Good OT article from the Times, though I'm more of a red top myself

ultraman1

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/second-opinion-why-operation-transformation-is-a-superficial-reality-show-1.2074034

TRR_the_turd

ultraman1 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/second-opinion-why-operation-transformation-is-a-superficial-reality-show-1.2074034

were you fish and chips wrapped in it?

inigo

Very good points overall but the statement that "they just need to eat a little less and move a bit more" doens't add up. Eat less and you are going to be hungrier; move a bit more and you will be even hungrier. How long can people keep this up?

Perhaps the whole focus on the psychology/behavioural aspect of obesity needs to be seriously reconsidered.

Perhaps we should go back to the science (biochemistry, metabolism, physiology, endocrinology...).

Perhaps the advise and guidelines we have been 'fed' for longer that we can remember do also have to be revisited and some paradigms shifted.

Just saying...

adrian522

Good article, though I'm not sure I agree with a Fat Tax/Sugar Tax.

We have enough taxes and high fat foods aren't necessarily bad. Olive oil, raw nuts and avocado (for example) are all very high in fat, but I eat them pretty regularly. They don't seem to make me obese.

PaulieC

Fantastic arguments in that article: People eat crap because it's too expensive to eat healthily. The solution ? Make the crap more expensive.
Nothing will be done because gubmints are all about the short term. It will be less expensive in the long run to ensure that obesity is tackled properly now, but that costs money up front and thus loses votes and so is never going to happen.
If it were up to me, about 60% of the "food" that is currently sold in the country would be banned.

dublin runner

Read this this morning. A brilliantly written article with excellent points and arguments.

Regarding the so called 'fat tax', making items more expensive has proven to have limited success (cigarettes, alcohol etc.). Having junk food removed from the checkouts is a positive step but I believe like most things education is the way forward.

Dubgal72

inigo wrote: »

Very good points overall but the statement that "they just need to eat a little less and move a bit more" doens't add up. Eat less and you are going to be hungrier; move a bit more and you will be even hungrier. How long can people keep this up?

Perhaps the whole focus on the psychology/behavioural aspect of obesity needs to be seriously reconsidered.

Perhaps we should go back to the science (biochemistry, metabolism, physiology, endocrinology...).

Perhaps the advise and guidelines we have been 'fed' for longer that we can remember do also have to be revisited and some paradigms shifted.

Just saying...

Don't entirely agree, eat less processed crap and more of the right foods and in the right way you could actually be more satisfied. If you move a bit more and in conjunction eat 'cleverly' (at the right time and in the right way post-exercise, you don't get 'eat the whole fridge' syndrome.

gerard_65

Disgraceful article. Operation Transformation is the second best program on the RTE. Only Fair city beats it.

vanderlyle

This article linked published by the HSE suggests that the overall prevalence of smoking in Ireland has declined from 28.28% in June 2003 to 21.48% in Dec 2013. The question that determines 'prevalence' in this survey is: "Do you smoke one or more cigarettes each week, whether packaged or roll your own?" They used a sample of 1,000 people aged 15 and older.

drugsandalcohol.ie/23200/1/Smoking_in_Ireland_2013.pdf (stick a www in at the start, I can't post proper links)

So smoking prevalence is declining. What are the factors that have caused this? And can these factors be put to work against obesity?

PaulieC wrote: »

Fantastic arguments in that article: People eat crap because it's too expensive to eat healthily. The solution ? Make the crap more expensive.

That alone won't work. It's also about convenience. Walk around your nearest convenience store or mini-supermarket and see if even 10% of the "food" on sale is healthy/nutritious.

PaulieC

vanderlyle wrote: »

That alone won't work. It's also about convenience. Walk around your nearest convenience store or mini-supermarket and see if even 10% of the "food" on sale is healthy/nutritious.

I forgot the sarcastic rolleyes smilie.

RayCun

OH watches OT and it is nowhere near as bad as some of the similar programmes she's watched (Biggest Loser etc) They do seem to put the emphasis on sustainable and manageable changes. The article makes good points though.

