Losing Visceral fat

BillyMansell

keef66 wrote:

Not sure Zoe Harcombe is an unbiased read. She seems to have some kind of agenda going on.

She does seem to have adopted the approach of "I'll tell you the secrets they don't want you to know... which you can find out if you buy my books".

keef66

The 70 stone chap was apparently having 24 fried eggs for breakfast every day. I don't eat that many in 6 months. How does that kind of thing ever become acceptable'??

Reading that he developed an eating disorder in response to the death of his mother, I think his family, local authority, GP have failed him.

The forecasts for the increase in obesity are terrifying. We're heading for a population like the ones in Wall-e. The NHS is going to collapse.

From a physiological point of view it is a simple case of calories in vs calories burned. All the experiments / programs I've seen where people claim to have slow metabolism and gain weight despite eating very little show the reverse: normal metabolism, under reporting of food intake, over reporting of exercise duration / intensity.

From a psychological / behavioural point of view it is clearly complex and we are failing to find solutions that work.

slowbike

keef66 wrote:

Not sure Zoe Harcombe is an unbiased read. She seems to have some kind of agenda going on.

I always believe everything I read on the internet and in newspapers - without question!

unbiased doesn't have to mean it's complete cobblers ... although I'd want to cross-reference before relying on it!

slowbike

keef66 wrote:

From a physiological point of view it is a simple case of calories in vs calories burned. All the experiments / programs I've seen where people claim to have slow metabolism and gain weight despite eating very little show the reverse: normal metabolism, under reporting of food intake, over reporting of exercise duration / intensity.

Perhaps it would work going on a starvation diet - don't eat anything at all ... just drink water. Then the body has no choice but to burn fat ...

But I think there is something in what whatserface said about the right sort of food intake and it's not just calorie deficit - it has to be the right sort/amount to truly make a difference.

For those who struggle on weight loss it's so demotivating to hear how some can lose Kgs simply by giving up alcohol for 6 months ... if only it were always that simple - you have to be over consuming to start with!

meanredspider

madasahattersley wrote:

Interestingly, here where my meals are strictly regimented and regulated, containing only natural ingredients and rather modest calories, I never lose weight if I eat only the meals and nothing in between.

That's to do with your insulin response and peaks and troughs amongst other things. Part of the problem though is that we are all different and there's no single answer. That's partly why it gets stripped down to its lowest common denominator which is calories in vs calories out (unless you've somehow defied the laws of physics). It might not always be the most efficient or effective way of doing it but what works for you probably won't work for me.

meanredspider

Slowbike wrote:

Perhaps it would work going on a starvation diet - don't eat anything at all ... just drink water. Then the body has no choice but to burn fat ...

....or protein

ai_1

Slowbike wrote:

keef66 wrote:

From a physiological point of view it is a simple case of calories in vs calories burned. All the experiments / programs I've seen where people claim to have slow metabolism and gain weight despite eating very little show the reverse: normal metabolism, under reporting of food intake, over reporting of exercise duration / intensity.

Perhaps it would work going on a starvation diet - don't eat anything at all ... just drink water. Then the body has no choice but to burn fat ...

Yes of course they will lose weight but that doesn't make it a viable solution. Three main problems: firstly, this would essentially amount to torture, secondly lighter isn't necessarily healthier (no food will do more than cause weight loss) and thirdly as soon as they do eat again they'll likely find it impossible not to over-eat as this approach will have triggered them to crave any food they can find. Food isn't optional. You have to eat so you have to learn to control your intake sustainably. All or nothing approaches do not and will not work. Like all fad diets this approach will make people more obese, not less.

The biggest problem is that crap food is more convenient, cheaper and more addictive than good food. Like all animals we have evolved to seek out and consume food. Education can guide us to chose a balanced diet (not diet food, just good food) and regulate our portions but we're up against a massive industry based on selling us the most profitable and reliable foodstuffs. What are the most convenient and most heavily marketted foods? They're all highly processed sugar, salt and fat infused foods including crisps, ice cream, most bread, most chocolate, most ready-meals and nearly any sauces in jars. Unprocessed foods are less profitable and harder to mass produce, ship and store. More importantly perhaps they're usually less convenient, so when you get in from work and you're peckish you're more likely to grab a slice of bread and stick some jam on it than make yourself a salad.

slowbike

They're all highly processed sugar, salt and fat infused foods including crisps, ice cream, most bread, most chocolate, most ready-meals and nearly any sauces in jars. Unprocessed foods are less profitable and harder to mass produce, ship and store. More importantly perhaps they're usually less convenient, so when you get in from work and you're peckish you're more likely to grab a slice of bread and stick some jam on it than make yourself a salad.

