Katherine Thomas' series about slimming

Yes

it's about the explosion in use of ozempic & similar jabs. how easy it is to get, the effect of using them etc. it's interesting enough but like all these presenter/celeb type info shows bit light

Happy International Women's day !

Yeah he is a bit of a shite hawk. Weirdly the same day I watched the show. I heard Alister Campbell say it was one of Haris books that changed his stance on zero tolerence for drugs.

Absolute rubbish; more KT self promotion. After the second episode I don't get whether she thinks Ozempic is a good or a bad thing. A lot of her ruminating about the ethics of the 'weight loss market' ; little anecdote's about her kids and how she hopes they don't have to live through weight loss pressure. Funny, that this is the first time she has mentioned that she was pudgy herself and got jeered about it from her teacher in school, years of her presenting OT and no mention of this…

waste of time

She's the last person that should be presenting a show on this. Firstly, as a previous poster mentioned, there's a huge conflict of interest. If everyone starts using injections to lose weight, she loses her weight loss retreat business.

Secondly, it would be very difficult to pivot your thinking that going on a diet and losing weight over a few weeks is actually what is causing a lot of the obesity crisis. 90% of people put weight back on, and more, after losing weight through a calorie controlled diet. Why? Because your body increases your hunger hormones, decreases your fullness hormones and reduces your metabolism in order to force you back to your original weight. Imagine thinking that you were doing all these people good, when in fact it is more likely you were doing them harm? Have there ever been any "OT - Ten years on" programs? Because I know that on The Biggest Loser programs, the vast majority of participants put the weight back on after the shows.

I was put off the show by two quotes in an article in the independent about the show:

“We have plenty of doctors in the space who’ve studied this field, who went on camera and said, ‘Obesity is a disease, and here’s how and why this is a disease’. But there were plenty of other doctors that refused to be filmed for the documentary because they don’t think it’s a disease. They think it’s down to willpower, than down to metabolic adaptation. It’s probably one of the most polarising areas of medicine globally."

It's not polarising in medical community that specialise in metabolic, diabetic or obesity fields. I don't know where she got this from. Maybe these were GPs who have literally no training in how to treat obesity? If you were a doctor qualified in this field, and you thought these injections were doing more harm than good, why wouldn't you be shouting it from the rooftops?

And then it was followed by this:

“For me, I always remember Professor [of clinical exercise physiology] Niall Moyna saying that: exercise is free and it’s the closest thing to a magic pill there is. I am a big believer in that."

Which basically means these people could lose the weight if they just moved more. Basically bringing it back to the morality argument - fat people are lazy and therefore morally lacking. Exercise has actually virtually nothing to do with losing weight (which is the whole point of her show). Lifting weights might help prevent further weight gain, but if you are in circumstances where your body is trying to make you put back on weight, no amount of exercise is going to help. I can vouch for this one. I actually lost weight during the pregnancy of my third child as I had morning sickness all the way through. Six weeks after I gave birth, I weighed two stone lighter than I did before I got pregnant. I had signed up to do a mountain 10k with my mate about eight months after I gave birth. I was constantly ravenous for those months. I trained three times a week, and by the time I ran the race, I was four pounds heavier than my pre-pregnancy weight. The training did wonders for my mental health, put from a weight loss front, it was useless.

Semaglutide use for weight loss is not off-label. It's been fully trialled and approved for weightloss. It's not some unexpected side effect, it was well know that GLP-1 agonists have that potential.
Diabetic vrs Weightloss supply was more a labeling/supply chain issue. I suspect that's not on going as production increases.

Not sure what you mean by morality vrs calorie counting.

Well of course there no appetite supression if you are off the drug. That would be quire magical if it did.
And if you go back to eating like crap, of course you'll see the negative impacts. That applies to every single weight loss regime.

Exercise has nothing to do with losing weight? lol. That is simply not true. Weight loss is simple energy out vrs energy in. Exercises increases you output.

Your pregnancy example is a very niche case. Extended morning sickness meant your were in deficit, hence 2 stone weight loss - likely muscle loss being a significant part of this. Removing the sickness, returning to typical diet. It's not surprising that you retained weight, that's expected and nothing to do exercise. At most, the resistance train might have biased some muscle gain over fat gain.

New mum being 4lbs heavier post pregnancy is not a scathing indictment of exercise. It's entirely expected and normal.

