Obesity/Diabetes and the impending/current human cost

ford2600

I heard a bit of the Claire Byrne show last night where this was discussed and unfortunately on a certain level, found myself agreeing with the pessimist in the room; on a population level asking/advising people to eat better/less and move more isn't working and we are getting fatter and unhealthier.

While someone in their 20/30/40/50 who has been obese for a long time, can turn things around( and there are many posters & lurkers here who have don just that) on a probability basis over the long term most people will probably fail?

The current western lifestyle, with it's horrible food environment, misinformation, chronic stress levels, poor sleep quality etc etc is to strong an opponent for our up until now super adaptable bio chemistry/genetics.

As it stands pharma companies who make drugs for Type 2 diabetes, generally expect to target new markets about 20 years after the western lifestyle takes hold.

Maybe I'm overly pessimistic on this but I'm finding it hard to see a solution on a population level?

Wanderer78

Great debate last night, one of the best I've seen on the show in a while. This is becoming a serious problem, we need to approach this from many different angles. I agree with mandatory home economics for all, daily exercise as a part of school, which could include light exercise such as yoga etc. A reduction in the amount of academia in the system to accommodate all of this, possibly an abolishment of homework also.

One of the most upsetting things in this debate is the lack of accountability that our food manufacturers have in regards harmful ingredients in our foods such as sugar etc. Our governments are following free market economic policies, which isn't the saviour it's being protraded to be. This gives our food manufacturers almost a free reign to sell pretty much anything they want. They're main aim is to maximise profits, period. Marketing is one of the main tools used to do so. I know they're are food codecs, but these are under treat by agreements such as ttip. We have got to start putting pressure on these manufacturers to reduce the amount of harmful ingredients in our foods, and possibly ban their products from being sold here if they do not comply. Sadly this may not happen as our governments follow these problematic economic models.

bladespin

Wanderer78 wrote: »

One of the most upsetting things in this debate is the lack of accountability that our food manufacturers have in regards harmful ingredients in our foods such as sugar etc.

This more than anything for me, speaking as someone who has taken a greater than normal interest in their nutrition recently it's amazing the amount of misinformation (downright lies) food manufacturers are throwing about.

Another killer for me (as a regular traveller) is the lack of any nutritional information from restaurants hotels etc, Christ if McDonalds can do it a why can't someone trading in 'good' food???

IMO people are literally eating themselves into a grave with no knowledge of what they're doing.

Wanderer78

i also suspect a sugar tax will have little or no effect with these issues, its just another way of placing the responsibility of these issues onto the end user and removing it from our food manufacturers.

kal7

Great advertising forum for Dr. Eva.

She makes some good points but wouldn't allow anyone else to speak, especially the minister.

She should discuss the point with other doctors and researchers not ridicule them.

Wanderer78

kal7 wrote:

She makes some good points but wouldn't allow anyone else to speak, especially the minister.

I do think though that our politicians are not approaching this problem in the right way as mentioned above

Alf Veedersane

bladespin wrote: »

Another killer for me (as a regular traveller) is the lack of any nutritional information from restaurants hotels etc, Christ if McDonalds can do it a why can't someone trading in 'good' food???

Cost. McDonalds have the money to get the calorie content of their menu, which is pretty much the same worldwide. Restaurants don't have the same resources.

They also don't cook to the same level of consistency in terms of ingredients and menus change so you're looking at a regular cost of getting calorie content assessed.

There may be scope for chains though.

bladespin

I think that's a cop out tbh, most have a set menu so it couldn' t be hard to calculate. Maybe the high end who create new menus regularly might struggle but they charge plenty to cover the little extra.

Alf Veedersane

bladespin wrote: »

I think that's a cop out tbh, most have a set menu so it couldn' t be hard to calculate. Maybe the high end who create new menus regularly might struggle but they charge plenty to cover the little extra.

