Our lass, and I'm proud of her.

lucky stool .....

France is the second largest market after america, for the consumption of macdonalds. When I go in there for a coffee and the free wifi it is packed. The schools now have classes to try and educate the kids to eat traditional foods but most feel it is too late. France has the childhood obesity issues to come.
[urlhttp://www.zomppa.com/2011/08/25/france-the-world%E2%80%99s-second-largest-market-for-mcdonald%E2%80%99s/[/url

[urlhttp://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2009/06/how_mcdonalds_conquered_france.html[/url

Extracts from the following link.

=#0000FF"Some of the reasons for the increase in obesity are those that plague the United States and much of Europe: the lure of fast food foods, the ubiquity of unhealthy snacks and sedentary lives. McDonald's is more profitable in France than anywhere else in Europe. Sales have increased 42 percent in the past five years. There is something else: the breakdown in the classical tradition in which mealtime was a family ritual so disciplined and honoured that opening the refrigerator between meals for a child was a crime worthy of punishment. (A side effect is a blame-the-Mom syndrome, as fewer mothers have time to shop at markets every day for fresh foods and instead put more prepared dishes on the table.)"

=#0000FF"While adult obesity is rising about 6 percent a year in France, among children the rate of growth is 17 percent. At that rate the French could be - quelle horreur - as fat as Americans by the year 2020. (More than 65 percent of the population in the United States is considered overweight or obese.)"


=#0000FF"Findus, the frozen-food giant known for its breaded fish filets, filmed ordinary people eating over a period of time and was shocked by the result. Contrary to the myth that the French spend hours sitting around the table savouring small portions of several courses, the films showed them eating in front of their television sets, while on the phone and even eating alone. In fact, the average French meal, which lasted 88 minutes 25 years ago, lasts 38 minutes today."

[urlhttp://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/french_fat.html[/url

I was meaning the culture rather than individuals. Been there, done that myself etc.

But the point is that we don't need it. Why have we developed into a nation that now needs to spend a fortune going to the gym etc?




Or they 'fail' because serious gym work (and other exercise), combined with restricted diet, set the body's 'controls' (if you will) to a mode that then makes it very difficult to maintain the attained physical state when you return to 'normal' living – and I do mean a basically sensible diet and a reasonable amount of daily movement. I've been down the gym route – more than once – and combined serious weights work with aerobic exercise and diet.

You don't have to eat badly once you start eating 'normally' again to put weight back on.

And indeed, we start to ask what this 'bad' eating is.



I suspect that's the recession.



Cut calories, cut fat, fill up with complex carbs. This isn't the faddy stuff – not 'just eat grapefruits for a fortnight to cut fat' or similar – this has been mainstream advice for years. In the 1970s, it was standardly said that for weight loss, you needed to cut to 1,000kcals per day.

As I've mentioned before, I was later told by a GP to cut to 800 – because I could never get quite below the upper weight for my height. He didn't check my health or fitness (this was during the period when I was exercising heavily), so the weight that I was carrying in the form of lean tissue wasn't considered, for instance.



Indeed. Trans and hydrogenated are bloody poisons. To add: fat not only sates (as mentioned previously) but it also carries flavour. I cannot fathom the obsession with chicken breast – mostly from factory-produced birds. It has so little flavour that it has to be covered in loads of sauce to make it edible. Chicken thighs taste so much better – and are massively cheaper too. So much of what has become viewed as 'healthy food' is bloody dire: bland and utterly lacking in pleasure. I still say that part of the problem is that we have lost our food culture – and that we have lost the real pleasure of food.




TBF, I think French schools have been having those classes for quite some time, IIRC.

38 minutes would still be longer than many in the UK. But yes, this is deeply, deeply depressing. Can't we just ban effing MacDonalds and KFC, along with loads more of the junk that has been foisted on us from the US, from litigation culture to school proms and aggressive marketing for Halloween?

But in the meantime, that doesn't disprove what I was posting earlier – indeed, it bears it out. And to go back to Rock God's points, it still raises the question of why the French do not currently require a mass gym culture.

We might not 'need' to use gyms to keep fit, but some people actually prefer to. And, as for paying a fortune, I pay £15 a month for my (off peak) gym membership - less than half of what most people spend on a single night out, or about the cost of a takeaway meal. Hardly a fortune, and money well spent if it does the job.



