Are you overweight? Check the facts and you could win €100

Zamboni

The casting director should get an award for the choice in people used in the ad.
A lot of people would not realise that those actors in the ad are overweight and would regard them as 'normal'.
It is an excellent method of re-setting the barometer of what it is normal.
Also, delighted with the emphasis on the change in food intake over the years and less emphasis on the activity levels.
I am sick to death of lack of activity being used as an excuse for obesity, whilst it is clearly a factor, all factors pale in comparison to the primary cause of excessive calorie intake.

safefood: Dermot

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Another thing is, while obesity is definitley preventable and doesnt just 'happen' , being a little overweight is a common part of our society because we now have people doing shift work , people working nights and sleeping during the day , jobs where people spend 95% of their day at a desk , for these its quite hard to allocate a lot of time for exercise or eating right ,and while its no excuse for being heavily overweight / obese it certainly gives a little leeway to being a little overweight

Hi Eric Cartman and you're right - there are real pressures in society today on people's everyday lives, whether it's hours working/travelling or the kind of work we do.

But what we want more people to realise is that more of our population, both men and women are now carrying excess weight, that your risks of chronic diseases increase with that weight and that more of us are moving from o/weight to obesity and at a faster rate than ever before e.g from 8% to 26% in men since 1990.

Red Cortina

safefood: Dermot wrote: »

Personally, I don't know one fat from another so asked a colleague who does.

She told me that there's a clear association between saturated fat and heart disease and at a population level, our intakes of sat fat are well above what is recommended.

And because she got me thinking, I asked her what the primary sources of it are...and it's meat and meat products, dairy foods, cakes, biscuits and confectionary...basically what I would eat.

To reduce your consumption of this fat, you can choose leaner cuts of meats, lower-fat versions of dairy and try to limit the cakes, biccies and sweets; sorry if this is depressing reading on a wet Friday!

Reading that you, who actually works to promote healthy eating, don't understand the difference between the different types of fat makes for depressing reading on a wet Friday afternoon, not the fact that we shouldn't be eating 'cakes, biccies and sweets'...

The fact that it hasn't registered with your colleagues at Safefoods that saturated fat has been incorrectly vilified, starting with Ancel Keys' 7 countries study, also depresses the heck out of me:(

Did you know that the French have one of the higher rates of consumption of saturated fats yet one of the lower rates of heart disease?

angelfire9

Hanley wrote: »

As for “skinny = healthy”, I totally agree on your point there. I’d rather see a slightly above weight guy with a good level of strength and cardiovascular fitness than a skinny dude who eats nothing but maccyd’s.

I think this ^^^ Is a VERY valid point

I take exception to the statement that a waist of more than 32 inches for women is overweight

I am 6ft tall, weight is 10 stone and I have a 34 inch waist
There is no way in hell's earth that I am over weight


I attach photo of me taken this time last year at 4 months pregnant and even then I didn't look fat!!!!

I think its dangerous to make assumptions about any person's weight or obesity based on generalisations and each individual should be examined as an individual

Saying to a girl or woman "oh your waist is above 32 inches you are therefore overweight" is dangerous and irresponsible!

Note: crappy enough picture for this purpose i'll try and find a better one

time42play

My reaction to the television ad was laughter, I think it’s really very funny based on my own case. I am still around 2.5 stone overweight, but have a waist size of 31” measured as indicated. My partner, who is a healthy weight for his height, eats better, and exercises more, is slightly over. I know that BMI is more complicated to get across in a short ad, but I think that for MOST of us normal, non-athletic people it’s still a better indicator of weight problems. If I weren’t already well into the process of losing weight that ad would certainly not inspire me to do so, but then I see the campaign as being aimed at people who are borderline overweight and not those of us who know beyond any doubt that we’re fat.

I am also rather annoyed that the healthy weights of my family and friends haven’t spread to me!! Or maybe it’s only fat that’s contagious, not thinness (I only vaguely remember that study), although they all seem to have escaped catching it from me over the years despite my feeding them!

The second video was far better than the ad, in my view.

I’ve spent more than 30 years of my life failing to control my weight with the standard high-carb, low-fat diets. Finally with the likes of Gary Taubes are there plans that work for me without starvation, and yes they involve eating saturated fats. I have managed to lose more than 5 stone without feeling like I'm on a "diet", which is more than can be said for the official recommended way of eating.

safefood: Dermot

Red Cortina wrote: »

Reading that you, who actually works to promote healthy eating, don't understand the difference between the different types of fat makes for depressing reading on a wet Friday afternoon, not the fact that we shouldn't be eating 'cakes, biccies and sweets'...

