Obesity crisis in Ireland Mod Note post 1

It wasnt me123

Richard Hillman wrote: »

There is no crisis. Vested interests need to come out with more extreme "Report's" and "Studies" to seem relevant.

......

Enjoy your lives.

Do enjoy but don't expect me to pay for your heart surgery, your gastric bypass, your diabetes treatment, your cardio vascular problems, eye surgery or kidney treatment.

A lot of treatment in hospitals could have been avoided if the patients had watched their diets and moved off the couch.

Its ignorance and a lack of self control - there is plenty of education there, just see google.ie

freshpopcorn

Sabre0001 wrote: »

I'm also unsure as to how much activity is being encouraged in school - is P.E. still done in schools (particularly in secondary now that it's an examinable subject), are kids still encouraged to play in schoolyards now that parents will sue over any little bump or bruise?

.

Of the primary schools I know of they can do what ever kind of physical activity they want at lunch time apart from anything dangerous.
There'd no issue with running, chasing, basketball, football, tennis, etc.
Then there's soccer,football, hurling, etc sometimes they there's compentetions.
Swimming us done by all classes.
Then during the year when funds allow people come in from different sports/activities.
Then there's activity schools which basically encourages kids to be more active.
PE is done in most secondary schools. Most teachers now try and varey things up a little.
They are plenty of sports teams in secondary school with any teacher that is willing to try/make an effort.

Snow Garden

kennypowers wrote: »

Stop schools spending hours teaching about imaginary beings in the sky and replace with physical exercise.

You would not believe how many primary school PE hours are re-diverted for some other nonsense reason (e.g. communion work or another mass) or just because the lazy teacher didn't feel like doing it.

When will parents wake up and push religion out of the education system? Most are such cowards.

There should be some level of physical activity every single day. The kids love it.

Zorya

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Do enjoy but don't expect me to pay for your heart surgery, your gastric bypass, your diabetes treatment, your cardio vascular problems, eye surgery or kidney treatment.

A lot of treatment in hospitals could have been avoided if the patients had watched their diets and moved off the couch.

Its ignorance and a lack of self control - there is plenty of education there, just see google.ie

Now I am not professionally trained to read scientific reports, but a study done in Denmark in 2016 put the lowest mortality across all groups at a BMI of 27. Which is over weight. And considerably higher than the lowest mortality BMI in the 70s which was about 23 or so. Yeah, I know there are lots of variables in the study etc, but the overall result is there in black and white. One theory is that all those helpful surgeries you mention may be helping the chubsters as they outflank the skinnies on the inside track Tortoise beats hare, again. Dagnabbit.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2520627#top

joe40

If anyone thinks an hour of PE a week is going to make any impact on a kids life they are deluded.
It is the role and responsibity of parents to rear their own kids. That means ensuring they receive enough exercise, and get a healthy diet. That is what looking after children involves. Some people want to abdicate their responsibility and leave it all up to schools.
If you have young children you need to ensure they have a healthy lifestyle, no one else can do it for you.

Snow Garden

Zorya wrote: »

It starts very young. It's gruesome to see the amount of sweets very small children eat. That has to completely mess up their metabolic systems. Yet they are often doled out as pacifiers. At Easter now the smallest child will have a sea of chocolate. Their poor bodies. And then they get ADHD diagnoses and people wonder why. I didn't allow mine to have any sweets until they were about four. I know, what a grinch! Of course I had people saying I was cruel, grannies and grandads saying they wanted to give them a treat. Funny that the word spoil has different meanings. But their palates were trained to love ordinary food. Sugar destroys a child's palate, maybe for life. It's crack cocaine for kids.

You are right. Diabetes will be an epidemic very soon.

Parents know the harms and yet almost compete to 'spoil' their kids.

Zorya

Snow Garden wrote: »

You are right. Diabetes will be an epidemic very soon.

Parents know the harms and yet almost compete to 'spoil' their kids.

Right maybe, but very, very grinchy ah well...

