World faces 'staggering' obesity challenge: study

Hereditary obesity can't be helped much but the ones that are that way from eating junk food brough it upon themselves. It's very unhealthy not to mention very unattractive

Im very fatist! phew i said it, now will i be picked for being honest. Get off your brains and go for a walk/cut out the soda/ and reduce junk food and you can rejoin the human race.

Hereditary obesity can't be helped much

That's not true. Even hereditary obesity can be overcome through healthy eating and exercise. It's just a slower journey to slenderness for those who have the fat gene. But by no means is it a hopeless journey.

55% for the US, 48% for Britain... The numbers are incredible ! How can half of the population of a country become obese ?

I would be curious to know the numbers for Japan.

22 percent of people in the world will be obese by 2045, up from 14 percent last year, according to research presented at the European Congress on Obesity in Vienna.

And yet we still have malnutrition and starvation in many parts of the third world.

They aren't 'fat' they're big-boned (or so they say/think).

"Individual countries must work on the best strategy for them."

Agree. Am all far a sugar/fat tax.

there is no 'one size fits all' approach

This "political correctness" stuffs is the reason why this epidemic won't be solved. The solution is a simple 'one size fits all' approach, less sugar, less meat, more walking, nothing else will work. Of course, if you say this, then the food industry will discredit you, the meat industry will discredit you, and the car/oil industry will discredit you, and everybody else will scream "you're infringing my freedom".

So - a sugar/fat tax, or anything else designed to make it harder/more expensive to go the way of my brother-in-law? I'd back that.

I understand what you mean, but as a slim person who counts calories and maintains a healthy lifestyle, why should I (or you) be taxed when we want to enjoy a delicious sugary soft drink or some savoury high fat potato chips every now and then? I'm really annoyed that I would have to pay extra for the inability of others to use food responsibly. I'd support taxing obese people directly in some way, but not the products themselves.

Perhaps the fat/sugar tax could be increased considerably, but doctors could issue a note certifying that someone's BMI is under 25 which would allow them to collect a tax refund? I'm no fan of the nanny state in general, but we might as well go all the way if we're going to have a fat/sugar tax.

I have come across several reports pointing towards carbohydrates as the main culprit.

Eating carbs basically sends a hormonal message to your body to not use the fat reserves. Its like a car that has a large gas tank that cannot be accessed for fuel. Excess energy can be converted to fat and added to this "tank", but you can't get fuel from it.

Several people have had great success, easily losing weight, by following a ketogenic diet.

I have been following this diet (more or less) for over a year and I feel great. Basically I eat as little carbs as possible, moderate amount of protein, and as much fat as I want (healthy fats).

Once you train your body to get its energy from fat (within a week or 2), you can efficiently use your stored fat; thus always feeling energized while you rapidly lose weight; like opening a valve to finally get access to the large gas tank.

I highly recommend this diet, even for slim people; it has several health benefits.

I agree that some people gain weight more easily than others, but that does not mean they are predestined to be fat. If you eat too much you will get fat; if you don't, you won't, no matter what genes you may have.

I'm not convinced that these diets where you only eat a narrow range of items are particularly good. The other day I was reading about people who only eat steak, all of whom claimed, of course, that they never felt better, lost a lot of weight etc. Perhaps vegetarianism is the answer, but I've known a number of overweight vegetarians who couldn't resist cream and cakes.

In my case I eat a balanced diet and keep my weight stable by exercising (swimming). If I sit around eating crisps and doing no exercise I will get fat. That's nothing to do with my genes, just a lifestyle choice.

In the States, most people just eat too damn much. There's no way people are going to stay slim/healthy when such large amounts of food/drinks are so cheap.

I've known a number of overweight vegetarians who couldn't resist cream and cakes.

(Sheepishly raises hand....)

