The Obesity Epidemic - Causes and solutions.

[JohnMcL7]

I think what it comes down to is what you enjoy doing as ultimately then you're likely to keep it going whereas if you don't, even if it has a better calorie burn rate you won't. I'm not a fan of running myself but I know quite a lot of people who have found it good for them especially building up through the couch to 5K's and parkruns while personally I love being out on the bike.

One advantage of cycling is ebikes which I've seen talk of recently since they can quickly bridge the gap between cycling being hassle and being enjoyable. They have the benefit the power can be dialled down as fitness improves and also that you can choose a bike design that isn't compromised for speed. My Mum has a hybrid design e-bike with a step through frame offering a comfortable riding position, a small amount of suspension travel and shock absorption front and back, built in lights, pannier and 42mm tyres which gives it an easier ride but still being able to handle hills well. I have one of the plushest road bikes there is which is a fast bike but nowhere near as comfortable to ride.

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.

Those numbers appear exceptionally unusual though since your consumption for walking is extremely high but very low for cycling, I realise everyone is different but would have thought either both should be high or both low. At an average 4mph walking pace (which I think is about normal for walking) I'm not even in to HR zone 1 apart from when climbing so calorie consumption if there's a lot of uphill is around 200 calories an hour average. On the other hand to maintain an average of 16-17mph on the bike with hill climbs though is quite an effort given with inevitable headwinds which will mean sustained 20mph+ on the flats and will keep me in HR zones 4 and 5 for most of the ride so upwards of 700 calories per hour and over 900 if staying in zone 5. Granted I'm not great at sprints but I wouldn't think those figures are that unusual, what sort of HR zones are you in for these activities?

 

[Tetchytyke]

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.

The cost of driving short distances is negligible, though, if you are already a car-owner. My car does about 30mpg-40mpg, depending on ambient temperature, traffic, etc, so at current prices the fuel cost is about 12p-16p a mile. I can safely say that in a morning and wrangling with a toddler, the 10-15 minutes saved by driving a mile instead of walking it is worth 16p of my money!

Some people do just drive everywhere, which I find odd too, but it's often not quite as simple as it first appears.

 

[JohnMcL7]

The cost of driving short distances is negligible, though, if you are already a car-owner. My car does about 30mpg-40mpg, depending on ambient temperature, traffic, etc, so at current prices the fuel cost is about 12p-16p a mile. I can safely say that in a morning and wrangling with a toddler, the 10-15 minutes saved by driving a mile instead of walking it is worth 16p of my money!

Some people do just drive everywhere, which I find odd too, but it's often not quite as simple as it first appears.

It's not fuel efficiency that's the cost, it's all the other components that are affected by frequent stop start trips especially if you have a modern diesel which I've certainly learnt the hard way. In the cases I'm talking about it's not even a mile, barely half that for the majority of houses and there is no need to be using a car for such short daily trips. It makes me old to say this but when I went to the school as a child I walked the short distance as did everyone else bar if something was on for some reason, I can't see it being good longterm if children start off life being used to being driven everywhere.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

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

You named that tune in one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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,

That is true - it's very common for runners to switch to cycling if they end up with an unresolvable injury.

Swimming, of course, is the ultimate near-zero-impact exercise, but it's also terminally boring if all you're doing is plugging up and down.

 

[Meerkat]

The cost of driving short distances is negligible, though, if you are already a car-owner. My car does about 30mpg-40mpg, depending on ambient temperature, traffic, etc, so at current prices the fuel cost is about 12p-16p a mile. I can safely say that in a morning and wrangling with a toddler, the 10-15 minutes saved by driving a mile instead of walking it is worth 16p of my money!

Some people do just drive everywhere, which I find odd too, but it's often not quite as simple as it first appears.

i live near a primary school and I reckon in the time it takes them to find a space, park (badly), drag the kids out, walk to the school and back again, and escape the traffic jam they help cause, they could probably walk a mile. I understand some people have to go straight to/from work but there are women who turn up half an hour early to get a nearer space and then chat for ages before leaving - they are clearly in no hurry!
The quick parents walk to school with the kid on a scooter and then ride the scooter home!

 

[Bald Rick]

Those numbers appear exceptionally unusual though since your consumption for walking is extremely high but very low for cycling, I realise everyone is different but would have thought either both should be high or both low. At an average 4mph walking pace (which I think is about normal for walking) I'm not even in to HR zone 1 apart from when climbing so calorie consumption if there's a lot of uphill is around 200 calories an hour average. On the other hand to maintain an average of 16-17mph on the bike with hill climbs though is quite an effort given with inevitable headwinds which will mean sustained 20mph+ on the flats and will keep me in HR zones 4 and 5 for most of the ride so upwards of 700 calories per hour and over 900 if staying in zone 5. Granted I'm not great at sprints but I wouldn't think those figures are that unusual, what sort of HR zones are you in for these activities?