It wasnt me123

TomSweeney wrote: »

And wait till you see how bad it will get with all these electric scooters now becoming the norm, I can't understand parents who get this crap for their kids - in one swoop eliminating lots of future exercise, endangering your kids health.

Oh I thought you were talking about the parents on the electric scooters as they are unable to walk anymore - most don't have limb problems, but weight problems.

Dakotabigone

You will see as over in the uk people getting mobility scooters because they will be too fat and lazy to walk to Macdonalds.

Macy0161

The majority of people overweight or obese on the bmi scale are not there because they're packing on the muscle. I'm not saying it's the best measure, but it's an indicator for the majority of the population, I think it's nonsense to dismiss it based on outliers.

JupiterKid

I was in a convenience store around the corner from my workplace at lunchtine today and whilst I ordered from the lady at the deli counter to make up a sandwich for me, three people with small children ordered sausage rolls and chicken nuggets (very big bags,) for their kids.

At the till, one of the kids threw a tantrum and her mother got her an ice cream bar to quieten her down instead of saying no.

I can't help but think its lots of actions like these that are fuelling the problem.

freshpopcorn

Snow Garden wrote: »

You would not believe how many primary school PE hours are re-diverted for some other nonsense reason (e.g. communion work or another mass) or just because the lazy teacher didn't feel like doing it.

When will parents wake up and push religion out of the education system? Most are such cowards.

There should be some level of physical activity every single day.

A few years ago the local priests basically said all preparation for the Communion would be done outside of school on a few evening and and a few Sunday masses before the day.
So minimal stuff would be done in school.
Guess what happened a campaign was set up to have it all done in school. It was mainly done by a man who hates the church/always complaining about it.
In the end they made a few changes/etc but people weren't willing to put a bit of effort in.
This is the kind of rubbish you've to out up with.

LirW

freshpopcorn wrote: »

A few years ago the local priests basically said all preparation for the Communion would be done outside of school on a few evening and and a few Sunday masses before the day.
So minimal stuff would be done in school.
Guess what happened a campaign was set up to have it all done in school. It was mainly done by a man who hates the church/always complaining about it.
In the end they made a few changes/etc but people weren't willing to put a bit of effort in.
This is the kind of rubbish you've to out up with.

Reminds me of that priest in a Carlow parish who said he isn't doing a set date for communion and kids can get it at any Sunday mass that suits them.
Parents were rioting and one mother dragged her kid to the papers and they printed an article with the kid in ridiculous praying poses ("Why does God not love me?")
Same mother was protesting against the church months earlier during the referendum campaign.

My son's school does a lot with the kids in regard of keeping them informed and healthy. But all the effort is for nothing when parents don't pull their weight.

metaoblivia

joe40 wrote: »

Once you have excess weight your body will fight to keep it.

Yes. I have a cousin who has been obese her entire life. Her mother was obese and that's how she grew up. She's never weighed under 200lbs in her adult life (she's also 5"10, so just a big woman in general).

My cousin now has two kids, both of whom are perfectly average in size - not overweight at all. That's because my cousin cooks healthy meals for her family. She also began working out 5 times a week a little over a year ago and lost 40lbs in fairly short order. And then she stopped losing weight. She was eating healthy and still working out (weights and resistance training with some cardio), but the weight was no longer shifting. Despite her weight loss, if you were to see her on the street, you'd definitely think she was obese.

My cousin isn't lazy. She works full time with special needs children, has two children of her own, refurbishes vintage furniture and attends local markets regularly to sell those items, plans family meals, continues to work out 4-5 times a week. But if she wants to ever be a "normal" size, she's going to have to fight for it because her body has settled into a weight range. And if she ever gets to that normal size, she'll have to continue fighting just to maintain that weight for the rest of her life. It's an incredibly tough cycle to be in and has to be demoralizing to hear others - who don't have to fight as hard to maintain a normal weight - accuse her of just being lazy and not having the willpower.

Richard Hillman

It wasnt me123 wrote: »

Do enjoy but don't expect me to pay for your heart surgery, your gastric bypass, your diabetes treatment, your cardio vascular problems, eye surgery or kidney treatment.

