# Fat makes you fat? Or not?



## bozmandb9 (21 Oct 2017)

Do people still believe in the 'low fat' mantra? I appreciate it may still be government policy or consensus medical opinion, to an extent, but that's only because there's a limit to how quickly they can backtrack after five decades of telling us to avoid natural foods, and consume processed carbs because they are low fat!

Margarine was designed as an industrial lubricant, and not being terribly good in this role, was demoted to being a 'health food' but replaced the high natural fat of butter, with transfats, which we all now know (hopefully) to be the most toxic product for human health. Margarine manufacturers quietly reduced transfats in margarine, whilst doctors dieticians and the govt continued to demonise saturated fats, and added transfats to the naughty list.

In the meantime, whilst the 'low fat' diet was promoted over half a century, obesity and diabetes have become an epidemic.

So my question again, do people still believe the 'fat is bad' mantra?


----------



## MikeG (21 Oct 2017)

You can't beat the equation energy in should equal energy out, otherwise you'll gain or lose weight. Fat is one form of energy in (fuel), and its calories count in just the same way as other forms of fuel. It isn't the only form of fuel, so it isn't the only thing whose consumption should be controlled to maintain a healthy weight.


----------



## bozmandb9 (21 Oct 2017)

MikeG said:


> You can't beat the equation energy in should equal energy out, otherwise you'll gain or lose weight. Fat is one form of energy in (fuel), and its calories count in just the same way as other forms of fuel. It isn't the only form of fuel, so it isn't the only thing whose consumption should be controlled to maintain a healthy weight.



I find the energy equation very facile. Try putting diesel into your petrol car, or vice versa, it's all energy propellants after all! 

As a society we tend to focus far too much on the energy equation, ignoring the ability of our body to assimilate or utilise the energy, and, more importantly, ignoring the long term effects of micro nutrients on health (i.e. to continue the car analogy, try continuing to fuel your car, when the spark plugs are fouled due to poor quality fuel, the alternator has stopped working, and it's got no oil or water!

ETA You can be the equation with common sense, otherwise, try fuelling yourself with cheap margarine, according to said equation, you'll save a fortune, except you'll die before it amounts to much.


----------



## growingvegetables (21 Oct 2017)

Bought an oxtail this afternoon - and stopped the butcher cutting off "excess" fat. It is ALL going into the casserole pot. Just a tuppenyworth .


----------



## Drago (21 Oct 2017)

I draw the line at beef dripping.


----------



## bozmandb9 (21 Oct 2017)

Drago said:


> I draw the line at beef dripping.



My grandfather used to have lard and bread every day - was never overweight. Worked as a farmer all his life - used to scoff at the idea of 'low fat' - taking the taste out of meat.


----------



## bozmandb9 (21 Oct 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> I quite like dripping on toast.
> 
> But too much fat will indeed make you fat. It's very calorie dense.



It doesn't really matter about the calorie density. Fat also makes you full. Sugar and MSG make you fatter, since they don't make you so full.

Back in the day, when I was fat, I remember eating a Pizza, and feeling still full. I wanted to put another in the oven, but thought I'd look at the packet and get the nutritional information - it was 1200 calories I'd just consumed, which left me feeling hungry! That would be two thirds of a cup of lard. Try eating that and keeping it down.


----------



## Dayvo (21 Oct 2017)

Everything in moderation (and I mean *EVERYTHING* ) but sugar is the real enemy.


----------



## Prometheus (21 Oct 2017)

YES:

I read this some time ago so cant find the page.

But it went something like this: kids go through a growth spurt
about 10/11so before this happens, they are designed to put on extra fat
to carry them through this period otherwise they will be stunted
latter on in life.
Now with modern life to much Fatty food, and they make extra fat cells to
hold the access.
Doubling the fat cells leads to obesity later on in life!
Unless a check is constantly keep on weight all through life.

I am all for locking them down a cellar for this period.
Rolling down the steps an odd Cabbage, with a bowl of
Gruel from time to time.


----------



## MikeG (21 Oct 2017)

bozmandb9 said:


> I find the energy equation very facile. Try putting diesel into your petrol car, or vice versa, it's all energy propellants after all!
> 
> As a society we tend to focus far too much on the energy equation, ignoring the ability of our body to assimilate or utilise the energy, and, more importantly, ignoring the long term effects of micro nutrients on health (i.e. to continue the car analogy, try continuing to fuel your car, when the spark plugs are fouled due to poor quality fuel, the alternator has stopped working, and it's got no oil or water!
> 
> ETA You can be the equation with common sense, otherwise, try fuelling yourself with cheap margarine, according to said equation, you'll save a fortune, except you'll die before it amounts to much.



The OP was specifically about obesity, not about nutrition. Nobody, least of all me, is saying that a high fat diet supplies all the nutrients your body needs, and I am sure you aren't suggesting that fat is indigestible (or worse), so your diesel/ petrol analogy doesn't appear logical or useful.


----------



## bozmandb9 (21 Oct 2017)

Prometheus said:


> YES:
> 
> I read this some time ago so cant find the page.
> 
> ...



I have a 15 year old, and a 12 year old. My 15 year old is lean like Froome (also a keen cyclist), very high fat diet. My 12 year old also has no fat. Their friends, who have lots of sugar, but much lower fat diets, are overweight or obese.

You're right to an extent, when you increase fat cells, it increases your inclination towards obesity in later life, but the fat cells are to store excess energy, which can be from too much sugar (most common), protein (extremely common especially in America), or excess fat (much less common now).

For evidence, just look at the explosion in obesity levels in the past 5 decades, as we've transitioned to lower fat, more processed foods.


----------



## bozmandb9 (21 Oct 2017)

MikeG said:


> The OP was specifically about obesity, not about nutrition. Nobody, least of all me, is saying that a high fat diet supplies all the nutrients your body needs, and I am sure you aren't suggesting that fat is indigestible (or worse), so your diesel/ petrol analogy doesn't appear logical or useful.



