And so she should be. Numeracy is one of the most important skills that any child can acquire. But rather than bang on, can I recommend a highly entertaining and great read for you, Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos, probably 1p on Amazon. Reply when you've read that

as it's you, I'll pass

They don't help people to seek long term solutions to their weight problems, merely offer a 'system' for short term weight loss that amounts to simple calorie deprivation. You can buy weight watchers crisps, cherry bakewells and other such goodies, and, provided that you don't exceed your 'points' for the day, you'll still lose weight. Their business model relies on creating a dependency on weight watchers, so that when people pile the weight back on they think 'weight watchers worked last time, I'll go there again'. What they fail to realise is that, if weight watchers was actually a suitable way to lose weight, they wouldn't need to go back.

What people need is good information, not some stupid, faddy, points-based diet.

When I actually get one on one with overweight people, I find most know exactly where their problems lie. They know full well that they drink too much wine, or that three Mars bars a day isn't very good for them. What the diet/fitness industry ought to be doing is educating people as to how they can gradually lose weight and (most importantly) keep it off.

This involves gradual, realistic lifestyle changes that can be maintained in the longer term, not some crash diet that brings short-term results and little to no lasting benefit.

My broadband is off at the moment, so I'm typing this on my phone. I haven't read it back, so apologies if it's a bit rambling in places.

Many actual medical experts would disagree.



But then, if I understand correctly, you're part of an industry that benefits financially from al, this.

Nope. Haven't worked in the fitness industry for years. And, as my last post demonstrates, I firmly believe in giving people the tools necessary to maintain a healthy weight in the longer term, rather than creating a profitable dependence on a particular service.

I'd like to meet the 'actual medical experts' who think that food labelling is the primary cause of obesity in this country. It's undoubtedly a problem, and the actions of the companies involved are dishonest to say the least. Something should definitely be done about it, but to say it's the 'primary cause' of obesity is to excuse everyone of any personal responsibility.

Most overweight people know that they should eat fewer takeaways, drink less alcohol and be more physically active. That many choose not to do these things is the primary reason more of us are becoming obese.

Food labelling – processed food in general and the amount of sugar in this; not least the amounts of 'hidden' sugars, or corn syrup etc.

And yes: I know that you consider that we should all be slogging it out in The Gym, under the watchful (and as mentioned earlier, patronising) eye of some youngster.

Then you have quite obviously chosen not to read any of my posts in this thread properly. I have referred to 'physical activity' and said things like 'doesn't necessarily include formal exercise'. Don't think I've even mentioned a gym.

And as I've said several times - I agree that current practices regarding food labelling are unacceptable. They are not the primary reason for the obesity epidemic, though. A contributory factor, certainly, but not the main cause by any stretch of the imagination.

Is it necessarily the labelling, or the food itself, and the constant demand for everything to be cheaper?

As you say, personal responsibility is at the core, but it seems some want to abdicate all responsibility to someone else, be it Tesco, Starbucks, The Bankers or whomever.

Business can only sell to a market (be it value burgers, "rubbish" coffe or interest only mortgages, 0% interest credit cards, pay day loans), I don't blame the provider, I blame the consumer.

Sticking with just the food thing, I think there's an element of both. Some products are marketed as being 'healthy' alternatives when they're anything but. That said, I don't suppose anyone has ever become obese by eating too much fat free yoghurt. People (most people) put on weight by eating too many calories or expending too few calories. They know it's happening - nobody gets fat overnight - but often only take steps to address the issue after the fact. Where the problem occurs is, I think, when someone decides they'll try to lose some weight: they pick up these 'healthy' alternatives in the supermarket and expect that they'll do the trick. Labelling should be clearer, and more free help should be available to those who need it.

such as?

Business creates markets and products all the time, both consumer and producer are equally to blame.

NHS funded one to one nutritional advice, subsidised/free gym memberships/swimming/classes, regular free contact with a 'weight loss practitioner'. It might be costly, but I reckon it'll be significantly cheaper than the alternative.

Business exploits markets, nobody ever forced anyone to buy anything.

Perhaps not, but if you think you're buying a healthy thing (because it is marketed as such) when you're buying the opposite, that's an issue with the producer rather than the consumer.

That doesn't absolve the producers.

I had that years ago. I was told to diet to 800kcals per day, on the basis that my family GP believed that I should be below 9st – and I was always hovering just over – and the amount of lean tissue I was carrying, and my fitness, were as irrelevant to him as the knowledge that I was already dieting to 1,000 kcals per day (which I only realised later was part of the damned problem).

The establishment, if you will, is still a real problem in terms of diet advice and help. And increasingly, here as in the US, corporate 'sponsorships' are meaning that it's increasingly unlikely that we are being given properly independent advice.

ADD in the States is absolutely up to its eyeballs in corporate links. Over here, we're seeing the likes of the British Heart Foundation linking up with Unilever/Flora – and indeed, their materials promote foods that will be full of sugar (low-fat yogurts) along with highly processed food (Flora etc) over natural, unprocessed foods.

As I've illustrated before, government moves to involve the industry in public health is simply meaning [url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/meaty-advice-thats-tough-to-chew.htmlsurreptitious free advertising for big manufacturers[/url. Even the new traffic light system plays into the hands of the same big food producers – a diet fizzy drink is healthier than a fresh mackerel, FFS.

