Fatness

[pandop]

Speaking as someone with a vested interest in the subject (in other words I am alltogether too podgy and need to do something about it) I found myself getting somewhat annoyed this morning by the latest hooha about obesity.

I am fat because I eat too much and move too little - that is all there is to it. I am trying to lose weight the sensible (and hard) way by moving more and eating less, but this has to be my choice and my willpower alone -the government can't legislate me into slimness :evil:

As to pester power - as my Mum always says 'No is a shorter word than yes' there was no excuse for that poor child who died due to obesity - and why weren't her parents done for child abuse? My weight is my own problem - and a result of the choices I have made, but parents need to be reminded that it is their responsibility what their children eat - not TV advertising, not the supermarket, not school - THEM. I am alson not convinced that banning advertising will have that much effect - it is perfectly possible to get fat without eating anything advertised by an overpaid (former) footballer - in fact the sight of David Beckham on every Pepsi product in the union is almost enough to put me off my caffine :wink: The nearest I got to branded foods when I was a child were Munch Bunch Yoghurts - and the only lasting legacy is that I still prefer my yoghurt smooth (no bits) and the same for orange juice!

I am also a little unesy about the proposals to tax unhealthy food - who decides what is good for us (for example I noticed yesterday that there were more calories in 500ml of Volvic Touch Of Friut Lemon and Lime than there were in Pepsi Max)? Will there be speical dispensation for foods that make you feel better? Will we be able to trust the supermarkets to warn us this is unhealthy if the want to sell it to us all the same. How can we trust the government to prevent us from eating something that will make them more tax?

Hazel

[amarie]

I quite agree. It surely is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that their children eat sensibly, and not the government's. It seems to me that it is yet another example of the so-called 'nanny state' in which the government thinks it has a right to tell you how to bring your children up and can force you to go to parenting classes.

And as for taxing unhealthy food - look at the huge amount of tax on cigarettes. If adults want to smoke then they will, whatever the price of a packet of cigarettes.

[John Self]

Welcome to Palimpsest, amarie.

I think there's a difference between smoking and eating unhealthy food - people pay over the top taxes on ciggies because they're physically addicted to them. Didn't I see a programme once where they classified different substances on physical addiction qualities and heroin scored 60-something and nicotine scored 100? So higher prices on fatty foods may reduce consumption.

And at the risk of sounding like a Daily Mail reader - or gil, heheh - some parents do need guidance, particularly young ones. I had a client in the office a while back who was 32, and with her was her 14 year old daughter, and with her 14-year-old daughter was her week-old grandson. When the mother of that baby is a child herself, I expect she would need some sort of helping hand.

[pandop]

Chocolate also scores very highly on the addictiveness scales!!

As to the young mother, if we were taught proper cooking at home and at school there would be less of a problem - but this government, and the last, have done their best to remove that from the curriculum <sigh> At 14 I was able to cook for myself and my nana while my parents were on holiday(Nana was not domestic by any stretch of the imagination - whereas I love to cook, just get fed up cooking for one).

There is more on this in The Times today: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,174-1125700,00.html

I have forgotten how to do the link thing again :oops:

Hazel

[amner]

Hazel

you need to write:


{url=fullwebaddress}then some text, then{/url}

Only substitute square brackets for curly ones, [ instead of { and ] rather than }. Oh and don't forget the / in the second set.

[amarie]

Thanks John. I'm sorry that my post was somewhat fatuous but it was my first time and I was a tad nervous! However I've had a fortifying glass of wine at lunchtime and feel much better for it! I understand your point about cigarettes - I smoke myself - and it's not the best of comparisons, but I think that for some people, the price of a plate of burger and chips would be irrelevant if that is what they really wanted.

Again, I agree with what you say about guidance for young mothers. It's just the thought of the government having such a degree of influence in an area such as this that turns me off. In a perfect world girls as young as 14 wouldn't be giving birth, but the government strategy of teaching sex education in schools at a young age has done nothing to help. The number of teenage pregnancies have shot up in recent yeasrs and seem to be getting higher.

[skanky]

Here's (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1207986,00.html) an article that ties together the advertising and tobacco strains of this thread.