Firstly, I am the OP. Secondly, I'm promoting fat as a useful and essential part of diet, and thirdly, the low fat alternatives, for example trans-fats in margarines, are indigestible (and worse), so the comparison stands. I'm saying the energy balance equation is not useful, because it ignores quality, and focuses purely on calorie quantity.


----------



## Prometheus (21 Oct 2017)

Quite right

Now with modern life to much Fatty food,* and sugar*


----------



## midlife (21 Oct 2017)

Can you still buy margarine? Must check...


----------



## MikeG (21 Oct 2017)

bozmandb9 said:


> Firstly, I am the OP. Secondly, I'm promoting fat as a useful and essential part of diet, and thirdly, the low fat alternatives, for example trans-fats in margarines, are indigestible (and worse), so the comparison stands. I'm saying the energy balance equation is not useful, because it ignores quality, and focuses purely on calorie quantity.



You might think you wanted to talk about nutrition, but you didn't mention it. Secondly, diesel in a petrol car stops it dead. How useful is that anaolgy? Thirdly, you made a frankly ridiculous claim for which you offer no substantiation: that "consensus medical opinion" spent "five decades.....telling us to avoid natural foods". How about you back up that bit first?

Oh, and perhaps you could point to the person who has suggested that fat isn't a useful and essential part of diet?


----------



## bozmandb9 (21 Oct 2017)

MikeG said:


> You might think you wanted to talk about nutrition, but you didn't mention it. Secondly, diesel in a petrol car stops it dead. How useful is that anaolgy? Thirdly, you made a frankly ridiculous claim for which you offer no substantiation: that "consensus medical opinion" spent "five decades.....telling us to avoid natural foods". How about you back up that bit first?
> 
> Oh, and perhaps you could point to the person who has suggested that fat isn't a useful and essential part of diet?



Sure.

We were told to avoid butter, and eat margarine, which at the time, was extremely high in transfats, which have now been proven to be extremely toxic.

Next???


----------



## MikeG (21 Oct 2017)

bozmandb9 said:


> Sure.
> 
> We were told to avoid butter, and eat margarine, which at the time, was extremely high in transfats, which have now been proven to be extremely toxic.
> 
> Next???



Next you could substantiate the "consensus medical opinion" spent "five decades.....telling us to avoid natural foods" claim.

"Extremely toxic". Hmmm. It's starting to look like a rant, rather than a discussion. How about you quote some science which uses the words "extremely toxic"?


----------



## bozmandb9 (21 Oct 2017)

MikeG said:


> Next you could substantiate the "consensus medical opinion" spent "five decades.....telling us to avoid natural foods" claim.
> 
> "Extremely toxic". Hmmm. It's starting to look like a rant, rather than a discussion. How about you quote some science which uses the words "extremely toxic"?



Sure, if you've been living in a cave (or on another planet ) for the last 5 decades, you may have missed the war on saturated fats, and encouragement to eat 'low fat' diets. This has led to a boom in the processed food industry, producing processed low fat foods. You can argue semantics, or accuse me of rants, but I'd prefer you just eat as much transfats as you wish to , or produce some facts or useful information of your own! ;-)


----------



## bozmandb9 (21 Oct 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> *There are zero calories in MSG.*
> 
> Eat a lot of calories, don't exercise sufficiently, you will get fat. Simple.
> 
> A balanced diet with nothing in excess is the boring, non faddy answer.



How is your post relevant, since we all know it's an additive which makes you eat more calories?


----------



## MikeG (21 Oct 2017)

bozmandb9 said:


> Sure, if you've been living in a cave (or on another planet ) for the last 5 decades, you may have missed the war on saturated fats, and encouragement to eat 'low fat' diets. This has led to a boom in the processed food industry, producing processed low fat foods. You can argue semantics, or accuse me of rants, but I'd prefer you just eat as much transfats as you wish to , or produce some facts or useful information of your own! ;-)



It's your claim. The onus is on you to back it up, not on me to disprove it. This isn't a semantic argument. You made a straightforward claim that "consensus medical opinion" spent "five decades.....telling us to avoid natural foods". Have you got anything at all to back this up? Personal abuse doesn't constitute substantiation, BTW.

Oh, and to show you how misplaced you personally directed rant is, I've never eaten margarine, and have always eaten butter. However, you were talking about "Natural foods", which includes carrots and celery and lettuce and lamb chops and blackberry and apple crumble and so on........and when you can find some science backing up your nonsense that this has all been taboo for the last 50 years, I'll take the rest of your posts more seriously.


----------



## bozmandb9 (21 Oct 2017)

MikeG said:


> It's your claim. The onus is on you to back it up, not on me to disprove it. This isn't a semantic argument. You made a straightforward claim that "consensus medical opinion" spent "five decades.....telling us to avoid natural foods". Have you got anything at all to back this up? Personal abuse doesn't constitute substantiation, BTW.



I'll take that to meant that you don't have any useful facts to add to the discussion. I'm trying to convey something useful here. I've backed up my assertion, you've not backed up anything, and you're not listening. I therefore will not waste my time repeating myself since your ears are clearly closed.


----------



## MikeG (21 Oct 2017)

bozmandb9 said:


> I'll take that to meant that you don't have any useful facts to add to the discussion. I'm trying to convey something useful here. I've backed up my assertion, you've not backed up anything, and you're not listening. I therefore will not waste my time repeating myself since your ears are clearly closed.



You have _*not*_ backed up your assertion. You haven't provided a single link or quote.


----------



## The Jogger (21 Oct 2017)

I think this topic has been discussed many times on here. In fact it's now old news that carbs and sugar are the real enemy and good fats are your friend. The trouble is the enemy is so addictive. The best combination is a high fat, low carb, intermittent fasting lifestyle but it is so hard to stick to.