I don't know where you're getting this from, but it's not right for the vast majority of us. Or at least not for the vast majority of clients I have dealt with. Perhaps your personal experience differs, but if you have been given a sensible training programme, together with a healthy eating plan, there's no reason you should need to 'return to normal living'. Or, more appropriately, any definition of 'normal living' should include regular exercise and a healthy diet. If you're flogging yourself in the gym, and/or restricting your calories too severely, then you suddenly stop and return to what you were doing before, of course there's a good chance you'll put weight back on over time. I would never advise someone to change their exercise/eating habits as a short term measure in order to achieve some pre-determined goal (though setting goals is important). My approach is to encourage people to make long term changes that will benefit them (hopefully) for the rest of their lives. Exercise, in whatever form, should be a habit we all get into (unless we're physically incapable). Same with healthy eating. That's why I never tell anyone to go 'on a diet', preferring instead to identify changes to a person's eating habits that they have a realistic chance of maintaining in the longer term.

The key is balance. Work out (whether in a gym or not) at a safe, sustainable intensity for 30-40 minutes, 4-5 times per week and eat a healthy, balanced diet, and there won't be a problem. Cut down to minus calories and kill yourself in the gym for two hours a day, and there almost certainly will.



Processed foods, too much alcohol, too many calories for your activity level, to give a few examples.



This isn't mainstream advice now. It's many years out of date, in fact. Most knowledgeable people will now tell you to create a small calorie deficit from a combination of diet and exercise, and combine this with a balanced diet including all essential nutrients. There are calculators out there that enable you to, very roughly, work out how many calories you need to consume to maintain your current weight. As a rule of thumb, I would advise no more than a 500 calorie per day deficit (approx 250 from diet and 250 from exercise) off this figure for steady, sustainable weight loss. We've come a long way since the 70s, and I don't know of anyone who knows what they're talking about who would advise eating only 1000 calories per day.

As regards carbs, the advice now is to eat low-GI carbs, as opposed to 'complex carbs'. Things like white bread and white pasta contain 'complex carbs', but their wholemeal equivalents are much better for prolonging satiety and releasing energy slowly. They don't produce the same insulin spikes as high GI carbs, and therefore don't promote fat storage in the same way.



Then your GP is an idiot. I have had a similar experience with a practice nurse. I have a BMI of around 27, and she told me I needed to lose weight. When I pointed out that my bodyfat was only around 11%, she just mumbled something about 'still needing to shed a few pounds', then promptly changed the subject. But because some people are still giving out poor/out of date advice, doesn't mean that it's 'mainstream advice'.




I don't think we have a 'mass gym culture'. Of all the people I know, I can think of only one or two who use a gym on a regular basis. I'd imagine that a very small percentage of the overall population are regular gym goers. That said, the gym works for many people and I think it's often unfairly derided as somehow being a 'false' way of getting fit.

I wouldn't dispute this. But we do have a gym/exercise culture where we didn't have one only around 30-40 years ago.



There are, though problems with a lot of gyms demanding a year's money up front.



I walk a lot. Indeed, that's pretty much what I was referring to in terms of the French example – they walk more than us in the course of everyday life, but don't have the same level of gym use etc.



I'm an old person, remember!



It was absolutely mainstream advice when I was in my teens and twenties – a period that has had a massive impact subsequently. Once you get trapped in what I described, it is a circle.

And indeed, most of the women that I can think have had similar experiences would be in the same age bracket as myself. But the point stands: that it's too simple (IMO) to say that everyone 'knows' what the solutions are.



I honestly don't know what my calorie intake is these days. So I wouldn't know what deficit I have (or not). I only know, on the basis of falling clothes sizes over several years (and comments from people who don't see me often) that I'm now losing weight slowly, where for years I'd lose – and then put more on.



Not my GP for a couple of decades plus.



When you see what's being suggested in some media, in terms of totally boners 'advice' (and I'd add, diets such as that which Kelloggs are allowed to promote in TV advertising, of two bowls of Special K a day and one 'ordinary' meal), then I think that, for many people, the advice is confused and confusing.

And basic ideas of calorie reduction remain the core of most people's dieting – certainly most women's dieting – together with a demonisation of natural fats.



As mentioned before, I do think we have a far. far larger gym/organised exercise culture than at any time previously. Yet this coincides with rising obesity.

That, in my view, can only be a good thing. The more people take regular exercise, the better.



I've worked in the industry for several years and been a consumer for several more years. I can honestly say it's not a problem I've ever encountered. Maybe it's a London thing. That said, many gyms do expect you to commit to them for a minimum of a year, but I suppose they're no worse than mobile phone companies, broadband suppliers etc for that.



