a sandwich for lunch, ham and cheese, and a small packet of crisps. I was watching a rugby match and was moving up and down the touch line following the play for about 60% of the time. Saturday is a normal day for food.

When I eat out I might try and pig out, say ordering a steak pie, but that means I will not have a pudding as I'll be full up. The only thing I've noticed about slimming is that my stomach is smaller.

I'm loosing less than 2lb a month but the problem is that if I have a meal out, the loss stops. I'm a fair bit slimmer since I've been back to the gym, losing 2" off my waist, but that's down to stomach strengthening exercises to relieve a back problem.

I walk into town three times a week, about a mile and a half round trip. One day or more a week we babysit two grandchildren. On those days I feel so tired I go to bed early.

My elder daughter works at a computer all day for four days a week. She is as slim as I used to be. She has what has been called a 'healthy appetite', and at a recent BBQ she ate more than anyone else there, including her husband. (It makes you wonder how she retains her girlfriends.)

My son's a personal trainer and works with excluded children, so exercise all day and every day. You would not credit his calorie intake. At a family meal I ordered a medium rack of ribs and gave him half of mine. My son-in-law ordered a large rack and gave half of his to my lad. My lad's partner ordered a large rack of ribs at his request so he could eat the majority of her meal - and she's a kick-boxer. Yet he has no fat on him.

So lots of confusing differences there.

My lad, the personal trainer, went through my food to eliminate fat, salt and sugar. All he could come up with was not eating the skin of chicken and a different make of sausages.

If I'd eaten what I eat now as a 20-year-old I'd have died within a fortnight. When I was cycling regularly, I'd eat three times the amount I do now, and a lot of chicken skin I can tell you.

I've been told by a self-style nutritionist (yeah, I know but . . .) and she reckoned that as one ages, there's a drop in metabolic rate and brown fatty tissue. I'll buy the first but I don't think I've lost any fat.

I don't drink alcohol. I drink tea without milk and I don't drink juices. If I'm out for the evening, I'll have water, bubbly stuff.

I feel I should be the epitome of perfect weight for height. I'm fat though. And more than a little irritated with slim people who suggest that they 'check what I eat'.

[Murph7355]

AW111 said:

I know metabolism is a cop out for some people, but it's not total bks.

An aunt of mine was obese.
She was a nurse, ate sparingly (weight watchers meals), never had sugar in drinks, never ate junk food, walked a lot, and struggled with weight all her adult life.

So all this glib moralising is starting to piss me off, to be frank.

As others have mentioned, the number of people for whom a genuine illness is the cause of their weight issues is tiny. Maybe it was in your aunt's case, in which case the "glib moralising" simply doesn't apply and is nothing to get tetchy about.

However generally people are fat because they eat too much and/or exercise too little.

Also, and again not saying your aunt falls into this camp, but people who need to lose weight often (IME, including me ) "forget" everything they've eaten/how long they've sat on their arse doing nothing. It's all part of the mental attitude towards it. Someone close to me was forever complaining about inability to lose weight and forgetting the 6 latte's they had each day (can't be fattening, it's all air)!

Derek Smith said:

...
I weigh 17 stone and despite eating frugally I'm still 17 and half stone.

There's more to this weight loss thingy than meets the eye.

There really isn't.

I'm in a similar boat. I imagine most people are. As you get older you can't eat as much without exercising more. And you tend to exercise less. Your memory also tends to play tricks on you in these respects.

I managed to hit my heaviest ever weight a few months ago (18st 9lbs). I had to get a grip of myself and stop shovelling st in my cake hole. 16st 13lbs at the minute, and it feels like I'm eating nothing, but realistically I'm still eating "well". Getting the weight lower still is proving difficult, but that's just how it is. I either need to keep cutting down on what I intake or exercise more aerobically (anaerobic isn't much help with weight loss). I'll be trying a combination of both, but there's only one person that can make that happen. No amount of govt funding will help (though if anyone fancies dropping me a few quid, please feel free ).

[ATG]

Halb said:

That is my experience as well. The cycle goes in both ways, with desirability of types of food.
Less active -> crapier food
more active -> 'healthier' food.

Probably reflects switching between an "I am looking after myself" mindset, to a "life's too short / I've thrown in the towel / Mummy, hold me" mindset. Take your pick from the latter list, and clearly there are a zillion other things you could add to it. I'm sure most of us sit at the "Life's too short/I can't be bothered today" end of that spectrum, which is fairly psychologically healthy. And if we started getting porky, we'd no doubt do something about it motivated by embarrassment.

But I reckon an awful lot of people who are really, properly overweight have got a real problem with their mindset, and the weight is just a symptom of the real problem. I think this is the crux of why the "more will power, more self-respect" line of thinking misses the point.

If someone is overeating because they don't like themselves and are choosing to punish themselves by making themselves unhealthy, telling them "you need to have some self respect, eat less and exercise more" is not going to have any effect. I imagine a small minority of people are in this category, but I've seen it.

If someone copes with emotional pain, stress or whatever by comfort eating, your message is going to fall on deaf ears, or worse still it'll upset them and they'll comfort-eat even more. I reckon a heck of a lot of people do this to some extent, even just eating as a diversion or distraction from something they'd rather not think about or do.

If you're lucky enough to share those two outlooks ("I hate myself because I'm fat. I need to eat a cake to feel better, but deep down I know that it's bad for me and I deserve to be punished so I'll neck this glass of mazola too") then you could apply for work at Sea World as an exhibit.

In these cases if you don't help people change the way they think first ... change their self image, change the way they deal with emotions or stress ... then you're never going to change the way they eat. Just telling them that they eat too much and should have more willpower and self-respect is likely to either achieve nothing or possibly make the situation even worse.