----------



## FishFright (21 Oct 2017)

It's not sugar or fat that are bad for us , no matter what the current hype is doing, It's the combination of fat and sugar rammed into so many food nowadays that is the major problem.

Eat food , mostly plants , not to much.


----------



## 400bhp (22 Oct 2017)

bozmandb9 said:


> I find the energy equation very facile. Try putting diesel into your petrol car, or vice versa, it's all energy propellants after all!
> 
> As a society we tend to focus far too much on the energy equation, ignoring the ability of our body to assimilate or utilise the energy, and, more importantly, ignoring the long term effects of micro nutrients on health (i.e. to continue the car analogy, try continuing to fuel your car, when the spark plugs are fouled due to poor quality fuel, the alternator has stopped working, and it's got no oil or water!
> 
> ETA You can be the equation with common sense, otherwise, try fuelling yourself with cheap margarine, according to said equation, you'll save a fortune, except you'll die before it amounts to much.


I think you’re right with the energy equation because I think how we measure “energy” (calories) is flawed. I don’t have the answer but anecdotally (from friends and acquaintances) calories in and calories out can have different outcomes for different people. Plus, as you say, weight is only one facet of health.


----------



## PK99 (22 Oct 2017)

bozmandb9 said:


> Margarine was designed as an industrial lubricant,




You do know that is bollo*ks don't you?

_Margarine was invented in France by Hippolyte Mège-Mouriès in 1869, during the Franco-Prussian wars. He invented it in response to a competitive challenge from the French government under Napoleon III, who was looking for a cheap and stable substitute for butter, and offered a big prize to anyone who could pull it off.

The principal raw material in the original formulation of margarine was beef fat. _


----------



## MontyVeda (22 Oct 2017)

The conspiracy theory was that the sugar industry blamed fatty foods for obesity, and rather successfully too.


----------



## jefmcg (23 Oct 2017)

PK99 said:


> _Margarine was invented in France by Hippolyte Mège-Mouriès in 1869, _


and it didn't get labelled as a health food until more than 100 years later`


bozmandb9 said:


> the low fat alternatives, for example trans-fats in margarines,


Margarine isn't low fat. No one ever claimed it was.


----------



## Threevok (23 Oct 2017)

I seem to recall Stork SB was marketed (remember the Lesley Crowther ads) as an alternative to butter.

Can't remember though, if it was marketed as a healthy alternative, or just a convenient one


----------



## vickster (23 Oct 2017)

Mary Berry swears by Stork over butter for a light and fluffy Victoria Sponge


----------



## Threevok (23 Oct 2017)

vickster said:


> Mary Berry swears by Stork over butter for a light and fluffy Victoria Sponge



So does my wife.

I also prefer Stork for Welshcakes - one of the few things I can outcook Mrs V at


----------



## petek (23 Oct 2017)

Drago said:


> I draw the line at beef dripping.


If there is any finer topping for a nice piece of warm brown toast than beef dripping with a sprinkle of salt and pepper. Then I have yet to find it.
This whole fat or no fat fad is just that.
Faddish.
We were brought up eating whatever came and that included mutton, fat back bacon, pigs-'ead broth where the fat was in golden circles floating on top along with solid beef dripping in the chip pan that took ages to melt before you could fry chips. All sorts of fatty food, and it was GOOD. Plus, you never saw as many morbidly obese people about then as you do these days.


----------



## User10119 (23 Oct 2017)

Isn't a major factor in that they we don't live such active lifestyles too though? The reduction in manual/labouring/industrial/agricultural jobs, the massive increases in car use etc?

I spent a couple of summers working on a rare breeds farm in the south of France. We ate huge amounts, including masses of delicious bread with lots of butter and cheese. I did most of the cooking and it was always of the generous sort - the batch production cooking for 8 people on the nights that I made fried eggs and chips with homemade mayo (one of the most popular menus I did regularly!) took hours, because I literally ended up making a bucket full of twice-cooked chips. I also lost a lot of weight those summers - because I spent 10 or so hours most days carrying out physical work.


----------



## MikeG (23 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 5010571, member: 10119"]Isn't a major factor in that they we don't live such active lifestyles too though? The reduction in manual/labouring/industrial/agricultural jobs, the massive increases in car use etc?

I spent a couple of summers working on a rare breeds farm in the south of France. We ate huge amounts, including masses of delicious bread with lots of butter and cheese. I did most of the cooking and it was always of the generous sort - the batch production cooking for 8 people on the nights that I made fried eggs and chips with homemade mayo (one of the most popular menus I did regularly!) took hours, because I literally ended up making a bucket full of twice-cooked chips. I also lost a lot of weight those summers - because I spent 10 or so hours most days carrying out physical work.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Calories-in vs calories-out. I don't know why this is so upsetting for some people.


----------



## MontyVeda (23 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 5010571, member: 10119"]Isn't a major factor in that they we don't live such active lifestyles too though? ...[/QUOTE]
That and the fact we had fewer convenience foods, which often contain far too much sugar.


----------



## MikeG (23 Oct 2017)

Threevok said:


> ......I also prefer Stork for Welshcakes - one of the few things I can outcook Mrs V at



_< MikeG wipes a little drool from the corner of his mouth.....> _Sorry, did you say Welshcakes?


----------



## Julia9054 (23 Oct 2017)

MontyVeda said:


> That and the fact we had fewer convenience foods, which often contain far too much sugar.


Food was also more expensive relative to people's incomes hence smaller portions and fewer snacking opportunities between meals. Etiquette also meant that people didn't mindlessly eat on the street (the height of being "common" according to my grandmother!) so less constant grazing.


