Sign in / up

back to article Lies, damn pies and obesity statistics: We're NOT a nation of fatties

The messaging cannot be any clearer. We, like much of the developed world, are in the midst of an obesity crisis caused in large part by eating too much. Our super-size culture of fast food, sugary drinks and junk diets is turning us into a nation of over-sized and unhealthy slobs with expanding waist lines and it’s getting …

COMMENTS

Post your comment
House rules Send corrections
Add to 'My topics' unstar *

Page:

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's not how much you stuff in your gob, it's what you stuff in that matters and whether you stuff more in than expel out. A bit like over filling a petrol tank.

    Even today doing my weekly shop I have had to negotiate my way around those of a larger size.

    It saddens me when I not only see the XXL sized parents, but their XXL sized off spring following along behind a shopping trolley fill to the rafters of crisps, processed foods and copious amounts of fizzy drinks, of which a number are usually diet Coke ( makes them feel better but can actually mak you fatter as it sends the wrong signals to your brain regarding sugars ).

    I have to disagree with 'we are not a nation of fatties' when every 4th person I see is fat.

    Oh, I forgot can't call them fat can we, it's not allowed anymore, we have to be nice instead.

    But being fat is still fat whichever way you look at it. Check out the number of mobility scooters with fat people on them, too fat to work, too fat to walk, catch 22

    No doubt it will soon be a jail able offence to point at someone and shout 'hey fat arse let me get past'.

    Down vote me to hell, I care not.

    35 10 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      "I have to disagree with 'we are not a nation of fatties' when every 4th person I see is fat."

      Since 2000 the same observation can be made about my large town in England. Young boys often seem to buck the trend in fat families - possibly indicating an exercise factor?

      In the 1980s I worked in Luxembourg. The older population were very rotund - and almost every other shop on Grand Rue was a confiserie or patisserie. The very low indigenous birthrate meant that the slimmer younger demographic came from Portuguese immigrant worker families. That immigration had been a long tradition. After a couple of generations the families became acculturated as Luxembourgers - and their birthrate declined while their girth increased.

      In the 1970s South Africa had a social split in the white population. The "Poor Whites" were financially subsidised as part of the Government's political ideology. It was not uncommon see whole families who were grossly obese - even young boys with several double chins. A local colleague attributed it to those families eating too many rich foods which they saw as status symbols.

      0 1 Reply
    2. Beornfrith
      Reply Icon

      Well it's nice to know that when I use my mobility scooter - a lifeline to my physical and mental wellbeing - there are people like you judging me. I'm 6'4" and most definitely overweight. I'm just shy of 30 and definitely not using my scooter because I'm lazy or fat: I'm using it because I have been ill since I was 15 and my body does not function correctly. I display no outward signs of illness.

      My weight has been stable for years. The medication that keeps my symptoms in check also exacerbate weight gain. I do not eat excessively but when I do cut back on my intake I suffer from fits of falling due to low blood pressure. Falling repeatedly from my height, with joints, muscles and bones that hurt 24/7 is frankly not worth the literal agony.

      It's nice to know that people like you can obviously understand the myriad of health problems that individuals you encounter by vision alone. There undoubtedly are people out there who eat junk to excess and simply can't be bothered walking but tarring every overweight person on a mobility scooter with the same brush is akin to perpetuating the equally ridiculous "all Muslims are terrorists" myth.

      So to quote yourself: down vote me to hell, I care not.

      29 9 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        @Beornfrith

        I pushed a wheelchair around for 7 years for someone who had multiple health issues, blind, amputee, was on dialysis, a heart condition and mobility issues, medication that could constitute a three course meal and other health issues courtesy of diabetes from childhood. Never a complaint.

        With all that going on this person was never fat or overweight, and before the illness really took hold after 50 years of being diagnosed, regularly played competitive sport, worked and had an active life.

        So when I see people who are fat and overweight towing fat and overweight children behind them stuffing trolleys with everything that will send them down the same route as my friend, not because they were born diabetic but because their lifestyle took them there I feel very angry. I feel for the children.

        While you may have a medical condition and I sympathise I really do, there is still one constant formula that cannot be denied. If you eat much more than your body needs and is able to burn off there is an imbalance. This means you put on weight, a fact. If you eat crap you will put on weight more quickly.

        If you stop eating food altogether you get thin, in a famine, the results of which I have seen first hand, you die but you die thin not fat.

