I won't be at all surprised if the government don't swiftly rescind the Spain thing following the obvious pressure from the entire travel sector about how many people they are about to make redundant. Contradiction and hypocrisy to do so? Perhaps, but as they're making it up every day with no clue what they did previous days (cf eat half price burgers / don't eat burgers) it fits the pattern of behaviour.
If the "quarantine" was actually quarantine then perhaps they had a point. As it is if someone is even there at the airport to collect your form the authorities appear to spend zero enforcing it as them calling on you and you not being there is fine for a whole host of reasons. As with so much of their stuff it is nonsense on stilts.
That would require the Government to admit that they made a mistake. And as with Cummings when forced to choose between admitting they made a mistake and doubling down the Government will double down.
So if we all need to lose weight and the government is announcing a stack of anti-obesity measures from August including the plan to scrap buy one get one free on food, was not buy one burger get one free in August a mistake...? Or just the usual disorganised chaos.
QTWAIN.
Not a mistake. The industry is devastated at the minute. And while going out it's entirely possible to think about what you order and choose a healthier option and not a supersized meal with sugary drinks.
The key to having a healthy weight is to make smart choices ... it is categorically NOT to never go out!
I know you are on the libertarian end of the spectrum and I respect that. Which means that you know as well as I do what people are in most cases likely to be eating. It is not "sneering condescension" to point out that half price burgers in McDonalds paid for by the government is a direct contradiction to "stop eating burgers" said by the government. Yes its a fine balance between jobs and health. They don't attempt a balance or nuance. Its "eat burgers / don't eat burgers" in the same breath.
No hypocrisy. It's half price anything but be careful and don't overeat.
One meal does not obesity cause. A lifetime of smart choices is required to keep healthy.
The government should not be saying all or nothing. Education and moderation are key, what is wrong with that?
Philip. "Be careful and don't overeat". In McDonalds. On Half Price Big Macs. With restaurants specifically reopened to allow people to do so.
Come on. You know what McDonalds punters are in there for. Its not for a salad bowl.
How often do you eat at McDonald's? I do, do you with your sneering pretensions?
If you actually eat their nobody puts a gun against your head and forces you to buy a meal with large fries and large sugary Coke.
When we go we get out children chicken nuggets with carrot sticks instead of fries in their happy meal. I tend to get a burger and side salad instead of fries and Coke Zero.
Personal choice and responsibilities are things for people to learn.
You are clearly their average consumer.
Perhaps. There is a very snobbish attitude on this site sometimes that people here are "too good" for McDonalds, KFC etc and their customers. Its not big and its not clever.
More than one things can be true at the same time at the moment two things are true. 1: The hospitality industry has been devastated by the virus and the government mandated social distancing and lockdown and needs support to get back on its feet. 2: Obesity is an issue and people need to try and make smart choices.
The government is trying to tackle both truths. No hypocrisy.
McDonalds have actually done a lot to offer healthier meals than 10-20 years ago. And healthier fast food joints like Leon have become more popular too.
Indeed. You can tell by some posts here those who are going based off preconceptions of what McDonalds is, versus customers who actually go there and know what it really is.
I worked there while a student at uni 20 years ago when Supersize meals were still an option and Supersize Me came out as a movie. The menu then, compared to the menu now, is completely different. Supersize options were dropped immediately when that movie came out and carrots sticks, fruit bags, salads, grilled chicken and far more other options have long been introduced too. Its entirely possible to have a fully healthy meal at McDonalds now in a way that wasn't possible 20 years ago.
This is true. You can play Macs safely if you keep your wits about you. I, for example, never have fries unless it's with a single burger, and even then it's small fries. So if I'm doing a Big Mac that is all I'm doing. A Big Mac. And no puddings obviously.
Others get it all wrong. I've seen it many times, heard people ordering in ways that make no sense at all -
"Quarterpounder with cheese, large fries, apple pie, please ... and a diet coke."
I mean, c'mon.
My wife actually likes the taste of diet coke. She finds full fat coke far too sweet and won't drink pepsi. It takes all types I suppose. Personally, I don't like McDonalds. But good luck to anyone who does. Its probably a lot better for you than a creamy curry or a fatty Chinese, both of which I am quite partial to.
A Big Mac & Fries = around 900 calories = around a third (just over) the RDA so for one meal there's nothing wrong with it. At 3pm after lunch and before supper is not such a great idea.
In comparison there is about 600 calories in a bottle of wine, ahem.
You do, however, piss most of that out.
Is that true?
I was told by a good friend that the calories in alcohol don’t count. As she was doing her DPhil in biochemistry at the time and is now a professor at a very well known university I am inclined to believe her.
This may explain my shape of course...
From what I recall ofr what I was taught, the alcohol gets oxidised to ethanal and then acetyl groups - whioch then feed into the AcCoA intermediate, and then into energy production in the Krebs cycle or into fat generation. So I too would be very interested to know if this is wrong as I Like my alcohol!!
My anecdata from two different friends that were in Spain when "quarantine" measures were re-introduced is that they have no intention whatsoever of following the advice. One is already back at work in his office (for the first time since March ironically). The other intends to fly back 48 hours before the school term starts.
What annoys me most about this government is that they insult our intelligence with the messaging. Stop playing games. Either imported cases matter, in which case stop fucking about and ban RyanAir from flying and take arrivals to central quarantine facilities. Or it doesn't matter in the grand scheme with good flight hygiene and pre-boarding testing and let people do what they want.
It's like the country is being run by the two facets of Tyler Durden.
My first reaction on hearing the news on Spanish holiday returnees was that a lot of people would ignore the quarantine rule.
Some will but I would expect many will either work from home or respect their responsibilty for the common good
If they are returning from the Canaries there is no common good in self isolating. They are simply harming their employment prospects and their kids for no good reason.
You cannot possibly know that
If I had the enforced choice of meeting someone from Leicester or someone just back from the Canaries, Id be choosing the one coming from the place with a 10 times lower infection rate rather than the one that isnt foreign.