A lot of treatment in hospitals could have been avoided if the patients had watched their diets and moved off the couch.

Its ignorance and a lack of self control - there is plenty of education there, just see google.ie

For whatever you will pay for with a surgery, you'll pay multiple times for late age Alzheimer's or dementia. 24 hour care and misery for all parties. Even if a person avoided those ills and Lived healthily until they are in their 90s, that's 20+ years of a state pension.

Widdensushi

Snow Garden wrote: »

You would not believe how many primary school PE hours are re-diverted for some other nonsense reason (e.g. communion work or another mass) or just because the lazy teacher didn't feel like doing it.

When will parents wake up and push religion out of the education system? Most are such cowards.

There should be some level of physical activity every single day. The kids love it.

It's not the schools responsibility to raise your children, obviously they have to give guidance but if the children are obese it's not the schools fault

freshpopcorn

LirW wrote: »

Reminds me of that priest in a Carlow parish who said he isn't doing a set date for communion and kids can get it at any Sunday mass that suits them.
Parents were rioting and one mother dragged her kid to the papers and they printed an article with the kid in ridiculous praying poses ("Why does God not love me?")
Same mother was protesting against the church months earlier during the referendum campaign.

My son's school does a lot with the kids in regard of keeping them informed and healthy. But all the effort is for nothing when parents don't pull their weight.

They also moved it from a Saturday to a Sunday.
All the parents had to was up sell it to the kids bit they made a drama out of it to them. All the same crap was said.

They are lots of teachers out there who try and do extra activities that they don't have to but they do it for the kids. Regarding to encourage activity/etc.
Sometimes when schools do extra curricular sports/etc they have to be paid or fundraised for because not everything is free. The thought of contributing €5 towards something tough horrifies parents.
Schools/teachers understand that some families may have financial issues.

ceadaoin.

Snow Garden wrote: »

You are right. Diabetes will be an epidemic very soon.

Parents know the harms and yet almost compete to 'spoil' their kids.

Everything in moderation. I find the kids who are denied sweets or who are given them as a reward for good behaviour only become almost obsessed with them. These are the kids who stuff themselves with rubbish when they get the chance and grow up to have an unhealthy attitude to food.

My daughter has cookies, chocolate etc. And to be honest, she would have something like that everyday. There's no lunch box police here! She even has McDonald's once a week after her swimming class, someone call social services! But she eats home cooked meals most of the week, swims, rides her bike and scooter and is very healthy and borderline underweight (the doctor isn't concerned, it's her body type, she is tall and small framed like I am)

Snow Garden

Widdensushi wrote: »

It's not the schools responsibility to raise your children, obviously they have to give guidance but if the children are obese it's not the schools fault

Wow I guess you totally missed the point i.e. PE should not be skipped. It's only 30 minutes twice a week in primary so if it cannot be done on a particular day for some reason, then it should be rescheduled.

Also if it is too wet to let the kids into the yards, they should do some physical activity indoors where possible. I know one large primary school that does Zumba in the hall on wet days.

It wasnt me123

Richard Hillman wrote: »

For whatever you will pay for with a surgery, you'll pay multiple times for late age Alzheimer's or dementia. 24 hour care and misery for all parties. Even if a person avoided those ills and Lived healthily until they are in their 90s, that's 20+ years of a state pension.

I don't mind paying for a OAPs pension, just not their pension and multiple hospital stays.

I agree that anyone being kept healthy just to suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's or MND etc, is not good - for them or the public purse.

Dalomanakora

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I have a major issue with SW and the way they have this whole syns based points scoring system.
From the outset it creates a negative mindset surrounding food by calling certain foods or food types "syns". It is bringing in guilt and shame about food which is not helpful. That same guilt and shame can drive people to comfort eat. But hey, SW is a business and it is in their interests for their clients not to succeed and blame themselves when they don't so that they keep coming to SW.