The fact that it hasn't registered with your colleagues at Safefoods that saturated fat has been incorrectly vilified, starting with Ancel Keys' 7 countries study, also depresses the heck out of me:(

Did you know that the French have one of the higher rates of consumption of saturated fats yet one of the lower rates of heart disease?

Thanks Red Cortina. Just to clarify, I have colleagues here with PhDs in Nutrition and I thought it would be best to ask them on the fats issue.

I'll ask them for their thoughts on the other studies in the meantime.

dak

“Stop the spread” is a great idea. The Irish ( including myself) are great at being in denial . How many of us would claim we don’t overeat, don’t binge drink ,maybe smoke a few cigarettes and get enough exercise.

If you do regular exercise and are young then you may keep the spread at bay for a number of years.. As the years roll on the body is less capable of coping with an unhealthy lifestyle and for many who cease being active the weight and waist slowly spreads.

Some day you may look at a picture of yourself from 20 years ago and wonder like me how did I go from being an active fit 11 and half stone (32 inch waist) 20 year old to a 15 and a half stone (36 inch ) relatively inactive person.

The day you start think about this is the day to decide you can make a change. Taking the first step is half the battle . Don’t try to run 5km when you haven’t run in years.

Get out there walking , try to get some other regular exercise every week, reduce the amount of alcohol you drink ( there are about 170 calories in a pint of Guiness) , watch portion sizes , start looking at the amount of calories in what you eat and try not to eat after 6 or 7 at night.

The old saying “ Eat Breakfast like a king “ and “ supper like a pauper “ hold true. Everything in moderation .

Above all set yourself an obtainable goal and a timeframe to achieve it.

12 weeks ago I made the decision to stop the spread . I started to walk at least an hour a day . I joined a gym ( I go once a week) and use the threadmill and resistance weight machines . 6 weeks later I was fit enough to run a 5km fun run in just under 30 mins .

12 weeks into this changed lifestyle I can now run 8 km non stop and I am 1 stone 3 lbs lighter. If I can do it anyone can. Stop thinking about being active …just take that first step and you’ll be amazed at the difference you can make in a short period of time !

Red Cortina

Hanley wrote: »

As for “skinny = healthy”, I totally agree on your point there. I’d rather see a slightly above weight guy with a good level of strength and cardiovascular fitness than a skinny dude who eats nothing but maccyd’s.

I absolutely agree with you, I think skinny does not always mean healthy. Skinny people get diabetes, heart disease and stroke too. I am surrounded by skinny people at work who have the most terrible diets and are not interested in healthy eating as they figure that, as they are not overweight, they can eat what they like.

In fact I think that that is where the whole 'Healthy At Every Size' theory that they talk about here: http://www.nutritionj.com/content/pdf/1475-2891-10-9.pdf has its merits.

Red Cortina

safefood: Dermot wrote: »

Thanks Red Cortina. Just to clarify, I have colleagues here with PhDs in Nutrition and I thought it would be best to ask them on the fats issue.

I'll ask them for their thoughts on the other studies in the meantime.

I have no doubt that your colleagues are well qualified. But my point would be that as you work with them, you would imagine that they would have you well versed in the ins and outs of such an important nutrient. And fat is an important nutrient. And that if you had any question at all, that you of all people, could easily have someone at your fingertips to ask

Also you are working on this campaign yet you have not, so far, taken the
initiative to go and educate yourself on what exactly you are consuming. So if you are not interested, then what hope do we have for anyone else who isn't even working for Safefood

I don't mean to pick on you, just that the comment that you made previously surprised me..

Blatter

safefood: Dermot wrote: »

Personally, I don't know one fat from another so asked a colleague who does.

Thank you for that.

She told me that there's a clear association between saturated fat and heart disease and at a population level, our intakes of sat fat are well above what is recommended.

I've personally done a lot of research on saturated fat over the last number of years, and I (as many others have) concluded that the association between saturated fat and heart disease is anything but clear and is in fact nothing more than a myth.

Also, you mentioned intakes of sat fat are well above what is 'recommended'. The thing is, as your probably well aware, what is 'recommended' is hotly (and rightly) disputed.

And because she got me thinking, I asked her what the primary sources of it are...and it's meat and meat products, dairy foods, cakes, biscuits and confectionary...basically what I would eat.

To reduce your consumption of this fat, you can choose leaner cuts of meats, lower-fat versions of dairy and try to limit the cakes, biccies and sweets; sorry if this is depressing reading on a wet Friday!