I'm not sure how much hazelweller's personal experiences can be applied to the population as a whole - there are many causes and routes through life that lead to similar outcomes. However, if advertising does have a large effect - and the amounts spent on it by varied organisations suggest the effect must be there - then it may account for a larger percentage than other causes for rises in obesity levels.

I am always wary of basing arguments on anecdotal evidence, only. all sides of all arguments have anecdotal evidence backing them up.

There are many causes of obesity and being overweight, cars (over 1/2 of car journies are a mile or less), TV and computers, perceived risk of attacks from strangers, alcohol, lack of sports fields, lack of public transport options, ease and cheapness of food, processed foods (don't have to be branded), advertising, etc.

The problem seems to be trying to find the various levels they contribute and adjusting accordingly. Blaming one factor will not help. For example if we blame the "car culture", we get branded for being "car bashers" and told we are trying to stop people driving. Is it possible to resolve any issues with smaller adjustments to all factors? How much other effects do the adjustments have? Looking at these questions, it seems to me that banning advertising would have few, other adverse effects and thus comes across as one of the easier options. I do not know how effective it is. Of course, with a government in love with big business, it's not such an easy option.

As to whether it's the government's business, it's an interesting point. What should be the government's business? We ask the government to provide protection to property and from external factors (to become the monopoly in violence), we ask it to ensure we are provided for in times when things go wrong and to ensure that if we set fire to our house, for example, they'll put it out. There are the extremes of laissez faire who say the government should do little except subsidise big busness and those who say it should provide and cover for everything. Most people fall in between, and the juggling of what should and what shouldn't be covered, tends to be guided by personal interest and experience.

In the obesity issue there are a number of areas affected by it. Seat, and door size for example. On public transport this is an issue. Those who feel that public transport should be controlled by the government may see that in that way it is affected, so it should have a say, or does it allow private (or public) operations fit more and smaller seats and thus drive larger people off and onto the roads? In health, though life expectancy is increasing and the alleged extra health costs are not yet manifesting themselves in any major way, it is worth remembering that the people who are setting the new extremes in living longer were born before, or just after, the first world war and lived most of their lives before, and the people who are now at the age when most weight related problems start to appear, were born just after the second world war and spent their formative years before the social changes that led to this situation. In a country that's expected to have an ageing population, the idea where the young start to die off before their parents, or even at the same time, could have serious consequences for society. That is, if the worst case scenario is to be believed.

Anyway, despite my doing so above, I'm not sure that any issue, whether real or perceived, can be taken in isolation - which is why I have no answers. :?

(apologies for any typos and poor English above, I don't have time to proof-read what was more a "stream of consciousness" than a reasoned statement/argument).

[skanky]

Again, I agree with what you say about guidance for young mothers. It's just the thought of the government having such a degree of influence in an area such as this that turns me off. In a perfect world girls as young as 14 wouldn't be giving birth, but the government strategy of teaching sex education in schools at a young age has done nothing to help. The number of teenage pregnancies have shot up in recent yeasrs and seem to be getting higher.

However, in other countries with far lower rates of pregnancies, they teach sex education and often at lower ages. Which suggests another reason.

[skanky]

Continuing to career off-topic, here's a report on the effects of muddled sex education in New Zealand (http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/0%2C2106%2C2924059a6427%2C00.html).

[NottyImp]

Interestingly, the three year-old reported to have "died of obesity" widely in the national press was in fact suffering from a rare genetic disorder that leads to the condition. Sadly, she died owing to a late diagnosis, as it is a treatable condition.

Her parents are understandably upset that they have been condemned for feeding her poorly.

[John Self]

The Food Standards Agency has today started promoting (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6231137.stm)its 'traffic light' labelling system for foods. This is a basic system which goes on the front of food packaging and categorises the level of fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt in a food as high, medium or low (red, amber or green). The back also contains the usual breakdown of amounts and percentage of Guideline Daily Amounts.