I don’t have a heart rate monitor so no idea. Sustained walking at 4mph and cycling at 17-18mph on the flat are about the same breathing for me, ie upper end of ‘normal’. On the bike I only start breathing more heavily over 20, or up decent hills of course. On a typical ride I’ll do a fair bit of hills or higher speed on the flat, hence the higher calorie burn.

 

[JohnMcL7]

I don’t have a heart rate monitor so no idea. Sustained walking at 4mph and cycling at 17-18mph on the flat are about the same breathing for me, ie upper end of ‘normal’. On the bike I only start breathing more heavily over 20, or up decent hills of course. On a typical ride I’ll do a fair bit of hills or higher speed on the flat, hence the higher calorie burn.

Measuring your calorie consumption without a heart rate monitor gives pretty useless figures (admittedly even with one it's not that accurate) and your heartrate can be very different to what you're feeling especially when on a sustained pace. I suspect if you start measuring your heart rate you'll find your effort is not what you're feeling as I can't see how it would even be physically possible to require so much effort for walking which is low effort yet so little effort for cycling at a such a high pace which takes a lot of effort.

 

[Bald Rick]

Measuring your calorie consumption without a heart rate monitor gives pretty useless figures (admittedly even with one it's not that accurate) and your heartrate can be very different to what you're feeling especially when on a sustained pace. I suspect if you start measuring your heart rate you'll find your effort is not what you're feeling as I can't see how it would even be physically possible to require so much effort for walking which is low effort yet so little effort for cycling at a such a high pace which takes a lot of effort.

Ah, but cycling at that pace isn’t a lot of effort, for me.

 

[cactustwirly]

As far as obesity goes, any calories are basically the same, though simple carbs tend to cause insulin crashes which means you might end up eating more.

Not quite true, 500 calories worth of big Mac is a lot worse for obesity, than the same amount of calories in vegetables and lean meat.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not quite true, 500 calories worth of big Mac is a lot worse for obesity, than the same amount of calories in vegetables and lean meat.

No, it's absolutely not. They are both exactly the same for obesity specifically. Obesity is caused by incorrect calorie balance.

The McDonald's would however cause other problems, like raised cholesterol (but so do fresh eggs!), and the higher amount of carbs in the former than the latter may cause eating more later due to an insulin spike (but so would a ham sandwich on white bread). Though the Big Mac is not in itself that terrible, it's basically a beef sandwich and the patties are not particularly fatty. It's the fries and fat Coke that are the worst bit.

 

[peters]

One thing to remember is many people have allergies or/and medical conditions meaning they can't just choose the healthier option. A few months ago I was diagnosed with a medical condition and rather than the specialist saying I had to avoid the likes of chips, chocolate and bacon he said I had to stop eating Fruit n Fibre breakfast cereal and had to reduce the amount of vegetable pulses I ate, as well as avoiding certain fruits! Strangely, I also find fish and chips with a portion of vegetable one of the meals least likely to cause an adverse reaction since I've been diagnosed. Now I'm not overweight but if someone was overweight and ended up with the same condition as myself I could see them having issues trying to lose weight by reducing their calorie intake.

 

[najaB]

One thing to remember is many people have allergies or/and medical conditions meaning they can't just choose the healthier option.

Some, not many. As a percentage I would be surprised if it was as much as 1% of the population who were (a) overweight; and (b) allergic to all the available low calorie food choices.

 

[peters]

Some, not many. As a percentage I would be surprised if it was as much as 1% of the population who were (a) overweight; and (b) allergic to all the available low calorie food choices.

The condition I have apparently affects around 1 in 5 people at some point in their lives with some groups of people more likely to get it than others.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The condition I have apparently affects around 1 in 5 people at some point in their lives with some groups of people more likely to get it than others.

That's a bit cryptic; I am conscious you may not want to share what it is, but I can't think of any condition off hand that would cause you to be unable to consume ALL healthy food choices (other than conditions that cause you to be unable to consume ANY food and have to have nutrition via a drip).

One of interest is coeliac - gluten free food tends to be more calorific than normal food because it's more carb heavy. So people going on GF fad diets are potentially going to put on weight. But that isn't as you say, because you don't have to consume any substitute foods, you can just eat much more healthily and relatively low carb (though rice and potatoes are both GF).

