Health & Family Walking time stickers

What a load of absolute garbage. Look at this graph showing obesity over the last few decades.



Do you really believe that obesity is a product of genes having magically transformed in the last 50(ish) years from the last three million years? Please.

 

It is a guide Geoff, so that folks can get an idea of how much of an impact certain foods are having on their body in terms of good or bad for weight reduction or putting on weight.

A lot of folks possibly have trouble quantifying how bad a particular food item is...either denial, or total unawareness (amazes me that this can be the case in this day and age of instant information)

For example; Sports energy drinks....most folks drink them, and a lot of folks think the drinks are doing them good.

But; they are full of sugar and other rubbish, and unless you are a seriously active athlete; the drinker won't be able to burn off all the bad stuff, and will probably end up causing the drinker to gain weight.

The sticker is on the packet of the particular food item - let's use a Snickers bar for the example.

On the sticker in large lettering is a number; say; 25.

This relates to how many minutes you would need to walk, to burn off the kilojoules contained in that one bar. The problem I have with this is it doesn't describe the intensity needed for that walk. Are they walking flat-out for that time, or walking at normal pace, etc?

The plan hopefully is that folks will see these stickers, see how much effort is required to get rid of it out of their body, and thus will decline to eat/drink it, or at least; cut down their intake volume of it.

It might also encourage them to go for a brisk walk.

 

I'm confused.

What is the ambiguous bit? What is the flippant bit?

I worded the title to catch attention, but thought the explanation in the opening post was pretty clear what they are about?

 

Our 3 kids are all Ceasars.

All have to run around under the shower to get wet.

We try to keep it pretty basic; lots of home cooked food with lots of vegies, salads and various meat - mostly fish and chicken with the odd red such as premium mince, eye fillet steak and the odd sausage.

Very little oil used, lots of fruit, no soft drinks or fruit juice, very few lollies or chippy snacks etc; and a fair whack of exercise.

The challenge for humans now is to eat correctly. It takes effort...weeding out the crap from the good, selecting fresh versus packaged etc.

A lot of folks take the path of least resistance in life.

 

Australians testing the system were shocking to know a can of coke is the equivalent of 41 minutes – which Dr Carter says made many people opt to drink water instead

Read more

 

Totally Agree,
The best way it has been explained to me - You are a bucket, every day a certain amount of water is removed or added to you bucket. (Calories in vs calories out) to many calories in and you overflow (put on weight) not enough and you lose weight, very simple.
Now you can lose weight eating McDonalds if you want to. You will feel like crap but can still lose weight.
The best thing to do is increase the size of the bucket / your ability to take water out of the bucket or increase your BMR =Basal Metabolic Rate is the minimum number of calories required to sustain their life in a state of rest)
This is done by smaller regular meals, drinking lots of water, and most importantly increasing muscle mass.
An individual's BMR can account for burning as much as 70% of the total calories expended which is a massive portion of energy when you think about it, this doesn’t even include all your other daily activity’s like walking, thinking (yes thinking burns calories and your brain functions best on carbohydrates)
So really going for that 20 min run getting all hot a sweaty and red in the face is a waste of time.
Exercise
For best bang for buck you need to do large compound weight movements, at a medium intensity and high weight level (all relative)
Food
follow this simple rule
Is it water? yes - eat it,
No - Did it have a face? Yes - Eat it,
No - Is it a plant/ vegetable, nut , or green fruit? Yes - Eat it (all fruit is acceptable in moderation and prior to 12 noon)
No - Is it a vitamin or supplement? Yes - Eat it
No - Throw it in the bin.
But everyone already knows all of this stuff, it’s having the diligence and commitment to execute and resilience to maintain it that people struggle with.

 

Actually, there might be a stronger link between intestinal bacteria and obesity than you think. And there is nothing magic about it. Think about it: what is the biggest change in our eating that has a direct correlation with a rising rate of obesity? Highly processed foods. If you track the consumption of highly processed foods and obesity, I guarentee there will be a strong correlation. That said, eating highly processed foods doesn't automatically make people fat. A novel theory of obesity shows a less direct connection.

Pretty much, eating highly processed foods all the time causes an imbalance in gut bacteria. It is thought that this imbalance may cause cravings. It is likely these cravings will be for highly processed foods, which caused the imbalance in the first place. It's a vicious cycle. Essentially, the food people are eating is driving the overeating that is making them fat. So it could turn out that highly processed foods don't make people fat because they are caloried dense. It could be that by creating an imbalance in gut bacteria that creates cravings that lead to overeating, that choosing to eat highly processed foods makes people fat. Of course it doesn't hurt that they are so dam tasty!

Don't take this as any kind of excuse for people being fat. If what they are eating is making them fat, personal responsiblity kicks in and they should stop eating those foods (or at least drastically cut back on them!).

This article explains how some of it works but doesn't make the connections as clearly as I have...

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational...s-the-digestive-system-a-second-brain/6710902

 

This is possibly all true.

However, then I see a show such as "Biggest Loser" and see what happens to those folks over a 3 month period of controlled food item intake, lots of exercise etc and it confirms what I already think.

The hard part about all of that is to be able to sustain the changes to diet and activity.

That is where most of the results eventually fall down.

For example; I am sitting here typing rubbish at 6.18am.

I could/should be out having a run or bike ride....but can't be bothered, and I'm craving some toast with strawberry jam and another coffee with full cream milk and a heaped teaspoon of sugar.

 

Disregarding any advertising, it's a VLCD with some intermittent fasting

 

A bit of sucking in of the abs there.

But, still looks better than a lot of middle aged men.