        I won't down vote you, that would be taking advantage of your predicament.

        7 5 Reply
    3. veti Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Brave words from the Anonymous Coward there. Good to see people standing up for what they believe in.

      Except that if you trouble to read the fine article (I know, I know), you'd see the author has already covered the "it's not how much, it's what you eat" canard.

      I suspect it's already an offence to shout that (conduct likely to result in a breach of the peace). I really look forward to reading of the first person to be jailed for it, though. Remember: it's not civil disobedience unless you do it openly and take the consequences. Anonymous passive-aggression on Internet forums doesn't cut it.

      7 0 Reply
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Laziness

        For me, the apparent lack of exercise is what does it, that and a possibly a genetic/metabolism component. People do eat bad stuff, and more so than in the 60's and 70's, but then people also now do literally no manual labour or exercise at all. Everyone drives everywhere, sits in a call centre for work, watches hours and hours of telly of an evening and still eats 3 meals a day.

        And weight/BMI is not even the thing that matters, it is fitness. You can be obese and fit if you eat a lot but do a lot of exercise. If you eat little and do no exercise, you can be normal weight but unfit. Movement is the key to fitness, and that is the ultimate importance.

        I am fit (not olympian fit, but I don't have any reservations about doing anything physical at all, I can walk miles, run for some distance, do whatever manual labour is needed for something). I never get sick, and I feel happy with my general health. I am Obese by BMI measures.

        My wife is not fit (from a health perspective). She has many ailments and is extremely obese (always has been). She does NO exercise. She can't walk more than a few yards without it exhausting her.

        We both eat almost exactly the same stuff, and she doesn't drink alcohol or sugary drinks at all.

        It isn't what you eat, it's what you do. There are too many lazy people out there. Laziness is what is making the UK fat/unfit.

        3 1 Reply
        1. Chris Parsons
          Reply Icon

          Re: Laziness

          Absolutely spot on. I remember reading, most likely in New Scientist, that we are about 3000 calories a week disadvantaged against people in the 50s just because they did so much more physical work.

          2 0 Reply
          1. Sir Runcible Spoon
            Reply Icon
            WTF?

            Re: Laziness

            I haven't seen any comments on all the crap in our foods these days either.

            Unless you are 100% organic in your diet, you are pumping some form of man-made chemical into your body. I don't recall that the health system or food quality being that much better now than when I was in my late teens (circa 1990) so I was in my late 30's I was surprised to see a group of teenagers at the supermarket and I only came up to their shoulders, and I'm 6'.

            I was thinking that all those growth hormones they pumped into animals to get them to the table sooner must be causing these kids to grow. Either that or Arnie was fathering hundreds of bastards in my neck of the woods.

            3 8 Reply
        2. James Micallef Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: BMI

          BMI is an abomination. Any analysis based on it is automatically null and void. Any policy based on it is automatically rubbish.

          12 3 Reply
        3. LucreLout
          Reply Icon

          Re: Laziness

          "Laziness is what is making the UK fat/unfit."

          Sort of agree. I'm fat, BTW, which is my own fault. I've also ran multiple marathons at one time or another, and have a box of trophies in the loft from different sports from martial arts to swimming.

          A key component of the reason being I work a 9 or 10 hour day and have 3 hours commuting on top, plus a small child to look after, and courses to complete of an evening. I get about 2 hours of leisure time a week, and sadly, I don't spend that hanging about in a room full of sweaty blokes.

          I try to compensate by taking the stairs 8 floors to my desk rather than the lift, and cutting out/down on the amount of garbage I feed myself. But still, I'm fat because I exercise too little. Unless someone can force the TOC to get their act together, or more houses are built closer to my work place, then I can't make extra hours appear in the day. Give me an extra hour a day and I'd probably split it between exercise, more time with my child, and sleep.

          The unfortunate reality you can't see is that some of us are fat because we don't have time to go to the gym due to work, transport, and family. It's not being lazy: it's being busy. You'll be amazed to know I don't spend time pawing the window at Greggs of an evening. I don't have time!

          6 1 Reply
          1. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Laziness

            I thought growth hormones were illegal in Europe. I thought they were only allowed in the US.

            I agree with the exercise point above and not having enough time. I'm not overweight but there have been times in my life were work and home commitments have made exercising impossible and I did put on a little weight. I think that is something which has got worse over the years in that more and more people don't do manual work and spend longer working and commuting.