PaulieC

RayCun wrote: »

OH watches OT and it is nowhere near as bad as some of the similar programmes she's watched (Biggest Loser etc) They do seem to put the emphasis on sustainable and manageable changes. The article makes good points though.

yeah, Ray, blame the OH...just admit you love it

Toffeeboy

http://www.rte.ie/about/en/press-office/statements-speeches/2015/0127/676011-rte-response-to-operation-transformation-opinion-piece/

rom

The physiological reason why people watch soaps is that the people in the show have it a lot worst life than yours. Think Eastenders. Shows life the biggest loser and OT people watch for the same reasons. The percentage of the male population that is heavier than the 26 stone guy is probably quite small so the majority of people watching it can always latch onto "At least I am better than him".
While I agree that eating healthy is expensive. It is simply a fact of life an OT is not to blame. However the ineffectiveness of the show is apparent. Simply watch the recap show of the first 8 seasons and you will see how many success stories their are. The fitness instructor girl and the guy who looks like Robert de Niro. There may be one or two more but the rest are still on the "journey". They will recap this series next year and there might be one success story but that will be it. When I say in the recap show that a guy that went from 18 to 15 stone and back again and lost it again to 15 now working in a weight loss place I was like wtf are you serious. Its like having a few heroin addicts running a methadone clinic. The mind boggles. Clearly OT is a successful show mainly in being a vehicle to push books from the panel. A weight loss show who had Jerry Ryan as presenter is one step removed from Fat Fighters Little Britain sketch IMHO but I will be tuning in tonight after I sky + it so I can go on my run and watch car crash TV.

BeepBeep67

The key quote from the article is

Anyone can change; they just need to eat a little less and move a bit more.

I know that's a generalization and the medical conditions brigade will chime in - but...get a spreadsheet out and eat less and move more will be the solution for 90%+ of the population, it really is that simple.

So it that's your goal to eat less and move more, work back from that and plan what you're going to eat and when you are going to eat it, send someone else to do the weekly shop or order online to avoid the temptation and schedule when you are going to move.

Rinse and repeat for a healthier lifestyle - where do I pick up my consultancy cheque :rolleyes:

inigo

Dubgal72 wrote: »

Don't entirely agree, eat less processed crap and more of the right foods and in the right way you could actually be more satisfied. If you move a bit more and in conjunction eat 'cleverly' (at the right time and in the right way post-exercise, you don't get 'eat the whole fridge' syndrome.

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

The key quote from the article is


I know that's a generalization and the medical conditions brigade will chime in - but...get a spreadsheet out and eat less and move more will be the solution for 90%+ of the population, it really is that simple.

So it that's your goal to eat less and move more, work back from that and plan what you're going to eat and when you are going to eat it, send someone else to do the weekly shop or order online to avoid the temptation and schedule when you are going to move.

Rinse and repeat for a healthier lifestyle - where do I pick up my consultancy cheque :rolleyes:

I'm not so sure about that any more. I always thought that was good advise (I'm not questioning the good intentions).

I'm half way through Gary Taubes "Why We Get Fat". If I may, I'd very strongly recommend reading it. It's short for American standards, about 200 pages without appendixes and sources, and can be read by the lay person rather quickly.

The message of the book and the science behind it are compelling. It has been shown (decades ago!) that obese/overweight pleople overeat and don't exercise BECAUSE they are fat and not the other way around! It actually took me a while to grasp this concept! Once I did it made perfect sense. It was like a light-bulb moment. It's the complete opposite of what we have been and still are led to believe (amongst others, through programmes like OT).

The reasons why this happens have to do with more with genetics, hormones and biochemistry (and eventually the effect our diet has on our bodies based on our own particular combination of the above) than with psychology, which is what I was referring to on my post. For more on this please read Taubes' book. It's mind bogglin.

While I don't watch TV at all, programmes like OT sound to me like people pushing their own envelopes by using a major source of public concern. I suppose some have an agenda, others genuine good intentions. Players include media companies, presenters, experts, professors, doctors, food companies, supermarkets, you name it. Going with current opinion makes "good" reality TV, a lot of people appear on it and will be famous (not in my house), sell more books, get more funding for their research, get more influencial jobs... And everybody does very well, except the ones sweating it.