I've been overweight most of my life, and it isn't for want of trying. 'Just eat less,' thin people say, but that doesn't work. Starve yourself for six months and your weight may go down a few pounds, but so does your metabolism, and you find you have to eat less and less just to maintain the same weight. No one can survive for ever on a starvation diet, and when you go back to eating normally (=like other people eat) the rebound is quick and punishing. You end up heavier than when you started, and the extra weight is now even harder to shift.

Yoyo-dieting is not good.

Being vegetarian is no guarantee of weight loss. There's still Scrote's cream and cakes to contend with, and knowing your plate doesn't contain any dead bodies and tastes so darn good, only stimulates the appetite.

Cutting out carbs sounds like it should work, but who ever wants to live without bread, pasta, potatoes....? Not me. It sounds worse than the starvation diet.

What has helped me lose weight and keep it off the past few years is owning a dog who requires a huge amount of exercise, growing my own veg, and a 5-2 eat-fast regime.

At least an hour a day walking at a quick pace (no stopping to sniff at lampposts), with back-breaking spadework at the weekends and a half-day fast (light breakfast, then nothing but liquids till breakfast the next day) twice a week has lost me over 12 kilos in just over a year, and it's staying gone. The trajectory is still gradually downwards, and I feel great. I don't feel I've been 'on a diet', I haven't denied myself any of the nice things I like to eat, and my metabolism is high.

And best of all, I've got a happy, healthy dog into the bargain.

No matter the diet or genes or whatever, the biggest problem is people eat too much and don't exercise enough or at all.

The easiest way to lose weight is to use more calories than you eat, meaning eat less, and exercise more.

Ditch the car if you can, and walk. Use the stairs instead or the elevator. Lift some weights for 20 minutes 3 times a week. Drink more water. Sleep more. Nothing impossible.

"'Just eat less,' thin people say, but that doesn't work."

Said every fat person I've met.

Yes it does work.

It's simple. Calories in and calories out.

You can achieve the result by any number of diets, and any type of exercise, and any number of combinations.

But in the end, if you consume more calories than you use you will get fat. Even if it's just a half a kilo a month, that's 30 kgs over five years.

People just need to work out what works for them. And you can even do different styles for different days or weeks.

But most people I know have absolutely no idea of how many calories they consume, If you're no fat it doesn't matter, but there are too many fat people walking around - or driving around, trying to convince everyone that they don't eat much.

It's ridiculous. You can eat ice-cream, protein, fat, carbs, meat, veggies - all different kinds of foods, but if you don't eat TOO much, you won't get fat. It's simple. Not easy, but simple.

In other news, there's a new theory that says if you spend more money than you earn, you'll have less money.

In other words - people eat too much!

"'Just eat less,' thin people say, but that doesn't work."

Said every fat person I've met. 

Yes it does work.

No it doesn't. If you just eat less, your metabolism goes down to compensate and you don't lose weight.

As you say, it's simple. Calories in and calories out. But simply eating less does not square the equation; as the calories in go down, so too do the calories out. You have to keep your metabolism up by moving.

It's easier now than ever before; there are apps to count your calories for you, wearable devices to measure how much you're moving, more apps to combine the two. My wearable even gives me a buzz when I've been sitting too long. As does the dog.

I'm really annoyed that I would have to pay extra for the inability of others to use food responsibly.

I get your point, M3, and think it's a valid one in the very few countries where obesity isn't a major issue (yet). Not in countries where at least 2/3 of the population is either overweight or obese though, am talking north America, Oz, nz, SA, Britain and the P.I. In those countries ppl shouldn't be able to get a burger/fries/coke combo or a family pizza for a fiver when healthy salads/sandwiches and water cost twice as much.

I think moderate meals, intermittent fasting, strenuous enough cardio exercise that you get a noticeable increase in heart rate, strength training and get your 8 hours sleep.

It will be interesting to see what happens when governments no longer subsidize treatment of preventable diseases and conditions that arise from diabetes etc. No doubt one measure to be implemented to cut down on spending on medical stuff which is out of control for most governments.