Who mentioned the Canaries? The OP Moonshine said "Spain", which implies the mainland, at leasdt in common parlance.
The Foreign Office. Foreign Office also extended its travel advice for Spain, now telling people to avoid non-essential journeys to the Canary and Balearic Islands, as well as mainland Spain on grounds that it was simpler and countries had to be treated as whole.
The Canaries are technically part of Spain but are isolated far away and have a much lower incidence of the virus than the UK. That's what this discussion was about.
I support the Government's actions on Spain as a whole but the Canaries bit was rubbish and undermines the Government's credibity - which is a bad thing in controlling the virus.
From what I understand the government are in discussions on exempting the Canaries from quarantine which makes sense as they are closer to Africa than mainland Spain
Good to hear. It is the only part of the Government's actions on Spain that I disagree with. It is just so rubbish. Lots of holiday makers go to the Canaries and their economy depends on tourism. And the incidence of the virus is much lower than the UK's.
I have no "skin in the game" but I just don't like clearly rubbish damaging decisions.
I am not sure that is a particularly good point. When on holiday people tend to spend a lot of time in crowded restaurants, mixing with lots of people from a variety of places, getting to know some of them quite well, drinking a lot to impair judgment and all kinds of other irresponsible behavior. It's not the same risk as a masked trip to your local Tescos, whatever the local incidence of the virus is.
We can argue about the Canary Islands all day. I think ultimately whether it was a sensible decision comes down to whether their inclusion was deliberate or a cock-up/oversight. I tend towards the "cock up" view, hence bad decision. I don't understand otherwise why they were originally left off the changes to the guidance on non-essential travel. Perhaps somebody can explain.
Once the Government had announced the contradictory/inconsistent position on the Canary Islands they were basically forced to rectify one way or another. ie. clarify that quarantine only applied to the mainland, or extend the guidance of travel to the Islands. If HYUFD is to be believed, having jumped one way, they might now revert to the other. Although personally i think that is unlikely, unless they were REALLY confident that cases won't grow there.
The focus of the surge in cases is mainland Spain, especially Aragon and Catalonia, the Canary Islands have barely any new cases
Not the point. It would have been easy to exempt (or even clarify in relation to the original announcement) on that basis.
To reverse ferret is a whole different kettle of fish, and will require far greater level of confidence that a problem won't emerge there in the future (which is a bit of a risk if the decision is taken specifically to encourage Brits to travel there and party).
The damage is done regardless now of who is on or off the list, very few people are going to risk their hard earned cash in this environment. It’s difficult for us to come back as we would have to quarantine in a hotel for two weeks before we could even see the kids so difficult to fit into treatment schedules.
Oh, one other thing about calories: a bottle of wine would be 600,000 calories, not 600. For some reason the “k” gets missed off by a lot of people. It’s as if we referred to distances on between towns in metres rather than kilometres because saying “kilo” was too much effort. For some reason that always irritates me.
That's why forcing restaurants to put calorie counts is such a bad idea.
People don't go to restaurants (or shouldn't) thinking - how can I minimise my calorie intake. They go to enjoy. If they are halfway sensible they know that it is unlikely to be a diet option.
I don't think its a bad idea at all for big brand restaurants to do that.
McDonalds have had the calorie information on their drive thru menu for years now and it does no harm. It nudges me if I'm going for a wrap to go for the grilled chicken rather than the crispy chicken (~150 kcal saving) but its just awareness and letting people choose. It doesn't mean everyone has to pay attention but let those who want to do so do so.
Independent restaurants I wouldn't make do it.
Many people would be horrified to discover that their "posh" meal has more fat, salt, sugar etc than a Big Mac and fries.
Let them know.
McDonalds would love your proposal of a Red or Green label based on calorie count relative to a Big Mac and medium fries. It's a whole new Big Mac index.
The action is totally justified and absolute hypocrisy from those who say it was too quick
Fortunately 89% of Brits have taken the decision not to holiday abroad and have demonstrated pure common sense
You're wrong on this one Big_G. @Moonshine nailed it earlier:
"Either imported cases matter, in which case stop fucking about and ban RyanAir from flying and take arrivals to central quarantine facilities. Or it doesn't matter in the grand scheme with good flight hygiene and pre-boarding testing and let people do what they want."
The government have been all over the place on this. They missed the chance to impose complusory quarantine in the early days when it might have helped. Since then they have been regularly flip-flopping on quarantines. This latest change was badly thought-through and badly done.
Given the headlines, especially from their natural support wing, they won't be extending it to other European countries any time soon.
The action is totally justified and absolute hypocrisy from those who say it was too quick
Fortunately 89% of Brits have taken the decision not to holiday abroad and have demonstrated pure common sense
You're wrong on this one Big_G. @Moonshine nailed it earlier:
"Either imported cases matter, in which case stop fucking about and ban RyanAir from flying and take arrivals to central quarantine facilities. Or it doesn't matter in the grand scheme with good flight hygiene and pre-boarding testing and let people do what they want."
The government have been all over the place on this. They missed the chance to impose complusory quarantine in the early days when it might have helped. Since then they have been regularly flip-flopping on quarantines. This latest change was badly thought-through and badly done.
Given the headlines, especially from their natural support wing, they won't be extending it to other European countries any time soon.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
I won't be at all surprised if the government don't swiftly rescind the Spain thing following the obvious pressure from the entire travel sector about how many people they are about to make redundant. Contradiction and hypocrisy to do so? Perhaps, but as they're making it up every day with no clue what they did previous days (cf eat half price burgers / don't eat burgers) it fits the pattern of behaviour.
If the "quarantine" was actually quarantine then perhaps they had a point. As it is if someone is even there at the airport to collect your form the authorities appear to spend zero enforcing it as them calling on you and you not being there is fine for a whole host of reasons. As with so much of their stuff it is nonsense on stilts.