Sorry, rant over!

BeepBeep67

inigo wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that any more. I always thought that was good advise (I'm not questioning the good intentions).

I'm half way through Gary Taubes "Why We Get Fat". If I may, I'd very strongly recommend reading it. It's short for American standards, about 200 pages without appendixes and sources, and can be read by the lay person rather quickly.

The message of the book and the science behind it are compelling. It has been shown (decades ago!) that obese/overweight pleople overeat and don't exercise BECAUSE they are fat and not the other way around! It actually took me a while to grasp this concept! Once I did it made perfect sense. It was like a light-bulb moment. It's the complete opposite of what we have been and still are led to believe (amongst others, through programmes like OT).

The reasons why this happens have to do with more with genetics, hormones and biochemistry (and eventually the effect our diet has on our bodies based on our own particular combination of the above) than with psychology, which is what I was referring to on my post. For more on this please read Taubes' book. It's mind bogglin.

While I don't watch TV at all, programmes like OT sound to me like people pushing their own envelopes by using a major source of public concern. I suppose some have an agenda, others genuine good intentions. Players include media companies, presenters, experts, professors, doctors, food companies, supermarkets, you name it. Going with current opinion makes "good" reality TV, a lot of people appear on it and will be famous (not in my house), sell more books, get more funding for their research, get more influencial jobs... And everybody does very well, except the ones sweating it.

Sorry, rant over!

I agree that could be the case for some, but I know too many school friends and the like that have let themselves go over the years through poor choices and nothing to do with genetics - I was heading down that route at one stage myself.
You should pull up the A/R before and after thread to show what can be achieved through finding the motivation to want to change.

RayCun

and it doesn't explain why the percentage of the population that is overweight keeps increasing.
Taube review here

Dubgal72

HeHe beat me to it RayCun but here's another interesting review of the book where the author lays claims of "over-simplification" at Taubes' door: simplification is a familiar device but how many things submit to an 'either/or' division when examined closely? Without reading the book, it's hard to say but the few reviews online suggest Taubes is attempting to expand his theory to encompass a wider demographic than it does.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2011/05/16/thin-body-of-evidence-why-i-have-doubts-about-gary-taubess-why-we-get-fat/

PaulieC

inigo wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that any more. I always thought that was good advise (I'm not questioning the good intentions).

I'm half way through Gary Taubes "Why We Get Fat". If I may, I'd very strongly recommend reading it. It's short for American standards, about 200 pages without appendixes and sources, and can be read by the lay person rather quickly.

The message of the book and the science behind it are compelling. It has been shown (decades ago!) that obese/overweight pleople overeat and don't exercise BECAUSE they are fat and not the other way around! It actually took me a while to grasp this concept! Once I did it made perfect sense. It was like a light-bulb moment. It's the complete opposite of what we have been and still are led to believe (amongst others, through programmes like OT).

The reasons why this happens have to do with more with genetics, hormones and biochemistry (and eventually the effect our diet has on our bodies based on our own particular combination of the above) than with psychology, which is what I was referring to on my post. For more on this please read Taubes' book. It's mind bogglin.

While I don't watch TV at all, programmes like OT sound to me like people pushing their own envelopes by using a major source of public concern. I suppose some have an agenda, others genuine good intentions. Players include media companies, presenters, experts, professors, doctors, food companies, supermarkets, you name it. Going with current opinion makes "good" reality TV, a lot of people appear on it and will be famous (not in my house), sell more books, get more funding for their research, get more influencial jobs... And everybody does very well, except the ones sweating it.

Sorry, rant over!

That all sounds very much like the easy way for people to blame their own failing on someone or something other than themselves. People are fat because they eat too much and don't get enough exercise, not because they are genetically predisposed to it, not because they are big-boned, not because they have gland problems etc.

belcarra

I don't watch OT but have no issues with the programme.

In my eyes there are lots and lots of people who tag along with OT as part of new year's resolutions, etc. and use it as a trigger to get out and exercise. Some may also watch their diet for at least a few weeks.
What is clearly noticeable once January comes along is the walking and jogging groups popping up, as well as the organised events run in parallel to the programme.
Therefore I don't think it can be denied that OT gets people more active and if that's the only positive thing it does then there is definitely still a place for it in my opinion.