            I'd also be interested to see if thyroid function has changed. A friend of mine has always struggled with weight to finally discover that he's got an under active thyroid. It seems that's become more common in recent years. The person concerned had cut down to one small meal a day and still couldn't shift the weight.

            Obviously it's a good idea to jeer at fat people in the street as this will instantly solve any health problems they might have and at the very least will boost their self confidence so they eat less.

            My uncle, on the other hand, has got the opposite problem and at one point he was eating five or six meals a day and still losing weight. That's normalised a lot since he's started treatment but it is clear that both cases went a long time undiagnosed.

            2 0 Reply
    4. N2
      Reply Icon

      Agree entirely

      & unfortunately its spreading here in France, 10 years ago one would hardly see a fatty, but now theyre all too common, along with the cancerous spread of Mc Donalds, not so 'diet' coke, Subway etc.

      If I was fat, to be honest, Id prefer people to shout "oi fat bastard..." because it might give me some impetus to do something about it.

      Thankfully there's no political correctness here either, but I despair, one day it will happen.

      3 3 Reply
      1. Jeremy Puddleduck
        Reply Icon

        Re: Agree entirely

        What is this bloody obsession with shouting things at people? Why shout anything at all? Because the number of people you are legitimately shout racist/sexist/offensive things at is reducing you'll just shout at someone for the size of their arse?

        You sound a real catch.

        2 2 Reply
  2. Mage Silver badge

    Fat maybe

    But obviously not because of eating per-se.

    It sounds complex.

    Certainly kids that used to walk to school, or walk to & from bus stops don't anymore.

    There is more TV watching, in 1950s and 1960s the TV wasn't on 24 x7. Programs only from late afternoon to before midnight.

    No computer games till late 1970s.

    No Interwebs till 1990s.

    11 0 Reply
  3. wiggers

    Statistics

    The analysis omits to examine the incidence of high-carb related diseases such as diabetes and metabolic syndrome, which have been increasing over the same time. Many of the charts in the article only go back a decade whereas the 'fat is bad' lie goes back to the 70s. Maybe the very slight changes shown in the charts means we are just beginning to wake up to the problem. The assertion it is down to lack of exercise or thermostats falls down when you have newborns and toddlers that are obese. Are they not exercising enough and has their environment really changed that much in the past decade or two? Switching to a low-carb-high-fat (LCHF) diet means you are burning fat to maintain body temperature, the equivalent of an hour's workout on a high-carb diet, just by living! I am not alone in experiencing significant weight loss having gone LCHF, eating when I am hungry and achieving satiation; 20kg loss in just over a year in my case and now enjoying a stable weight on the same intake. BMI is right in the middle of the normal range, height/waist is perfect (had to buy whole new wardrobe though!) 10yr CHD risk is just 4% (avg for my age 14%) all other health indicators very good.

    So this article is trying to find statistics to say, "actually chaps we're OK" when the nation's health is far from it. Look at this from first principles. Look at the bio-chemistry of the effect of carbohydrate consumption on insulin, grehlin, leptin, liver function, kidney function, salt excretion and the headline-grabbing cholesterol that Big Pharma would love to resolve by selling even more statins.

    6 4 Reply
    1. Jesrad
      Reply Icon

      Re: Statistics

      Thanks for mentionning this. I too healed from obesity and diabetes on a LHCF diet, no more health problems now. And so did the dozen people that I got along on this.

      The core of the argument in the article is that Brits eat less and exercize more and more to the recommendations of their gov, yet see no health gain. Figures, maybe the gov advice is wrong in the first place eh ?

      The problem is that science has been early-fossilized by state intervention, as a government appointed panel of experts just cannot admit being wrong on anything, ever. They've steadfastly refuse to incorporate any of the results of recent medical research on the subject and keep alive myths from the 60s and 70s. Same thing is happening across the Channel, ever since France initiated a massive public health program in 2001 which has had exactly zero net impact on french waists and arteries: http://www.contrepoints.org/2013/02/06/113904-manger-bouger-12-ans-dechec-constant-des-politiques-publiques-de-prevention

      2 2 Reply
  4. Lars Silver badge
    Pint

    The Lie

    A funny one, "it’s not food that’s to blame for the rise in obesity but lack of exercise.".