Business also creates markets. All sorts of businesses, all of the time.

While I agree that nobody is ever [iforced[/i to buy anything, there is a reason why billions are spent on marketing.

I did say NHS funded, not NHS delivered. I once had a practice nurse tell me I was overweight because my BMI is just under 27. I pointed out to her that I was carrying only 11% body fat, to which she mumbled something about me 'still needing to lose a bit of weight'. But this is the problem: GPs and nurses aren't necessarily the best trained people to be dispensing fitness/nutritional advice.

The same could be said of many in the fitness industry - there are loads of idiots working in gyms who don't know the first thing about healthy eating and exercise. Some of the advice I've seen dispensed is scary.

All that said, there are a number of hugely competent people out there who could make a real difference if the will (and funding) was there. The challenge, as with any such project, would be finding the correct people.

TBH, personally, these days I'd be loathe to easily trust anyone on the issue.

[iBad Pharma[/i by Ben Goldacre shows the mess in the pharmaceutical industry, with conflicts of interest etc, and I personally think that it's very similar in food.

For instance, in 2003, the WHO published a report on nutrition, which recommended that sugar should form no more than 10% of a healthy diet. Result? Massive lobbying by the sugar industry against the recommendation, to which the WHO responded by including, in the report, the statement "The Consultation recognized that a population goal for free sugars of less than 10% of total energy is controversial". That's the WHO, FFS, bullied by big business.

Until a couple of years ago, when I started reading more deeply, I didn't [ilike[/i supermarkets etc, but I still thought them essentially benign – or at least certainly not companies that would do anything that was clearly detrimental to the populations' health. That opinion has changed the more I've read – and it's similar with all other aspects of big food.

I think it's easier for such companies here and in the US. There is, as Standee and I have touched on in this thread, an attitude that is remarkably widespread of food simply as fuel. I'd suggest that, if you really enjoy your food, you don't eat junk. But we have a vast disconnect with food culture/heritage and it makes it lot easier, then, for companies to exploit the consumer.

And in many cases, even the more interested consumer will find it difficult to be able shop for food away from the supermarket aisles.

For various reasons, this week, in the daytime, I've had more processed food than I normally would in a whole month. Not massively processed, but still ready salads, for instance. And it's become almost an experiment – even knowing what I know, I've been grimacing at the general awfulness of it. And if you have that as your standard, then it's not really going to encourage you to change from that food-as-fuel attitude.

Anyway, those are just a few rambling notes. I may try to add more later.

'Food as fuel' isn't necessarily a bad attitude to have. I mean, if you want your nice new shiny car to run properly and last a decent amount of time, you don't fill the tank with used chip fat. Food IS fuel - it's just that some people make poor choices as to what that fuel should consist of.

Food as fuel is hardly likely to make people value spending any more than they think they can get away with. It's fuel – so you buy the cheapest, most 'convenient' variety around and, when the cost of living rises, you complain about the cost of food and demand it become ever cheaper.

If, on the other hand, you actually really enjoy food, you'll be far less likely, I would suggest, to buy and eat lots of (highly) processed stuff; you'll be more likely to cook from fresh regularly and also be more likely to educate yourself about related matters – what is pumped into your food, for instance.

In terms of your analogy, if you want your car to run well and last well, you don't simply look for the cheapest option from the nearest pump (simply because it is the nearest).

To add to that - it isn't just the quality of food that's important. Quantity plays just as vital (if not more vital) a part in determining whether or not we end up overweight. I know a very overweight chap who prepares all of his own meals from fresh ingredients. His problem is that he eats (and drinks) too much, not that he doesn't eat the right things.

I would suggest, though, that quality can also sate far better.

As an example, I make chips about four times a year – I don't have a deep dryer or a chip pan, so it's a bit of a performance.

Anyway, when I do, we have very few – but enough to be satisfying. What struck me a year or so ago, though, when working away from home, was how many more crappy chips we'd all eat when we were working through lunch and the conference centre people would bring us in a plate of crappy chips. You stuff them – for two reasons: 1) because you're not sitting down properly to eat; 2) because they taste poor and so you don't bother to slow down to appreciate the taste.

And that's without mentioning the presence of high levels of MSG* in some processed foods, which are increasingly thought to switch off the body's ability to feel and recognise that it is sated. There is some belief that aspartame and artificial sweeteners do something similar.


* Far, far higher levels than in soy sauce.

One of the two types was over 7 (5 or lower is supposed to be OK). It did drop like a stone much to the surprise of the GP when I changed my diet and I reckon it was down to cutting out the crisps and consuming quite a hit less red wine which I had become rather partial to!

Where does the "...that low cholesterol, certainly after 50, is actually unhealthy." come from? I am over 50 and my GP was obviously well aware of that and had I not managed to reduce it myself they were lining me up for medication to lower it, some sort of tablet I believe.

I think of the two types of cholesterol one is considered "good cholesterol" and it's that one I was OTT on. I must admit Iwas quite surprised that if it was considered "good" why was having a lot of it "bad"?

Anyway it dropped rapidly when I changed my diet so that was just even more confusing as I had cut out stuff that [iis[/i bad for you yet the good cholesterol went down

.

As I said, both play a role. I think it's too easy to fall into the trap of laying all the blame at the door of the food manufacturers. Many are undoubtedly unethical, but that's only part of the problem.