----------



## User10119 (23 Oct 2017)

MikeG said:


> Exactly. Calories-in vs calories-out. I don't know why this is so upsetting for some people.



Possibly because it is nonetheless a bit over-simplistic, and also tends to be used quite frequently as a shorthand for saying that fat people are stupid/lazy/dishonest?

There probably weren't a lot of obese people in the Victorian slums of course. That doesn't mean they had a healthy diet...


----------



## MikeG (23 Oct 2017)

Again we're confusing "healthy diet" with the simplicity of the concept of eating no more than your body "burns" as fuel. And why are we talking about Victorian slums? There were very few obese people in Britain in the 50s and 60s, for instance, when there was plenty of food to go around.


----------



## The Jogger (23 Oct 2017)

MikeG said:


> Exactly. Calories-in vs calories-out. I don't know why this is so upsetting for some people.


I don't think it's upsetting, it's just not correct.

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/


----------



## MikeG (23 Oct 2017)

The Jogger said:


> I don't think it's upsetting, it's just not correct.



OK, here is some actual science that says you are wrong.


----------



## The Jogger (23 Oct 2017)

MikeG said:


> OK, here is some actual science that says you are wrong.


I've now supplied a link to back me up and proves your theory wrong.

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/


----------



## MikeG (23 Oct 2017)

The Jogger said:


> I've now supplied a link to back me up and proves you wrong.



Respectfully, you really aren't going to try to suggest that a blog quoting a documentary is better evidence than published peer-reviewed science, are you? Seriously. Go and read the science. Its methodology is compelling, and the results couldn't be clearer. There are variations at the margins, and issues with the crudeness of some calorie calculations, but the basic fact is that if you take on more fuel than you burn you will gain weight, and I've linked to the science which showed this clearly.


----------



## The Jogger (23 Oct 2017)

MikeG said:


> Respectfully, you really aren't going to try to suggest that a blog quoting a documentary is better evidence than published peer-reviewed science, are you? Seriously. Go and read the science. Its methodology is compelling, and the results couldn't be clearer. There are variations at the margins, and issues with the crudeness of some calorie calculations, but the basic fact is that if you take on more fuel than you burn you will gain weight, and I've linked to the science which showed this clearly.



http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html

I'm sorry but you are quoting old science, things have moved on including lifestyle changes and dietary habits. I hope this will enlighten you but there are many more recent studies that prove my point.


----------



## MikeG (23 Oct 2017)

Things move on, but the science doesn't change. It gets nuanced. Adjusted. Added to. Not chucked out with "proves your theory wrong" type statements (_*My*_ theory? Really? I'm an architect).

So, let's look at your link. I followed it from the journalistic report to the actual published science. It's always worth doing that. It doesn't make quite the same claims as the article, unsurprisingly. It also says this about its methodology:



> Participants were followed with the use of biennial validated questionnaires concerning medical history, lifestyle, and health practices.



So, twice a year they filled in a questionnaire.

Can you tell me what you were eating 6 months ago? How many times a week did you have chips? You see, right there is why you can't say "this study trumps that other one". It is perfectly valid to say "what can we learn from this?" and "what are the general trends (it was a huge study in terms of participants and time)?" and so on, but you absolutely cannot directly compare a study in which every single thing participants consumed was administered by the scientists, with a study asking you to fill in a lifestyle questionnaire every 6 months.

There will be a study somewhere, I am certain, comparing what people _*claim*_ to have consumed with what they *actually* have consumed. If you find it, mentally use that as a correction factor for the results of this study.

I am perfectly happy to accept that calories in / calories out is crude. That there are subtleties at the margins. That not all calories are counted properly, and not all are digested in the same way. This is absolutely not the same as saying, as you did "it's just not correct" and "proves you wrong".


----------



## User10119 (23 Oct 2017)

MikeG said:


> And why are we talking about Victorian slums? There were very few obese people in Britain in the 50s and 60s, for instance, when there was plenty of food to go around.



Historically, for the majority, food was expensive and exercise was a freebie that was thrown in with working to earn your crust. Now food - especially low quality food - is astonishingly cheap and exercise is a luxury we wear special clothes and pay for. We aren't really optimised for the change in that equation.


----------



## MikeG (23 Oct 2017)

No argument there. The emotive "Victorian slums" thing, though, helps mask our agreement.


----------



## User10119 (23 Oct 2017)

MikeG said:


> No argument there. The emotive "Victorian slums" thing, though, helps mask our agreement.


It's not emotive, or at least not intended to be. We tend to have ridiculously simplistic views about weight and health sometimes. It was mostly in response to 


petek said:


> We were brought up eating whatever came and that included mutton, fat back bacon, pigs-'ead broth where the fat was in golden circles floating on top along with solid beef dripping in the chip pan that took ages to melt before you could fry chips. All sorts of fatty food, and it was GOOD. Plus, you never saw as many morbidly obese people about then as you do these days.



I don't think I've ever been thin and at my lightest points in the last 20 years I was probably still clinically obese. There have however been several points in those 20 years that I've been fat but pretty fit. Those times have pretty much all been when I was in a position to prioritise my well-being and give myself the luxury of time or when I was employed in role that involved large amounts of physical labour. I'm unsure myself to what extent that relates to the positive effect on mental health of those things.


----------



## The Jogger (23 Oct 2017)

MikeG said:


> Things move on, but the science doesn't change. It gets nuanced. Adjusted. Added to. Not chucked out with "proves your theory wrong" type statements* (My theory? Really? I'm an architect).
> 
> So, let's *look at your link. I followed it from the journalistic report to the actual published science. It's always worth doing that. It doesn't make quite the same claims as the article, unsurprisingly. It also says this about its methodology:
> 
> ...



Now you're just being silly. 

