Cost of Food & Obesity Amongst Poorer People

FTBFun

mrcow wrote: »

What's so wrong with having an excuse? You talk like it's something to be ashamed of.

If you don't believe that e.g. stress, or e.g. depression can be very real triggers for comfort eating then sorry, but you've got your head in a bubble.

It's got nothing to do with being happy being fat. But dealing with your triggers for overeating or changing the way that you react to these triggers is vital if you're going to be successful in the long term.

Isn't exercise supposed to be a recommended activity for people with depression, though?

adouglasmhor

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I'm not on a diet actually. Certainly not a calorie restricted one anyway.

The people I know who have done paleo have ended up on it as they have tried all the calorie restricted regimes which ultimately dont work. They seem to find it has worked for them when nothing else has, and that they are able to stick to it without hardship.

I've also met a few athletic types who use it to maximise their energy and performance and are very happy with it. There is more than enough scientific and anecdotal evidence to suggest its worth a shot for people wanting to improve their health or lose weight, I am wondering what your beef is (pardon the pun).

Again with the link you most latterly published I am wondering if you bothered to actually read it?

#1 is an anti cholesterol diet created by an organisation that exists to promote awareness about cholesterol; despite the fact the actual scientific evidence that cholesterol causes heart disease is patchy at best. But everyone needs to get paid right; even if it involves jumping on the diet pseudo-science bandwagon.

#3 on this websites list of great diets is the Weight Watchers diet. Does anyone know anyone who's done a WW diet?

Does anyone know anyone who's done a WW diet who has actually succeeded in keeping thin?

WW is certainly good for WW's shareholders but I cant see its ever provided much benefit to anyone as a lasting way to stay in shape.

At #11 on this hit parade of complete nonsense is the Slim Fast diet. Thats right, the "chemical sludge in a PET bottle" diet rates 13 places higher than eating the healthy foods of our ancestors.

If you actually bother to open their own link to the paleo diet:

http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/paleo-diet

The 'debunking' is weak at best, and again points to research that proves it works (although the site seems to have a problem with sample sizes). Their other criticisms are that its "expensive", unlike WW or Slim Fast of course, that you can't have dairy, which is blatantly untrue, and that its hard to stick to; which is absurd when you look at the diets they have promoted.

But then again the paleo people weren't paying them off to come higher in their list of dietary garbage so its not surprising they scored last.

The link that you refer to above gives it 2 out of 3 stars.
Fantastic score, well done.

Also as I said earlier, the paleo diet bears no resemblance to the day to day diet of man in Palaeolithic times. It’s a fiction.

posh*spice

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Its possible to eat a very high fat diet loaded with cholesterol (incidently there is still no reliable research that shows cholesterol causes heart disease, its kwack science that is promoted energetically by every food company who's balance sheet relies on selling things labelled as "low fat", and a medical industry that should bloody well know better).

I didn't know that. Have you got a reliable link?

Do you think this is a good book?



http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Great-Cholesterol-Malcolm-Kendrick/dp/1844546101/ref=pd_sim_b_3

(Edit - just bought it. At £1.71 for the kindle edition it's cheap. Does it look ok to you? It reviews well.)

posh*spice

Bayblue wrote: »

I don't think that all the free gym passes and cheaper healthy food will/would help. It's not so much about the content of the food we eat, or the quantity although they both play a part it's more complex than that.

The rise of the car, the use of labour saving devices, the decline of manual work, most of our 'leisure' time being based around electronic devices convenience foods are all part of the reasons but there has also been a huge change in social attitudes. One small example-In the past it was considered ill mannered to eat in the street, now it's perfectly normal. Added to that eating itself has become a leisure activity and built an immense economy around it. We could feed this nation comfortably and probably more healthily using a fraction of the resources which we use up now, but I doubt that most individuals would be very happy with that.

We live to eat now, whereas we used to eat to live and we're not doing anything like the amount of physical activity that we are designed to do. TBH I think that the way we've structured our society and the lifestyles in it we must expect people to get fatter.

Yes but - none of that explains why poorer people are fatter than the rest?

nicko33

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Paleo diet debunked.

I've lost weight on a variety of diets.
Low-fat
Low-calorie
Atkins

I lost 2 stone on the Rosedale diet (similar to Atkins) and lowered my blood pressure and ran a half marathon. This type of diet is the only one I've found that really controls my hunger. In the end, I came off this because it affected my other sport which needs lots of short bursts of high energy, rather than a continuous medium effort.

Different diets may suit different people

posh*spice

I've lost a stone in 3 months. I just lowered my calorie intake to a number that I know I will lose weight at. That said, I do find this easier to do when I'm not stressed. When I'm stressed I eat and drink mindlessly - which is how I put the stone on in the first place.

Reducing calories works everytime for me - more so than exercising.

adouglasmhor

nicko33 wrote: »

I've lost weight on a variety of diets.
Low-fat
Low-calorie
Atkins

I lost 2 stone on the Rosedale diet (similar to Atkins) and lowered my blood pressure and ran a half marathon. This type of diet is the only one I've found that really controls my hunger. In the end, I came off this because it affected my other sport which needs lots of short bursts of high energy, rather than a continuous medium effort.

Different diets may suit different people

I don't disagree, but the whole marketing of the Paleo as what we evolved eating is what annoys me about it, if that was true insects would be high on the list of foods. It's a variant of the eco-atkins with mumbo jumbo thrown in. I watched one friend do it as his weigh ballooned so much he needed a knee op despite following it.

nicko33

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I don't disagree, but the whole marketing of the Paleo as what we evolved eating is what annoys me about it,

Fair enough

MrsE_2

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Calorie intake in the 1950s it not much different to intake now.

Really?
That's surprising.
While I would guess we do less physical exercise now I can't imagine that's the main reason.

ruggedtoast

adouglasmhor wrote: »

The link that you refer to above gives it 2 out of 3 stars.
Fantastic score, well done.

Also as I said earlier, the paleo diet bears no resemblance to the day to day diet of man in Palaeolithic times. It’s a fiction.

What stars are you talking about? The link you are referring to is your link.