Cutting out carbs sounds like it should work, but who ever wants to live without bread, pasta, potatoes....? Not me.

Yeah, that is how I felt too. I had long heard the benefits of the keto diet, but I avoided it because I felt I needed to have my bread at breakfast and pasta at dinner.

But I've been on the diet over a year and I don't really miss those foods. But I do have regular cheat days.

One thing I certainly don't miss are the afternoon crashes I used to get on the standard diet.

But simply eating less does not square the equation; as the calories in go down, so too do the calories out. You have to keep your metabolism up by moving.

Yes, that is certainly true on a standard diet, that is why simply eating less usually does not work and you just feel miserable. But once you are fat-adapted (body trained to use fat) your body (and mind) continues to be fully energized.

22 percent of people in the world will be obese by 2045, up from 14 percent last year, according to research presented at the European Congress on Obesity in Vienna.

And yet we still have malnutrition and starvation in many parts of the third world.

My father was a sailor and travelled to pretty much every country with a coast and witnessed horrific poverty. He would blow his top at the idea of wasted food and found obesity to be obscene. Perhaps some people are naturally more inclined to gain weight but the sight of people waddling around with rolls of flab is almost offensive given that some people can’t eat enough to survive. I’d extend this point to bodybuilders. I’ve heard of people wolfing down half a dozen eggs a day to ensure they look good in a skin tight t-shirt in the middle of winter.

I don’t live an ascetic life and I don’t fully subscribe to the idea that all money used for something other than your survival has a starving child’s blood on it, but I just can’t help recoiling when I see obesity or over-muscled posers.

How much food, a basic for human survival, do you need?

Carter 30something may have the answer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l6vTw97QWs

@Cleo

No it doesn't. If you just eat less, your metabolism goes down to compensate and you don't lose weight.

As you say, it's simple. Calories in and calories out. But simply eating less does not square the equation; as the calories in go down, so too do the calories out. You have to keep your metabolism up by moving.

Is this the 'starvation mode' idea, which is completely unsupported by evidence? The fact is, your basal metabolic rate (BMR) is the minimum amount of calories your body burns per day to regulate your body temperature, to circulate your blood, to breathe, to keep your brain working, to keep your liver functioning, etc (other movement and excercise are excluded). None of these metabolic functions ever stop or slow down even if you don't eat for days on end. There is no way anyone can gain weight by consuming an amount of calories equal to or less than their BMR. It's true that your BMR will drop slightly as you lose body mass because your body now requires less energy to maintain that slimmer figure, but losing body mass also means that you can eat progressively less. Even in the case of people with Thyroiditis where their metabolic rate is reduced by around 10%, it also means that they can eat 10% less than the average person without experiencing the hunger that a normal person would. Ultimately, no matter how bad your genes are, you cannot defy the law of thermodynamics.

For example, even with the worst diet imaginable it's easy to lose weight as long as you carefully measure your portions and count your calories. The average western woman has a BMR of around 1400kcal per day. Assuming this woman eats only at McDonalds in Japan everyday, she could eat the following and still lose weight:

Breakfast: Egg McMuffin (310kcal)

Lunch: Large Fries (424kcal, no ketchup)

Dinner: Filet-au-Fish (341kcal) + 6pcs Chicken McNuggets (263kcal, no sauce)

Total: 1338kcal

Daily Calorie Deficit: 62kcal

This 'McDonalds diet' seems very achievable and I don't think anybody who follows it will go hungry or starve to death. 1kg equals about 7700kcal, so on a daily calorie deficit of 62, she would lose 2.93kg (6.45lbs) within one year with zero physical movement. Assuming she walks 5mins to McDonalds and back 3x per day, she could lose 3x or 4x more.