A set menu makes a small part of a menu and it's not cheap to get the calories counted on quite a few dishes that change reasonably regularly. Even Donal O'Shea has conceded that. It's the chains that are being targeted.

In any case, if someone has no idea about what a half decent diet is...what calories mean...how many calories they should be eating. Choosing a 600 kcal dinner instead of a 700 kcal dinner could well be rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic for a hell of a lot of people.

In the overall scheme of things, this isn't a big factor.

alig123aileen

Saw Claire byrnes show. the reality which any endocrinologist will tell you is that some people can not burn off calories like others so getting fat around the middle is a consequence of diabetes and not the other way around. The media just hone in on diet and assume anyone who has diabetes is a calorie guzzling ogre . people like Dr Orsmond suggests we all are living on chips and cans of coke for all our meals. I was diagnosed with diabetes type 2 five years ago I never drank fizzy drinks never ate lots of junk food but I do believe lifestyle did not help - no breakfast, working long hours irregular mealtimes sedentary occupation did contribute. I lost weight exercised more and my endocrinologist said I no longer have to attend him as my blood sugars are now normal. If I had had a choice of any long term illness I'd choose diabetes because its progression is usually in your control (unless its very advanced). One thing that shocks me is the 'food on the go' in supermarkets, petrol stations and how sauces like BBQ and hot chilli sauce and chicken fillet rolls are so high in sugar. Also all alcohol is high in sugar but thats never mentioned is it? Low fat yogurts are low in fat but twice as high in sugar. Agree we are facing a serious diabetes epidemic ahead. Testing your blood sugars is the best way to check your overall health. Interesting that I tested three friends of mine in the last few months all at the peak of their careers busy lives with kids jogging every night big into keep fit and all three of them showed blood sugars significantly higher than recommended. I'd recommend everyone tests their blood sugars at some stage.

Zillah

alig123aileen wrote: »

Also all alcohol is high in sugar but thats never mentioned is it?

I have no idea how this false belief is so resilient. Every alcoholic drink is different, with the vast majority having negligible sugar. Vodka, gin, whiskey, and similar spirits have no sugar in them whatsoever. Wine and beer have trace amounts left over from the brewing process, but only trace amounts. The only alcoholic drinks that have any meaningful amount of sugar in them are desert wines, sweet liqueurs, alchopop type drinks, and any drink that's got juice or cordial added.

Alcohol itself has plenty of calories but that's nothing to do with sugar.

alig123aileen

@Zillah yes I agree and should have clarified but its the mixers cocktails and ciders and mixers that are high in sugar. Also taking alcohol in this post makes blood sugars rise rapidly then a huge drop the next day causing you to feel hungover and desire a16 inch pizza and a can of coke or a lot of chocolate hence you are feeding simply feeding those blood sugars and hurtling towards diabetes.

Zillah

I don't think alcohol causes your blood sugar to rise, quite the opposite actually, and I've never heard of it being a contributing factor to diabetes.

Alf Veedersane

Zillah wrote: »

I don't think alcohol causes your blood sugar to rise, quite the opposite actually, and I've never heard of it being a contributing factor to diabetes.

My brother was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes at the age of 30. He started testing the impact of different foods and drinks on his blood sugar. I remember him finding beer sent his blood sugar one way and wine the opposite.

JohnBee

One problem with obesity in the western world, like many of our modern problems, is political correctness. Everything that is wrong nowadays cannot be mentioned for fear of upsetting people. Obesity is one of these. We are so frequently nowadays told that any mention of obesity is discrimination. So many TV shows focus on loving ourselves the way we are.
The result is that many unhealthy behaviours such as over eating and sedentery lifestyles have become normalized and untouchable. If we can change this in children then we have a chance for the future. If "normal" for our children is a spritely young teen with a full primary and secondary education focus behind them of focusing on activity and health eating then perhaps there is a chance.
At present this is difficult. I remember meeting a Japanese student who was surprised at the level of obesity in Ireland. She told me that back in Japan in her old school, that the overweight children got an hour extra of exercise EVERY morning. This sounds fantastic and no doubt will go some way to helping these children back to health. Can you imagine even suggesting that here? Everyone would cry discrimination.