    That is, it's still the food when we do not exercise enough, was it ever differently?. Is this news.

    And the "UK government’s “food and family” datasets", nothing to do with statistics there.

    I do believe some people get fat more "easily" than others, on the other hand, as a broke and hungry student I knew very well that visiting fat friends was always more revarding.

    6 0 Reply
    1. Psyx
      Reply Icon

      Re: The Lie

      I don'ty need stats to tell me we are a fat nation. My Mk I eyeballs are just fine for the job.

      We. Are. Fat. And Lazy.

      4 0 Reply
  5. Shooter

    Don't forget the shifting targets, either.

    Here on the left side of the pond, a while back (15 or 20 years ago, IIRC) the governmental nutrition nabobs revised the definition of obesity significantly downwards (something like 20%, I don't remember the exact figures). Then two or three years later there was a spate of alarmist news stories reporting on the vast increase of obese people in recent years. Nowhere was it indicated that there were adjustments made to account for the change in definition.

    Not denying that there are certainly a lot of fat people around - hell, I'm turning into one myself in my dotage. But as others have mentioned, I'm certain it has to do with lack of exercise more than poor diet (although diet is certainly a factor). I can't be the only one who finds it hard to get motivated about exercise after putting in a 10 - 12 hour workday, plus commute time.

    11 0 Reply
    1. wiggers
      Reply Icon

      You lose weight in the kitchen and gain health in the gym. It's 80% diet, 20% exercise.

      11 1 Reply
    2. Mike 140
      Reply Icon

      Sounds like the NIH 1998 redefinition of overweight from 27.8 to 25 BMI, and similar for obese. Same has happened here on the correct side of the pond, again no reference to it in the alarmism.

      3 0 Reply
    3. Dr. Ellen
      Reply Icon

      Moving the goals?

      When I was younger, "obesity" translated to "shakes when he laughs like a bowl full of jelly". Today, you can be slim, yet obese. Obese is defined (in these wailing articles) strictly by BMI. And BMI is defined as weight divided by the *square* of your height. If a given shape, proportionate to size, were ideal -- then you would want to divide by the *cube* of your height. As things stand, to maintain a particular BMI, people must get slimmer to counterbalance getting taller. Since I am tall, I find this unfair.

      16 2 Reply
      1. Primus Secundus Tertius
        Reply Icon

        Re: Moving the goals?

        Well said, Dr Ellen.

        (weight)/(height**3) is constant, roughly the same as water, 1 tonne per cubic metre for those who think big.

        So (BMI)/(height) is constant. Ie, for the same shape, a big person has a bigger BMI.

        Secondly, most of what we eat goes into keeping our blood warm (which helps our brains to function). A shark or crocodile can live on one big eat per month, but we cannot. The proportion of food used for physical effort is only a tiny fraction.

        But now we are living in warmer houses: room temperature 19th century was 15 centigrade; these days it is 20 or more. However, help is at hand. Green policies will produce power cuts every winter (when there is less solar power anyway), and we shall shiver our way to slimness.

        7 1 Reply
        1. Charles Manning
          Reply Icon

          Re: Moving the goals?

          Or perhaps...

          Your volume might go up according to the cube of your height, but your surface area goes up according to the square of your height.

          If we say a fattie (or which I am one) has an average of F cm of fat under the skin, then the fat will be approx constant x F x height squared.

          So maybe square is a fair measure?

          0 0 Reply
          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge
            Reply Icon

            Re: Moving the goals?

            Yes, that's why it is height^2.

            BMI is a decent measure of a population's tubbiness, which is what it was intended as.

            It's crap as an arbitrary "you are fat and unhealthy" vs "you are normal" line in the sand for an individual - unfortunately this is what is is used for

            9 0 Reply
            1. James Micallef Silver badge
              Reply Icon

              Re: Moving the goals?

              "Yes, that's why it is height^2."

              As mentioned by other posters, humans are 3-dimensional, so using square is not correct. As also mentioned above by other posters, humans are more 'cylindrical' than 'spherical' so maybe using the cube of the height isn't very correct either.

              "BMI is a decent measure of a population's tubbiness, which is what it was intended as."

              Except that actually, it isn't, because it takes into account only mass, without distinction of whether that mass is fat or muscle. This is made worse because muscle is denser than fat.