"Exercise has nothing to do with losing weight? lol. That is simply not true. Weight loss is simple energy out vrs energy in. Exercises increases you output. "

Exercise increases output but it also increases hunger (potential input) and likely decreases N.E.A.T.

I wouldn't say Exercise can have nothing at all to do with weight loss, it is obviously important (especially long term due to increase in BMR over time), but diet is way more important at all stages.

Who is going to lose weight more efficiently:

Someone who does 500 calories of exercises and eats 250 calories of biscuits every day

or

Someone who goes on a 250 calorie deficit with no increase of exercise?

Why would exercise decrease NEAT? If anything I’d expect fitter people to be more active (outside exercise).

We are not talking about people who are already fit, we are talking about people who are trying to lose weight. Most people trying to lose weight are not already fit. In the short term people who are not yet fit will be less active after they exercise because they not used to it.

No way to tell how much first guy loses. Assuming he eats more than the biscuits. Obviously if he eats only 250caks of biscuits he loses a lot more.

The first guy eats at maintenance for a sedentary lifestyle, and then does 500 calories of exercises and eats 250 extra calories worth of biscuits every day. The point is the first guy is on a 250 deficit on paper, like the second guy, but he won't lose weight as efficiently (i.e. quickly and evenly) as the second person because of the effect exercise has on N.E.A.T.

You can't outrun a bad diet.

You can’t eat “a deficit”. People eat their intake, a deficit (or surplus) is the outcome of diet and total energy used.

You absolutely can eat on a deficit, it means to eat less than maintenance (the amount required to keep your weight static).

Most people trying to lose weight are not already fit. In the short term people who are not yet fit will be less active after they exercise because they not used to it.

I don’t think being fit or not changes basic physics. I see reason why NEAT would drop. And even if it did, it’s still net increase in TDEE.

Saying exercise does nothing is simply wrong (I know it’s wasn’t you that said that)

The first guy eats at maintenance for a sedentary lifestyle, and then does 500 calories of exercises and eats 250 extra calories worth of biscuits every day. The point is the first guy is on a 250 deficit on paper, like the second guy, but he won't lose weight as efficiently (i.e. quickly and evenly) as the second person because of the effect exercise has on N.E.A.T. 

If he is doing 500 on top of his diet he is not eating at maintenance. If he is eating biscuits on top it’s not maintenance. You’ve phrased that very awkwardly. If you are trying to say they both eat for a 250 deficit in different ways, just say that.

And they will lose weight at the same rate. The first guy will likely find it easier imo as he has a higher intake. That ankso proves exercise affects weight loss. It meant first guy could eat more lose the same, or eat the same and lose more.

because of the effect exercise has on N.E.A.T. 

Neat energy is included in daily energy. So it’s account for in deficit/maintenance. You don’t count it twice.

You can't outrun a bad diet

lmfao. Nobody claimed you can. That doesn’t counter anything I’ve said. That’s a pretty basic point, that I assumed was a given.

You absolutely can eat on deficit, it means to eat less than maintenance (the amount required to keep your weight static).

I think my point went over you head. I know what a deficit is lol. I literally explained it in the following sentence.I said you can’t eat “a deficit”, it’s not a tangible thing. Not that can’t be in deficit, obviously.

Eating increases intake. No food you eat can create a deficit in itself. If anything, “Not eating” is the deficit.

You consume energy, you burn energy. A deficit (or a surplus) is simply the difference between the two. That’s a really basic point, and it’s kinda crazy that people still disputing that in 2025.

It's just something to keep her employed. God help us if these people actually had to work for a living.

It's not a change in physics, it's unfit people getting tired from exercise and doing less NEAT during the day.

Have you any evidence that happens? Because it’s a pretty ludicrous claim.

My point is that there is not a net increase of TDEE in the short term

I understand your point. I’m saying it’s not true.Exercises increases TDEE, that’s an establishedfact. In both the short and long term. And I’d have thought that was obvious.

They wont lose weight at the same rate…

of course they will. It’s a 250 deficit in either case. I think you’ve got mixed up with a convoluted scenario.

Even if one had a reduced NEAT their maintenance calories would be reduced - otherwise it’s not maintenance (which was stated in the question)

As I never said you can any food can create a deficit in itself, I a wondering what you are arguing here? Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

I stated that you can’t eat a deficit, it’s a product of intake vrs outtake. Simple fact I thought.

You said “you absolutely can”…that sounds like you were disagreeing.