The Obesity Epidemic - Causes and solutions.

[Bald Rick]

Physically true or not I also consciously ‘shrank’ my stomach. I aimed to go to bed slightly peckish, and over time reaching this point took less and less food.

There’s definitely something in that. I think it is part physical, but also part mental.

The human body is designed to store energy (in the form of fat) for those occasions when food is in short supply - which for all of human history (until the last 50 years or so) it has been for the overwhelming majority of the human race. Or put another way, most of us are genetically programmed to eat more than we need to when the opportunity arises. For the last 50 years that opportunity has been relatively ubiquitous rather than occasional.

The challenge for those wanting to lose weight is therefore ‘reprogramming’ yourself to need less food.

 

[nlogax]

At home I have no biscuits, no cakes, no crisps, little cheese because I know they won’t last a day.

This is a sensible part of any weight loss plan when working from home all the time. My kitchen is usually free of temptations, or sometimes I'll put things I really want in the freezer so I can't be bothered with the act of defrosting something during the working day.

Right now there's a pack of Malted Milk biccies in the cupboard but I don't like 'em so they're safe from me eating half the pack

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it my imagination or is there a distinct weight loss difference between men and women? Lots of women I know seem to be permanently on a depressing diet which evidence would suggest they aren’t keeping to, but blokes seem to split between staying ‘yeah I’m fat, not bothered, not trying’ and dramatic, fast, weight loss, which they broadly maintain (I have a theory that high beer consumption gives blokes an easy way to drop thousands of calories......)

Men also have, on average, a higher daily calorific requirement, typically 2500 rather than 2000. 500 may not seem a lot of difference, but if you've ever tried calorie counting it's much, much easier to stick to 2500 than 2000.

 

[Meerkat]

Men also have, on average, a higher daily calorific requirement, typically 2500 rather than 2000. 500 may not seem a lot of difference, but if you've ever tried calorie counting it's much, much easier to stick to 2500 than 2000.

Fair enough. The women who worked for me would moan how I could scoff the cakes at work without getting fat, forgetting that I was getting on for twice as heavy as them. Convinced some of them brought loads of cake in on the basis of making the rest of us fat so they were relatively less fat!!
The women did have more of a tendency to do the ’I will go to the gym to lose weight.......oh I went to the gym yesterday so I can scoff a cake today’ double counting.

 

[Bald Rick]

Men also have, on average, a higher daily calorific requirement, typically 2500 rather than 2000. 500 may not seem a lot of difference, but if you've ever tried calorie counting it's much, much easier to stick to 2500 than 2000.

My daily ‘no exercise’ calorie requirement is about 1900 cals. And I’m well over 6ft! If I eat 2500 cal/day with no exercise I pile on the weight.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My daily ‘no exercise’ calorie requirement is about 1900 cals. And I’m well over 6ft! If I eat 2500 cal/day with no exercise I pile on the weight.

It does vary by person.

 

[C J Snarzell]

It does vary by person.

I do think age is a factor too as you get older.

In my 20s I didn't exercise much but I regularly went out on the ale at least twice a week drinking pint after pint until I couldn't remember where I lived, ate pizza's & kebabs on night shifts at work and full English fry ups on morning shifts. I managed to keep my weight around 12 stone & a 32'' waist most of my 20s.

I noticed a difference in my 30s when the weight began to creep up and I knew I had two options - exercise more or cut back on the food & drink.

I very rarely drink these days and I don't tend to exercise as much as I should but my weight can fluctuate if I start snacking all the time.

Meerkat hit the nail on the head - home comforts like biscuits, cakes, crisps, chocolate are all too tempting to snack on. My mum who is 65, decided to stop having treats in the house and in a month she dropped a stone in weight. She had a weakness for the pouch bags of Minstells and Maltesers which were banished. She doesn't have a gym membership and was still eating her meals but just cutting out the home comforts made a difference to her weight.

CJ

 

[Tetchytyke]

Losing the weight and keeping it off are different things, too. A few years ago now I lost four stone, it took me about a year but I did it. I was working in Durham and started taking the train to work from Newcastle- walking up that hill made plenty of difference, as did the gym, drinking less ale, and not having biscuits in the house.

My weight stayed stable for a while when I was living in London, because of all the walking, but since I left London it's gradually gone back on. Now you wouldn't know I'd lost it.