Fair enough. Whatever floats your boat. But I don't think the French way is somehow 'better' as you are (I think) implying. What's important is whether or not people take exercise - not whether they do it in a gym or not.

As an aside, though, the benefits of resistance training are numerous (not least for increasing bone density - a very good idea for women of your age!) and it could be argued that weight training is best/most safely performed in a gym environment.



Most overweight people are overweight because they eat too much and exercise too little. They know they need to eat less and exercise more, but it's hard to make these changes, so they put it off. Sure, they might not know by how much they should reduce their calorie intake, or what particular exercises to do, but we both know that it wouldn't be too hard for them to find out. There's a lot of really bad advice kicking about these days, but finding good advice isn't as hard as it's made out to be sometimes.

I appreciate there'll always be people who find it hard to lose weight no matter what they do, but these people are far from the norm. For most people, it really is a simple equation. I'm not saying it's easy for anyone - it's bloody hard - but it is quite simple. I mean, it's not as if the overwhelming majority of overweight people are eating sensible diets and exercising regularly, but just can't seem to shift the weight.



Then I'd guess you do have a small deficit. Which is good if you want to lose a few pounds and keep it off.



Good job!





To start with - ha ha - you said 'boners'.

I'd add to Kellogs and the like organisations like Weight Watchers and Slimming World. They promote traditional dieting because they know most people will end up putting the weight back on and they'll get return business. So, yes, I'd agree that the advice can be confusing, but I think a lot of people use diets like that because they want a 'quick fix'.

"Drop two dress sizes in a week, you say? I'll have some of that."

My sister yo-yo diets like crazy using Weight Watchers. Every time I challenge her on it, she says, "it works for me." I can't get through to her that if it worked, she wouldn't have to keep going back. But I don't think it's because she doesn't understand that deep down, it's that she thinks it doesn't matter if she puts weight on, because she can just go back to WW and lose it again with their incredible crash diet stupidity.



Calorie reduction [ishould[/i be at the core of weight loss programmes - it has to be (whether from diet or exercise). What shouldn't be happening is the very severe calorie restriction that occurs and the less than healthy food these places promote. Weight Watchers cherry bakewells? WTF?



I'm not sure I like the insinuation here. Surely you can't be suggesting that gyms and organised exercise are somehow contributing to rising obesity rates? Obesity is rising because we are increasingly sedentary and eat much more junk/processed food than at any time before. And I'd say that most of the people in gyms are not obese or overweight (though some are).

I'm not sure what point there is in that. Sure, lots of people regularly go to the gym, routinely go jogging etc. but I'd be willing to bet a lot that those who genuinely are regular exercisers of that committed sort do not suffer from rising obesity.

OTOH we do have millions of people not working, and coupled with the explosion of online and social networks, TV channels in particular reality TV shows taking up many hours time each and every day, games consoles, smartphones etc., a huge range of reasons not to bother getting off your arrse and doing anything or going anywhere. Even when you're hungry, there's a hundred fat food sorry fast food outlets that will deliver your curry or pizza to your door so you don't even have to go out for that. Hell, you can even do all your shopping online, if you want.

I really don't think you have to look very far at all for the lifestyle choices that feed rising obesity. It seems straightforward to me.

Spot on.
However, most people have a weakness and the "eat what you like and still lose weight" idea catches tens of thousands every time someone comes up with a new "diet".

But Mintball has a point too, which I think is that diet should not be faddy ... a balanced diet including some appetite-sating saturated fat is preferable to "Only carbs and protein".

To add to that, 'low fat' alternatives of regular foods are a massive rip off. Nine times out of ten, they replace the fat that they've stripped away with sugar or artificial additives. How is that better?



I wouldn't argue with that. In fact, I didn't! Fats are extremely important for things like nervous system function, vitamin absorption etc, as well as helping you to feel full.

Speaking personally, I'm a fat bastad. I have no idea what I weigh but I now have a 38" waist when it wasn't that long ago I had a 32" waist. When I was refereeing, I exercised regularly, running approximately 25 miles per week, along with local and regional training sessions. I was careful about what I ate: no cooked in sauces, avoiding most dairy products and simple carbs.

As soon as I finished refereeing, I started becoming the fat, lazy, happy fooker that I am today. I could eat good butter by the handfull and often do. I love bread, so if I can't find a decent baker, I bake my own, it's not difficult or really time-consuming. I drink too but only to excess.

Basically I've put it in, I want some out now.

Indeed. I don't see the problem with obesity tbh (in adults anyway, childhood obesity is a whole other arguement). There is tonnes of information out there and I'm sure the majority of fat people know the risks associated with being overweight, so if they are happy to be, as you put it, a fat , then who is anyone to tell them to change?