Chivito550

inigo wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that any more. I always thought that was good advise (I'm not questioning the good intentions).

I'm half way through Gary Taubes "Why We Get Fat". If I may, I'd very strongly recommend reading it. It's short for American standards, about 200 pages without appendixes and sources, and can be read by the lay person rather quickly.

The message of the book and the science behind it are compelling. It has been shown (decades ago!) that obese/overweight pleople overeat and don't exercise BECAUSE they are fat and not the other way around! It actually took me a while to grasp this concept! Once I did it made perfect sense. It was like a light-bulb moment. It's the complete opposite of what we have been and still are led to believe (amongst others, through programmes like OT).

The reasons why this happens have to do with more with genetics, hormones and biochemistry (and eventually the effect our diet has on our bodies based on our own particular combination of the above) than with psychology, which is what I was referring to on my post. For more on this please read Taubes' book. It's mind bogglin.

While I don't watch TV at all, programmes like OT sound to me like people pushing their own envelopes by using a major source of public concern. I suppose some have an agenda, others genuine good intentions. Players include media companies, presenters, experts, professors, doctors, food companies, supermarkets, you name it. Going with current opinion makes "good" reality TV, a lot of people appear on it and will be famous (not in my house), sell more books, get more funding for their research, get more influencial jobs... And everybody does very well, except the ones sweating it.

Sorry, rant over!

Why must people continue to play the genetics card. In the 1960s obesity was 9% in the USA. Now it is over 30%. Are you telling me that this so called obesity gene has spread threefold in 2 generations?

Genetics my foot!

Chivito550

Also, people don't just get fat because they eat too much, but also because they drink too much. In Ireland, a pint is considered 1 drink among people on the street. But 1 pint of Heineken is actually 1.95 standard drinks. A lot of people knock back 8-10 pints on a night out. About 16-20 standard drinks. Are you kidding me!!! The daily recommended amount is 5. Granted we all go above that from time to time, but the excessive binge drinking in this country is another reason people are fat!

kit3

belcarra wrote: »

I don't watch OT but have no issues with the programme.

In my eyes there are lots and lots of people who tag along with OT as part of new year's resolutions, etc. and use it as a trigger to get out and exercise. Some may also watch their diet for at least a few weeks.
What is clearly noticeable once January comes along is the walking and jogging groups popping up, as well as the organised events run in parallel to the programme.
Therefore I don't think it can be denied that OT gets people more active and if that's the only positive thing it does then there is definitely still a place for it in my opinion.

I agree - I don't watch it either but it definitely motivates people to get moving. Our local GAA club looked for people to sign up to do two walks a week with a weekly weigh-in etc timed to coincide with the programme. It was open to anyone in the community, not just club members. They have over 200 people signed up and are talking of starting a walking club when this ends. That can't be bad.

rainbow kirby

I'd agree with Chivito there - even in my own experience, I usually lose around 1-1.5kg if I give up drink but make no other changes for a month. I'm not even a big drinker.

inigo

Chivito550 wrote: »

Why must people continue to play the genetics card. In the 1960s obesity was 9% in the USA. Now it is over 30%. Are you telling me that this so called obesity gene has spread threefold in 2 generations?

Genetics my foot!

I don't think there is an obesity gene, but there are genes that will determine things like insulin secretion (resistance or sensitivity), carbohydrate metabolism, lipogenesis, fat deposition (and the list goes on), in response to what you eat, and you in particular. This would explain among other things why two guys eating the same stuff may not necessarily be as obese or lean as each other.

Regarding the last 50 (and even more) years in the US, there's a bigger elefant in the room, something that has changed dramatically in the last century and that is diet: fat is bad, saturated fat is even worse, so eat more polyunsaturated and trans vegetable oils (but not too many) as well as carbohydrates in whichever form, including high-fructose corn syrup. Look at the history of dietary guidelines and recommendations and you'll see a clear trend.