Just to note there, an awful lot of cakes, biscuits, sweets and confectionery are not primary sources of sat fat.

And this leads me to the crux of my point.

Saturated fat gets a bad rap, (very wrongly, in my opinion) and is often mentioned in the same breath as trans fats. The advice we are given under our RDA, is to limit sat fats, as you just advised me there.

This advice, in my opinion, causes big problems.

More and more people are eating margarine instead of butter.

People are cutting down on their meat intake at dinner time and increasing their portions of potatoes and homemade 'low fat' chips.

People are eating white toast and highly refined cereals for breakfast instead of scrambled egg, omelettes, bacon and cheese.

Some even shun nuts, salmon and coconut oil because of the high levels of sat fat they contain.

What do people eat instead? They go for low fat biscuits, 3% fat Rolo yogurts, 97% fat free weight watcher's Sherphards Pie, fizzy drinks, oven chips, sweets, fat free ice cream, white bread(it's low fat, right?), sugary cereal bars and the list goes on.

Pure junk and people are shoving it down their throats and many of the same people are avoiding butter, limiting their egg intake and avoiding perfectly good natural foods like nuts, meat and cheese.

Unbelievable, don't you think?

To some up why this country is fat(and getting fatter), I'll just copy and past what I posed a few weeks ago


A) Way, way too much bread, sugary cereals, sugary drinks, ready made meals, biscuits, chocolate, vegetable oil, margarine, takeaways etc. in the diet

Not enough fruit, veg, fresh cuts of meat, fresh fish, healthy oils, butter, eggs, nuts etc. in the diet


In short, just encourage people to eat REAL food, and it will go along way to solving our obesity epidemic.

angelfire9

Ok Voila:

The torso of a 34 inch female i.e. me

Can you honestly say every female with a waist over 32 inches is obese?????

safefood: Dermot

angelfire9 wrote: »

I think its dangerous to make assumptions about any person's weight or obesity based on generalisations and each individual should be examined as an individual

Saying to a girl or woman "oh your waist is above 32 inches you are therefore overweight" is dangerous and irresponsible!

Hi angelfire9. The guidelines quoted are based on World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations of healthy waist sizes for men and women, which take into account people’s different shapes and sizes.
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501491_eng.pdf

We focused on waist because more and more studies have shown the risks caused by excess weight in that area. And for a mass public awareness campaign, we felt it was a better message to communicate than say, BMI.

Red Cortina

safefood: Dermot wrote: »

We focused on waist because more and more studies have shown the risks caused by excess weight in that area. And for a mass public awareness campaign, we felt it was a better message to communicate than say, BMI.

Just as a matter of interest, was the waist to hip ratio measurement considered at all?

angelfire9

safefood: Dermot wrote: »

Hi angelfire9. The guidelines quoted are based on World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations of healthy waist sizes for men and women, which take into account people’s different shapes and sizes.
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501491_eng.pdf

We focused on waist because more and more studies have shown the risks caused by excess weight in that area. And for a mass public awareness campaign, we felt it was a better message to communicate than say, BMI.

I don't believe generalisations help people

And i think you could be encouraging bulimic or anorexic behaviour through those generalisations!

I am NOT fat
Anyone who would look at my pic and say that i'm fat has serious body issues
Yet WHO thinks I'm obese based on the size of my waist??

It wouldn't exactly encourage me to listen to their recommendations in other areas now would it! :rolleyes:

Hanley

angelfire9 wrote: »

I don't believe generalisations help people

And i think you could be encouraging bulimic or anorexic behaviour through those generalisations!

I am NOT fat
Anyone who would look at my pic and say that i'm fat has serious body issues
Yet WHO thinks I'm obese based on the size of my waist??

It wouldn't exactly encourage me to listen to their recommendations in other areas now would it! :rolleyes:

Just out of interest, did you measure your waist using the same method they recommended on the add? Like in the same spot?

g'em

@ angelfire - let's be blunt about this. You're 6' right? Not many women are six foot tall. I think it's a reasonable assumption to make to say that you are an outlier where these norms are concerned and to try and allude that the campaign is calling you personally fat is pretty incredulous. For the average Irish woman a 32" inch waist does indivate that she is overweight.

8kvscdpglqnyr4

Here's my 2 cents ...

When you visit your GP for whatever reason (flu, prescription renewal ... etc.), the GP should measure your waste and BMI if they think you look overweight (not just obese). If you are overweight, they should advise you accordingly.