Chuchote

A large part of the reason for obesity is the lack of exercise. People get out of bed and sit at the kitchen table, into the car and sit there till they get to work, sit at a desk, back into the car, then home and on to the couch.
If there were good, safe, protected cycleways an awful lot more people would cycle, and this factor wouldn't be there at least.
Alcohol and diabetes:
https://www.drinkaware.co.uk/alcohol-facts/health-effects-of-alcohol/diseases/alcohol-and-diabetes/

Drinking alcohol can contribute to the conditions that cause diabetes
There are three main ways drinking alcohol to excess can be a factor in causing diabetes:
1.Heavy drinking can reduce the body’s sensitivity to insulin, which can trigger type 2 diabetes.
2.Diabetes is a common side effect of chronic pancreatitis, which is overwhelmingly caused by heavy drinking.
3.Alcohol contains a huge amount of calories – one pint of lager can be equivalent to a slice of pizza. So drinking can also increase your chance of becoming overweight and your risk of developing type 2 diabetes.

rubadub

Zillah wrote: »

Vodka, gin, whiskey, and similar spirits have no sugar in them whatsoever.

Some spirits like whiskey can have added sugar in them, I would not be surprised if some gins & vodka do too (not talking about obviously flavoured ones). You simply do not know because they are still bizarrely exempt from having to list ingredients. Some brands might, like tesco. They can also have additives like glycerine to smoothen the taste. Many seem to think they are strictly distilled with absolutely no additives.

Our idiotic government were thinking of forcing alcohol producers to list calories but not ingredients. In the wine forum someone said its wine makers lobbying to keep it unlisted as they would have to declare all the crap they put in and ruin the illusion of it being pure.

alig123aileen wrote: »

@Zillah yes I agree and should have clarified but its the mixers cocktails and ciders and mixers that are high in sugar.

Dry ciders can have very low levels of sugar, its the muck like bulmers with all the additives and their deceitful borderline illegal adverts. Like the one saying it contains 100% pear juice, this simply means the fruit juice used in it is 100% pear, it is mainly water and has lots of added sugar.

alig123aileen wrote: »

Low fat yogurts are low in fat but twice as high in sugar.

Again this would only be some. I reckon some might avoid low fat stuff as they blindly believe it will be high in sugar -I hear it said a lot these days.

glenisk low fat natural yogurt is 4.9% sugar http://www.tesco.ie/groceries/Product/Details/?id=262372296

regular glenisk is 6.2%
http://www.tesco.ie/groceries/Product/Details/?id=262373928

Chuchote

Calories in alcohol, apparently:

bladespin

Chuchote wrote:

Calories in alcohol, apparently:

If it only stopped there it wouldn't be a huge issue regarding weight.

ford2600

Donal O'Shea's colleague on Newstalk admitting that dieting doesn't work long term for 90% of subjects

Sam Kade

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Cost. McDonalds have the money to get the calorie content of their menu, which is pretty much the same worldwide. Restaurants don't have the same resources.

They also don't cook to the same level of consistency in terms of ingredients and menus change so you're looking at a regular cost of getting calorie content assessed.

There may be scope for chains though.

Anyone going to McDonald's wouldn't be worried about their diet.

Blacktie.

Sam Kade wrote:

Anyone going to McDonald's wouldn't be worried about their diet.

That has absolutely no impact on what his pint is though.

Macy0161

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

They also don't cook to the same level of consistency in terms of ingredients and menus change so you're looking at a regular cost of getting calorie content assessed.

Just stumbled upon this thread now - surely it's not that hard? Myfitnesspal you can do a recipe in a minute or two, and I would've thought that most restaurants cost based on portions etc and have some track of that (or maybe they don't, and that's why they don't last!)? It'd really depend on the burden that's put on restaurants as to accuracy limits rather than it being too hard or costly.