The main issue with obesity is, bizarrely, not calorie intake. I can't find the source now, but recently I was reading that the average person consumes about 1000 calories a day less than they did in the 50s. But manual work has gone, everyone drives, and nobody has the time or energy to exercise after work. The issue is you drive to work, you sit on your arse in an office all day, and you drive home.

Poverty is more than about money. Cooking takes time. Time is at a premium for people who have to get their kids to school, do a day's work, then get back. Knackered and hungry, getting home at half six with crochety children, do you then spend 30-45 minutes cooking a meal from scratch or do you bung something in the microwave?

Modern life requires parents to work full time. If you don't, you're a scrounger- UC tops up working peoples' wages, but PT workers will have it sanctioned if they don't look for FT work, including single parents. It's no wonder you have latchkey kids fed on ready meals, is it?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Physically true or not I also consciously ‘shrank’ my stomach. I aimed to go to bed slightly peckish, and over time reaching this point took less and less food.

The challenge for those wanting to lose weight is therefore ‘reprogramming’ yourself to need less food.

Agreed. People build up a tolerance for alcohol. They can also build up a tolerance for spice. (40 years ago I was a wimp and could not even handle a Madras. Now I spice up a Vindaloo!) So in the same way you can educate your stomach over time to need less. It takes willpower and patience but it can be done. When you get to this stage it is definitely easier to lose weight .

 

[najaB]

In my 20s I didn't exercise much but I regularly went out on the ale at least twice a week drinking pint after pint until I couldn't remember where I lived, ate pizza's & kebabs on night shifts at work and full English fry ups on morning shifts. I managed to keep my weight around 12 stone & a 32'' waist most of my 20s.

I noticed a difference in my 30s when the weight began to creep up and I knew I had two options - exercise more or cut back on the food & drink.

That's a well-known phenomenon - men's metabolism changes in the mid to late 20s, pretty much everyone experiences it (for women it tends to be later, into their 30s or 40s). Though, naturally, it is more noticeable in those who were thinner to start with. I put on well over 30lbs between the age of 28 and 30, without significantly changing my food intake (though, there were lifestyle changes as that's also when I moved back to the UK).

 

[JohnMcL7]

The main issue with obesity is, bizarrely, not calorie intake. I can't find the source now, but recently I was reading that the average person consumes about 1000 calories a day less than they did in the 50s. But manual work has gone, everyone drives, and nobody has the time or energy to exercise after work. The issue is you drive to work, you sit on your arse in an office all day, and you drive home.

I've wondered about this as well since it seems to occur across all generations, our local primary school has a very small catchment area but it's absolutely jam packed with parents picking children up every day (and there's definitely ones covering a five minute walking distance daily) and there's a variety of ages at work who drive very short distances to work each day. There was a documentary on BBC a few years back while it was far from exhaustive it showed potentially simply minimising the amount of time spent sitting and even gentle exercise like walking could have a significant impact. I started cycling to be able to see to a puppy at lunchtime which walking wasn't fast enough, I started with a 26 mile charity ride which hurt for a few days even though I thought I was fairly fit bu a year later despite only cycling short distances i did the same 26 mile ride half an hour faster and felt fine after. It was surprising how much a difference small but regular exercise made.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Regular walking is key. No need for fancy gym memberships.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Regular walking is key. No need for fancy gym memberships.

What's key is doing what you enjoy. I find walking really boring (other than hillwalking) so I'm not motivated to do it. You need to choose something you are motivated to do.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

What's key is doing what you enjoy. I find walking really boring (other than hillwalking) so I'm not motivated to do it. You need to choose something you are motivated to do.

Well I do agree. Fortunately even without my wife walking besides me I do really enjoy walking. I hate with a passion going to the gym though.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Regular walking is key. No need for fancy gym memberships.

I find walking really boring

Walking for walking sake can be dull, but walking doesn't have to be about doing it for leisure.

I've always lost or maintained weight where walking is part of my commute. In Newcastle when I worked on the Quayside (where my bus stopped at the top of the hill) and then when I took work in Durham and used the train (again, a big hill).