I actually agree with everything you say tbh. There's a lot I don't agree with in SW, and the over-reliance on some processed foods irritates me massively - although they're trying to fix this now by adding small "syn" values to those Muller light poison yogurts, and the pasta mugshot thingies.



For me, it's about accountability. I follow SW loosely. If I start craving sugar, I know my body wants more protein, so I'll have a couple of nuts or some fatty meat.


But going to a weekly weigh in with friends keeps me accountable and on track, whereas I know I'd honestly struggle without having to answer to someone

Dtp1979

metaoblivia wrote: »

Yes. I have a cousin who has been obese her entire life. Her mother was obese and that's how she grew up. She's never weighed under 200lbs in her adult life (she's also 5"10, so just a big woman in general).

My cousin now has two kids, both of whom are perfectly average in size - not overweight at all. That's because my cousin cooks healthy meals for her family. She also began working out 5 times a week a little over a year ago and lost 40lbs in fairly short order. And then she stopped losing weight. She was eating healthy and still working out (weights and resistance training with some cardio), but the weight was no longer shifting. Despite her weight loss, if you were to see her on the street, you'd definitely think she was obese.

My cousin isn't lazy. She works full time with special needs children, has two children of her own, refurbishes vintage furniture and attends local markets regularly to sell those items, plans family meals, continues to work out 4-5 times a week. But if she wants to ever be a "normal" size, she's going to have to fight for it because her body has settled into a weight range. And if she ever gets to that normal size, she'll have to continue fighting just to maintain that weight for the rest of her life. It's an incredibly tough cycle to be in and has to be demoralizing to hear others - who don't have to fight as hard to maintain a normal weight - accuse her of just being lazy and not having the willpower.

Your cousin isn’t lazy. If she wants to lose more weight then she has to consume less calories.

AllForIt

The expression 'everything in moderation' does't quite work anymore because of what we eat nowadays.

Specifically, if you eat biscuits/cake/junk food every day, which are either full of hydrogenated fat or sugar or both, and you are not overweight indeed even slim, you still have a problem.

I'll keep this post short rather than go into further details about it but suggest you google 'trans fat' and read the dangers of it. Especially if your happy your children are eating it every day and they are not overweight because it's a little bit more problematic than that. https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/fats/trans-fat

Cake Man

metaoblivia wrote: »

But if she wants to ever be a "normal" size, she's going to have to fight for it because her body has settled into a weight range. And if she ever gets to that normal size, she'll have to continue fighting just to maintain that weight for the rest of her life. .

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. No human body just "settles into a weight range". You're weight is dictated by how many calories you consistently take in, it's as simple as that. If you are consistently taking in less calories than your body needs, you WILL lose weight. To claim otherwise means you'd be trying to defy the laws of thermodynamics. If your cousin isn't losing weight, it's because he/she simply isn't in a calorie deficit. That's all it is, not this concept of the body "settling into a weight range" crap, which smacks of a defeatist attitude and "Oh I'm just going to give up because obviously my body doesn't want to shift the weight..." mentality.

ceadaoin.

AllForIt wrote: »

The expression 'everything in moderation' does't quite work anymore because of what we eat nowadays.

Specifically, if you eat biscuits/cake/junk food every day, which are either full of hydrogenated fat or sugar or both, and you are not overweight indeed even slim, you still have a problem.

I'll keep this post short rather than go into further details about it but suggest you google 'trans fat' and read the dangers of it. Especially if your happy your children are eating it every day and they are not overweight because it's a little bit more problematic than that. https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-smart/fats/trans-fat

Yeah I know about trans fats. It is possible to buy products such as biscuits that don't contain them. It's being phased out anyway and products are all labelled. Other than that my heart is extremely fine, resting heart rate in the low to high 50s, I don't have high cholesterol and never have (and I have a check up including bloods yearly). So I'm not gonna panic about my 7 year old eating a couple of cookies with her lunch that also features fresh fruit and vegetables. Pretty sure she is not at risk of high cholesterol at her age

Saying with certainty that someone "has a problem" with their health despite knowing nothing about them is scaremongering nonsense tbh.

mickrock

FutureGuy wrote: »

We are now being told that it's ok to be fat.