Most supermarkets are using the system, including Sainsburys, M&S, Asda and Waitrose and Co-op. Tesco stands alone, along with 21 manufacturers of processed foods, in refusing (http://www.guardian.co.uk/food/Story/0,,1982240,00.html)to adopt the traffic light system, preferring instead to have GDA percentages on the front of food packets. The manufacturers point out that, for example, most breakfast cereals will have a red light for sugar, and that people will not buy products with a large number of red lights on them. (It's true: in Sainsbury's today, I put back a packaged dessert that showed red in four out of five traffic lights.) Er, that's the point!

The manufacturers pretend that their aim is to assist the public, even though research shows that 47% of the public lack the numeracy skills to make sense of GDA figures. Traffic lights, however, are understood by almost everyone.

It's a tricky one, isn't it? Do we trust the Food Standards Agency, whose remit is to encourage healthy and safe food, or do we trust Cadbury, Coca-Cola, Nestlé, Unilever etc, whose only aim is to maximise sales of their products, irrespective of how unhealthy they are? Give me a biscuit while I think about it.

[the black rider]

im reading this thread with interest (and a little bit of fear), it seems the nanny state is getting out of hand.
Surely it is not rocket science to know what foods are good for you and what arent? do we really need labelling?
i think back to my mum who raised me and my brothers alone and all i recall eating was bumper packs of oven chips and bloody chicken kievs. u know why? because it was cheap. You hear all these women moan about feeding their kids junk because they cant afford healthy foods. Though i seriously doubt they cant spare £1 or so for a bag of apples i do think that if the government want to help then for gods sake make the good stuff affordable and not the bad stuff more expensive!
Incidentally i went shopping in Sainsburys on one of my health kicks and picked up some fruit and a few items (rice, etc)
It came to £92!! i swear i only bought maybe a weeks worth of food (for one) and the fruit i bought wasnt some extraordinary carribean delicacy. We're talking satsumas here!
i rest my case.

Interesting footnote: the smoking ban comes to belfast in april and i am at a loss of what to do. No more happy saturday nights with a drink in one hand and a roll-up in the other. Why oh why wont they leave me to die in peace?

[John Self]

Interesting footnote: the smoking ban comes to belfast in april and i am at a loss of what to do. No more happy saturday nights with a drink in one hand and a roll-up in the other. Why oh why wont they leave me to die in peace?

Because then we non-smokers could die in peace with you, and we don't want to just yet! I can't wait for the smoking ban. :twisted:

[Daveybot]

Because then we non-smokers could die in peace with you, and we don't want to just yet! I can't wait for the smoking ban. :twisted:

Up in Edinburgh again over the Hogmannay period, I must admit it was with great joy and clean lungs that I found myself able to look all the way through the clean air of a bar and watch smokers being blown away into the Firth as they stepped outside.

I can't wait for the ban down here in England, but I've a funny feeling it won't come into place untill I'm back in Scotland. Anyone remember when it comes in? Is it April here, too?

[John Self]

It's July in E&W I think.

[John from Paris]

Well, I'm an occasional smoker, but I'm totally in favour of it being totally banned in restaurants AND pubs, and I, like Daveybot, really appreciated the difference it made when I was in Scotland last summer.
To get back to fatness [the word is as ugly as what it means, isn't it?], I've been on a diet since Monday evening. 72 hours down, four weeks to go. No cheese, no butter, no sweet things, and absolutely no alcohol.
Anyone want to express solidarity - or need me to express it?
I have lots of tips on compensating... ;-)

[rick green]

Whoa. Traffic lights are cool. You guys are always in the vanguard aren't you?

[Beth]

I think the smoking ban is going well in NYC from what I hear. And now trans fats are banned in restaurants there. Progress, imho. Silly, but I trust those government research stats more than I would Cadbury or Coca Cola. But black rider, I do see your balance quandary:-? Welcome!

JfP, solidarity headed your way, but why only four weeks?

[John from Paris]

JfP, solidarity headed your way, but why only four weeks?

Good point. I'll be "reviewing the situation" after four weeks.

[Stewart]

I'm on a no alcohol binge this year too, giving that I've a bit of a podge and I want to be able to focus more on my MMA training this year (and look good on the beach later on, if I go somewhere sunny) so the booze has to go. I'll still have ginger beer though; that's fine.