              Given the 2 issues above and given that fat tends to accumulate round the waist while muscle gain is more evenly distributed, a better measure of 'fatness' would be

              mass/(height*waist circumference)

              1 3 Reply
              1. Oz
                Reply Icon

                Re: Moving the goals?

                Waist circumference on the bottom would not work. It wouldn't differentiate between tall and thin or short and fat. Perhaps

                (mass*waist)/height

                might be a better starting point?

                0 0 Reply
        2. ravenviz Silver badge
          Reply Icon
          Boffin

          Room temperature

          I'm sure I was taught in science classes in the 80's that room temperature is 21 ºC but Wikipedia seems to suggest it is 'defined' higher at 23 ºC.

          I prefer to keep my house and office at 20 ºC, and car at 19 ºC, for a belief that it is (slightly more) healthy, but I wonder how many extra calories are burned per 1 ºC ambient temperature reduction per hour?

          1 0 Reply
      2. frank ly
        Reply Icon

        Re: Moving the goals?

        "If a given shape, proportionate to size, were ideal -- then you would want to divide by the *cube* of your height."

        That would be true if the human body could be aproximated by a sphere, but it is more closely approximated by a cylinder, hence the square is used. Maybe the height raised to the power 2.3 would be more 'fair'?

        2 1 Reply
      3. Eddy Ito
        Reply Icon

        Re: Moving the goals?

        @Dr. Ellen

        It's worse, the theory that "normal" BMI is healthy could be wrong and it certainly seem improper for schools to say children are overwieght based on BMI. If we look at some illconceived correlations we can find that age has a bearing on body fat and BMI as shown in both the "children" and "adult" equations at the bottom of this page yet the initial BMI equation doesn't make any such distinction. I know when I'm being walked through a field of cow patties yet I'm stunned by how many people can't see they are standing on shit.

        A quote for the ages from the NYPost article linked above "why should I believe the New York Department of Education?” - perfect.

        1 0 Reply
      4. Tom 38
        Reply Icon

        Re: Moving the goals?

        Obese is defined (in these wailing articles) strictly by BMI.

        BMI is not meant to be a personal indicator of health, it is meant to be a way of grouping huge numbers of people for statistically similar outcomes.

        For you personally, BMI 30 is not really obese, but for all people with BMI 30, you are a statistical outlier. This doesn't mean that BMI is not a useful macro measurement, but that it is not particularly useful for you.

        4 0 Reply
        1. Anonymous Coward
          Reply Icon
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Moving the goals?

          "This doesn't mean that BMI is not a useful macro measurement, but that it is not particularly useful for you."

          So in fact, BMI is useless for any individual. Which is fine, the public health enthusiasts could just stop misleading and confusing people by talking about BMI publicly, and offer the public a simpler and infallible test of fatness:

          "Undress in front of a mirror. Are you a bit of a Bunter?"

          3 0 Reply
          1. Tom 38
            Reply Icon

            Re: Moving the goals?

            "This doesn't mean that BMI is not a useful macro measurement, but that it is not particularly useful for you."

            So in fact, BMI is useless for any individual.

            I think you must be being extraordinarily dense. The OP was commenting that, as a statistical outlier in terms of height, BMI did not make much sense for her. I agreed, and said that as an outlier, it did not.

            You've extrapolated this to "it is useless for any individual". Well, no. Actually, a great great many people are not statistical outliers, and for those people, BMI is a tremendously useful indicator of health.

            I'm shocked that I have to explain this to you, this is the basis of the South Park joke, "I'm not fat I'm big boned". Yes, for some people this measurement is not appropriate, but for the vast majority it is. The sheer number of people proclaiming that BMI is not applicable to them would lead me to think that either we have a strangely large population of extremely tall people, or that at least some of them are like Eric Cartman, and not "big boned" or extremely tall.

            2 0 Reply
            1. Anonymous Coward
              Reply Icon
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Moving the goals?

              "I think you must be being extraordinarily dense."

              Not showing up in my BMI.

              But I think you're wrong anyway. There's not really any good science to BMI that I'm aware of it. It's a rule of thumb, it works best at a population level, works less well for tall people, or people who are muscley.

              But at any rate, whether people argue with BMI or not, if they want to be fat (and it is a personal choice for the vast majority of the porky population) then that's fine by me.