It's not ok. It's damaging. People need to take some responsibility for themselves.

NEWSFLASH!

It seems that being "overweight" is healthier than being of "normal" weight. Although scientific studies indicate this, it's not considered PC to promote this sort of information. Here's what Dr Malcolm Kendrick has to say:


'Despite the fact that study after study has demonstrated quite clearly that "overweight" people live the longest, no one can bring themselves to say: "Sorry, we were wrong. A BMI between 25 and 29 is the healthiest weight of all. For those of you between 20 and 25, I say, eat more, become healthier." Who would dare say such a thing? Not anyone with tenure at a leading university, that's for sure.

In truth, this discussion should not quite stop here. For even when we get into those with a BMI greater than 30, those who truly are defined as "obese", the health dangers are greatly overestimated, mainly because of the widespread use of what I call the statistical "clumping game". Obesity researchers are world-leading experts at the clumping game. In most studies, the entire population is divided ("clumped") into four groups: underweight, normal weight, overweight and obese – obese being defined as a BMI of 30 and above. That means those with a BMI of 31 are clumped together as part of a group which includes those with a BMI of 50 – and above. What does this tell us about the health problems of having a BMI of 31? Well, absolutely nothing.

There is no doubt that becoming heavier and heavier must, at some point, damage your health and reduce your life expectancy. Where is this point? Well, it is certainly not anywhere between 25 and 30, and it could be even higher. Indeed, I have seen research on Italian women showing that a BMI of 33 was associated with the longest life expectancy. In other studies, where obesity was actually further sub-divided, those with a BMI between 30 and 35 lived longer than those of so-called "normal" weight.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-10158229.html

Gimme A Pound

I think addiction to sugar (including stodgy carbs) is a thing though. I mean you have people (like me) who get pudgy due to just eating too much and being a lazy arse during the winter, and then the days get longer and the weight is lost easily enough.

But then there are people who are so massively obese that I don't think they have an off switch. Nobody wants to get to that size. Every now and again (usually that time of the month) I have an uncontrollable craving for junk food. Imagine feeling that way all the time. Nobody would choose that - must be a kind of hell.

joe40

Cake Man wrote: »

metaoblivia wrote: »

But if she wants to ever be a "normal" size, she's going to have to fight for it because her body has settled into a weight range. And if she ever gets to that normal size, she'll have to continue fighting just to maintain that weight for the rest of her life. .

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. No human body just "settles into a weight range". You're weight is dictated by how many calories you consistently take in, it's as simple as that. If you are consistently taking in less calories than your body needs, you WILL lose weight. To claim otherwise means you'd be trying to defy the laws of thermodynamics. If your cousin isn't losing weight, it's because he/she simply isn't in a calorie deficit. That's all it is, not this concept of the body "settling into a weight range" crap, which smacks of a defeatist attitude and "Oh I'm just going to give up because obviously my body doesn't want to shift the weight..." mentality.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/why-its-so-hard-to-lose-excess-weight-and-keep-it-off-the-biggest-losers-experience-2018031213396

Not sure if this copied properly, but it is much harder for a person who was previously overweight to maintain a healthy weight than for a person that was never overweight to begin with.
If you and me were the same (healthy) weight but I was previously overweight we could not have the same lifestyle. I would be much more prone to putting weight on and would have to be extra vigilant.
Obviously not impossible but losing weight is much easier than maintaining weight loss.

Wibbs

Cake Man wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. No human body just "settles into a weight range". You're weight is dictated by how many calories you consistently take in, it's as simple as that.

Actually it's not that simple[edit] Joe got ahead of me. . It's a simplistic view of human metabolism alright, but that's about it.

It has been known and shown for many a year that the body does indeed fight to say at a certain weight. The so called set point. This works well in average weight people, but for the long term obese it's very different. It seems the longer the body is at a particular weight the more it sees around that weight as "normal". This can be seen in very underweight people, even those suffering from anorexia. They don't put on weight nearly as quickly as their intake would suggest. Here's a study from 2010(it's been backed up even more since, but the ones I can find are behind a paywall for researchers).