Dubgal72

inigo wrote: »

I don't think there is an obesity gene, but there are genes that will determine things like insulin secretion (resistance or sensitivity), carbohydrate metabolism, lipogenesis, fat deposition (and the list goes on), in response to what you eat, and you in particular. This would explain among other things why two guys eating the same stuff may not necessarily be as obese or lean as each other.

Regarding the last 50 (and even more) years in the US, there's a bigger elefant in the room, something that has changed dramatically in the last century and that is diet: fat is bad, saturated fat is even worse, so eat more polyunsaturated and trans vegetable oils (but not too many) as well as carbohydrates in whichever form, including high-fructose corn syrup. Look at the history of dietary guidelines and recommendations and you'll see a clear trend.

I can't help thinking that if you put two similarly built guys on the exact same diet, the leaner one would be the one who moves more...


But not all fats are bad*. High-fructose corn syrup is a no-no, I think that's common knowledge but not all carbohydrates are bad if that is what you are trying to say.

Simple formula: processed sh%te = baaaad therefore eat less of
Whole food = gooood therefore eat more of
+ exercise = happy body.This is not any new fangled rocket science and I'll eat my post-race shorts if it doesn't apply to 95% of the general population.

*but trans fats are not healthy when cooked at high temperatures

RayCun

inigo wrote: »

It has been shown (decades ago!) that obese/overweight pleople overeat and don't exercise BECAUSE they are fat and not the other way around!

inigo wrote: »

Regarding the last 50 (and even more) years in the US, there's a bigger elefant in the room, something that has changed dramatically in the last century and that is diet

You started by saying that the overeating is caused by being overweight, but now you are saying that the bad diet of the last 50 years is making people overweight

People (especially low-carb people) tend to get very worked up against the food pyramid. I don't think it can take much of the blame. People have been aware of calories and the idea of calorie-counting for at least as long as they've been told about the food pyramid, but calorie intake has gone way up in the same time period. My guess is there's a broader trend towards the greater consumption of prepared foods, and the composition of prepared foods has changed.

BeepBeep67

RayCun wrote: »

You started by saying that the overeating is caused by being overweight, but now you are saying that the bad diet of the last 50 years is making people overweight

People (especially low-carb people) tend to get very worked up against the food pyramid. I don't think it can take much of the blame. People have been aware of calories and the idea of calorie-counting for at least as long as they've been told about the food pyramid, but calorie intake has gone way up in the same time period. My guess is there's a broader trend towards the greater consumption of prepared foods, and the composition of prepared foods has changed.

You used to burn a few calories peeling spuds, now you just tip the frozen sh1te from freezer into a deep fat fryer

ultraman1

inigo wrote: »

there's a bigger elefant in the room, something that has changed dramatically in the last century and that is diet:

It's a fact that elefant meat is very low in fat and high in protein so it Shud Be in our diet

kit3

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

You used to burn a few calories peeling spuds, now you just tip the frozen sh1te from freezer into a deep fat fryer

You used to burn a few calories digging them up in the first place ............

inigo

Easy tigers! No need to get personal...

My post was a bit of a rant and I apologised at the end of it. As I said, I was in the middle of reading Taubes' "Why We Get Fat". I had recently finished "The Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz. Have any of you read these books before forming or transforming or staying with your original opinion? I'm only asking! Because they have shaken my beliefs and this is something I am grateful for.

I believe that they have both done a very thorough research and that they have something to say. I also think that a healthy debate is necessary seeing and hearing how the "epidemic" keeps growing. Putting labels to people won't help in the debate because it may result in people taking sides. Being a scientist myself, I see the need for a fresh and honest look at all the evidence, however difficult this may be. If people (experts, scientists...) are not open to honest discussion and are prepared to seriously consider other ideas and change their own if it comes to it, however wrong or outrageous it may seem at the outset, progress in any field will be painfully slow. Having said that, I was just trying to throw in some different ideas for consideration and discussion here.

Thanks for the links on Taubes' critics. Looking for and reading them was my next step after finishing the book. If you scroll down, a lot of people have in turn critised the original critic. The problem is that this could go on forever with no clear winner, except for those who have taken a side...