[John from Paris]

I've a bit of a podge

And I'm twenty years older (to the day, remember?) than you are, so imagine...
Just to dispel the myth: it's not just beer. There are as many calories in a glass of wine as in a half of bitter. So there are wine guts too.

[the black rider]

fair point john, but consider this.
without the smoky haze permeating bars then we will all see exactly what bloated, beer-bellied, fast food gorging montrosities we have all become (well, according to the government).
still, i suppose thats when beer goggles come in handy.;-)

[John from Paris]

without the smoky haze permeating bars then we will all see exactly what bloated, beer-bellied, fast food gorging monstrosities we have all become

??

Are you sure smoking is enough for you? What about self-mutilation?
And have you made any NY resolutions other than getting out of this vale of tears ASAP??

[the black rider]

haha, thanks for the tip jfp, i'll get onto that self-mutilation thing asap.
actually my new years resolution is to give up smoking, but i think i'll wait til the ban starts, as i'm sure it'll make it easier (i dislike standing out in the cold more than i like filling my lungs with tar.)
I suppose what pisses me off is the restrictions put on grown up people who can make their own choices (though i completely understand why non smokers would dont want to sit next to ardent puffers- the truth is it really does smell), but no more smoking sections?
Ah im just venting, in my head i know the ban is right.
Incidentally wasnt there a furore in the press recently about the suggestion that smokers should not be allowed to be treated by the NHS?

[Noumenon]

Actually carving off a pound of flesh is a great way to lose weight and pay off debts.

[John from Paris]

...but no more smoking sections?

As various people have pointed out, it's rather like having a pee-ing section in a swimming-pool...
I remember:
i) being surrounded by smokers in cinemas in the seventies;
ii) smoking compartments on the London Underground (done away with in 1984);
iii) my first university classes in France, in 1982-83: at any given moment, about fifteen out of twenty-five of the students would be smoking.
All the above seem unthinkable these days. I'm convinced that is how we will view smoking in pubs in fifteen/twenty years' time.


...in my head i know the ban is right.

Of course. This is akin to "I know I shouldn't be a racist, but..."
Concentrate on your heart, tbr! (While it's still working...! :-? )

[PS as I've said, I'm an occasional smoker... to the point of occasionally smoking a whole packet in one afternoon and evening. Usually when marking exam-papers... (Just didn't want to appear to be preaching...)]

NB sorry this has nothing to do with "fatness"... OR DOES IT? Some people maintain smoking helps you to lose weight... i.e. actually has some effect on metabolism. I rather cynically tend to assume that it's because you can't smoke and guzzle chocolate at the same time...

[leyla]

JfP, re whether cigs help you lose weight, mostly it's because , as you say, it's hard to stuff your face and smoke at the same time, but nicotine IS a stimulant, so it does increase metabolic rate to a certain extent. Still, nothing that can't be achieved less anti-socially with a few vats of coffee.

[rick green]

self mutilation = red light.

[Hinton]

From the observation of friends and acquaintances who have cast aside the weed I have come to the conclusion that people who do so tend to fit into one of two groups.

There are those who simply stop smoking, delightful people on the whole, much as they ever were. They might ask me to step outside if I wish to poison myself in the vicinity of their dwelling, and with the odd bit of faux-moaning ('I am a martyr') I trudge outside, one man against the elements.

Then there are those regrettable individuals who become 'Non Smokers' in the very Bill Hicks sense. Horrifying souls who refuse to enter pubs, or bring their children into pubs and complain about the atmosphere, or snarl at me as they would a wandering leper. I shudder in their general direction.

And on my third hand, there are those who never seem to change. I can happily report that Shane MacGowan, where'ere he be, from Dublin to Glasgow to New York, continues to puff away on stage. May his god go with him, as Dave Allen used to say.

[Hekaterine]

I like the word 'fatness' better than 'obesity'. I also believe that dieting makes you fat and wholeheartedly refuse to diet or to weigh myself. I try to make healthy choices when I eat and not to have too much (ahem) booze. This is the first Christmas I have not obsessed about whether I would put on weight over the holiday season for as long as I can remember and it has been a wonderful release from anxiety. It has also been the first Christmas that my trousers haven't been too tight come the New Year. I rest my case.