              3 0 Reply
            2. Corinne
              Reply Icon

              Re: Moving the goals? @Tom38

              BMI is, as Ledswinger says, only useful as a generalisation for large numbers, and "outliers" are possibly more common than those who fit the "average" mould.

              I have broad shoulders, big hips, large rib cage. Someone can be the same height as me, and have a significantly higher level of fat but slimmer shoulders, rib cage & hips, and have a lower BMI. Muscle is denser than fat, so for 2 people with the same dimensions the more muscular one will have a higher BMI than the one with more body fat. There is so much variation in body types that a simple calculation based purely on height vs weight IS virtually useless.

              0 1 Reply
          2. Eddy Ito
            Reply Icon

            Re: Moving the goals?

            offer the public a simpler and infallible test of fatness

            How about height divided by max girth about the belly. I'd think if that ratio is less than 1 it may indicate an excess of adipocytes, a ratio near 2 might be close to normal and 3 would be stick figure territory. Maybe the denominator should be an average of hips, gut and chest to account for where different people may carry weight.

            0 0 Reply
    4. Nick Kew
      Reply Icon

      It's not just moving goals. Different measures can tell very different stories, and we're all different.

      When I had a health check a few years back, they[1] found me obese measured by BMI. But they also measured my body fat at 17%, bang in the middle of healthy range, or in what Wikipedia calls "fitness". Make of that what you will!

      [1] Nuffield health. The check was a perk of my then-job.

      1 1 Reply
  6. phil dude
    Linux

    lies , damn lies, and who are all the pies?

    Well I suppose they are government figures, so what could possibly be wrong?

    The science says if you eat more than you burn, you will gain weight. For those who read about the biochemistry of these processes, you may have been surprised how much control you actually have over these processes. For example, if you run a marathon it consumes about 3500 kCals. That's about a pound of fat.

    Does it seem reasonable that sitting down all day would require 2500kCals? Look up the recommendations...

    The sad thing is the change in lifestyle that accompanies working, is broadly because it is not recognised as the health crisis it is, and sport does incur a cost. I don't run so much as some I know ,but $100 for good running shoes is not unreasonable. If I want to swim, well there's another cost.

    A shame that governments just see playing fields as wasted real estate, and sports as an activity they can tax.

    P.

    11 0 Reply
    1. wiggers
      Reply Icon

      Re: lies , damn lies, and who are all the pies?

      It's not about calories, it how the body handles different food types.

      1 4 Reply
    2. Nick Kew
      Reply Icon

      Re: lies , damn lies, and who are all the pies?

      Why does exercise incur a cost? Noone charges me for a swim in our local rivers or the sea. Cycling isn't free, but it's cheaper than other ways of getting from A to B.

      The main barrier to exercise is highly-polluted and car-infested roads making it thoroughly unpleasant to go anywhere!

      5 2 Reply
    3. Peter Ford
      Reply Icon

      Re: lies , damn lies, and who are all the pies?

      Sure, running a marathon burns 3500kCals (or whatever), but just keeping your brain alive burns a big chunk of the 2500kCals/day, so that is on top of your marathon run - that day you burned more like 6000kCal.

      1 0 Reply
      1. Chemist
        Reply Icon

        Re: lies , damn lies, and who are all the pies?

        "keeping your brain alive burns a big chunk of the 2500kCals/day"

        Actually about 200-300 cals/day . There are many sources of ref. but this one should do :

        http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thinking-hard-calories/

        0 0 Reply
      2. ravenviz Silver badge
        Reply Icon
        Boffin

        Re: lies , damn lies, and who are all the pies?

        Re: keeping your brain alive

        I think you are closer to the value of keeping your whole body alive. A very loose rule is body weight in kg × 25, e.g. 75 kg × 25 = 1875 calories, but the personal result depends on some additional factors such as height and age.

        0 0 Reply
  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    OK. Totally conspiritorial here.

    Making out there is an impending crisis, with fat and sugar the culprits, and then suggesting (it's already been suggested) that high fat and high sugar foods should incur - wait for it - tax!

    It's all about generating government revenue at the expense of consumers, I say!

    5 4 Reply
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: OK. Totally conspiritorial here.

      This was obviously a joke. I posted as an AC because it was a bit contentious, and as an AC comment, I could not choose the joke icon.

      I hope nobody thought I was totally serious.