That would require the Government to admit that they made a mistake. And as with Cummings when forced to choose between admitting they made a mistake and doubling down the Government will double down.
So if we all need to lose weight and the government is announcing a stack of anti-obesity measures from August including the plan to scrap buy one get one free on food, was not buy one burger get one free in August a mistake...? Or just the usual disorganised chaos.
QTWAIN.
Not a mistake. The industry is devastated at the minute. And while going out it's entirely possible to think about what you order and choose a healthier option and not a supersized meal with sugary drinks.
The key to having a healthy weight is to make smart choices ... it is categorically NOT to never go out!
I know you are on the libertarian end of the spectrum and I respect that. Which means that you know as well as I do what people are in most cases likely to be eating. It is not "sneering condescension" to point out that half price burgers in McDonalds paid for by the government is a direct contradiction to "stop eating burgers" said by the government. Yes its a fine balance between jobs and health. They don't attempt a balance or nuance. Its "eat burgers / don't eat burgers" in the same breath.
No hypocrisy. It's half price anything but be careful and don't overeat.
One meal does not obesity cause. A lifetime of smart choices is required to keep healthy.
The government should not be saying all or nothing. Education and moderation are key, what is wrong with that?
Philip. "Be careful and don't overeat". In McDonalds. On Half Price Big Macs. With restaurants specifically reopened to allow people to do so.
Come on. You know what McDonalds punters are in there for. Its not for a salad bowl.
How often do you eat at McDonald's? I do, do you with your sneering pretensions?
If you actually eat their nobody puts a gun against your head and forces you to buy a meal with large fries and large sugary Coke.
When we go we get out children chicken nuggets with carrot sticks instead of fries in their happy meal. I tend to get a burger and side salad instead of fries and Coke Zero.
Personal choice and responsibilities are things for people to learn.
You are clearly their average consumer.
Perhaps. There is a very snobbish attitude on this site sometimes that people here are "too good" for McDonalds, KFC etc and their customers. Its not big and its not clever.
More than one things can be true at the same time at the moment two things are true. 1: The hospitality industry has been devastated by the virus and the government mandated social distancing and lockdown and needs support to get back on its feet. 2: Obesity is an issue and people need to try and make smart choices.
The government is trying to tackle both truths. No hypocrisy.
McDonalds have actually done a lot to offer healthier meals than 10-20 years ago. And healthier fast food joints like Leon have become more popular too.
Indeed. You can tell by some posts here those who are going based off preconceptions of what McDonalds is, versus customers who actually go there and know what it really is.
I worked there while a student at uni 20 years ago when Supersize meals were still an option and Supersize Me came out as a movie. The menu then, compared to the menu now, is completely different. Supersize options were dropped immediately when that movie came out and carrots sticks, fruit bags, salads, grilled chicken and far more other options have long been introduced too. Its entirely possible to have a fully healthy meal at McDonalds now in a way that wasn't possible 20 years ago.
This is true. You can play Macs safely if you keep your wits about you. I, for example, never have fries unless it's with a single burger, and even then it's small fries. So if I'm doing a Big Mac that is all I'm doing. A Big Mac. And no puddings obviously.
Others get it all wrong. I've seen it many times, heard people ordering in ways that make no sense at all -
"Quarterpounder with cheese, large fries, apple pie, please ... and a diet coke."
I mean, c'mon.
My wife actually likes the taste of diet coke. She finds full fat coke far too sweet and won't drink pepsi. It takes all types I suppose. Personally, I don't like McDonalds. But good luck to anyone who does. Its probably a lot better for you than a creamy curry or a fatty Chinese, both of which I am quite partial to.
A Big Mac & Fries = around 900 calories = around a third (just over) the RDA so for one meal there's nothing wrong with it. At 3pm after lunch and before supper is not such a great idea.
In comparison there is about 600 calories in a bottle of wine, ahem.
You do, however, piss most of that out.
Is that true?
I was told by a good friend that the calories in alcohol don’t count. As she was doing her DPhil in biochemistry at the time and is now a professor at a very well known university I am inclined to believe her.
This may explain my shape of course...
From what I recall ofr what I was taught, the alcohol gets oxidised to ethanal and then acetyl groups - whioch then feed into the AcCoA intermediate, and then into energy production in the Krebs cycle or into fat generation. So I too would be very interested to know if this is wrong as I Like my alcohol!!
The reason she gave was that the energy needed to metabolise the alcohol was similar to the energy you gained from it, so it was overall a wash. This was thirty years ago though, and she was not someone who drank much; in fact she had the lowest tolerance for alcohol of anyone I’ve ever met.
Mr. Gate, a similar thing happened with Ribena and Irn-Bru.
The Government has enough to be getting on with that it needn't trouble itself inflicting more red tape bullshit on businesses or preaching morality at the public.
What's next on Boris' hypocrisy tour? A guide to fidelity?
This kind of thing bloody irritates me. [As an aside, I've been deliberately eating more trying to arrest a declining waistline, which has now reached such proportions it's proving mildly tricky finding jeans that fit. The idea of being lectured by a fat fool and perhaps having to pay more does not entice me to vote for him again].
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
My anecdata from two different friends that were in Spain when "quarantine" measures were re-introduced is that they have no intention whatsoever of following the advice. One is already back at work in his office (for the first time since March ironically). The other intends to fly back 48 hours before the school term starts.
What annoys me most about this government is that they insult our intelligence with the messaging. Stop playing games. Either imported cases matter, in which case stop fucking about and ban RyanAir from flying and take arrivals to central quarantine facilities. Or it doesn't matter in the grand scheme with good flight hygiene and pre-boarding testing and let people do what they want.
It's like the country is being run by the two facets of Tyler Durden.
My first reaction on hearing the news on Spanish holiday returnees was that a lot of people would ignore the quarantine rule.
Some will but I would expect many will either work from home or respect their responsibilty for the common good
If they are returning from the Canaries there is no common good in self isolating. They are simply harming their employment prospects and their kids for no good reason.