Did you read how the different types of food, effects the metabolism as in refined carbs how this can and does make people obese. You just need to look at all the low calorie, low sugar food that has been introduced to combat obesity and watch people getting fatter year on year. It's not as if we haven't seen a rise in gym membership, running , cycling etc, we have but we have also seen massive increases of obese people.


----------



## The Jogger (23 Oct 2017)

I hope this is a bit more informative for you

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxwRxzKapH8


----------



## presta (23 Oct 2017)

User13710 said:


> Very old science - 1964, over 50 years old!


The human body hasn't changed in 50,000 years, let alone the last 50.


User13710 said:


> What people were consuming in 1964 bears no relation to what people are consuming today .


...and as Mike Gs reference shows, dietary composition is irrelevant.


The Jogger said:


> I hope this is a bit more informative for you


You need to learn how to be more discriminating in your choice of references. A quack chiropractor blogging on You Tube doesn't trump peer reviewed science published in an academic journal.


----------



## Ian H (23 Oct 2017)

I think some folk don't understand the meaning of "peer-reviewed research", nor what constitutes evidence.


----------



## presta (23 Oct 2017)

About 10 years ago I developed a xanthelasma (lump of cholesterol under the skin in the corner of the eye). I put it down to the recent acquisition of a serious cheese sandwich habit, and sure enough, it disappeared within a year after I reduced my fat intake. Interestingly though, my fat intake was already below the recommended level before I reduced it, so god knows how high my cholesterol would be if I were to eat a 'high' fat diet.


----------



## MikeG (24 Oct 2017)

The Jogger said:


> Now you're just being silly.
> 
> Did you read how the different types of food, effects the metabolism as in refined carbs how this can and does make people obese. You just need to look at all the low calorie, low sugar food that has been introduced to combat obesity and watch people getting fatter year on year. It's not as if we haven't seen a rise in gym membership, running , cycling etc, we have but we have also seen massive increases of obese people.



Thanks. You've just made my point for me. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote.


----------



## MikeG (24 Oct 2017)

The Jogger said:


> I hope this is a bit more informative for you
> 
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxwRxzKapH8




Yeah, it informs me a lot. Particularly about people who think that science is a Youtube thing, and that chiropractors are experts on diet. He also flat out lies in the first minute, which means you can completely disregard everything he says. Oh, and if you check him out using your favourite search engine, you'll find that he runs a business trying to help people to lose weight, (a field in which he has no qualifications) so he is not a disinterested third party as required of proper science. Finally, he may call himself doctor, but he wouldn't be regarded as such here, as he is a Doctor of Chiropractics. Here is what Chiropractors are trained in:



> Chiropractic education trains students in chiropractic, a form of alternative medicine concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine


 From Wiki

So, if you are into alternative medicine (by definition, without an evidence base backing it up), you think that someone whose "expertise" is musculo-skeletal injuries is the first port of call for advise on weight disorders, and you think Youtube clips trump peer reviewed science, then I have a bridge to sell you.


----------



## User10119 (24 Oct 2017)

presta said:


> The human body hasn't changed in 50,000 years, let alone the last 50.



Our understanding of it has though... As an example, my mum sat on the maternity ward rolling her own cigarettes. Her mum was of a generation who thought smoking could be actively good for you.


----------



## MikeG (24 Oct 2017)

Here is a direct explanation of the apparent conflict between reported calorie consumption and weight gain. It's a piece of research which shows that individual and national calorie consumption is vastly under-stated:



> The studies using Doubly Labelled Water, the gold standard for measuring energy expenditure, indicate that as a population we are consuming 30% to 50% more calories than the levels reported in official statistics (see Figure 1).



Think about that a second. It entirely explains the study quoted by The Jogger, above (I wish posts here had numbers!!).


----------



## vickster (24 Oct 2017)

MikeG said:


> I wish posts here had numbers!!).


They should do, put your phone or tablet in landscape


----------



## MikeG (24 Oct 2017)

vickster said:


> They should do, put your phone or tablet in landscape





My phone has a crinkly chord attached, probably too short for it to reach the landscape from where it is plugged into the wall socket. Tablets? Mercifully, I'm pill-free. 

I'm at a PC.............and I've found the post numbers! It would be hard to make them more obscure if one tried. The post I was referring to was #47.


----------



## presta (24 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 5011366, member: 10119"]Her mum was of a generation who thought smoking could be actively good for you.[/QUOTE]
That wasn't peer reviewed science, though.

Smoking is quite a good example actually, it was known that smoking causes lung cancer for about a decade before the famous research done by Richard Doll, but people didn't want to listen before Doll's work because the first research was done by the Nazis. People only listen when someone they like is telling them what they want to hear.


----------



## presta (24 Oct 2017)

petek said:


> you never saw as many morbidly obese people about then as you do these days.


Navvies consumed about 8000 calories a day, they weren't morbidly obese because they using all they ate. I get people telling me I eat too much, they can't understand why my BMI is only 17-18 because it doesn't occur to them that if you want to eat lots of calories you have to burn them off.


MikeG said:


> I don't know why this is so upsetting for some people.


Try reading this paying particular attention to the section on self serving bias:

_ "Ask a couple to estimate what percentage of the housework they each do, and the answers add up to more than 100%.
Managers seldom hear an employee complain "That's not fair, you're paying me too much". 90% of employees rate themselves above average, as do 90% of managers.
Most drivers who have been hospitalised after an accident rate themselves as safer and more skilled than average.
Compared with average, most people think themselves more intelligent, more attractive, more ethical, and less prejudiced.
Social psychologists, who know about self serving bias, also rate themselves as more ethical than average.
On average, people think they are going to live 10 years longer than their predicted lifespan.
75% of people think they look younger than their peers.
People think they have a better chance of getting to heaven than mother Theresa.
Nobody rates themselves as below average in their ability to get along with others, 25% rate themselves in the top 1%.
People overestimate the number of those who agree with their opinions.
Failings are normal, talents are unique.