Weight is like a ticking time-bomb and it's plain to see. Think about it like this; if a patient visited a doctor with a flu, but while examining the patient, they spotted something that might be a skin melanoma - they'd investigate and advise the patient. I don't see why weight is not a similar scenario - if a person looks over weight, then the GP should measure the patient. If they are overweight, then the GP should advise the patient.

mcsquiffy

angelfire9 wrote: »

Ok Voila:

The torso of a 34 inch female i.e. me

Can you honestly say every female with a waist over 32 inches is obese?????

This campaign is not saying that anyone with a waist size over 32inches/37 inches is obese..... instead its is an indicator of being overweight. to be more specific it is indicating that a person is carrying excess weight around the abdomen which the most dangerous place to carry excess weight

Hanley

Sullivan Moldy Backspace wrote: »

Here's my 2 cents ...

When you visit your GP for whatever reason (flu, prescription renewal ... etc.), the GP should measure your waste and BMI if they think you look overweight (not just obese). If you are overweight, they should advise you accordingly.

Weight is like a ticking time-bomb and it's plain to see. Think about it like this; if a patient visited a doctor with a flu, but while examining the patient, they spotted something that might be a skin melanoma - they'd investigate and advise the patient. I don't see why weight is not a similar scenario - if a person looks over weight, then the GP should measure the patient. If they are overweight, then the GP should advise the patient.

It's not in the doctor's interest. With most medical conditions it's easy to say X caused Y and if the doctor missed it he's in trouble. But with fat gain, poor dietary choices and the range of problems that can occur as a result, no one can identify a truly causitive factor, so the doctor just ends up insulting a patient who may end up taking their business elsewhere. It's pure self preservation on their behalf (I rather say that than ignorance or apathy!!).

Plus with most medical treatments you take a pill or go somewhere and it's fixed. Losing weight requires discipline and hard work, there's no quick fixes.

Blatter

Sullivan Moldy Backspace wrote: »

Here's my 2 cents ...

When you visit your GP for whatever reason (flu, prescription renewal ... etc.), the GP should measure your waste and BMI if they think you look overweight (not just obese). If you are overweight, they should advise you accordingly.

Weight is like a ticking time-bomb and it's plain to see. Think about it like this; if a patient visited a doctor with a flu, but while examining the patient, they spotted something that might be a skin melanoma - they'd investigate and advise the patient. I don't see why weight is not a similar scenario - if a person looks over weight, then the GP should measure the patient. If they are overweight, then the GP should advise the patient.

The problem is, the majority of GPs have little or no training in nutrition and their advice usually involves trotting out the food pyramid and the general RDA, which are partly responsible for our obesity problems in the first place.

safefood: Dermot

Just to clarify, we're not saying that a waist measurement above 32" for women or 37" for men is obese - it would be in the overweight range.

vibe666

the BMI system is ridiculous imho, and I'm not just saying that because I'm fat.

according to the BMI system at 6'5" tall, at my weight i'm almost morbidly obese.

granted i'm definitely fat and there's no getting round that (literally, you wouldn't get past me ) but according to the BMI system, my *ideal* weight is about 13.5 stone which would (and i'm not exaggerating at all here) leave me looking like some kind of emaciated catwalk model.

i was always of a large build and i used to play rugby in my teens from about 13 to 19 years old before a car accident put a stop to that (and started my weight gain) and I was about 15.5 stone for the majority of that time and there wasn't a bit of fat on me and i was as fit as a fiddle.

even back then if i was 2 stone lighter than that i would have looked seriously ill.

i have no idea how they came up with the BMI system, and honestly speaking i know i should get back down to about 16 stone, but there is no way in hell that dropping down to 13.5 stone would be anything except majorly unhealthy for me, or anyone else my height for that matter, unless they were naturally of a very very slim build.

i like the idea of promoting healthy eating, good fats, whole grains, organic & homemade etc. and for the last year or so i've almost totally cut out takeaways and unhealthy foods in favour of freshly cooked home meals (it helps that my wife is pregnant and wants to eat healthy).

the thing is though, promoting the BMI system as an 'ideal weight' to aim for seems very little different to me than handing out pictures of skinny supermodels and telling people that they need to look like that.

mell61

I think that its fair to say that we are all becoming more overweight - while I can and do admit that I am responsible for being overweight, I consider an overweight child to akin to child endangerment!
A parent makes the decision on what is available for children to eat in the home and should be monitoring what the can eat outside of the home. I was recently as a 5 year olds birthday party and a number of the kids were very overweight, one was 5 and dressed in tops for ages 9-10, she wasn't taller than any other child, but was wider. Maybe what I'm saying is cruel, but 9 out of 10 people who are overweight as children will be overweight as adults!