And commuting in London involves a lot of walking, even just moving through tube stations. I was getting through Clarks shoes every six months when I lived there purely due to the amount of walking.

our local primary school has a very small catchment area but it's absolutely jam packed with parents picking children up every day (and there's definitely ones covering a five minute walking distance daily) and there's a variety of ages at work who drive very short distances to work each day.

This is where time poverty comes into it as, increasingly, all adults in a household need to work. This applies regardless of household income, really.

It's really tough to take the time to walk the kids to school where your employer insists you're in work at 9am on the dot, as many employers still do.

Not to mention that the standard working week has gradually crept up from 35 hours to 37.5 hours, with lunch breaks dropping from 60 minutes to 30 minutes. With a 60 minutes lunch break I always got out for a walk, even if it was just 20 minutes round the block, up to the shops or down to Pret for a 99p coffee. It was good for my mental health too, especially in my line of work, dealing with some very vulnerable people.

But 30 minutes is barely enough time to eat a sandwich.

I reckon going back to 35 hours as the standard week would help a lot, actually.

 

[najaB]

I reckon going back to 35 hours as the standard week would help a lot, actually.

Good luck with that. The working time directive is more than likely one of the first things on the chopping block come January. To paraphrase David Hunt:

The UK strongly opposes any attempt to tell people that they can no longer [be made to] work the hours they [their employer] want[s them to].

 

[Bletchleyite]

Walking for walking sake can be dull, but walking doesn't have to be about doing it for leisure.

I've always lost or maintained weight where walking is part of my commute. In Newcastle when I worked on the Quayside (where my bus stopped at the top of the hill) and then when I took work in Durham and used the train (again, a big hill).

And commuting in London involves a lot of walking, even just moving through tube stations. I was getting through Clarks shoes every six months when I lived there purely due to the amount of walking.

Yes, I've found that to be the case when I've been commuting, but if you're working from home one downside is that all exercise has to be consciously done as exercise.

Good luck with that. The working time directive is more than likely one of the first things on the chopping block come January.

WTD has little to do with that because it limits to 48 hours, and the vast majority of employers don't go anywhere near that on an ongoing basis.

 

[najaB]

WTD has little to do with that because it limits to 48 hours, and the vast majority of employers don't go anywhere near that on an ongoing basis.

I edited after you posted, but the Conservatives were strongly opposed to any limits being applied at all. I have no doubt that, once we are out of the transition period, workers' rights will be in grave peril.

After all, I doubt there were really that many workers who were crying out to be allowed to work more than 48 hours in a week - and I suggest that if any was, it was probably because they were underpaid for their labour.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I edited after you posted, but the Conservatives were strongly opposed to any limits being applied at all. I have no doubt that, once we are out of the transition period, workers' rights will be in grave peril.

Replied here:

Is the Working Time Directive worth retaining (plus other workers' rights legislation)?

from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/the-obesity-epidemic-causes-and-solutions.207552/page-6 I edited after you posted, but the Conservatives were strongly opposed to any limits being applied at all. I have no doubt that, once we are out of the transition period, workers' rights will be...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Tetchytyke]

Good luck with that. The working time directive is more than likely one of the first things on the chopping block come January. To paraphrase David Hunt:

Oh definitely, there's as much chance of that happening as Angelina Jolie deciding to marry me.

It's a management attitude in the UK that I can't get my head around. I saw it first-hand at Shelter- a new CEO came in and immediately changed everyone's contracts from 35 to 37.5 but with no additional pay, no doubt at the insistence of management consultants. Productivity didn't actually change, really- unpaid tab breaks became sneaky paid ones- but it just upset all the staff. Of course that CEO was, some time later, fired from a subsequent job as legal ombudsman for fiddling his expenses...

Productivity and presenteeism seem to be treated as synonyms in this country. It's unhealthy on all sorts of levels. But short lunch breaks a) reduce capacity for exercise and b) encourage eating ready/fast meals, and eating them too fast. So unhealthy. And then they wonder why health-related absence is high.

On a random tangent, Shelter is still by far and away the nastiest, most spiteful, toxic and vindictive place I've ever worked, and I've worked for cut-throat law firms!

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, I've found that to be the case when I've been commuting, but if you're working from home one downside is that all exercise has to be consciously done as exercise.

Not necessarily. I now routinely walk to the local shops (in fact I have just done so), rather than drive as I used to. It only takes about 15 minutes longer in total, and I get a couple of miles in. Often I’ll go the long way round (as this morning).

