New article on obesity

[Cooper27]

I thought this was an interesting piece of news others might like to see:

news.sky.com/story/overeati...

I think it's interesting to see the link being formed between what we eat, as opposed to how much we eat, when it comes to obesity.

[Subtle_badger]

😂 You knew I was going to be the first to reply, right?

David Ludwig has been talking about this a long time. It's good to see it getting some press now. You can see the full article here.

bit.ly/3hp9OCc

[Cooper27 Administrator in reply to Subtle_badger]

Well it did remind me of your CICO post a few weeks ago, so it doesn't surprise me

I'm glad it is gaining a bit more publicity as a mainstream theory now. I get very tired of people parroting "eat less, move more".

Unfortunately your link is broken, can you post again?

[Subtle_badger in reply to Cooper27]

Edited. HU was munging it.

[Hidden in reply to Subtle_badger]

The link works now 👍

[Hidden in reply to Hidden]

Here's an easy to read link to slow carb vs low carb by David Ludwig:

drdavidludwig.com/low-carb-...

[Subtle_badger in reply to Hidden]

It's certainly easy to read, but I don't see it's relevance. It's written by Dawn Ludwig (his wife?) and seems to be discussion a nuance of a diet I was unaware of until now, Always Hungry? It does not seem to address the contents of the paper at all.

[Hidden]

This is very interesting Cooper as it is so true that highly processed foods do not satiate our hunger so we become over fed and undernourished.

If anyone has read Jethro Kloss back to Eden books he said in the 1920's that modern diets would lead to our hospitals being full with people because of their diets.

[Blueruth]

I feel like the “diets” (for lack of a less nuanced term) already focus more on what not how much. I have heard every traditional (whole food) diet in the world is better than the sad diet. The only thing they have in common is that they are not processed food. Doesn’t matter if it is whale in Greenland or legumes in Ethiopia. I bet there weren’t any scales in the kitchen.

[Cooper27 Administrator in reply to Blueruth]

I'm not so sure, it largely depends on the diet, but even the likes of WW, Slimming World, slim fast and other programmes out there, are still kinda working under the premise of "eat less, move more", the only thing that varies is how they achieve it. Many of them still push processed foods.

It's not to say "eat less, move more" doesn't work for some, but it may be an explanation for why it doesn't work for everyone/long term.

[Blueruth in reply to Cooper27]

WW has moved away from that mindset. They do have a daily calorie goal. They also have a whole list of foods you can eat as much as you want. Primarily produce as I am sure you would guess. The idea is to encourage you to eat more of those obviously. If you only had processed food you would exceed that calorie goal by noon.

I don't know slimming world and I have visions of slim fast/OTC diet pill cocktails from the 80s. I feel like anything with "slim" or "body building" is a big red flag. I am shocked slim fast is still around. I know there are still products like that but they are not in my radar so I don't know how prevalent they are. That is too bad if they are still a thing.

By diet I don't mean program -- i am referring to your overall food choices. I hate trying to use that word too. Maybe ww should be referred to as a "meal program"

Moving more is still important. The article is referring more to eating less or burning calories. It is really hard for most people to 'over' move. I am not referring to going to the "gym" daily and making yourself miserable. I just mean find stuff you like to do and do it as often as you can. I'm not in my home city and I am really struggling with this right now.

[Cooper27 Administrator in reply to Blueruth]

I know what you mean about "diet", it could do with something to differentiate between the diet we follow Vs a weight loss diet, it can trip us up a lot 😁

Slimming world is similar to WW as you describe it, it has unlimited foods and then some with restrictions. As it was explained to me, the gist of them is to avoid calorie counting, but to still restrict calories by having you fill up on high fibre foods, and by avoiding calorie dense foods (sugar and fat).

I've heard a few interviews on a bit of research by Herman Pontzer on exercise/calorie burning compared to hunter gatherer,if you're interested in it, I thought this article explained it better than I could:

inews.co.uk/news/health/met...

[Blueruth in reply to Cooper27]

"Slimming world" is a really unfortunate name. I would think we could get past the idea that losing weight is an isolated event. My goal is to be healthy so I can do things I want. Losing weight is just a means. IDK if you are there yet but at some point a woman's body changes so that even if you lose weight

This article is a really small piece of the puzzle. My point is that movement is important to health and it will help you actually, just not in the way this article is framing it. Moving helps your heart be more efficient. Your muscles are more flexible and maintain water better. You sweat. you breathe better. your immune system is better. your body temperature is less hot or cold depending on where you are. It helps if you fall when you are older or defend yourself. you do not need a formal exercise routine. Just move.

[Cooper27 Administrator in reply to Blueruth]

Oh I agree wholeheartedly moving is very important!

[Subtle_badger in reply to Cooper27]

Moving is important, but not for weight loss. Your body will increase your appetite to match your activity.

Remember when people would go for a walk on a Sunday morning to work up an appetite for lunch? Now the same activity is suggested for weight loss.

[Cooper27 Administrator in reply to Subtle_badger]

I really recommend reading the Herman Pontzer link

His research of a traditional hunter gatherer tribe found your appetite doesn't increase to suit the energy expenditure, your body just becomes more efficient to ensure your BMR covers the exercise too.

[userotc]

I agree with most of the details. My mum and Dad now eat healthier and consequently list weight - not the intention, but a welcome outcome nonetheless.

But I must say the NHS reference is a bit two-faced. The majority of nurses I've seen are obese so don't give good examples. Sorry but true!

If more people followed the concept, we would also have had better covid outcomes too.

[Cooper27 Administrator in reply to userotc]

I suppose we have to maybe wonder if there's a good explanation to be found for your nurse observation. Stress seems to affect insulin production, and perhaps the long shifts, mean more processed foods, which again affects insulin? If this theory is correct, then perhaps that then explains the weight?

[userotc in reply to Cooper27]

I think an examination of the snack machines (ultraprocessed food) is a likely marker, at least in hospitals.

I believe it's wrong for medics with little/no nutrition training to suggest they know all about it, particularly as it's not practised by their nurses. Leave it to well-qualified nutritionists!

[Subtle_badger in reply to Cooper27]

It's because they eat crap. This was the food generously provided at a vaccination centre to keep the staff and volunteers going. NHS staff thought this was suitable thing to feed us.

I saw an obese vaccinator (so a medical clinician, maybe a nurse, but could be a doctor, pharmacist etc) come out of a vaccination room looking exhausted and sucking down a juice box which really perked her up.

Metabolic disaster area, but she seemed unaware.

Sugar. And carbs. And a bit of seed oil