It's a bit long as the actress said to the bishop, but the pertinent part is this;

There is evidence for the idea that there is biological (active) control of body weight at a given set point. Body weight is the product of genetic effects (DNA), epigenetic effects (heritable traits that do not involve changes in DNA), and the environment. Regulation of body weight is asymmetric, being more effective in response to weight loss than to weight gain. However, regulation may be lost or camouflaged by Western diets, suggesting that the failure of biological control is due mainly to external factors. In this situation, the body’s ‘set point’ (i.e., a constant ‘body-inherent’ weight regulated by a proportional feedback control system) is replaced by various ‘settling points’ that are influenced by energy and macronutrient intake in order for the body to achieve a zero energy balance.

So nope, it's not quite "as simple as that". That's before we get to the gender differences in weigh gain and loss which are many.

mickrock wrote: »

NEWSFLASH!

It seems that being "overweight" is healthier than being of "normal" weight. Although scientific studies indicate this, it's not considered PC to promote this sort of information.

I've read a few of them alright. Though I would say that most were lax on the matter of cofactors in this result. Things like socioeconomic background, population origin(different populations gain weight in different ways. EG Some African populations are more prone to weight gain than some East Asian populations), geographic origin(a fat Italian lass is likely eating a very different diet than a fat Australian), even factors like smoking. (Smokers tend to be thinner). I noted the effect was much greater for women than men and extra weight in men was more correlated with earlier mortality.

There's also the matter of those overweight oldest people studied. Those say 90 years old would have become fat on a very different diet than 20 year olds today. They were also much less likely to be overweight kids. If you look at the trajectory of medium levels of weight gain, they start off as normal kids and teens and in the twenties the weight creeps up, then by the forties "middle aged spread" is evident in both sexes. A while ago I read a study of dress sizes of European women divided by country and age group. And a few interesting things emerged. Irish women were more likely to be overweight at 25, but they stayed in and around that weight into middle age, whereas Italian women were more likely to small of frame, like two, even three dress sizes smaller, yet they tended to shoot up in weight after their mid 30's and were the same size or bigger than Irish women of that age and up. This trend tended to be common through Europe, except for French women, they tended to buck the trend and showed the least weight gain through life. It's the stinky cheese and wine.

So when they're interviewing fat 90 years olds, in the studies I've read they're very rarely asking the questions about what their weight and weight changes were throughout life. Again very different to someone who has been overweight since four, rather than forty.

That said I'd well be inclined to believe much of it. Maybe the monkey brain thinks "I'm fat, times must be good, better reproduce like mad and to do that let's stay healthier"?

Naos

Wibbs wrote: »

Makes sense S as muscle is heavier than fat.

Well, its not really. 1kg of muscle will weigh the same a 1kg of fat, muscle just takes up less space.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I just checked my BMI,out of interest.
According to the chart, I'm very overweight, and very close to becoming obese.

I'm a size 8-10 and have 17% body fat. My shape is lean and in proportion.
I'm not an athlete, I go to the gym 3/4 times a week, eat relatively well and get my 10k steps in.
I wouldn't consider myself to be super fit or anything like that.

To be fair for a woman at 17% BF you'd want to be very lean, how was this measured? And what is your height and weight?

Richard Hillman wrote: »

There is no crisis. Vested interests need to come out with more extreme "Report's" and "Studies" to seem relevant.

Anyway, who wants to be a 5k run a day person, when all that will happen is that you'll end up in a nursing home in your 80s, unable to remember your children's name and having somebody wipe your bum for you.

Enjoy your lives.

I hear this bandied around a lot and to be fair, it's a poor view. It is a good feeling to be able to run 5km, go on a hike or simply walking up the stairs without being out of breath.

Most people who eat crap and don't exercise just don't realise how clouded their minds are most of the time. It's only when your eat well and your energy levels stabilise that your realise it.