The other thing I find to get more miles in is to save up the calls you need to make, and then go out for an hour whilst doing them. Another 3-4 miles.

All told, I find it’s relatively easy to get 6-8 miles walking in a work from home day without trying. Do that every day and that’s a pound of weight loss equivalent, assuming you are eating the same. And walking is much better for fat loss than high impact cardio.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All told, I find it’s relatively easy to get 6-8 miles walking in a work from home day without trying. Do that every day and that’s a pound of weight loss equivalent, assuming you are eating the same. And walking is much better for fat loss than high impact cardio.

That isn't actually true, it's just "calories in vs calories out". Running is more time-efficient because calories burned while travelling on foot is mostly a factor of weight, distance and height gain, not speed. So if you travel a given route on foot, if you walk it or run it you'll burn about the same, just if you run it it'll be quicker.

Cycling by contrast is not a very good weight loss exercise because weight is of a lot less relevance except when going uphill.

 

[nlogax]

What's key is doing what you enjoy. I find walking really boring (other than hillwalking) so I'm not motivated to do it. You need to choose something you are motivated to do.

Walking is great! It's a free way to keep off the kilos, the scenery changes around you while you do it and it's the perfect way to spend an hour or two catching up with whatever podcast, audiobook or album's been on the list.

 

[Bald Rick]

That isn't actually true, it's just "calories in vs calories out". Running is more time-efficient because calories burned while travelling on foot is mostly a factor of weight, distance and height gain, not speed. So if you travel a given route on foot, if you walk it or run it you'll burn about the same, just if you run it it'll be quicker.

Cycling by contrast is not a very good weight loss exercise because weight is of a lot less relevance except when going uphill.

Not sure about that. I burn about 100cal a mile walking, 125cal a mile running (and for comparison, about 35cal a mile cycling) so running isn’t not only more time efficient for burning calories, but also more distance efficient. In cals per hour (for me) it’s 400 walking, 550 cycling, and 900-1000 running.

However, there’s a lot of studies out there that when you are running, and particularly regular runners, your muscles will a higher proportion of carbs as they need the energy quickly; burning carbs is much easier than burning fat. When runners ‘hit the wall’ it is typically because their muscles have run out of stored carbs, and are having to burn fat instead.

Now whilst it is true that a 5mile run will burn more calories than a 5 mile walk, I’m reasonably sure that you will burn more fat on a 5 mile walk. This is why understandign nutrition is so important.

The answer, as always, is to mix it up a bit.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Walking for walking sake can be dull, but walking doesn't have to be about doing it for leisure.

I've always lost or maintained weight where walking is part of my commute. In Newcastle when I worked on the Quayside (where my bus stopped at the top of the hill) and then when I took work in Durham and used the train (again, a big hill).

And commuting in London involves a lot of walking, even just moving through tube stations. I was getting through Clarks shoes every six months when I lived there purely due to the amount of walking.


This is where time poverty comes into it as, increasingly, all adults in a household need to work. This applies regardless of household income, really.

It's really tough to take the time to walk the kids to school where your employer insists you're in work at 9am on the dot, as many employers still do.

None of the cases I've referred to are anything to do with 'time poverty'. Certainly of the vehicles nearest me the people picking up and dropping the children off are not working and even then, I suspect with a five minute walk they'd be faster walking it by the time they've got into the car, parked it up etc. so there's really no excuse for anyone regardless of their circumstances. If what you were saying was true then clearly it's the opposite that should be happening because driving every day very short distances is not good financially and even aside from the health benefit walking is going to save a good chunk of money over the year.

I agree with your comments above about walking that while I don't tend to walk for leisure apart from with the dog, I still I like using it for transport but I find often the mindset is to just take the car. Many people seem to set themselves challenges often involving the gym that they never end up doing whereas a bit of walking is far more achievable and can still be very beneficial.

John

 

[Bletchleyite]

I actually do wonder if getting a dog might encourage me to do more walking as that then becomes necessary rather than discretionary

(I do quite fancy one actually)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

However, there’s a lot of studies out there that when you are running, and particularly regular runners, your muscles will a higher proportion of carbs as they need the energy quickly; burning carbs is much easier than burning fat. When runners ‘hit the wall’ it is typically because their muscles have run out of stored carbs, and are having to burn fat instead.