Hmm - I wonder if any of you really know the problems encountered with weight loss for some ppl ...

Jam ... crisps ... ice cream ... chocolate ... ready meals ? ... all removed from the diet and no change in weight.

How many times does it need to be said that it really isn't always as simple as less in = weight loss ...

ai_1

Slowbike wrote:

They're all highly processed sugar, salt and fat infused foods including crisps, ice cream, most bread, most chocolate, most ready-meals and nearly any sauces in jars. Unprocessed foods are less profitable and harder to mass produce, ship and store. More importantly perhaps they're usually less convenient, so when you get in from work and you're peckish you're more likely to grab a slice of bread and stick some jam on it than make yourself a salad.

Hmm - I wonder if any of you really know the problems encountered with weight loss for some ppl ...

Jam ... crisps ... ice cream ... chocolate ... ready meals ? ... all removed from the diet and no change in weight.

How many times does it need to be said that it really isn't always as simple as less in = weight loss ...

I agree with you that weight loss is not always that simple, I've said the same elsewhere. However initial weight gain very often is that simple and weight loss sometimes can be.

In reality it's true to say that "in less than out = weigh loss", however while people routinely talk about the food in versus sporting exercise out (cycling, running, gym machines....), exercise is not the primary energy output for the vast majority of people including most of us. I run and/or cycle most days but that's only maybe 1000kcals most days and more at the weekend. Base energy consumption is more than double that. And base energy consumption changes in response to a multitude of variables. It's not a the simple equation some would have you believe.

rayjay

madasahattersley wrote:

Interestingly, here where my meals are strictly regimented and regulated, containing only natural ingredients and rather modest calories, I never lose weight if I eat only the meals and nothing in between.

When I'm naughty and go out for a crepe/cake/churro between lunch and dinner, the weight falls off easily. Same goes for cafe stops on rides. If I ever let myself go hungry then my metabolism grinds to a halt and I put on weight.

Calories in < calories out is the worst, least specific and most misleading weight loss guide imaginable.

I should have been a bit more clear. Obviously if your eating 2000 calories of crap then that is not going to be good for you.

But for most people who are a bit fat then sensible control of your calories is a good way to go rather than some fangled diet.

Eating well and healthy and not starving is the way to go.

If your doing a lot of exercise then you have to take that into consideration or you will just end up fatigued if you don't eat enough.

napoleond

No such thing as good and bad calories? OK, I'll ditch the apple and have a small pack of haribo instead

Camcycle1974

I think the salient point is that it is much easier to over consume calories with junk than it is with whole foods. Eating protein and fat rather than tons of carbs is more likely to leave you feeling Fuller for longer and reduce total calorie intake. For those interested in some actual diet related articles based on fact and not bro science have a look at Martin Berkhan's lean gains site. Aimed at people training with weights but still relevant for those wanting to lose fat.

top_bhoy

Complex subject and its too easy simply to blame a significant proportion of the population for the obesity explosion. I feel that obesity now effects too much of the population of too many countries for it to be down to individual choices.

Its my contention that the food industry and supermarkets have to take a significant share of responsibility for the obesity which is occurring in the developed world. Manufacturers probably have a substantial food development budget where they create new foodstuffs which is deliberately addictive. Drugs, alcohol, smoking which affect health are considered addictive and their use is banned or have restrictions placed on them. However, there is not similar restrictions ever placed on food and its not uncommon to find that supermarkets are offering 2 for 1 offers on the fattiest sausages, the tubs of ice cream, etc, the product placement of sweets, cakes, etc....all designed for shoppers to buy more crap!!! Quick meals here, fast food there, high sugar foodstuff...the list is endless. How much food in a supermarket is actually good for you..precious little I suspect.

There are so many foodstuffs available now which are full of sugars and salts that its hard to get around. I don't know what the answer is. I don't believe in regulation simply to avoid acts of stupidity but obesity is beyond that and an Act of Parliament may be required if the food industry cant be self-regulated. What that would be or the form it would take I'm not sure but I don't think it should be ruled out because its difficult to word. Without remedial action, peoples addiction to food will continue to increase, health bills will increase and more importantly, peoples lives will continue to be blighted.

I don't have any nutritionist knowledge but I base my views solely on what I can see in supermarkets and from TV and media advertising.