[gil]

I laughed the other day. Someone ample on tv was saying something like:
"I approve of diets. I'm eating several at the moment."

[Hekaterine]

LOL Gil. Reminds me of a friend of mine who tried the Cabbage Soup diet and told me it didn't say what to have for breakfast so she had Weetabix. :-)

[Lucoid]

I also believe that dieting makes you fat and wholeheartedly refuse to diet or to weigh myself. I try to make healthy choices when I eat ...

I'm with you on this, Hek - that's pretty much my approach, too, though I do occasionally weigh myself just to make sure I'm not deluding myself in the making of those healthy choices. A few weeks before Christmas I found that by not taking the usual cereal bar and chocolate biscuitey type thing (such as a Penguin) to work and stocking my desk drawer with nuts (unsalted) and dried fruit, I can actually eat more than the recommended five a day of fruit and veg. Incidentally, my mum heard recently that the recommendation was originally going to be for eight pieces of fruit and veg but that was reduced to five for fear of people finding it so unattainable that they'd give up.

However, I don't think that our approach (the trying to make healthy choices one) would work for those who are already overweight, so I can see how diet plans would be useful, but I do think those that focus on one food group (eg the aforementioned cabbage soup diet) are pretty scary as any weight-loss diet surely has to be balanced to be effective in the longer term. And that leads me to Slimfast. Bloody Slimfast! Seen those awful adverts that emerged in Santa's wake? Oh look at me, aren't I slim - I've been eating REAL fruit smoothies (!!!!) and REAL warming winter soup (!!!). Oh, so those things aren't normally healthy then? Buy them in a packet with the word 'slim' on the front and it's suddenly loads better for you? What a load of misleading rubbish. I see that as the worst kind of advertising - preying on those who already feel bad about themselves and making them feel totally reliant on one product range for something they could quite easily provide for themselves with a couple of simple recipe books, a blender and some nice fresh ingredients.

[leyla]

The Style section of The Sunday Times from Sunday just gone has a long spread by India Knight and her sidekick about a diet book they've just written. I am amazed this kind of banal crap can still sell. There is not one original idea in there. The main basis of the diet seems to be The Atkins - ie high protein, very low carbs, highish fat. They echo much of what Atkins said which has since been proven to be untrue - eg at one point they say 'don't try to do a low fat version of this diet as it doesn't work'. That's crap - the reason the Atkins works is because high protein low carb diets have far, far fewer calories than a normal diet, simply because carbs are loaded with calories. For instance, two chicken breasts in a rich tomato sauce made with olive oil has less calories than four thin slices of DRY sliced bread. Losing weight by choosing the former instead of the bread has nothing to do with the fat in the chicken meal - if there was no fat, the meal would have even less calories - but the satiety level would be lower as fat lines the stomach and gives an impression of fullness. As well as the low calories in high protein diets, the other reason they work is because protein does not stimulate the appetite the same way small amounts of carbs do - try eating just one slice of bread when you're starving and you'll still be ravenous as your body craves more, whereas eating the chicken in a rich sauce fills you up.
The trouble with low carb diets is they are so unhealthy. Fruit, which is largely banned, is GOOD for you. Excessive levels of fat are probably not. Plus low carb high protein diets leave you lethargic and constipated. And excessive protein is a strain for the kidneys - excess protein is converted to urea by the liver and the urea must be flushed out by the kidneys in urine - some people's kidneys can't cope.
Admittedly after the first phase, Knight's diet allows some carbs, but again, this seems to be a totally unoriginal idea, based on the low/high glycaemic index diet that has been known for years.
It annoys me that people can make money from peddling unhealthy diets, especially when they are not even original concepts.

[Hekaterine]

My other problem with 'diets' (obviously by the word 'diet' I mean reducing diet) is that the minute you say you can't have something, you want it. I binge far less now that I don't 'diet' because I can have anything I want to eat so don't feel guilty if I have chips with cheese one night because it's balanced out by the lovely roast vegetable and lentil soup I'll probably have the next day.