You cannot possibly know that
If I had the enforced choice of meeting someone from Leicester or someone just back from the Canaries, Id be choosing the one coming from the place with a 10 times lower infection rate rather than the one that isnt foreign.
Who mentioned the Canaries? The OP Moonshine said "Spain", which implies the mainland, at leasdt in common parlance.
The Foreign Office. Foreign Office also extended its travel advice for Spain, now telling people to avoid non-essential journeys to the Canary and Balearic Islands, as well as mainland Spain on grounds that it was simpler and countries had to be treated as whole.
The Canaries are technically part of Spain but are isolated far away and have a much lower incidence of the virus than the UK. That's what this discussion was about.
I support the Government's actions on Spain as a whole but the Canaries bit was rubbish and undermines the Government's credibity - which is a bad thing in controlling the virus.
From what I understand the government are in discussions on exempting the Canaries from quarantine which makes sense as they are closer to Africa than mainland Spain
Good to hear. It is the only part of the Government's actions on Spain that I disagree with. It is just so rubbish. Lots of holiday makers go to the Canaries and their economy depends on tourism. And the incidence of the virus is much lower than the UK's.
I have no "skin in the game" but I just don't like clearly rubbish damaging decisions.
I am not sure that is a particularly good point. When on holiday people tend to spend a lot of time in crowded restaurants, mixing with lots of people from a variety of places, getting to know some of them quite well, drinking a lot to impair judgment and all kinds of other irresponsible behavior. It's not the same risk as a masked trip to your local Tescos, whatever the local incidence of the virus is.
Crowded restaurants where tables are at least two meters apart, where there are no buffet options, the table isn’t set until you sit down, only single use condiments, staff wearing masks, no menus unless down loaded or on the door, masks required when not actually eating. Limits to size of groups. To name a few restrictions.
Last week UK media were treating us to pictures of Brits and Germans getting ratted in "Bierstrasse" with little sign of restraint - internal or external. Thankfully our government's response was not Que sera sera.
I won't be at all surprised if the government don't swiftly rescind the Spain thing following the obvious pressure from the entire travel sector about how many people they are about to make redundant. Contradiction and hypocrisy to do so? Perhaps, but as they're making it up every day with no clue what they did previous days (cf eat half price burgers / don't eat burgers) it fits the pattern of behaviour.
If the "quarantine" was actually quarantine then perhaps they had a point. As it is if someone is even there at the airport to collect your form the authorities appear to spend zero enforcing it as them calling on you and you not being there is fine for a whole host of reasons. As with so much of their stuff it is nonsense on stilts.
That would require the Government to admit that they made a mistake. And as with Cummings when forced to choose between admitting they made a mistake and doubling down the Government will double down.
So if we all need to lose weight and the government is announcing a stack of anti-obesity measures from August including the plan to scrap buy one get one free on food, was not buy one burger get one free in August a mistake...? Or just the usual disorganised chaos.
QTWAIN.
Not a mistake. The industry is devastated at the minute. And while going out it's entirely possible to think about what you order and choose a healthier option and not a supersized meal with sugary drinks.
The key to having a healthy weight is to make smart choices ... it is categorically NOT to never go out!
I know you are on the libertarian end of the spectrum and I respect that. Which means that you know as well as I do what people are in most cases likely to be eating. It is not "sneering condescension" to point out that half price burgers in McDonalds paid for by the government is a direct contradiction to "stop eating burgers" said by the government. Yes its a fine balance between jobs and health. They don't attempt a balance or nuance. Its "eat burgers / don't eat burgers" in the same breath.
No hypocrisy. It's half price anything but be careful and don't overeat.
One meal does not obesity cause. A lifetime of smart choices is required to keep healthy.
The government should not be saying all or nothing. Education and moderation are key, what is wrong with that?
Philip. "Be careful and don't overeat". In McDonalds. On Half Price Big Macs. With restaurants specifically reopened to allow people to do so.
Come on. You know what McDonalds punters are in there for. Its not for a salad bowl.
How often do you eat at McDonald's? I do, do you with your sneering pretensions?
If you actually eat their nobody puts a gun against your head and forces you to buy a meal with large fries and large sugary Coke.
When we go we get out children chicken nuggets with carrot sticks instead of fries in their happy meal. I tend to get a burger and side salad instead of fries and Coke Zero.
Personal choice and responsibilities are things for people to learn.
You are clearly their average consumer.
Perhaps. There is a very snobbish attitude on this site sometimes that people here are "too good" for McDonalds, KFC etc and their customers. Its not big and its not clever.
More than one things can be true at the same time at the moment two things are true. 1: The hospitality industry has been devastated by the virus and the government mandated social distancing and lockdown and needs support to get back on its feet. 2: Obesity is an issue and people need to try and make smart choices.
The government is trying to tackle both truths. No hypocrisy.
McDonalds have actually done a lot to offer healthier meals than 10-20 years ago. And healthier fast food joints like Leon have become more popular too.
Indeed. You can tell by some posts here those who are going based off preconceptions of what McDonalds is, versus customers who actually go there and know what it really is.
I worked there while a student at uni 20 years ago when Supersize meals were still an option and Supersize Me came out as a movie. The menu then, compared to the menu now, is completely different. Supersize options were dropped immediately when that movie came out and carrots sticks, fruit bags, salads, grilled chicken and far more other options have long been introduced too. Its entirely possible to have a fully healthy meal at McDonalds now in a way that wasn't possible 20 years ago.
This is true. You can play Macs safely if you keep your wits about you. I, for example, never have fries unless it's with a single burger, and even then it's small fries. So if I'm doing a Big Mac that is all I'm doing. A Big Mac. And no puddings obviously.
Others get it all wrong. I've seen it many times, heard people ordering in ways that make no sense at all -
"Quarterpounder with cheese, large fries, apple pie, please ... and a diet coke."
I mean, c'mon.
My wife actually likes the taste of diet coke. She finds full fat coke far too sweet and won't drink pepsi. It takes all types I suppose. Personally, I don't like McDonalds. But good luck to anyone who does. Its probably a lot better for you than a creamy curry or a fatty Chinese, both of which I am quite partial to.
A Big Mac & Fries = around 900 calories = around a third (just over) the RDA so for one meal there's nothing wrong with it. At 3pm after lunch and before supper is not such a great idea.
In comparison there is about 600 calories in a bottle of wine, ahem.
You do, however, piss most of that out.
Is that true?
I was told by a good friend that the calories in alcohol don’t count. As she was doing her DPhil in biochemistry at the time and is now a professor at a very well known university I am inclined to believe her.
This may explain my shape of course...
From what I recall ofr what I was taught, the alcohol gets oxidised to ethanal and then acetyl groups - whioch then feed into the AcCoA intermediate, and then into energy production in the Krebs cycle or into fat generation. So I too would be very interested to know if this is wrong as I Like my alcohol!!
The reason she gave was that the energy needed to metabolise the alcohol was similar to the energy you gained from it, so it was overall a wash. This was thirty years ago though, and she was not someone who drank much; in fact she had the lowest tolerance for alcohol of anyone I’ve ever met.
Interestding, thank you - yet many a microbe makes a living from oxidising alcohol to vinegar. I must be missing something somewhere.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
The action is totally justified and absolute hypocrisy from those who say it was too quick
Fortunately 89% of Brits have taken the decision not to holiday abroad and have demonstrated pure common sense
You're wrong on this one Big_G. @Moonshine nailed it earlier:
"Either imported cases matter, in which case stop fucking about and ban RyanAir from flying and take arrivals to central quarantine facilities. Or it doesn't matter in the grand scheme with good flight hygiene and pre-boarding testing and let people do what they want."
The government have been all over the place on this. They missed the chance to impose complusory quarantine in the early days when it might have helped. Since then they have been regularly flip-flopping on quarantines. This latest change was badly thought-through and badly done.
Given the headlines, especially from their natural support wing, they won't be extending it to other European countries any time soon.
{France enters the chat}
Indeed, if you'd asked me yesterday I'd have thought an extension to France was likely. Having seen those headlines I'd be surprised if that happened now.
Mr. Gate, a similar thing happened with Ribena and Irn-Bru.
The Government has enough to be getting on with that it needn't trouble itself inflicting more red tape bullshit on businesses or preaching morality at the public.
What's next on Boris' hypocrisy tour? A guide to fidelity?
This kind of thing bloody irritates me. [As an aside, I've been deliberately eating more trying to arrest a declining waistline, which has now reached such proportions it's proving mildly tricky finding jeans that fit. The idea of being lectured by a fat fool and perhaps having to pay more does not entice me to vote for him again].
I think the government feels it has the right to push a healthy eating message (which isn’t really anything to do with morality) because it will be paying for our treatment when we get ill and wants to reduce its costs. It is sort of part of the deal with the NHS.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Won’t be best selling I’m afraid: people want to know how to lose weight without doing either of those things.
Edit: what I should have said is “want to be told they can lose weight without doing either of those things”. I know from experience that you are right, but you won’t sell a diet book that tells people something they don’t want to hear.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
Oh, one other thing about calories: a bottle of wine would be 600,000 calories, not 600. For some reason the “k” gets missed off by a lot of people. It’s as if we referred to distances on between towns in metres rather than kilometres because saying “kilo” was too much effort. For some reason that always irritates me.
Oh, one other thing about calories: a bottle of wine would be 600,000 calories, not 600. For some reason the “k” gets missed off by a lot of people. It’s as if we referred to distances on between towns in metres rather than kilometres because saying “kilo” was too much effort. For some reason that always irritates me.
Blimey, no wonder I've put on weight.
But the RDA for men is 2.5 million calories (2500 kcal) so it is all a wash in the end.
That's why forcing restaurants to put calorie counts is such a bad idea.
People don't go to restaurants (or shouldn't) thinking - how can I minimise my calorie intake. They go to enjoy. If they are halfway sensible they know that it is unlikely to be a diet option.
That's why forcing restaurants to put calorie counts is such a bad idea.
People don't go to restaurants (or shouldn't) thinking - how can I minimise my calorie intake. They go to enjoy. If they are halfway sensible they know that it is unlikely to be a diet option.
If the calories aren't in four figures, it is not value for money.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Won’t be best selling I’m afraid: people want to know how to lose weight without doing either of those things.
Yes I appreciate that.
Actually most diets work (to start with). The reason being that if someone is overweight to the point whereby they decide to go on a diet then just by regulating their calorie intake will almost certainly mean they are consuming fewer calories and hence will lose weight.
It could be a diet of cream cakes and coke or broccoli and grilled chicken.
It is how to manage the ongoing food/drink intake thereafter that is of course usually the issue.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Ok. In fairness, this is a sensible reply. I retact my original comment and apologise - overreaction on my part.
Tim Spector's book The Diet Myth is excellent on this.
For me the following points are clear: Not all calories are equal and not everybody absorbs them equally, but for an individual who wants to lose weight reducing his or her calorie intake while increasing their exercise is always going to work. For many people who a concerned about their weght, failing to count calories (or rather failing to have an appreciation of the calories in the food they are eating) is a major blocker.
Having used google to translate that into English I think that it rather supports my point!
He sits at home and uses a telephone line to remotely connect to a computer system where he types commands to make things happen.
I sit at home and use a telephone line to remotely connect to a computer system where I type commands to make things happen...
I don't have to dial the number, although I still do that on occasion. Out of Band management systems still operate exactly like that movie. Analogue modem connected to a POTS line. Screeching noises, and if you're lucky, a prompt from the remote end.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it really is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Excess deaths running at -3% weekly and COVID deaths down to 363 on the week. That's 52 per day two weeks ago, there is a consistent 20% reduction in deaths per week at the moment. If we map that to today we're at around 30-35 deaths per day and falling. The PHE figures are around 60 deaths per day, meaning half of the curreht statistics are due to unrelated deaths being registered. This investigation is taking too long, Hancock needs to crack the whip because this is ridiculous.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
No, no, no, that will never sell. You need a gimmick or a shortcut that's going to make it all painless, or something.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
For many people who a concerned about their weght, failing to count calories (or rather failing to have an appreciation of the calories in the food they are eating) is a major blocker.
Early incarnation SeanT used to rave about MyFitnessPal for that purpose
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
So you believe in quantity over quality?
Of course you do both - eat quality food and lose weight - but here's the thing: If you eat fewer calories than your body needs you will lose weight, whether you eat quality food or junk food. On the other hand, if you eat too many calories nothing about the quality of the food is going to stop you putting on weight.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
Having used google to translate that into English I think that it rather supports my point!
He sits at home and uses a telephone line to remotely connect to a computer system where he types commands to make things happen.
I sit at home and use a telephone line to remotely connect to a computer system where I type commands to make things happen...
I don't have to dial the number, although I still do that on occasion. Out of Band management systems still operate exactly like that movie. Analogue modem connected to a POTS line. Screeching noises, and if you're lucky, a prompt from the remote end.
I've not heard that screeching noise for years, not since we got past dialup in the house. Its not a noise that you forget though.
Excess deaths running at -3% weekly and COVID deaths down to 363 on the week. That's 52 per day two weeks ago, there is a consistent 20% reduction in deaths per week at the moment. If we map that to today we're at around 30-35 deaths per day and falling. The PHE figures are around 60 deaths per day, meaning half of the curreht statistics are due to unrelated deaths being registered. This investigation is taking too long, Hancock needs to crack the whip because this is ridiculous.
I am quite confident that PHE will drag their feet on this, in the hope that it will all go away.
A major revision like this will (a) Embarrass, (b) Get questions asked in front of select committees, and (c) get the ant-government types on their case. The kind of people who will start Twitter Bombing with "Tory Stooges Hide Dead Grannies". Completely with death threats....
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
For many people who a concerned about their weght, failing to count calories (or rather failing to have an appreciation of the calories in the food they are eating) is a major blocker.
Early incarnation SeanT used to rave about MyFitnessPal for that purpose
I have an app called NutraCheck which works well, though it can be a faff when cooking a meal from scratch. I’m just really bad about using it.
The cricket forecast is anyone's guess. Scattered showers coming in from the NW off the Lancashire coast, but not well scattered enough to be hopeful.of escape, and some heavy enough to knock it out most of a session. I don't think Old Trafford has yet suffered more than a little rain this morning from the radar, but there's no session of play you'd guarantee with any confidence.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
So you believe in quantity over quality?
Yep absolutely. It's all about calories.
I disagree. Nutrition matters.
Of course it matters. But if you consume fewer calories than you expend you will lose weight. Wherever those calories come from.
Of course, as we saw in eg. Supersize Me, if you have the "wrong" calories for too long that will throw up other health issues. But on weight it is a pretty golden rule.
I am TBH in two minds regarding the requirement to quarantine when returning from Spain as a whole. On balance when the incidence of cases in the UK has stopped falling and has started to inch up I am inclined to the side of caution, although the absence of mandatory testing on re-entry to the UK and/or say a week after re-entry is still questionable.
It is instructive though to find that the Spanish government is so sensitive to unilateral measures the British government has put in place that restrict tourism to their country. Perhaps we should remember that leverage the next time the issue of Gibraltar raises its head.
And is there really any prospect of bilateral EHIC cards ceasing to be valid from 1st January, given that so many European countries seem keen not to discourage visits from UK tourists in the future? If there is, it says a lot for how far the EU is negotiating out of pique rather than with regard to the interests of their member states.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
Excess deaths running at -3% weekly and COVID deaths down to 363 on the week. That's 52 per day two weeks ago, there is a consistent 20% reduction in deaths per week at the moment. If we map that to today we're at around 30-35 deaths per day and falling. The PHE figures are around 60 deaths per day, meaning half of the curreht statistics are due to unrelated deaths being registered. This investigation is taking too long, Hancock needs to crack the whip because this is ridiculous.
I am quite confident that PHE will drag their feet on this, in the hope that it will all go away.
A major revision like this will (a) Embarrass, (b) Get questions asked in front of select committees, and (c) get the ant-government types on their case. The kind of people who will start Twitter Bombing with "Tory Stooges Hide Dead Grannies". Completely with death threats....
Much easier to kick the can down the road.
Why would a downward revision lead to a headline of "Tory Stooges Hide Dead Grannies"?
Or do you mean the downward revision would be treated as fake (because it would be compared with the still higher number of figures in ONS stats and excess deaths)?
Mr. Gate, a similar thing happened with Ribena and Irn-Bru.
The Government has enough to be getting on with that it needn't trouble itself inflicting more red tape bullshit on businesses or preaching morality at the public.
What's next on Boris' hypocrisy tour? A guide to fidelity?
This kind of thing bloody irritates me. [As an aside, I've been deliberately eating more trying to arrest a declining waistline, which has now reached such proportions it's proving mildly tricky finding jeans that fit. The idea of being lectured by a fat fool and perhaps having to pay more does not entice me to vote for him again].
I think the government feels it has the right to push a healthy eating message (which isn’t really anything to do with morality) because it will be paying for our treatment when we get ill and wants to reduce its costs. It is sort of part of the deal with the NHS.
The main reason the NHS is a sub optimal system is that it’s essentially a giant health insurance scheme where premiums are determined by socialist taxation orthodoxy rather than through a mechanism which reduces moral hazard. Clumsy attempts have been made to address this, mainly through duty on fags and booze but it’s not enough.
They should be prescribing resistance based exercise and the ketogenic diet to the masses and making direct cash payments if you’ve made sufficient progress at quarterly check ups. Outside the EU it’s easy enough to subsidise this too (subsidies for grass for life meat farming and fibrous veg, remove VAT on exercise goods and services etc...).