 

[peters]

That's a bit cryptic; I am conscious you may not want to share what it is, but I can't think of any condition off hand that would cause you to be unable to consume ALL healthy food choices (other than conditions that cause you to be unable to consume ANY food and have to have nutrition via a drip).

There are certainly healthy options you can eat, as long as you don't try to be a vegan with the condition, in which case I think you would be eating a diet short of protein! Although, if you were on holiday in France or Italy you might find the only main course on the menu which you can eat, without risking problems the following day, is the steak & chips option, unless you can get them to modify another dish which they may or may not be willing to do.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are certainly healthy options you can eat, as long as you don't try to be a vegan with the condition, in which case I think you would be eating a diet short of protein! Although, if you were on holiday in France or Italy you might find the only main course on the menu which you can eat, without risking problems the following day, is the steak & chips option, unless you can get them to modify another dish which they may or may not be willing to do.

Sounds like coeliac to me! And yes, I've eaten plenty of steak and chips as a result.

But in reality you don't go on holiday to France 365 days a year, so even if you binge-eat steak and chips for 2 weeks that is not going to have a long term effect on your health provided you go back sensible again when you get home.

 

[najaB]

There are certainly healthy options you can eat...

Which rather nullifies your initial point, no?

 

[bspahh]

I've have one of these watches for the last few weeks https://www.mi.com/uk/mi-smart-band-5/
Its £34.89 including postage. You can get them for ~£19 imported from China https://www.aliexpress.com/ (look for discount vouchers). I bought a leather strap for another £9 or so on eBay.

It has a step counter, and a heart rate monitor. The battery life is pretty good. It lasts for 2 weeks for a charge, with it set to measure my heart rate every minute, and more often for 60-90 minutes a day. It doesn't have a GPS itself, but if I take my phone with me, it will track my heart rate and location for a bike ride or run.

You can set a personal goal for the number of steps you want to do each day. There is also a "PAI" Personal Activity Intelligence score. You get points for the time when your heart rate is above a threshold, with more points for intense activity, and a few for less intense activity, like a brisk walk. These are combined into a weekly average score. I find this works well as an incentive to do some exercise, but there is scope to do nothing for a few days, and then catch up.

It does a good job at balancing the benefit of a short burst of intense exercise, or a longer period at a lower level. Intense exercise takes less time, but you have the risk of picking up an injury. If an injury means you can't train like an athlete, you need to stop eating like an athlete pretty fast. Walking a lot is something that I can do pretty much any day, even if I'm feeling ill. However, walking a lot takes time.

 

[peters]

Sounds like coeliac to me! And yes, I've eaten plenty of steak and chips as a result.

But in reality you don't go on holiday to France 365 days a year, so even if you binge-eat steak and chips for 2 weeks that is not going to have a long term effect on your health provided you go back sensible again when you get home.

No what you might find you have if you have similar symptoms but test negative for coeliac and get told to reduce your Fermentable Oligo-, Di-, Mono-saccharides And Polyols intake which means you are on a low gluten diet, a low lactose diet as well as avoiding certain pulse vegetables and fruits like I mentioned already.

Which rather nullifies your initial point, no?

I said conditions and allergies can mean you can't just choose the healthier option. For instance, I can't eat a black bean burger instead of a beef burger even if it is a healthier option.

 

[najaB]

I said conditions and allergies can mean you can't just choose the healthier option. For instance, I can't eat a black bean burger instead of a beef burger even if it is a healthier option.

True if you're speaking about eating in restaurants, but for the vast majority of people that is an exception rather than the rule. For example, of my last 42 meal opportunities (three meals a day over two weeks) only three were from a restaurant/takeaway, meaning I had full control over the ingredients 92% of the time.

 

[cactustwirly]

No, it's absolutely not. They are both exactly the same for obesity specifically. Obesity is caused by incorrect calorie balance.

The McDonald's would however cause other problems, like raised cholesterol (but so do fresh eggs!), and the higher amount of carbs in the former than the latter may cause eating more later due to an insulin spike (but so would a ham sandwich on white bread). Though the Big Mac is not in itself that terrible, it's basically a beef sandwich and the patties are not particularly fatty. It's the fries and fat Coke that are the worst bit.

No the big Mac has more saturated fat which is worse for obesity, whereas vegetables and smoked salmon have healthier calories like proteins which are less likely to make you obese.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No the big Mac has more saturated fat which is worse for obesity, whereas vegetables and smoked salmon have healthier calories like proteins which are less likely to make you obese.

Once again, you are wrong. Saturated fat is bad for your health, but it does not make you fat in and of itself. Or rather, the extent to which it does depends on its calorific content.

What makes you fat is excess calories above what you burn. It is that simple. It doesn't matter what those calories come from, it's a simple mathematical equation.