[pandop]

Bloody Slimfast! Seen those awful adverts that emerged in Santa's wake? Oh look at me, aren't I slim - I've been eating REAL fruit smoothies (!!!!) and REAL warming winter soup (!!!). Oh, so those things aren't normally healthy then? Buy them in a packet with the word 'slim' on the front and it's suddenly loads better for you? What a load of misleading rubbish. I see that as the worst kind of advertising - preying on those who already feel bad about themselves and making them feel totally reliant on one product range for something they could quite easily provide for themselves with a couple of simple recipe books, a blender and some nice fresh ingredients.

It doesn't even work. As soon as you stop eating the meal replacement crap and starting eating real food again, you gain weight. So you buy more Slimfast. Which is the point

[pandop]

The trouble with low carb diets is they are so unhealthy.

Not for everyone. The more I can stick to a low-carb diet, the better my health will be

[m.]

I don't have time to expand on the topic, but I agree with pandop on low carb diets. It all depends on the circumstances and the diet details, but you went too far with generalisation, leyla, saying that low carb diets are unhealthy. Atkins diet is far from optimal, though, that's my opinion too.

[Hekaterine]

Hmm. Interesting. I would say that low-carb diets generally ARE unhealthy. However, for a minority of people with specific conditions, they can be beneficial and for some people, can be life-saving.

The standard British diet, by the way (sugar, sugar and more refined sugar) is also HUGELY unhealthy.

[m.]

Well yeah, I think low GI carbs diet is actually what I had primarily in mind - so my post may be confusing. But still, I believe in cutting down carbs generally, if I could be tough and stick to "vegetables plus 3 fruits a day only" (for carbs) I think I'd be in a great shape.

[Lucoid]

The standard British diet, by the way (sugar, sugar and more refined sugar) is also HUGELY unhealthy.

That's why I decided to swap cereal bars and chocolate biscuits for nuts and dried fruit, an approach that has actually encouraged me to eat all of the fresh fruit I take to work now rather than just some (or even none) of it. Though I do feel that I am probablty eating more food than before, at least it's lower in fat and more nutritious, and I'm not tempted to buy crisps and more chocolate to help me last the day out.

[pandop]

The standard British diet, by the way (sugar, sugar and more refined sugar) is also HUGELY unhealthy.

Oh yes. Never disagreed with that

[HP]

The crux of the carb problem is this: not all carbs are equal. Fruit and vegetables (particularly the root variety of the latter) are reasonably high in carbs but they are very beneficial ones. And those carbs (in the form of starches and natural fruit sugars) also come with a wonderful array of fibre, vitamins and essential minerals, too. Biscuits, cakes, snack bars, and products made with generous quantities of refined flour and sugar, on the other hand, are full of far too many unhealthy carbohydrates. By far the most reliable and healthy way to eat is to to try and stick to those foods mother nature intended you eat - not the refined, highly-processed muck produced by man that bears little if any resemblence to something that once grew and lived. And don't forget, processed food frequently comes laden with undesirable quantities of bad fats and in the case of sweet products - tons of refined sugar, too. You need some fat in your diet to stay healthy, but you need the right sort, so eliminating all fats is as undesirable as eating too many. You do not need refined sugar at all.

As for protein, well, again, look to what mother nature would have you eat. And no - not bison and mammoth steaks grilled over the fire outside your cave (!) - but a moderate amount of meat, fish and eggs and nuts. Eat too much from any one of the basic food groups and you're upsetting the balance of things to the cost of your health.

One of the most destructive things about diets when treated as a quick way to shed weight, is the way they encourage the dieter to obsess on food all the flippin' time. Either the poor soul is fretting about what not to eat, or about what is allowed. And such a fixation interfers with having a happy relationship with food and encourages bingeing and silly fasting attempts to counteract the ensuing weight gain. Too many serial dieters end up with a feast or famine mentality that is anything but healthy - physically or mentally. Surely, the aim is to arrive at the state where you can simply tuck into some good tasty nutritional fare till you're no longer hungry and then to be able to leave the table and forget all about food until true (not imagined!) hunger strikes again? Eat to live, not live to eat, and all that! And in so doing, along with a good dose of physical activity and exercise each day, you'll achieve a healthy weight and be free of all this fretting. And, believe me - it's not so difficult once you've made exercise and eating wisely your habit - in fact a healthy weight and a happy relationship with food becomes the norm fairly fast if you simply try to eat as nature - not the food manufacturers - intended, and take regular exercise - again, as nature intended.

