Fat makes you fat? Or not?

[User10119]

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]

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]

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]

 

[jefmcg]

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]

Oh FFS here View attachment 380092 View attachment 380093

http://physiqonomics.com/calories/

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]

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]

Holy Jesus

 

[reacher]

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]

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

 

[Starchivore]

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]

Any point of view based on calories is flawed thinking.

 

[The Jogger]

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

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.

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]

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]

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.