You are falling into the trap, as many do, that "low fat" means "you won't get fat". Many low-fat products are very high-sugar and are thus no better for your waistline and far worse for your health than the full-fat version! (I don't mean "full fat" Coke - Coke after all contains no fat whatsoever, whichever version you choose, but will make you fat because of the calories from sugar if you drink too much of it). Indeed, you will probably find that the version with higher fat will sate you better than the carb-loaded version and so you'll snack less and...get less fat!

 

[peters]

True if you're speaking about eating in restaurants, but for the vast majority of people that is an exception rather than the rule. For example, of my last 42 meal opportunities (three meals a day over two weeks) only three were from a restaurant/takeaway, meaning I had full control over the ingredients 92% of the time.

Supermarkets sold burgers the last time I checked and the last time I checked they had different options and some were healthier than others. It sounds like you're lucky enough to prepare all your meals from raw ingredients so if you wanted a beef burger you would buy beef mince and turn it in to a burger so you can control exactly what's added to it, most people don't have time to do that so rely on items purchased from supermarkets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Supermarkets sold burgers the last time I checked and the last time I checked they had different options and some were healthier than others. It sounds like you're lucky enough to prepare all your meals from raw ingredients so if you wanted a beef burger you would buy beef mince and turn it in to a burger so you can control exactly what's added to it, most people don't have time to do that so rely on items purchased from supermarkets.

While I don't because I can't be bothered, most people do have time to do that. Making your own burgers involves putting the mince in a bowl, adding an egg and some salt and pepper, mashing it up together, forming into patties and placing on a baking tray (or in a frying pan if you prefer it that way). Because they are not frozen they cook quicker, so you will probably have them served more quickly than frozen ones overall. And if you have kids they'll love getting involved with the mess. And if you want frozen burgers, make more and freeze some!

If you need to bulk it out to be cheaper and aren't coeliac, crumble some stale bread into the mixture (cost £0 as it was going to go in the bin anyway because it was stale).

99% of it is mindset. There are many super-quick from scratch meals you can cook - stir frying for example.

 

[najaB]

It sounds like you're lucky enough to prepare all your meals from raw ingredients so if you wanted a beef burger you would buy beef mince and turn it in to a burger so you can control exactly what's added to it, most people don't have time to do that so rely on items purchased from supermarkets.

I do sometimes, most of the time I buy ready-made patties. But that's all a little irrelevant since the beef patty isn't the part of a burger and chips that is most calorific - it's the bun, chips and sauce (and maybe a soft drink) that pack the calories. Substituting a bean burger and leaving everything else the same would likely make very little difference.

Edit: One site lists 210 calories per 100g for the bean burger, and 260 per 100g for the beef patty - which is roughly a 20% difference.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do sometimes, most of the time I buy ready-made patties. But that's all a little irrelevant since a beef patty isn't the part of a burger and chips that is most calorific - it's the bun, chips and sauce (and maybe a soft drink) that pack the calories.

You might actually be surprised to see just how calorific meat is, even lean meat but definitely the fattier cheaper mince that would tend to go into burgers. Though you're right that the chips/fries are the worst bit by far - without those the Big Mac is just a beef sandwich and isn't really any worse than a mayo-slathered packet BLT.

 

[najaB]

You might actually be surprised to see just how calorific meat is, even lean meat but definitely the fattier cheaper mince that would tend to go into burgers.

Oh, I know it's calorific. But by the same token, commercially-produced bean burgers are surprisingly high in calories as well.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

While I don't because I can't be bothered, most people do have time to do that. Making your own burgers involves putting the mince in a bowl, adding an egg and some salt and pepper, mashing it up together, forming into patties and placing on a baking tray (or in a frying pan if you prefer it that way). Because they are not frozen they cook quicker, so you will probably have them served more quickly than frozen ones overall. And if you have kids they'll love getting involved with the mess. And if you want frozen burgers, make more and freeze some!

If you need to bulk it out to be cheaper and aren't coeliac, crumble some stale bread into the mixture (cost £0 as it was going to go in the bin anyway because it was stale).

99% of it is mindset. There are many super-quick from scratch meals you can cook - stir frying for example.

Agreed,,,and of course it is just as quick to make a veggie burger (or vegan burger)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh, I know it's calorific. But by the same token, commercially-produced bean burgers are surprisingly high in calories as well.

Indeed. One thing I found is that I could get calories down a lot (but still be sated) by putting less mince and more veg in stuff like chilli.

Beans are also surprisingly high (hence the burgers you mention) - fewer kidney beans and more e.g. peppers are good.