[Daveybot]

I agree with all of what HP's just said above but I'd like to add that, should any of you be lucky enough to have the chance, grilled bison really is very good indeed.

I won't eat it here - the food miles ain't so great if you're in Oxfordshire - but when I was last in South Dakota it sure was tasty. Like beef, but somehow bigger...

[amner]

Reindeer's very nice, too. I had a big chunk of the cured stuff they do, when I was in Lapland a few years ago.

One thing I don't suggest you try is rattlesnake.

[pandop]

One of the most destructive things about diets when treated as a quick way to shed weight, is the way they encourage the dieter to obsess on food all the flippin' time. Either the poor soul is fretting about what not to eat, or about what is allowed. And such a fixation interfers with having a happy relationship with food and encourages bingeing and silly fasting attempts to counteract the ensuing weight gain. Too many serial dieters end up with a feast or famine mentality that is anything but healthy - physically or mentally. Surely, the aim is to arrive at the state where you can simply tuck into some good tasty nutritional fare till you're no longer hungry and then to be able to leave the table and forget all about food until true (not imagined!) hunger strikes again? Eat to live, not live to eat, and all that! And in so doing, along with a good dose of physical activity and exercise each day, you'll achieve a healthy weight and be free of all this fretting. And, believe me - it's not so difficult once you've made exercise and eating wisely your habit - in fact a healthy weight and a happy relationship with food becomes the norm fairly fast if you simply try to eat as nature - not the food manufacturers - intended, and take regular exercise - again, as nature intended.

So true HP, so true.

I do need to eat a slightly different balance from the one recommeneded by the govt/most 'healthy eating plans', but I am not looking at this as a diet. This isn't a quick fix. This is how I have to eat forever, it is a lifestyle change

[pandop]

should any of you be lucky enough to have the chance, grilled bison really is very good indeed.

I won't eat it here - the food miles ain't so great if you're in Oxfordshire - but when I was last in South Dakota it sure was tasty. Like beef, but somehow bigger...

I can get locally 'grown' water buffalo at my local farmers' market though - and that too is rather good

[leyla]

I don't have time to expand on the topic, but I agree with pandop on low carb diets. It all depends on the circumstances and the diet details, but you went too far with generalisation, leyla, saying that low carb diets are unhealthy. Atkins diet is far from optimal, though, that's my opinion too.

I meant low carb diets that ban all carbs and are very high in fats, in which fruit and a lot of vegetables (eg peas, turnip, parsnips) are banned. Of course CUTTING DOWN on carbs is a good thing for people who have previously eaten them to excess, especially if that means cutting down on processed carbs with very little nutritional value. And pandop has a good point too, if a diet can bring someone down to a healthy weight, that's obviously a good thing. But the low carb diets (eg Atkins) I was referring to restrict good, healthy carbs like fruit and whole grains for life while being very high in saturated fats. I reviewed a book on fats for The Lancet which claimed that the Atkins diet actually LOWERED triglyceride levels in the people on it compared with those on a low fat diet, but 1 - the author had a vested interest in the Atkins diet, so wasn't impartial and 2 - any lowering of triglycerides in the Atkins dieters was probably due to the weight loss/ketosis/burning of fats. Dieticians and doctors do however seem to think that the low carb high protein high fat diet may have adverse effects in the long term - especially, imo, when the dieter reaches their desired weight and adopts the eating pattern for life without losing any more weight - at that stage fat is not burned off and the high fat intake may well lead to fatty deposits around coronary/carotid arteries. But we don't know yet - we need to wait 20 years to see the long-term effects. We do however know that diets low in fruit/whole grains predispose you to bowel cancer and diverticulitis, and that fruit contains anti-oxidants and vitamins/minerals with loads of beneficial effects.