@BigYen, @goldorak

I'm generally not in favour of taxing overweight people either, but if we're going to go down that road I think it's only fair to reward slimness. What I really resent with the sugar/fat tax is my food choices being diminished due to other people's lack of self control. I enjoy some of the most sugary and fatty foods in moderation and I don't want to see them change or disappear. I think most of these products will inevitably adjust their recipies to include artificial sweetners, artificial flavouring and additives to simulate the old product taste, and I'm not thrilled about that. Artificial sweetners are great for weight loss but I think the jury is still out on the longterm health effects.

Junk food, sugar water, ignorant people.

Cleo, you’re wrong. Read what M3M3M3 said.

Its just science.

Many dietician, nurse, personal trainer can get a person to lose weight.

you can eat less and do no exercise and lose weight.

You can eat the same and exercise more and lose weight.

You can eat less and exercise more and lose weight.

But if you are currently fat it’s because of your lifestyle. No matter what diet or exercise program you do , if after you achieve your goal you go back to doing what you did before then you’ll get fat again.

Yes, it’s simple.

The reason people rebound is not magic or mysterious.

its just that people like to eat what they eat.

like I said, it’s simple but not easy. Though you make make it easy through various methods.

Most St people would lose weight just by drinking a lot and walking around the block everydat.

Because? Calories.

Sloth and Gluttony! Basic problems.

losing body mass also means that you can eat progressively less. 

It's not being able to eat enough when on a diet that makes people miserable. 'You can eat progressively less' is not a selling point.

This 'McDonalds diet' seems very achievable and I don't think anybody who follows it will go hungry or starve to death

Though with only 12g fibre and 655 mg sodium over recommended levels, as a daily diet it will rocket you into constipation and high blood pressure. Not to mention it sounds less than tasty. And it isn't vegetarian of course, so No thanks.

For some reason, intermittent fasting does not seem to have this bad point.

I think it's because the brain never gets into the 'starvation mode' that M3 disses; you go hungry for half a day, but that's nothing compared to months and months, or the rest of your life, eating less than your stomach tells you you need. An added bonus is that you don't have to do without favourite foods; I can't eat a chocolate today because I'm fasting, but it's OK because I can have one tomorrow. That's psychologically a completely different game from 'I can never eat chocolate again in my life because I'm on a diet' with it's accompanying pangs of guilt when you do eventually and inevitably lapse - and consume the whole box.

@Cleo

It's not being able to eat enough when on a diet that makes people miserable. 'You can eat progressively less' is not a selling point.

Can you define 'enough'? That is probably the core of our disagreement Cleo. Science defines enough as the amount of calories needed to maintain your BMR plus any additional calories you burn through physical activity. Your body has evolved over tens of thousands of years to only require as much energy as it take to keep you alive. On a purely physiological level, there should be nothing difficult about limiting your caloric intake to only match your minimum energy needs (I and others do it every day without feeling hunger pangs). However, on a psychological level many people are obviously addicted to fat, sugar and food in general the same way as a heroine addict is to drugs. For some people their brain tells them they are still hungry if they haven't eaten the whole pizza and topped it off with a slice of chocolate cake. This is not real hunger, it's a withdrawal symptom. After a few months of strict dieting, these withdrawal symptoms will disappear. Of course, this psychological aspect of dieting is difficult at the beginning for some, but it has nothing to do with the undeniably simple science of weight loss.

That's psychologically a completely different game from 'I can never eat chocolate again in my life because I'm on a diet'

I still eat chocolate about once a week, usually a pack of peanut M&Ms (202kcal from memory) and I savour every piece. Chocolate is definitely magical and I enjoy it so much more now in moderation than when I used to eat it whenever I had the urge.

@Reckless

Cleo's point. Diets can cause your metabolism to permanently slow down, so even after you lose weight you are screwed because the slower metabolism will keep pulling you to gain weight even if you eat the same amount of calories.

But there is no scientific evidence for this permanent post-diet phenomenon. How is it possible for your metabolism to 'go down' during or after a diet? What are the observable manifestation of this reduced metabolism? Does your core body temperature drop after a diet? Does your heart rate decrease? Is breathing affected? Is liver and kidney function permanently impaired? Do you have reduced cognitive abilities after the diet? Where is the energy being saved?