Now whilst it is true that a 5mile run will burn more calories than a 5 mile walk, I’m reasonably sure that you will burn more fat on a 5 mile walk. This is why understandign nutrition is so important.

I'm unclear why, from a point of view of weight loss, it would make any difference whether you burn x calories from stored fat or from carbs. Ultimately, the inevitable consequence of the First Law of Thermodynamics is that, if over a period of time you consume x calories and expend y calories, then your body either has to store x-y calories or remove y-x calories from its energy stores. That is true no matter which molecules are burned to expend the y calories. Whether it's burned from fat or from carbs will certainly impact the details of the short term 'energy book-keeping' processes your body does - the extent to which it converts temporary carb storage into long term fat storage vs. burning those carbs, but mathematically, that shouldn't ultimately impact how much energy it keeps stored as fat in the long run.

(There might be an impact in terms of how different exercise levels affect subsequent metabolic levels, but that's not the same thing).

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm unclear why, from a point of view of weight loss, it would make any difference whether you burn x calories from stored fat or from carbs.

It indeed doesn't. If you burn it from stored carbs the body will burn fat to replenish them, unless you eat. That's the same for running and walking.

You wouldn't notice "hitting the wall" walking as it's lower intensity anyway.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That isn't actually true, it's just "calories in vs calories out". Running is more time-efficient because calories burned while travelling on foot is mostly a factor of weight, distance and height gain, not speed. So if you travel a given route on foot, if you walk it or run it you'll burn about the same, just if you run it it'll be quicker.

Cycling by contrast is not a very good weight loss exercise because weight is of a lot less relevance except when going uphill.

I would expect that, if you run a given distance, that will have a greater impact than walking that distance because running exerts your leg and heart muscles to a greater extent - and will therefore cause your body to do more work repairing/improving those muscles, leaving them more toned, as well as increasing your metabolic rate for some time after the exercise. My understanding is that that is at least as important for burning calories as the calories consumed during the exercise itself.

Regarding cycling, it depends whether you are measuring by distance or time. Certainly, if you cycle 3 miles instead of walking 3 miles, that will consume far less energy in the exercise (though may have a greater toning/post-exercise impact, depending how hard you cycled). But if you cycle for an hour, that will have a much stronger impact than if you walk for an hour. So it really depends on whether you are using the walking vs. cycling to get somewhere you need to go (fixed distance) or to go out for the sake of exercising (fixed time).

By the way, cycling has the huge advantage over running that it is zero impact, which means you can sustain it for a lot longer. I've gone out on long cycle rides lasting up to 8 hours, and I see myself as healthy but certainly not up to professional athlete standards. I doubt many people could run or jog for 8 hours at a time without risking some damage to their knee and ankle joints! (I certainly couldn't). That's particularly important if you're starting off fairly overweight because running puts all that excess weight through your knee and ankle joints, whereas cycling generally doesn't,

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm unclear why, from a point of view of weight loss, it would make any difference whether you burn x calories from stored fat or from carbs.

Because your body can store a lot more fat than carbs. If you burn fat, it is easier to lose weight than burning carbs.

I agree about total calories in vs out, of course. However typically someone doing, say, a 3hr bike ride will have to consume more carbs to keep going - an energy bar / energy drink for example. Your body will burn that in preference to fat. On a three hour walk, typically you won’t need to, as the lower calorie expenditure can be accommodated by your body burning more fat (although it does burn carbs too). My point is that for high impact cardio, particularly endurance, your body can’t burn the fat quick enough so uses carbs, and you need to put more carbs in to compensate. For low impact cardio your body can burn the fat, so you don’t need to put more carbs in.

Of course if you can get to the point where you are doing long runs / rides without additional carb input then you will of course lose weight more quickly. But not many people can do that.

="DynamicSpirit, post: 4732432, member: 14653"]
But if you cycle for an hour, that will have a much stronger impact than if you walk for an hour.
[/QUOTE]

Not that much. As I mentioned upthread if I cycle for an hour (average 16/17mph, quite a few hills) I’ll burn about 550cal for an hour. If I walk for an hour I’ll burn 400cal; more if its hilly (much more if its proper hills). That’s me of course.