      0 0 Reply
  8. frank ly

    Always more questions

    In the average intake per person per day chart, there are two distinct and identicaly shaped dips for 2004-5 and 2008. I can't remember any national food shortages during those years or any national advertising campaign to eat less - so why the dips?

    BMI: " ... there is no distinction between pure rippling muscle and unadulterated flab."

    True, so BMI is not a good indicator of 'obesity' if you're a boxer, rugby player or a lumberjack, or very tall or very short. However, for the majority of the 'ordinary' population it is a reasonable and easy measure to take. So, unless the height or muscle development of the average population has changed much, it should be fine for long term use. If the average height does change then it should be easy enough to apply correction factors so as to make valid comparisons.

    "Crucially, there is no measure there of waist circumference, which is what most of us use to make a judgement .."

    What 'most of us' use to make a judgement is not medically uselful. From what I've read, the waist circumference in relation to chest and hip sizes can be a good indicator of future cardiac problems, so maybe these should be measured as part of the standard GP type of examination.

    In the BMI category graph, there is a period of notable change between 1993 and 2001, then not much change after that to 2012. The BMI changes (for the worse) seem to coincide with the period of decreased calorie intake, though there are no figures for calorie intake after 2001. Does anyone know why this might be?

    It all raises more questions than it answers, as do many of these types of studies.

    4 0 Reply
    1. James Micallef Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Always more questions

      "True, so BMI is not a good indicator of 'obesity' if you're a boxer, rugby player or a lumberjack, or very tall or very short. However, for the majority of the 'ordinary' population it is a reasonable and easy measure to take."

      which means it's OK as a 'rough and ready' calculation for large populations, but not OK if, for example, health insurance is using BMI as a parameter in calculating premiums.

      0 0 Reply
      1. Tom 38
        Reply Icon

        Re: Always more questions

        which means it's OK as a 'rough and ready' calculation for large populations, but not OK if, for example, health insurance is using BMI as a parameter in calculating premiums.

        Sorry, what? This is exactly what it is useful for. Take a large population, segment it by BMI. The health of people within each segment is pretty consistent, statistically, and so the cost of providing insurance to people in that segment is pretty consistent, and you can use it to set premiums. At no point has someone said "Oh that James, his BMI is high so lets jack his premiums".

        I doubt any provider goes solely off BMI..

        0 1 Reply

  9. This post has been deleted by its author

  10. Chemist

    OK I admit it

    In 1997 I weighed 115kg @ 1.8m tall. I decided that enough was enough especially as mountain climbing was getting rather hard

    I curtailed my diet to ~2300 cals per day (estimate) and began increasing my exercise. Now not everyone can do it but I live in hilly country and I worked in the country so by walking and eventually running before breakfast, walking at lunch and in the evenings I managed to exercise the equivalent of 500-2000 cals per day. It took 4 years losing some every spring/summer & gaining some over winter.

    I still have the spreadsheets going back to then and I carried on until I reached ~80kg which I've maintained ever since.

    The equation was actually simple (Estimated calories consumed minus required calorie intake for neutral weight gain minus exercise calories)/8000 = weight loss per day in kg.

    The hard part was estimating intake, working out neutral calories for me and estimating various forms of exercise although most (running, cycling ) are available. The hard one in fact was hill walking which I do a lot. My best estimate was 60 cals/km + 100 cals per 100 metres ascent+descent. This may not be all strictly accurate but my weight loss tracked my equation almost perfectly sometimes spookily so.

    The 8000 in the equation is cals/kg of fat BTW. The above equation needs to be adjusted for body weight as lowering weight decreases the numerical effects of exercise - if you want to lose 3kg it matters not but in my case it was 35kg or ~40% of my final weight. I still have no feedback when I overeat I have to rely on estimates and scales but now it's become second nature and I can keep my weight ± 2kg.

    I have no pride in what I did I'm very sorry it was necessary but I think the message is for most ( probably nearly all people) too many calories need to be compensated for by starvation or preferably exercise. Many people I've discovered have the same lack of feedback to excessive intake and many people have a wildly optimistic view of the effects of exercise. ( a small Mars bar is equivalent to 3-4 miles of walking, sadly a pint needs 2 miles of walking )

    Another way of looking at it ; 100 cals extra/less exercise/food every day is equivalent to losing/gaining 4.5kg in a year. That easily goes to explain this 'epidemic'

    17 0 Reply

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

Forgotten password ?

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon