Obesity crisis in Ireland Mod Note post 1

Gimme A Pound · 08-02-2019 11:25pm

Some very high calorie foods there LaPierre. You need the calories when you do that much physical activity though. Fair play.

07Lapierre · 08-02-2019 11:37pm

Marvin Flabby Twinkle wrote: »

Some very high calorie foods there LaPierre. You need the calories when you do that much physical activity though. Fair play.

Actually I should point out that that I will be doing 100k cycle tomorrow and a "short" 40k cycle on Sunday too. (I try to do 300k per week)

What I'm really trying to point out is that it really is a question of calories in v calories out. If you do enough exercise, you can eat what you like. If you don't exercise, your not burning a lot of calories,so you don't need a lot of food. It really is that simple.

waxmoth · 08-02-2019 11:40pm

Augeo wrote: »

.....

You're moving from them being forever hungry now to a changes in physiology of long-term obese people ...........big yawn.
........

The physiological differences take the form of changes in the gut microbiota which harvest energy more or less efficiently from the diet so it is not a simple personal choice equation. This has been demonstrated by faecal transplantation resulting in rapid change in body mass.

How the microbiome is changed is open to different theories but low dose antibiotics are used in some agricultural practices to increase weight. Depending on dietary residues or possibly medication history the same process may be happening inadvertently in humans.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05414/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11400

There are many other factors but this is probably the fundamental one.

Bigbagofcans · 08-02-2019 11:45pm

LaPierre, everything you eat sounds so delicious! Fair play to you exercising hard and eating so many yummy things whilst maintaining a healthy weight.

Gimme A Pound · 08-02-2019 11:46pm

07Lapierre wrote: »

Actually I should point out that that I will be doing 100k cycle tomorrow and a "short" 40k cycle on Sunday too. (I try to do 300k per week)

What I'm really trying to point out is that it really is a question of calories in v calories out. If you do enough exercise, you can eat what you like. If you don't exercise, your not burning a lot of calories,so you don't need a lot of food. It really is that simple.

It needs to be extremely intense exercise though. A good walk every day, while beneficial, won't cut it calorie burning-wise. You'd still need to keep your sugar and refined carb and booze intake limited.

07Lapierre · 08-02-2019 11:51pm

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

LaPierre, everything you eat sounds so delicious! Fair play to you exercising hard and eating so many yummy things whilst maintaining a healthy weight.

Life's too short to be on a diet!

My wife does the shopping on a Saturday morning...she's asked me if there was anything I wanted, so I've "ordered" Hobnob biscuits x 2 packets and 12 bottles of Erdinger! (500ml).

07Lapierre · 08-02-2019 11:55pm

Marvin Flabby Twinkle wrote: »

It needs to be extremely intense exercise though. A good walk every day, while beneficial, won't cut it calorie burning-wise. You'd still need to keep your sugar and refined carb and booze intake limited.

Agree...I don't actually consider my diet is that healthy TBH.

Solomon Pleasant · 09-02-2019 12:41am

Some fairly valid points on here, I reckon the obesity crisis stems from a few things.

1. We’ve become a lazy bunch in many ways. Not to sound cynical or label all fat people as lazy, but there is a direct correlation between less exercise and weight gain, especially if the diet isn’t great. A lot of people aren’t bothered cooking which is due to the increases availability of fast food, both parents working and neither having the energy and time to cook and general unwillingness to learn.

2. For many obese people, food is a coping mechanism - this is the psychological issues that people have mentioned on this thread. I don’t think over eating can be excused due to issues that are happening or have happened in someone’s life. You have to deal with the core issues because the crux, regardless of whether it’s food, alcohol or nicotine does not solve the issue - it just covers up the pain. Confront the problem and try solve the actual issue,stuffing your face won’t do anything except make you more miserable in the long run sadly.

3. I think corporations have a role in this epidemic as well. Everything is stuffed full of bloody sugar, it pisses me off to no end. The vast majority of cereals which kids are eating every morning should be illegalised - I’m not joking, it’s pure and utter ****e. Nearly everything you pick up in a super market is sugar rampant and so many people are addicted to sugar now because of it. Fizzy drinks are a cancer on society, pure dirt. Naturally no one forced anyone to buy these things, but marketing departments are clever and consumers are manipulated through consumer psychology every time they step inside a store. I feel it’s unfair to have this ****e so widespread and no way should sugar be allowed pumped into so many products.

There’s other reasons aswell but I reckon they are big ones like.

The Satanist · 09-02-2019 12:45am

Ever see a fat junkie?

Exactly.

Heroin in schools is the only answer.

07Lapierre · 09-02-2019 12:58am

Solomon Pleasant wrote: »

Some fairly valid points on here, I reckon the obesity crisis stems from a few things.

1. We’ve become a lazy bunch in many ways. Not to sound cynical or label all fat people as lazy, but there is a direct correlation between less exercise and weight gain, especially if the diet isn’t great. A lot of people aren’t bothered cooking which is due to the increases availability of fast food, both parents working and neither having the energy and time to cook and general unwillingness to learn.

2. For many obese people, food is a coping mechanism - this is the psychological issues that people have mentioned on this thread. I don’t think over eating can be excused due to issues that are happening or have happened in someone’s life. You have to deal with the core issues because the crux, regardless of whether it’s food, alcohol or nicotine does not solve the issue - it just covers up the pain. Confront the problem and try solve the actual issue,stuffing your face won’t do anything except make you more miserable in the long run sadly.

3. I think corporations have a role in this epidemic as well. Everything is stuffed full of bloody sugar, it pisses me off to no end. The vast majority of cereals which kids are eating every morning should be illegalised - I’m not joking, it’s pure and utter ****e. Nearly everything you pick up in a super market is sugar rampant and so many people are addicted to sugar now because of it. Fizzy drinks are a cancer on society, pure dirt. Naturally no one forced anyone to buy these things, but marketing departments are clever and consumers are manipulated through consumer psychology every time they step inside a store. I feel it’s unfair to have this ****e so widespread and no way should sugar be allowed pumped into so many products.

There’s other reasons aswell but I reckon they are big ones like.

There are other factors too.

As a keen cyclist, every day I see kids being driven to school (because the roads are too dangerous?). These same kids are collected from school by car, driven to dance class, or football practice after school etc. For a lot of adults, they have no option but to drive to/from work because they were forced to buy houses miles away from where they work ( in towns that have no bus or rail connections).

Even how we work nowadays is bad for us. I spend 8 hours a day sitting at a desk looking at a screen! No wonder people resort to take away food....there too tired in the evenings to cook and fast food is so readily available!

#rant over.

4ensic15 · 09-02-2019 1:45am

It is a lot better than a famine anyway. I would sooner die of obesity than starvation.

Ardillaun · 09-02-2019 3:15am

07Lapierre wrote: »

Actually I should point out that that I will be doing 100k cycle tomorrow and a "short" 40k cycle on Sunday too. (I try to do 300k per week)

What I'm really trying to point out is that it really is a question of calories in v calories out. If you do enough exercise, you can eat what you like. If you don't exercise, your not burning a lot of calories,so you don't need a lot of food. It really is that simple.

True enough about the calories but how is that useful advice to obese people? I’d say most of them have heard that already.

You’re a little exceptional in the energy expenditure department. And apart from innate athleticism and superior co-ordination, if you’re doing all this in Ireland you must have some strong risk-taking tendencies to be braving the Irish roads on a bicycle so often. There’s also a question of causation here. It was shown many years ago in London that thinner young men chose to become bus conductors while their portlier peers stayed sitting in the driving seat.

Thing is, our bodies don’t sense how much food we need very well when it is so unusually abundant as it is today. Both authors on that paper I quoted are on the high side of an ideal BMI despite being exquisitely aware of the causative factors involved.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 09-02-2019 4:27am

Augeo wrote: »

Actual science is conclusive and removes doubt by being empirical.....anything short of that is twaddle.

You said you had a degree in “it”, the “it” appeared to be an Actual ScienceTM. So, ah, yes you did say you have a science degree of some sort. Why so coy now? I didn’t ask what science was. I asked what your specific discipline was. Any undergrad science degree - if it’s any good - should give you a grounding in analysing journal articles. And anyone with an undergrad science degree from a decent institution knows that it takes a lot longer than 10-15 minutes to analyse even one journal article, never mind four.

And do you think biological disciplines don’t use empirical evidence? But as for science always being conclusive - any decent scientist who isn’t ego-driven and who remains curious would never say that they 100% can’t be proven wrong. Are you... sure you studied a scientific discipline? I don’t know how anyone could gain a degree in it and think that the sciences are such a static field. Many things are conclusive for the time and technology. But future innovations can always blow old theories out of the water.

Why are my qualifications of so much interest?

Once again, YOU brought up your science qualifications. Nobody else. You clearly deemed them to be of importance. Don’t pout because you’re being pressed on the relevance of that statement or what the discipline was. Nobody can make you elaborate but it’s curious that you are being squirrelly about the topic now. Once again for the cheap seats at the back, YOU brought it up.

You still haven't offered a view on the old perseverance requirements to weight-loss.....you don't seem to like that one for whatever reason. If you don't quit you can't fail....perseverance.

I have offered a view on it - you just didn’t agree with it. I said that recidivism is very high amongst long-term obese folks who lose weight. This is true. I said that a small percentage do succeed in maintaining the weight loss. Naturally it would be damn near unlikely that the recidivism rate will be 100%. There are always outliers. In the same way that some people can give up booze (in the category who are alcohol-dependent) or cigs cold turkey and never look back. These people are in the minority. It would be interesting to read studies on them. I’m sure somebody has researched the outliers. But for the great majority of formerly long-term obese people who gain back all or nearly all the weight - studies have been done. What I linked above was four articles at random of many. The bibliographies aren’t short. I can’t make you read the articles or any interesting ones in the references. But scoffingly dismissing them scarcely tens minutes after I put them up doesn’t maked you seem learned. It indicates that you barely glanced at them and you certainly didn’t analyse them. Which is fine. But you asked me to provide something and I did. For somebody who was on the move at the time, I think I did pretty well.

mickrock · 09-02-2019 4:53am

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not convinced there is an obesity crisis. Look around you and most people, men and women, are good looking nowadays.

I agree—I don't think there is an obesity crisis or epidemic.

Historically many people were underweight but these days most people are normal weight or a bit on the plump side, while a small number are too heavy. Being somewhat fat isn't any less healthy than being of "normal" weight and is a lot better than being underweight.

Ardillaun · 09-02-2019 4:55am

Regarding vigorous exercise, this is what would pique my curiosity if it ever happened: 1000 obese men aged 25-35 enrol in program A and more than 50% attain a normal weight and maintain it for 20 years. Now that would be news. Of course, many highly active people have never even been overweight and quite a few of them would be surprised how little weight they would gain if they gave up their marathons. Humans are highly variable. The calories in/calories out argument has to include the fact that each person has a different, innate balance in these numbers.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 09-02-2019 5:31am

Augeo wrote: »

That doesn't at all make out that there's an infinite hunger that can't be overcome which is what was claimed in here and allegedly backed up somewhere.

Professor O’Rahilly mentions the “greater appetite drive” - a direct quote from the excerpt Ardillaun posts - that I and others have talked about in the thread. He talks about the fact that the effort required is so much greater. Again, this was talked about in this thread. This is an expert in the field. But apparently empirical data isn’t used in biological studies so we can all deregard that, natch. :rolleyes:

"Because of this, the conscious effort that needs to be made by the obese to slim down to a normal body weight is likely to be far greater than that required for a naturally lean person to remain so. This not only refers to the issue of greater appetitive drive but also to the neuroendocrine adaptations to weight loss that tend to conserve energy in the “reduced obese” state, making continued weight loss harder still"

It’s tough, not easy, wow, we all know that.

Your lack of self-awareness is truly staggering.

O’Rahilly also refers to the hormonal reasons that people have mentioned here with regards to long-term obese people and what that does to appetite. So, let’s get this straight... we’re all talking twaddle and so is the good Prof?

A really thought-provoking and pertinent article, Ardillaun. Thanks for posting it.

Trump Is Right · 09-02-2019 5:41am

Marvin Flabby Twinkle wrote: »

Are eggs high in fat?

Yep. They're pretty much almost 50/50 between fat and protein... always amazes me how many people view them as a pure source of protein and ignore the fat content. (it's understandable, because they are a healthy food)

It's mostly all healthy fats, but you still need to be careful how much total fat you are eating per day/week... even the healthy fats.

Trump Is Right · 09-02-2019 6:01am

07Lapierre wrote: »

Actually I should point out that that I will be doing 100k cycle tomorrow and a "short" 40k cycle on Sunday too. (I try to do 300k per week)

What I'm really trying to point out is that it really is a question of calories in v calories out. If you do enough exercise, you can eat what you like. If you don't exercise, your not burning a lot of calories,so you don't need a lot of food. It really is that simple.

Yes and no... I do know a few people that used to clock up insane mileage running and doing triathlons etc...

And they would actually tell me that not only can they get away with eating a certain amount of junk, but that their bodies actually NEED a certain amount of these high calorie foods because of their high energy requirements...

But a fair few of these guys have suffered illness and long term injuries over the last few years. They don't look too great IMO, and two of them have packed on serious pounds since being forced to quit their endurance sports. You wouldn't even know they used to be athletes, because of the weight gain and how drained / exhausted they look... and they're only mid to late 40's in age!!

I think you'll get away with those habits for a while... but then your body will possibly collapse. That's what I've seen anyway. But each to their own really... if you're enjoying your lifestyle and sport and you feel good, then work away... your diet isn't terrible anyway. It could be cleaner, but I've also seen MUCH worse tbh!!

joeguevara · 09-02-2019 6:12am

Trump Is Right wrote: »

Yes and no... I do know a few people that used to clock up insane mileage running and doing triathlons etc...

And they would actually tell me that not only can they get away with eating a certain amount of junk, but that their bodies actually NEED a certain amount of these high calorie foods because of their high energy requirements...

But a fair few of these guys have suffered illness and long term injuries over the last few years. They don't look too great IMO, and two of them have packed on serious pounds since being forced to quit their endurance sports. You wouldn't even know they used to be athletes, because of the weight gain and how drained / exhausted they look... and they're only mid to late 40's in age!!

I think you'll get away with those habits for a while... but then your body will possibly collapse. That's what I've seen anyway. But each to their own really... if you're enjoying your lifestyle and sport and you feel good, then work away... your diet isn't terrible anyway. It could be cleaner, but I've also seen MUCH worse tbh!!

The basic science is sound. Calorie deficit will always mean weight loss. But weight loss and calorie does not mean healthy. A body needs a range of vitamins, nutrients, enzymes, oils etc to be healthy. In the extreme if your diet is 2000 calories of mars bars per day and you burn 1000 calories by cycling you will be in calorie deficit and will lose weight. But your body (and indeed your mind) will not receive the adequate balanced nutrition it needs from mars bars alone. Now if the 2000 calories came from a. 40/40/20 of carbs, proteins and fat then it will have a better chance of receiving the nutrients it needs to remain healthy while losing weight.

The other thing to take cognizance of is that for all intents and purposes your body is an oven. The more fuel it receives the more it has which makes it easier to burn calories which in turn makes it easier to lose weight. If a person has a bad diet and exacerbates that by eating very little then the body (or oven) is in starvation mode and won’t burn calories at any great rate. It will store fat in order to survive. It is way more technical than this but simply eating less than you burn isn’t as easy an explanation as many believe. A calorie is a calorie but some calories are better for a body than other. Hope that makes sense. And by no means am I an expert. But I have researched my fair share.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 09-02-2019 8:05am

Trump Is Right wrote: »

Yep. They're pretty much almost 50/50 between fat and protein... always amazes me how many people view them as a pure source of protein and ignore the fat content. (it's understandable, because they are a healthy food)

It's mostly all healthy fats, but you still need to be careful how much total fat you are eating per day/week... even the healthy fats.

But people shouldn’t keep to food pyramid levels of fat which are far too low. Protein too actually. More fat and protein, less carbohydrates - especially sugar. I love my carbohydrates in small portions but the food pyramid gives far too much importance to them.

Despite the fat content, eggs are pretty low calorie. Around 120 kcals for a large egg. People likely are ignoring the fat content because it isn’t that much of an issue. If the overall kcals of an egg isn’t high - and it isn’t - then there is overall not a huge amount of fat in them. Fat is the most calorie-dense macronutrient so a 120kcal egg just can’t contain that much fat. Or protein even. They’re little superfoods. The fat level is grand. Nobody should be too worried about it.

silverharp · 09-02-2019 10:54am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But people shouldn’t keep to food pyramid levels of fat which are far too low. Protein too actually. More fat and protein, less carbohydrates - especially sugar. I love my carbohydrates in small portions but the food pyramid gives far too much importance to them.

Despite the fat content, eggs are pretty low calorie. Around 120 kcals for a large egg. People likely are ignoring the fat content because it isn’t that much of an issue. If the overall kcals of an egg isn’t high - and it isn’t - then there is overall not a huge amount of fat in them. Fat is the most calorie-dense macronutrient so a 120kcal egg just can’t contain that much fat. Or protein even. They’re little superfoods. The fat level is grand. Nobody should be too worried about it.

the wonks in HR at work stuck up an irish food pyramid chart, half the first 2 layers are all brown food, pasta bread etc. its a complete nonsense.

igCorcaigh · 09-02-2019 11:02am

silverharp wrote: »

the wonks in HR at work stuck up an irish food pyramid chart, half the first 2 layers are all brown food, pasta bread etc. its a complete nonsense.

A Spanish friend once pointed out to me that our food pyramid did not contain pulses. They don't seem to be on the food horizon at all for most people.

coffee_cake · 09-02-2019 11:04am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

But people shouldn’t keep to food pyramid levels of fat which are far too low. Protein too actually. More fat and protein, less carbohydrates - especially sugar. I love my carbohydrates in small portions but the food pyramid gives far too much importance to them.

Despite the fat content, eggs are pretty low calorie. Around 120 kcals for a large egg. People likely are ignoring the fat content because it isn’t that much of an issue. If the overall kcals of an egg isn’t high - and it isn’t - then there is overall not a huge amount of fat in them. Fat is the most calorie-dense macronutrient so a 120kcal egg just can’t contain that much fat. Or protein even. They’re little superfoods. The fat level is grand. Nobody should be too worried about it.

I think it's around 80 cals for the egg

As for the fat, i guess that's why egg whites are so popular

[Deleted User] · 09-02-2019 11:14am

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Professor O’Rahilly mentions the “greater appetite drive” - a direct quote from the excerpt Ardillaun posts - that I and others have talked about in the thread. He talks about the fact that the effort required is so much greater. Again, this was talked about in this thread. This is an expert in the field. But apparently empirical data isn’t used in biological studies so we can all deregard that, natch. :rolleyes:

.....

The study you linked wasn't based on empirical data...it was a small sample size experiment.

Again, you are the one who brought up this forever hunger that obese folk would encounter on a calorie deficit that cannot be overcome....nothing linked backs up that theory. It's simply your interpretation of various studies & you're trying to make it fact.

The professor mentioning greater appetite drive doesn't at all support your interpretation.

Again, when hungry eat a nutritious, calorie low food. Not a pizza, a snickers or fast-food. Persevere at weight loss.

For folk eating too much of the wrong foods, claiming (or their cheerleaders in here) weight can't be sustainably lost as they'll be unmanageably hungry isn't a valid excuse for obesity. And nothing linked here says it is...... the study itself suggests persevere with weight loss.....none of them suggest perseverance isn't possible and to quit when hungry and remain obese.

OneOfThem Stumbled · 09-02-2019 11:47am

I was reading about how sepsis each year is responsible for more deaths than bowel, breast, and pancreatic cancer combined. These deaths are totally preventable, but we don't hear much discussion about it, unlike the constant noise about obesity.

[Deleted User] · 09-02-2019 11:55am

RacoonQueen wrote: »

That's rubbish. It's laziness. A lot of people manage work/study/family/activity.
The cycling/triathlon/running/fitness forums are full of people who spend multiple hours a week training on top of work and family life.
People go home in the evenings and watch TV, they have plenty of time for exercise or to prep healthy meals they are just too lazy to do it.

Some people don't have the time.
During the weeks when I have to work in the office I leave the house at 5 am, often work through my half hour lunch break and get home at 8 pm. Dinner with herself, then an hour spent catching up on some stuff related to work be it calls from folks in the U.S. or continuous education due to working in IT.
Half an hour spent helping get other things sorted before bed then 30 minutes t.v.to unwind before bed at 11, I tried exercising rather than t.v. but found it keeps me awake longer and on average I get around 4.5 hours sleep a night during these weeks.
Over the seven years doing this type of schedule my weight has increased.

The only thing that has stopped me ballooning altogether is our diet and the weeks when I do work from home I do exercise. It's generally walking as I hurt my back in a previous job and it's only in the last few months that getting back to the gym would be possible and I start back in the gym on Monday.

I've plenty of friends and colleagues in the same position in terms of having to spend hours traveling to and from work, I'm just lucky that I don't have kids to add into the mix and I'm not in a management position which would eat into more of my time.

Old Rudge · 09-02-2019 12:33pm

Ardillaun wrote: »

Regarding vigorous exercise, this is what would pique my curiosity if it ever happened: 1000 obese men aged 25-35 enrol in program A and more than 50% attain a normal weight and maintain it for 20 years. Now that would be news. Of course, many highly active people have never even been overweight and quite a few of them would be surprised how little weight they would gain if they gave up their marathons. Humans are highly variable. The calories in/calories out argument has to include the fact that each person has a different, innate balance in these numbers.

When obesity is discussed, no one ever asks why does a lean man stay lean instead they ask how can we make a fat person lean.

I've been very active all my life; but twice in the last 2 years I've had a couple of periods of over 5 weeks with no exercise. Zero difference in weight.

If I eat differently, eat a lot of crap it makes no difference my body fat will stay stuck at 12-14%. I don't have to think about it.

Ask me to get to 6% and stay there long term is the equivalent of asking a 40% bf male to get to 20% and stay there.

It is not going to happen. The biology regulating it(over which there is no real controversy in the scientific community) will ensure I have a hugely increased appetite, reduced NEAT, fatigue, high calorie foods seem ever more rewarding etc. A system evolved to get my ancestors through hard times on the savannah will ensure I get back to 12-14%.

I won't get call a fat cnut though.

Lean peoples body fat regulation system works. If they overeat their bodies compensate by increasing NEAT primarily. Dr James Levine had a good study where they could identify lean/obese people by just how much they got up/ rather than continually sat at work. An obese person in a deficit and exercising will typically drop there already lower NEAT

Obese peoples bodies, in most cases are broken. There is no fix in the long term for most. That's pretty sad but true.

Education for young mothers, before they are pregnant is best strategy for the coming generations.

Cake Man · 09-02-2019 12:45pm

joeguevara wrote: »

The other thing to take cognizance of is that for all intents and purposes your body is an oven. The more fuel it receives the more it has which makes it easier to burn calories which in turn makes it easier to lose weight. If a person has a bad diet and exacerbates that by eating very little then the body (or oven) is in starvation mode and won’t burn calories at any great rate. It will store fat in order to survive.

Just to clarify on this, if the body were to go days, if not weeks, without food it would go into starvation mode - i.e. at a point when the body is genuinely starving and needs to shut down organs and bodily processes in an effort to conserve energy as it recognises it’s in a critical situation. Starvation mode is absolutely NOT something that happens after just a few hours of not eating.

wakka12 · 09-02-2019 12:46pm

Solomon Pleasant wrote: »

Some fairly valid points on here, I reckon the obesity crisis stems from a few things.

1. We’ve become a lazy bunch in many ways. Not to sound cynical or label all fat people as lazy, but there is a direct correlation between less exercise and weight gain, especially if the diet isn’t great. A lot of people aren’t bothered cooking which is due to the increases availability of fast food, both parents working and neither having the energy and time to cook and general unwillingness to learn.

2. For many obese people, food is a coping mechanism - this is the psychological issues that people have mentioned on this thread. I don’t think over eating can be excused due to issues that are happening or have happened in someone’s life. You have to deal with the core issues because the crux, regardless of whether it’s food, alcohol or nicotine does not solve the issue - it just covers up the pain. Confront the problem and try solve the actual issue,stuffing your face won’t do anything except make you more miserable in the long run sadly.

3. I think corporations have a role in this epidemic as well. Everything is stuffed full of bloody sugar, it pisses me off to no end. The vast majority of cereals which kids are eating every morning should be illegalised - I’m not joking, it’s pure and utter ****e. Nearly everything you pick up in a super market is sugar rampant and so many people are addicted to sugar now because of it. Fizzy drinks are a cancer on society, pure dirt. Naturally no one forced anyone to buy these things, but marketing departments are clever and consumers are manipulated through consumer psychology every time they step inside a store. I feel it’s unfair to have this ****e so widespread and no way should sugar be allowed pumped into so many products.

There’s other reasons aswell but I reckon they are big ones like.

I agree, I wish producers just made simpler foods with less ingredients. For instance most tomato based pasta sauces taste fine without the extra sugar and salt added, yet its difficult to find a single one in most supermarkets that isnt unncessarily loaded with both. I know we can make it ourselves in a healthy way and I do that sometimes but I just wish there were more simple,fast cheap alternatives for dinenrs that you could buy in supermarkets that werent horrifically bad for your health

Its really so difficult to eat a healthy and tasty diet that doesnt cost a bomb or take a lot of time to prepare. I would say Im only moderately healthy and am very aware of the labels and what Im putting into my body,I cant imagine how unhealthy most people are who hardly give a **** about what theyre buying/eating

I wish quinoa/lentils were the standard fare in restuarants too rather than white pasta and rice, seems to be hard to find anything other than two in most restuarants. I dont think they taste so much better than healthy pulses/wholegrains,and the cost and prepapration time are comparable, its such a needless health sacrficie that is commonplace throughout the entire world

Cake Man · 09-02-2019 1:03pm

wakka12 wrote: »

Its really so difficult to eat a healthy and tasty diet that doesnt cost a bomb or take a lot of time to prepare.

Just curious but why do you say eating a healthy diet costs a bomb? Fruit and veg is generally cheap (you don’t have to buy the out of season organic gooseberries which cost 10x as much as your standard apples/oranges etc), you can make cuts of meat go a long way (again, you don’t have to be going after the prime cuts of fillet Mignon). I can assure you getting take aways or delivery every night is certainly not going to work out cheaper so I just don’t get this concept of eating healthily is too expensive.

Obesity crisis in Ireland Mod Note post 1

Comments