Certainly sugar should be taxed. That’s not regressive but compassionate, given the correlation between income and obesity/health outcomes. I’m a fairly free wheeling capitalist but think hydrogenated vegetable oils should be added to the list of controlled substances (I’d take a few off the list mind).
The other failing of course is that the excess mechanism sucks, done by proxy through prescription charges. It’s perfectly possible to blend a compassionate welfare / socialistic approach with appointment and treatment excesses. That’s another discussion though.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
It's really not the same thing. If you increase your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
Philip it's very simple. If you burn more calories than you consume you will lose weight.
Of course your expenditure isn't set in stone. If you sit all day posting on PB it will be less than if you spend all day hiking in the Urals. But the principle remains the same.
If sitting at your computer means you expend 2,000 calories per day and you consume 1,500 calories per day, over time you will lose weight. If hiking in the Urals means you expend 5,000 calories per day and you consume 4,000 calories per day over time you will lose weight.
Excess deaths running at -3% weekly and COVID deaths down to 363 on the week. That's 52 per day two weeks ago, there is a consistent 20% reduction in deaths per week at the moment. If we map that to today we're at around 30-35 deaths per day and falling. The PHE figures are around 60 deaths per day, meaning half of the curreht statistics are due to unrelated deaths being registered. This investigation is taking too long, Hancock needs to crack the whip because this is ridiculous.
I am quite confident that PHE will drag their feet on this, in the hope that it will all go away.
A major revision like this will (a) Embarrass, (b) Get questions asked in front of select committees, and (c) get the ant-government types on their case. The kind of people who will start Twitter Bombing with "Tory Stooges Hide Dead Grannies". Completely with death threats....
Much easier to kick the can down the road.
Why would a downward revision lead to a headline of "Tory Stooges Hide Dead Grannies"?
Or do you mean the downward revision would be treated as fake (because it would be compared with the still higher number of figures in ONS stats and excess deaths)?
We are not talking about intelligent, thinking people.
We are talking about people who posted images of fake instructions to doctors about death certificates to "prove" that the government was "hiding the truth".
Any number that is less than another number will be pounced upon. Professor Piers Morgan (FRS, DipShit) will undoubtedly weigh in etc etc.
I am TBH in two minds regarding the requirement to quarantine when returning from Spain as a whole. On balance when the incidence of cases in the UK has stopped falling and has started to inch up I am inclined to the side of caution, although the absence of mandatory testing on re-entry to the UK and/or say a week after re-entry is still questionable.
It is instructive though to find that the Spanish government is so sensitive to unilateral measures the British government has put in place that restrict tourism to their country. Perhaps we should remember that leverage the next time the issue of Gibraltar raises its head.
And is there really any prospect of bilateral EHIC cards ceasing to be valid from 1st January, given that so many European countries seem keen not to discourage visits from UK tourists in the future? If there is, it says a lot for how far the EU is negotiating out of pique rather than with regard to the interests of their member states.
EHIC's are a great example of the EU being idiots for the sake of ideology.
However, provided third country arrangements are allowed by the EU on a bilateral basis (are they?) it's surely fairly likely a govt (Portugal??),will quietly offer a bilateral arrangement for tourists that looks remarkably like EHIC, fairly soon post final separation and the dam wall will break. I'd expect Cyprus, Malta, Croatia, Italy, to follow pdq, then Spain with the French sniffily holding out for a bit.
Mr. Gate, a similar thing happened with Ribena and Irn-Bru.
The Government has enough to be getting on with that it needn't trouble itself inflicting more red tape bullshit on businesses or preaching morality at the public.
What's next on Boris' hypocrisy tour? A guide to fidelity?
This kind of thing bloody irritates me. [As an aside, I've been deliberately eating more trying to arrest a declining waistline, which has now reached such proportions it's proving mildly tricky finding jeans that fit. The idea of being lectured by a fat fool and perhaps having to pay more does not entice me to vote for him again].
I think the government feels it has the right to push a healthy eating message (which isn’t really anything to do with morality) because it will be paying for our treatment when we get ill and wants to reduce its costs. It is sort of part of the deal with the NHS.
The main reason the NHS is a sub optimal system is that it’s essentially a giant health insurance scheme where premiums are determined by socialist taxation orthodoxy rather than through a mechanism which reduces moral hazard. Clumsy attempts have been made to address this, mainly through duty on fags and booze but it’s not enough.
They should be prescribing resistance based exercise and the ketogenic diet to the masses and making direct cash payments if you’ve made sufficient progress at quarterly check ups. Outside the EU it’s easy enough to subsidise this too (subsidies for grass for life meat farming and fibrous veg, remove VAT on exercise goods and services etc...).
Certainly sugar should be taxed. That’s not regressive but compassionate, given the correlation between income and obesity/health outcomes. I’m a fairly free wheeling capitalist but think hydrogenated vegetable oils should be added to the list of controlled substances (I’d take a few off the list mind).
The other failing of course is that the excess mechanism sucks, done by proxy through prescription charges. It’s perfectly possible to blend a compassionate welfare / socialistic approach with appointment and treatment excesses. That’s another discussion though.
+1 for the positive nudge stuff. Said it a million times - the Vitality scheme is a very interesting example.
Interesting, and encouraging news from Pfizer and their German partner.
One of their vaccines (partly because their vaccine tech is quickest and cheaper to develop than conventional vaccines, they have more than one in the clinic) seems to work very well in older people - producing a better immune response than the disease itself does in those who recover.
My hedge fund buddies have been pretty excited about this one for a while.
If it does prove safe and effective in large scale trials, that would be very exciting. It’s literally an order of magnitude cheaper to produce at scale than conventional vaccines.
That's their rationale: it's no more likely to work than others, but if CV19 turns out to be fairly easy to vaccinate against, then this vaccine will be produced faster and at lower cost. It could easily end up with a 90% market share.