Admittedly not fine dining, but when we go out, it's generally a standard menu with a few specials. Would most places really be turning over the entire menu daily?

Macy0161

ford2600 wrote: »

Donal O'Shea's colleague on Newstalk admitting that dieting doesn't work long term for 90% of subjects

My opinion is, as someone who's lost a significant amount of weight, and has tried a number of "diets" is that most prescribed diets try to do too much too quickly, and it isn't sustainable. Including on programmes such as Operation Transformation, who Donal O'Shea regularly appears on.

A 20 stone man does not, initially, have to go from breakfast roll to fruit salad for breakfast, which I think a lot of diets (and I see a lot of people in work attempt and fail, do. My experience is incremental changes is the way to go for sustaining weight loss (I'm not going to give the hostage to fortune as to the long term yet, but it feels like it's lifestyle change rather than a "diet")

Alf Veedersane

Macy0161 wrote: »

Just stumbled upon this thread now - surely it's not that hard? Myfitnesspal you can do a recipe in a minute or two, and I would've thought that most restaurants cost based on portions etc and have some track of that (or maybe they don't, and that's why they don't last!)? It'd really depend on the burden that's put on restaurants as to accuracy limits rather than it being too hard or costly.

Admittedly not fine dining, but when we go out, it's generally a standard menu with a few specials. Would most places really be turning over the entire menu daily?

Not daily bit seasonally depending on what they use. It's not even the higher cost ingredients that make the difference. Butter or cream etc isn't measured strictly. Sure, they have an idea but the point is that the calorie content may be quit different from what a menu says.

That doesn't apply to all restaurants. Many have the same menu all year round and it would be more likely to be closer though the calorie content of sauces etc would be likely to cause a variance.

But if all restaurants are included it means those with a fixed menu all year round and the ones who vary based on what is in season. The cost of determining calorie content for meals for the latter would be significantly higher than for the former and for a single restaurant it may be a financial burden that means the restaurant is no longer financially viable.

Even Donal O'Shea alluded to it in an interview and said it was the chains they were targeting.

ford2600

Macy0161 wrote: »

My opinion is, as someone who's lost a significant amount of weight, and has tried a number of "diets" is that most prescribed diets try to do too much too quickly, and it isn't sustainable. Including on programmes such as Operation Transformation, who Donal O'Shea regularly appears on.

A 20 stone man does not, initially, have to go from breakfast roll to fruit salad for breakfast, which I think a lot of diets (and I see a lot of people in work attempt and fail, do. My experience is incremental changes is the way to go for sustaining weight loss (I'm not going to give the hostage to fortune as to the long term yet, but it feels like it's lifestyle change rather than a "diet")

Operation Transformation is a crock of sh1te; if I as a lay person figured that out O'Shea probably has to but is probably damned if he does or doesn't contribute.

What they seem to be saying is a long term obese person has a dysfunction due to years of being obese for which calorie counting/dieting doesn't work in the long term. Most people can lose weight yes, but are limited to about a 10% reduction in overall mass in long term.

Their research is looking at an immune response as cause of body defending a high fat mass, Schwartz looked at it from a different point of view
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22238401

Zillah

ford2600 wrote: »

Their research is looking at an immune response as cause of body defending a high fat mass, Schwartz looked at it from a different point of view
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22238401

The abstract doesn't mention the word 'immune'. Are you sure you're not misinterpreting "biological defense"? By that I think they mean that the body sends excess hunger signals when it doesn't actually need more food, for example.

ford2600

Zillah wrote: »

The abstract doesn't mention the word 'immune'. Are you sure you're not misinterpreting "biological defense"? By that I think they mean that the body sends excess hunger signals when it doesn't actually need more food, for example.

Dr O'Shea's colleague mentioned the study looking at immune system in relation to obesity; Schwartz and Gueyenet study is entirely different.

I don't have link for immune study as Newstalk didn't put it on website