Budget 2016

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
Very few people can do enough exercise to lose significant amounts of weight as their appetite simple goes up. If your appetite rises you will eat more.
...

I understand what you say.

From personal experience (only), I think that the trigger for change can be exercise though.

So many dieters fail to maintain the diet plan. The industry knows this, which is why they continually reinvent diets.

The effects of exercise on young people is also very different than on older people. It is as you say complicated.

chucknorris

Generali wrote: »

Very few people can do enough exercise to lose significant amounts of weight as their appetite simple goes up. If your appetite rises you will eat more.

It takes about 3,500 calories burned to lose 1lb of fat, for me that means about 4.5 hours of running (it will of course vary from person to person). These days I don't tend to run more than one hour in 1 session. There are 534 calories in my fav bottle of wine, so that is about 43 mins of running. I'm trying to cut down on drinking, so working out what it means in exercise helps me to rationalise it.

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

That's a myth perpetrated by companies like Coca Cola.....

I don't know about that.:)

Since 2002, the average body weight of English adults has increased by two kilograms. This has coincided with a decline in calorie consumption of 4.1 per cent and a decline in sugar consumption of 7.4 per cent. The rise in obesity has been primarily caused by a decline in physical activity at home and in the workplace, not an increase in sugar, fat or calorie consumption.

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/in-the-media/files/Briefing_The%20Fat%20Lie.pdf


DEFRA statistics appear to support that argument.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461296/foodpocketbook-2015report-17sep15.pdf

mwpt

Btw, muscle requires a lot of calories to maintain, just by having some. So, don't just go jogging, push some heavier weights and pick up some muscle.

wotsthat

Generali wrote: »

That's a myth perpetrated by companies like Coca Cola.

US soda companies spent $100,000,000+ promoting this myth by the means of paying for studies that happen to complicate the simple. The problem seems to be sugar AFAICS.

Check out Marion Nestle's blog as a great starting point for all that is wrong with the promotion of sugar rich foods and dodgy science paid for by Big Food and especially Big Soda.

That's the rub. It's isn't a myth. If you drink a litre of coke and reduce 500 calories elsewhere you won't put on weight.

They're using this truism unethically because they know full well their consumers aren't accounting for these calories. They also know their consumers aren't burning it off through exercise - 1 litre of coke needs a 5 mile run to burn off.

I'd ban the stuff.

chucknorris

mwpt wrote: »

Btw, muscle requires a lot of calories to maintain, just by having some. So, don't just go jogging, push some heavier weights and pick up some muscle.

I do have a multi gym, but at the moment I have a detached ligament in my right hand, so I can't do weights (I am waiting for a referral appointment). But I also cycle and hike too (swimming is on the back burner due to lack of time).

wotsthat

mwpt wrote: »

Btw, muscle requires a lot of calories to maintain, just by having some. So, don't just go jogging, push some heavier weights and pick up some muscle.

Whilst true you're talking about fine tuning.

Most people are just too fat. They'd be best served by eating rather less and moving somewhat more.

I spy on fat people's trolleys in supermarkets. Their problems aren't just caused by the odd can of pop and having missed their last weights session.

We live in a world of abundance with bodies that are trained for scarcity. That's tough on the waistline before we even have to deal with having formulated products, almost literally, rammed down our throats.

cells

Generali wrote: »

That's a myth perpetrated by companies like Coca Cola.

US soda companies spent $100,000,000+ promoting this myth by the means of paying for studies that happen to complicate the simple. The problem seems to be sugar AFAICS.

Check out Marion Nestle's blog as a great starting point for all that is wrong with the promotion of sugar rich foods and dodgy science paid for by Big Food and especially Big Soda.

It is not a myth, try limiting yourself to 2,000 calories a day and it is impossible to go beyond about 75kg and for most people that will sustain a mass of 65-70kg

My guess is most soda consumption is at fast food joints? How will the tax impact them? It is like a duty with a price per unit or a percentage tax?

cells

wotsthat wrote: »

That's the rub. It's isn't a myth. If you drink a litre of coke and reduce 500 calories elsewhere you won't put on weight.

They're using this truism unethically because they know full well their consumers aren't accounting for these calories. They also know their consumers aren't burning it off through exercise - 1 litre of coke needs a 5 mile run to burn off.

I'd ban the stuff.

everyone has an inbuilt calorie counter its the reason people dont go from normal to obese in the course of a couple of months it tends to take years with a soft limit of ~1kg a month added in weight and even then most people reach a level and then flatline and stay around that

mwpt

cells wrote: »

My guess is most soda consumption is at fast food joints? How will the tax impact them? It is like a duty with a price per unit or a percentage tax?

Well, the price of soda at cinemas will go from outrageous to extortionate.