We need to make sure that while we try and sort ourselves out, we definitively sort out the next generation. They should be super-sporty not supersized!

cc87

safefood: Dermot wrote: »

Thanks Red Cortina. Just to clarify, I have colleagues here with PhDs in Nutrition and I thought it would be best to ask them on the fats issue.

I'll ask them for their thoughts on the other studies in the meantime.

I dont mean this to sound nasty or anything but what qualification do you hold that makes you suitable to work a campaign such as this?

Zamboni

cc87 wrote: »

I dont mean this to sound nasty or anything but what qualification do you hold that makes you suitable to work a campaign such as this?

To be fair to Dermot, he is probably a communications executive.
Nutritionists and other specialists tend to be muzzled in public health bodies.

phasers

I'm so glad this thread was put in the health and fitness forum, it's a brilliant read. I have to say I know nothing about nutrition.... I thought I did but having read this thread I realise I know almost nothing!

I don't really feel capable to comment on the campaign except to say that while I understand that trying to raise awareness about such a personal topic is never going to be easy, it seems that there's a lot of generalising and use of outdated methods involved, which is very disheartening. Also the television ad seems rather offensive imo, as G'em mentioned it portrays obese people as somewhat unclean and something to be avoided.

Frankly, I also think that it's disgraceful that somebody who works for safefood seems so ill-informed.

krisityfer

Okay, there's been a lot of controversy over this campaign, because countless people are phoning in radio stations and the likes saying "I'm skinny, but my waist is over 32/37, so SafeFood classify me as fat. Now I feel bad/angry etc"

These people are sort of starting to annoy me, because if they would actually READ the information put out there by the campaign, they'd quickly discover that it doesn't say "IF YOUR WAIST IS OVER 32 INCHES YOU ARE FAT AND YOU WILL DIE!!!"

Instead, if your waist is over that level, it's a good indication that you MIGHT be overweight, and that maybe you should check with someone else, like a doctor, or calculate your BMI just in case.

The problem with this campaign is that people need to use a little bit of common sense. If you are over 32 inches, but know for a fact you're as skinny as a rake, then don't worry. Similarily, if you're 4.5 foot tall, with a 32 inch waist, but you know you're quite as healthy as you should be, do something about it.

However, if you discover you're over the recommended limit, maybe it might encourage you to do something about it. It's an easy measurement system, that might encourage a few people, who have been up until now denying it, to realise "You know what? Maybe I'm not as healthy as I should be."

People give out about BMI because it's too complicated. Now they're giving out about this because it's too inaccurate. What more can SafeFood do? It's up to the people now. Only they can decide whether or not they are as healthy as they should be.

Hanley

Zamboni wrote: »

To be fair to Dermot, he is probably a communications executive.
Nutritionists and other specialists tend to be muzzled in public health bodies.

Agreed. Lets not shoot the messenger here guys. He's being quite upfront with us about his qualifications and such.

Hanley

krisityfer wrote: »

Okay, there's been a lot of controversy over this campaign, because countless people are phoning in radio stations and the likes saying "I'm skinny, but my waist is over 32/37, so SafeFood classify me as fat. Now I feel bad/angry etc"

These people are sort of starting to annoy me, because if they would actually READ the information put out there by the campaign, they'd quickly discover that it doesn't say "IF YOUR WAIST IS OVER 32 INCHES YOU ARE FAT AND YOU WILL DIE!!!"

Instead, if your waist is over that level, it's a good indication that you MIGHT be overweight, and that maybe you should check with someone else, like a doctor, or calculate your BMI just in case.

The problem with this campaign is that people need to use a little bit of common sense. If you are over 32 inches, but know for a fact you're as skinny as a rake, then don't worry. Similarily, if you're 4.5 foot tall, with a 32 inch waist, but you know you're quite as healthy as you should be, do something about it.

However, if you discover you're over the recommended limit, maybe it might encourage you to do something about it. It's an easy measurement system, that might encourage a few people, who have been up until now denying it, to realise "You know what? Maybe I'm not as healthy as I should be."

People give out about BMI because it's too complicated. Now they're giving out about this because it's too inaccurate. What more can SafeFood do? It's up to the people now. Only they can decide whether or not they are as healthy as they should be.

Great post.

LostinBlanch

Hanley wrote: »

Agreed. Lets not shoot the messenger here guys. He's being quite upfront with us about his qualifications and such.

Yeah, I'd agree with this. But also while the campaign is a one size fits all one, at least it's a decent place to start for the majority of the population.