 Self serving bias is most apparent in relation to socially desirable traits that can't easily be measured objectively."_

*Like diet*.


----------



## The Jogger (24 Oct 2017)

presta said:


> The human body hasn't changed in 50,000 years, let alone the last 50.
> ...and as Mike Gs reference shows, dietary composition is irrelevant.
> You need to learn how to be more discriminating in your choice of references. A quack chiropractor blogging on You Tube doesn't trump peer reviewed science published in an academic journal.


Maybe people haven't changed but food certainly has and eating habits. You haven't produced anything to support your point, if you are making one. The science quoted is from the same times as when we were told fat (good fats) clog your arteries. I have linked and stated it's more to do with insulin resisitence and how the body reacts to that than calories in vs calories out.

Oh did you just link something to intuition hmmmm


----------



## MikeG (24 Oct 2017)

The Jogger said:


> Maybe people haven't changed but food certainly has and eating habits......



Food categories haven't, though, and the science I linked to showed clearly and categorically that it *didn't matter what the balance was between the categories; *people in calorie-deficit lost weight. Further, both individually and collectively, the balance of categories made no difference to the rate at which they lost weight.


----------



## jefmcg (24 Oct 2017)

presta said:


> People think they have a better chance of getting to heaven than mother Theresa.


I believe that

(Okay, equal chances)


----------



## The Jogger (24 Oct 2017)

Oh FFS here









http://physiqonomics.com/calories/


----------



## User10119 (24 Oct 2017)

MikeG said:


> Food categories haven't, though, and the science I linked to showed clearly and categorically that it *didn't matter what the balance was between the categories; *people in calorie-deficit lost weight. Further, both individually and collectively, the balance of categories made no difference to the rate at which they lost weight.



People with normal matabolic funcition in short term calorie-deficit lose weight, at least temporarily, which in and of itself affects what constitutes calorie-deficit. But I reckon it is probably worth a look at the short-term vs long-term 'success' rates of rationing for weight loss regimes such as slimming world and so on.

Some methods of achieving and maintaining a calorie deficit are more sustainable than others.


----------



## jefmcg (24 Oct 2017)

MikeG said:


> Here is a direct explanation of the apparent conflict between reported calorie consumption and weight gain. It's a piece of research which shows that individual and national calorie consumption is vastly under-stated:


That doesn't seem to be from peer-reviewed scientific journal. Is that requirement only for other people?


----------



## PK99 (24 Oct 2017)

jefmcg said:


> That doesn't seem to be from peer-reviewed scientific journal. Is that requirement only for other people?



http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/about-us/

given a choice between a blogging chiropractor and a body with this pedigree, I know which I would trust.


----------



## MikeG (24 Oct 2017)

The Jogger said:


> Oh FFS here
> View attachment 380092
> View attachment 380093
> 
> ...



Did you read that? To the end? Because it makes my point for me rather nicely.



> People use this to refute that a calorie is a calorie – nope. Sorry. Sure, fat is more calorically dense than carbs and protein, but when _total _calories are matched for: people lose weight; despite the macronutrient composition of the diet. More on this later.



.....and......



> Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize




........and......




> calories in and calories out might not be perfect – but it works because it’s good enough.


----------



## vickster (24 Oct 2017)

User said:


> *Snork*


 @Dogtrousers did you share your roast piggy with @User as he seems to have started to speak like one


----------



## jefmcg (24 Oct 2017)

PK99 said:


> http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/about-us/
> 
> given a choice between a blogging chiropractor and a body with this pedigree, I know which I would trust.


Let's take the chiropractor off the table. That's obviously nonsense, and I haven't bothered watching the video.

I do not know if the composition of the food you eat makes a difference to your weight. But I am not convinced by someone whose evidence consists of a 53 year old study, and PDF from a quango.

The 1964 study is kind of nonsense. People in the real world don't count calories. They eat until they don't want to eat any more. Assuming the study is correct, if the people who are low-fat (for example) are still hungry when they've had their calories for the day and those on low carb are satisfied, then the low carb people are going to lose more weight. Or vise versa.

I.e. even if calories in versus calories out is true, how many calories come in is very dependent on their composition.


----------



## MikeG (24 Oct 2017)

Liked it, Dogtrousers, but I have no idea who you are responding to.


----------



## vickster (24 Oct 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Personally, and I am no expert, it appears to me that this particular point is a matter of hair-splitting and definitions.
> 
> The way we define calorific value of food is not simply the chemical energy content (otherwise petrol or grass would be considered high calorie foodstuffs) but is adjusted according to the human body's ability to digest, use and store it. So if there is an inequality of "calories" from different food sources then I'd suggest it's a case of refining the adjustments that I referred to: Don't abandon the calories in v out model, adjust it, and use it _*alongside*_ information on satiety and behaviour.


Or just eat what you want, cycle some and enjoy life


----------



## jefmcg (24 Oct 2017)

MikeG said:


> Liked it, Dogtrousers, but I have no idea who you are responding to.


I wonder why @MikeG has me on ignore?

<search... > oh, yeah


----------



## classic33 (24 Oct 2017)

[QUOTE 5011068, member: 10119"]It's not emotive, or at least not intended to be. We tend to have ridiculously simplistic views about weight and health sometimes. It was mostly in response to 


I don't think I've ever been thin and at my lightest points in the last 20 years I was probably still clinically obese. There have however been several points in those 20 years that I've been fat but pretty fit. Those times have pretty much all been when I was in a position to prioritise my well-being and give myself the luxury of time or when I was employed in role that involved large amounts of physical labour. I'm unsure myself to what extent that relates to the positive effect on mental health of those things.[/QUOTE]
What I've noticed, and had recorded, is the same weight being underweight, overweight and the correct weight. The thing that's moved is the line on a graph, not the weight.