What you are basically claiming is that the body has two modes of efficiency. The first is normal mode. The second mode is a far more efficient mode where you need less calories to survive but bodily functions are apparently not impaired in any significant way. That's an extraordinary claim which begs the question, why doesn't the human body operate in that 2nd post-diet mode all the time? Why burn more energy than is necessary for survival? It really seems to fly in the face of basic evolutionary theory.

It's been proven that diets do not work in the long term, many successful dieters regain the weight plus extra. It's about lifestyle, and changing your lifestyle is much harder than counting calories. Money is a factor, it's no coincidence that obesity is more common among lower income people.

Whole food plant based diet, for the win

https://www.nutritionfacts.org :D

Can you define 'enough'?

The amount that leaves a person feeling satisfied? Not satiated, satisfied. And for different people, that means different things.

Depending too on what you eat: a calorie-heavy diet that lacks essential nutrients (e.g. junk food) leaves a person less than satisfied and with the urge to eat more to try and make up the deficit despite the excess calories.

Science defines enough as the amount of calories needed ....

It isn't all about calories. Food provides nourishment, comfort, companionship (there's a reason we get together to share meals) and is a factor in mental health. Thinking about it in terms of just calories might be scientific, but it isn't healthy. It's true that if a person counts calories and keeps calorie intake within the scientific definition of 'enough', weight will be lost. I know, I've done it. Many times. The trouble is, you either get sick of counting calories and feel that you've got a handle on this now and don't need to count, and in no time the weight starts to pile on again because without the calorie counting you're back to eating more than you think you are; or you get obsessed about calories and head down the road towards anorexia and bulimia. You might lose a lot of weight that way, but it's not the scientific definition of healthy.

For some people their brain tells them they are still hungry if they haven't eaten the whole pizza and topped it off with a slice of chocolate cake. This is not real hunger, it's a withdrawal symptom. After a few months of strict dieting, these withdrawal symptoms will disappear.

If you're dieting on pizza and chocolate cake, then your body is still craving those missing nutrients. The urge to continue eating isn't 'withdrawal symptoms', it's a symptom of a form of starvation. The reason the hunger pangs disappear after months of a strictly restricted diet is because the brain stops processing the irritating signals from the stomach that it can do nothing about. Another danger of this is that once the person comes off the diet, their perception of hunger is severely compromised.

What you are basically claiming is that the body has two modes of efficiency.

No I'm not. I'm saying that the body is affected by what you put into it and how you use it. If the body had only one 'mode of efficiency' at all times and under all circumstances, athletes would not need to watch their diet or train to get in optimum shape, because it would make no difference. People in countries that suffer from famine would not languish and gradually become weaker; they would run around operating at the 'normal mode of efficiency' until they came to a sudden stop and died. The body tries to work at optimum efficiency at all times, but when it is not provided with the energy it needs to function optimally, it starts to shut down non-essential functions in order to survive.

But there is no scientific evidence for this permanent post-diet phenomenon. How is it possible for your metabolism to 'go down' during or after a diet? What are the observable manifestation of this reduced metabolism? 

From personal experience, prolonged calorie restriction does slow you down; you have less energy, your heart rate drops and life in general is less interesting. As for scientific evidence....modern bathroom scales measure BMR. I noticed that according to the scales, my BMR dropped by about 150-200 calories over a period of about 6 months on a calorie-controlled diet. With my present, healthy-eating, intermittent fasting lifestyle, my weight is going gradually but steadily down and my BMR is steady. Anecdotal I know, but hey, I'm not a doctor just a lifelong dieter.

Bottom line, as Luddite says, diets do not work in the long run. It has to be lifestyle; happy, healthy eating, plus a decent amount of exercise.

No carbs after 2 is my rule and for me it works, horses for courses though.