I went to the gym for about 2 years somewhere between 2008 and 2011 and although i looked a little trimmer i didn't lose much weight, now i have psoriasis and i was told i could shift it with a better diet, i (for a time) cut out sugar, yeast and wheat from my diet and only ate organic and WOW i dropped 3 stone and felt better for it, i almost completely cleared bar for a bit on my left leg my psoriasis and felt more alert and was able to think so clearly.

I'm now a little overweight, 6ft 1 and 15.5 stone and that's because i went back on my lazy diet.

Bar certain conditions and sometimes forced (rather than personal choice) steriod use most overweight people are that because they are lazy or weak willed and all the apologists in the world won't change my mind.

Personally i feel not enough food education is to blame.

I feel we need to blame someone.
Supermarkets ... they're getting fat on people getting fat.

And yet...

They sell loads of fresh product


Its consumer choice and accurate marketing by the food manufacturing companies, you never see the word "manufacturer" used in conjunction with the businesses who pick produce from the field, wash it and bag it, they aren't manufacturing anything, adding nothing, you can argue that they don't need to bag it at all but at least its still the natural product when you pick it up out of the chiller, there's a slightly different argument for the meat market in that you could confidently argue that most of the meat we buy has been manufactured before it gets to the shelf, but that is nothing compared to what goes into everything else that is contained in a tin or a box.

I am surprised you posted that after my opening line ... which was ''I feel we need to blame someone.''
That was a sprat to catch a mackerel ... knowing how hated supermarkets are by certain people.
I'd got my stirring spoon out.

Fair point.
They also have aisle upon aisle of things that should be only an occasional treat but these things are now seen as staples by many (most?) customers.

Why are so many people fat?
I put it down to the convenience of crap... or the crap of convenience ...
i.e. Bought sandwiches now routinely contain mayo (which is largely fat and extra to what to you would have eaten otherwise), workplaces and schools have confectionery-vending machines, many ready-meals are fat-laden (again extra), portion sizes in general are larger, fast-food is gulped down quicker than the appetite satiation sensors can tell you you've had enough, people take the bus to go one stop or drive when they are only going half a mile, etc etc.
It's just so eeeaaasy to get fat.

It only takes an extra Snickers bar 5 days out of 7 and, inside a year, you'll be 24 pounds heavier, unless you run for 2.5 hours per week to use it up.

I've been getting 4 a day down, for a quid, from my local corner shop.



Usually stick them in the freezer for an hour first to stiffen them up.

It's not just the mayo, the sandwich bread itself is a major problem. Bread made by the Chorleywood process will fill you up at first but is digested so quickly, the satisfaction rarely lasts long. Even wholemeal and granary slices aren't filling, that's why I often see people eating a couple of store-bought sandwiches then looking to suuplement them with crisps or "chocolate" bars. If they made a sandwich from proper bread, they'd have no need for the "extras"

Aye, I had some [iVillage Bakery White Sliced[/i cr@p, this morning with bacon and egg in a triple decker sarnie. Wasn't good. Hopefully it'll break up and be untasteable in my lunch of[iHeinz Tomato Soup[/i. (I'll use a couple of slices for filling). I'll wash that down with a large Brandy in a white coffee, then I'm off down the local for some Stella. Perhaps a delivered takeaway later because I doubt I'll be @rsed to cook.

If only I was joking.

The Chorleywood process is vile.
I'm not sure that Chorleywood-bread is digested quickly but it does take very little chewing and it's in your stomach before you have chance to feel satisfied.
It also lacks flavour so isn't satisfying in that sense either.
Not only that but they don't have to tell you what (possibly GM) enzymes are in it, as they claim that the enzymes are killed by the baking.

But, basically, I agree with your post.

Village Bakery (i.e. as in Village Bakery, Melmerby) is good bread and actually tastes of bread.
That's where I learned to make proper bread when Andrew Whitley owned and ran it.

Therefore if I were a laydeeeeeeeeeeee, I'd be sooooooooo thin.

What do we feel about the current rash of cheap to make cookery programmes at a time of obesity?
Now I know they often serve to promote healthy and interesting eating, but does it really work that way?
Such as Minty might put some of the advice to good use, but the vast majority won't.
The programmes only serve (no pun honest) to make us feel hungry and go to the fridge.
Hence counterproductive.

Speak for yourself.

The only time they'd make me go to the fridge is to check whether I had the ingredients to rustle up something similar