----------



## User10119 (24 Oct 2017)

classic33 said:


> What I've noticed, and had recorded, is the same weight being underweight, overweight and the correct weight. The thing that's moved is the line on a graph, not the weight.



Oh, I'm far enough above said line that it has _plenty_ of wiggle room


----------



## The Jogger (24 Oct 2017)

MikeG said:


> Did you read that? To the end? Because it makes my point for me rather nicely.
> .


Lighten up man FFS accept we both have differing opinions on this subject and move on. I was trying to make light of it but you still have the bit between your teeth.......................


----------



## MikeG (25 Oct 2017)

The Jogger said:


> Lighten up man FFS accept we both have differing opinions on this subject and move on. I was trying to make light of it but you still have the bit between your teeth.......................



It isn't me repeatedly using "FFS" or getting angst about other posters. If you don't want someone to comment on something you post, maybe you should consider not posting it. Maybe you could also consider reading stuff you post beforehand.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (25 Oct 2017)




----------



## jefmcg (25 Oct 2017)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> View attachment 380177


That always makes me laugh, especially when you need to add "cocaine" to Nigella's mix. But seriously, I think it's mostly genetics






(Guess whose mum this is. Hint: it's not Gillian's)


----------



## presta (25 Oct 2017)

The Jogger said:


> Oh FFS here
> View attachment 380092
> View attachment 380093
> 
> ...


Your reference claims that the _actual_ calorie returns from each of the macronutrients are reduced by the following amounts:

Carbs: 5-10%
Protein: 20-30%
Fat: 0-3%
so taking the mid-range for each of those figures and a diet containing 52% carb, 27% fat, 17% protein (& 4% fibre), the overall calorie content will be reduced by *8.6%*.

If you switch on the TV any night of the week you'll see clinically obese people consuming 4500-5000 kcals per day, and you're bickering over a dispute in the calculation of calorie consumption of 8%! It reminds me of the research that found eating hot chillies increases calories burned......by about 50kcals. All this does is give the obese a chance to argue that they don't need to diet because they eat chillies.

The most revealing of all the dieting shows on TV is Secret Eaters, in which they hire a private detective to follow a fatty who claims to be eating one salad a day, and film what they really eat. The only puzzle is how they find a ready supply of volunteers daft enough to go on the show. Picture it: someone weighing 30+ stone who knows they're scoffing pork pies and cream cakes all day long, sees the show and decides they going to prove to the world that the laws of thermodynamics don't apply to them after they've already seen dozens before them made a fool of!

The solution to their problem is LCME, not a fatuous debate about the technicalities of calorie measurement. If obesity is caused by the way calories are measured and not by overeating, presumably there was no obesity before the bomb calorimeter was invented?

As your own reference says _"When we track calorie and body weight data.........there’s an eery correlation."_

Well I never.


----------



## presta (25 Oct 2017)

User said:


> _There is something of a standing joke about the fact that of the BIT members working on health, none of them are actually healthcare professionals. They're mainly drawn from accountancy and business administration backgrounds. Several have failed rather spectacularly when involved with the NHS._


The behaviour insights team is founded on a branch of psychology first pioneered by Daniel Kahneman (& the late Amos Tversky), he won the Nobel prize for it. Myers, which I linked above, and has already been lampooned, draws heavily on Kahneman's work.


----------



## The Jogger (25 Oct 2017)

Holy Jesus


----------



## reacher (31 Oct 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> This has now become one of those threads full of people arguing, where it's very hard to understand what they are arguing about, and indeed who holds which opinion.
> 
> Something to do with food I think.
> 
> Just for the record we had a shoulder of pork, with crunchy crackling at the weekend. I have not died yet, and I don't think I've put weight on.


Give it time


----------



## keithmac (31 Oct 2017)

Calorific excess causes fat, all the rest falls into place after that..


----------



## Starchivore (31 Oct 2017)

It's the calories. For example, the USA is getting so much heftier. And here we have the breakdown of the changes in the national diet- as you can see, the macronutrient profile has stayed consistent, but they are eating a lot more calories.






It is sensible to eat a low-fat diet because fat is high in calorie density. Eat low-fat and low-added sugar and high fibre high water, and you can eat a lot more food in terms of volume, and so feel full on less calories.


----------



## Tin Pot (1 Nov 2017)

Any point of view based on calories is flawed thinking.


----------



## The Jogger (2 Nov 2017)

Starchivore said:


> It's the calories. For example, the USA is getting so much heftier. And here we have the breakdown of the changes in the national diet- as you can see, the macronutrient profile has stayed consistent, but they are eating a lot more calories.
> 
> View attachment 381205
> 
> ...



Interestingly, looking at your pie charts, a significant increase is the Carbs as in flour and cereal products, seems to link with the rise in obesity and the introduction of low fat foods, funny that.

Also in regards to calories in and calories out , since the 70's running and cycling etc have increased dramatically as well as obesity, why hasn't that reduced with the increase of people taking up more exercise, funny that.


----------



## classic33 (2 Nov 2017)

The Jogger said:


> Interestingly, looking at your pie charts, a significant increase is the Carbs as in flour and cereal products, seems to link with the rise in obesity and the introduction of low fat foods, funny that.
> 
> Also in regards to calories in and calories out , since the 70's running and cycling etc have increased dramatically as well as obesity, why hasn't that reduced with the increase of people taking up more exercise, funny that.


Are the same people that have taken up cycling/running the same that are obese?


----------



## keithmac (2 Nov 2017)

The Jogger said:


> Interestingly, looking at your pie charts, a significant increase is the Carbs as in flour and cereal products, seems to link with the rise in obesity and the introduction of low fat foods, funny that.
> 
> Also in regards to calories in and calories out , since the 70's running and cycling etc have increased dramatically as well as obesity, why hasn't that reduced with the increase of people taking up more exercise, funny that.



Jogging to the shops and back to make yourself feel better for stuffing your face with excess calories doesn't work.

If you look at the effort you have to put in to burn off a significant amount of calories you begin to realise it's not worth earing them in the first place.

Fair enough exercise is great for the body and a good pass time if you enjoy it but using it as a be all and end all to weight control is doomed to failure.

I saw all sorts of fancy diets when I decided to do something about my weight (92kg down to 76kg) and I was cycling at 92kg. 

Ended up eating exactly the same things just less of them (portion control).

Blaming fat or any food group is daft, if I don't eat fat I feal hungry quickly after a meal.

Calories in vs calories out is the be all and end all, chasing the next magic potion or excuse is just pointless imho.


----------



## MikeG (2 Nov 2017)

The Jogger said:


> Interestingly, looking at your pie charts, a significant increase is the Carbs as in flour and cereal products, seems to link with the rise in obesity and the introduction of low fat foods, funny that.



It wouldn't have anything to do with the 25% increase in calories, then?



> Also in regards to calories in and calories out , since the 70's running and cycling etc have increased dramatically as well as obesity, why hasn't that reduced with the increase of people taking up more exercise, funny that.



Every study there is shows that we are exercising significantly _*less*_ than we were in the 70s, and we are living and working in warmer buildings.


----------



## The Jogger (2 Nov 2017)

MikeG said:


> It wouldn't have anything to do with the 25% increase in calories, then?
> 
> 
> 
> *Every study there is shows that we are exercising significantly less than we were in the 70s, *and we are living and working in warmer buildings.



Please support your point.


----------



## classic33 (3 Nov 2017)

Heating & Eating 

Science Daily


----------



## MikeG (3 Nov 2017)

The Jogger said:


> Please support your point.



Yeah sure. Fair point, and I would have done it last night if I hadn't been called away. 

NAP.EDU (start at about page 60. It's fascinating).

HSCIC report


----------



## The Jogger (3 Nov 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Are you sure of that?
> Look at the figures again. They don't support the link that you propose.
> 
> The fraction of total calories from flour and cereal products fell between 1990 and 2010. The only sector that grows, as a percentage of the whole, in both time periods is fat. I'm not drawing any conclusion from that. Just saying that the correlation you have noted does not exist.


Flour and cereal products 430 (1970) Flour and cereal products 610 (2010) not making any assumptions though.


----------



## The Jogger (3 Nov 2017)

So I trust the up to date science here as to the outdated science quoted by many on this thread.

http://doctoraseem.com/cardiologist-says-sugar-and-carbs-are-the-main-cause-of-rising-obesity-rates/

EMMA ALBERICI: Are you suggesting that exercise can play no role at all in fighting obesity?

ASEEM MALHOTRA: Well, I think the most important message from this is: is exercise has many health benefits – no one could deny that – in reducing the risk of heart disease, high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, even many cancers.

But it’s quite clear from the evidence: when it comes to weight loss, the impact of exercise is really quite minimal. And therefore, when it comes to obesity, it’s quite clear that the obesity epidemic has been driven by the type and the amount of calories we’re consuming.

And I think we have to actually go a bit beyond the conventional wisdom about, you know, energy balance, calories in versus calories out and actually concentrate on the quality of those calories


----------



## MikeG (3 Nov 2017)

The Jogger said:


> Flour and cereal products 430 (1970) Flour and cereal products 610 (2010) not making any assumptions though.



Calories (1970) 2077
Calories (2010) 2590

That's a 25% increase.

Please explain how a 25% increase in the total energy value of food consumed doesn't have any influence on weight, which is your theory if I'm following you correctly.


----------



## MikeG (3 Nov 2017)

The Jogger said:


> So I trust the up to date science here as to the outdated science quoted by many on this thread.
> 
> http://doctoraseem.com/cardiologist-says-sugar-and-carbs-are-the-main-cause-of-rising-obesity-rates/......



So please quote some science. Not an interview with one doctor.

_Edit: changed scientist to doctor._


----------



## The Jogger (3 Nov 2017)

MikeG said:


> So please quote some science. Not an interview with one scientist.


So you disagree with the cardiologist?


----------



## MikeG (3 Nov 2017)

Did I say that? I said quote some science. You'll note that cardiologists aren't scientists, and interviews aren't science.


----------



## MikeG (3 Nov 2017)

And you won't forget to explain how a 25% increase in calorie consumption hasn't had an effect on weight, will you.


----------



## presta (3 Nov 2017)

keithmac said:


> chasing the next magic potion or excuse is just pointless imho.


This is it, all the haggling over fat vs carbs is just high-tech denial, no different in essence to all those who claim to put on weight even though they eat "nothing at all".
[QUOTE 5025195, member: 9609"]I have heard of people who say if they have an extra portion of chips it arrives the next week as unwanted blubber.[/QUOTE]
What people say and what they do are two different things. As I said above, the Secret Eaters program reveals all, one episode in particular sticks in my mind. A woman (postwoman IIRC, so plenty of exercise there) who claimed that she was eating just one meal a day of salad, so the private eye followed her with a camera, and at about 10 o'clock in the morning she went into the village shop, came out with an armful of pork pies and cream cakes, then sat on the bench outside and scoffed the lot. The look on her face when they showed her the video was priceless.


Dogtrousers said:


> I'm also kind of interested to see that alcohol isn't listed as a separate source on those pie charts. Is it hidden away in one of the categories?


Those pie charts are very muddled, they can't make up their mind whether they're listing the foodstuffs or the macronutrients.

[anecdata]
In 2008 my fat intake was 35.8% of total calories and my weight was 85.4kg, in 2010 my diet was 24.2% fat, and my weight was 69.5kg.
[/anecdata]


----------