It's certainly quicker and cheaper to ramp up bulk production - and the published data looks as good as, or better than the other vaccines in late stage trials.
I don't know about market share, though. Pfizer had said they'd deliver it 'at or near cost', but the $40 for dose plus booster they are talking about sounds as though that includes a whole load of R&D expense, and then some. https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-eu-talks-pfizer-sanofi-151629571.html The U.S. government last week agreed to pay nearly $2 billion (1.5 billion pounds) to buy enough of the vaccine being developed by Pfizer and BioNTech to inoculate 50 million people, but with payments conditional on their vaccine being successful in large clinical trials.
The price agreed under that deal of nearly $40 per course of treatment is considered too high by the EU, officials told Reuters last week.
The EU is relying on about 2 billion euros (1.8 billion pounds) from an emergency fund to finance its possible deals with vaccine makers, which could be topped up with payments from EU governments.
For instance, the agreement with AstraZeneca initially negotiated by Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands cost the four countries 750 million euros for 300 million doses of the potential shot, an Italian official said, with an option to buy a further 100 million doses.
That works out at 2.5 euros per dose...
Having said all that, the benefits of a very effective vaccine, available before the year end, would amount to far, far more than that.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.
Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.
Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
So you believe in quantity over quality?
Of course you do both - eat quality food and lose weight - but here's the thing: If you eat fewer calories than your body needs you will lose weight, whether you eat quality food or junk food. On the other hand, if you eat too many calories nothing about the quality of the food is going to stop you putting on weight.
That isn't quite true. If your calories were solely derived from fat (no sugar), your body would go into accelerated fat burning (ketosis) and you could well lose weight on increased calories. That's what Atkins is.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it really is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Get her to watch some Tim Noakes on youtube.
What you eat, when you eat and how you move are the key determinants of metabolism. If you eat the right stuff your body will auto regulate your appetite and the calories balance will take care of itself without you even having to try. If you eat the wrong stuff (sugars and digestible carbs) and have a degree of insulin resistance, you’ll always feel hungry when dieting and will continue getting fatter.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.
Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.
Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
100 calories is 100 calories is 100 calories. Whether from broccoli or mint-choc chip ice cream.
And no one is saying only pay attention to your main meals.
We are saying your daily calorie intake (including celery at lunch and chocolate biscuits at 3pm) relates to your daily calorie expenditure in that if you intake more than you expend you will put on weight and if you intake less than you expend you will lose weight.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it really is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
This would make sense. The body's decision to store fat (and where on the body to store it) is based on any number of things, including hormones, insulin secretion, GI of food and the list goes on.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.
Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.
Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
Nope, nope, nope. If you create a daily calorie deficit you will lose weight regardless of what the intake is.
I'm not saying it's a good way to go about it but it will absolutely work.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.
Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.
Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
100 calories is 100 calories is 100 calories. Whether from broccoli or mint-choc chip ice cream.
And no one is saying only pay attention to your main meals.
We are saying your daily calorie intake (including celery at lunch and chocolate biscuits at 3pm) relates to your daily calorie expenditure in that if you intake more than you expend you will put on weight and if you intake less than you expend you will lose weight.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.
Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.
Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
100 calories is 100 calories is 100 calories. Whether from broccoli or mint-choc chip ice cream.
And no one is saying only pay attention to your main meals.
We are saying your daily calorie intake (including celery at lunch and chocolate biscuits at 3pm) relates to your daily calorie expenditure in that if you intake more than you expend you will put on weight and if you intake less than you expend you will lose weight.
Yes 100 calories is 100 calories. That's your input.
But your output is not fixed. If your calories are carbs then your body can process them very easily so you will burn less. If your diet is low-carb then your body works harder to process fats etc so burns more calories.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.
Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.
Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
Nope, nope, nope. If you create a daily calorie deficit you will lose weight regardless of what the intake is.
I'm not saying it's a good way to go about it but it will absolutely work.
Of course if you create a calorie deficit you will lose weight. How you create that deficit is far more complicated than "eat less" though. Eating better works if it changes how your body reacts.
Or do you think 100 kcal of sugar or 100 kcal of gin are reacted to exactly the same?
Forgot to add the snood for the first 20 seconds. After apologising discovered that the policy is "we can't enforce it".
I'd say the answer is "yes, they can - or at least remind". Not impressed with such sloped shoulders.
For some reason they seem to think that nagging or banning customers over trivia is not an ideal strategy for a service industry.
Letting the customers kill each other off is also sub-optimal. There's also a question about deterring customers - I'd definitely be inclined to avoid a supermarket where an effort is not made to get everyone to wear masks.
Anecdotally, they are pretty uiniversal round here (Godalming), but more like 50-50 in a Coop in a rough area of Croydon. BAME use there (the demographics are 50-50 too) seems higher than white use.
Sounds like you have some risky shopping habits, there? Maybe you'd be safer in Spain.
@Fishing a polite request is not nagging. Perhaps we need to believe that not all customers without masks are psychopaths !
I don't buy the argument that the NHS gives the Government a moral duty to be meddlesome on food.
We have to eat. And it's entirely possible to be fit and healthy whilst enjoying tasty treats that don't meet with approval of the PM.
If that's the argument it's fairer to have people weighed once every six months and making policy based on who's fat/unfit and who is not. Why should healthy people pay more?
For once, Hollywood made a fair stab at getting it right. Typically, it looks like this
I did see an interview with Matthew Broderick where he says the terminal was programmed to display the correct text no matter which keys he pressed so he didn't need to learn how to type.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.
Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.
Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
100 calories is 100 calories is 100 calories. Whether from broccoli or mint-choc chip ice cream.
And no one is saying only pay attention to your main meals.
We are saying your daily calorie intake (including celery at lunch and chocolate biscuits at 3pm) relates to your daily calorie expenditure in that if you intake more than you expend you will put on weight and if you intake less than you expend you will lose weight.
Yes 100 calories is 100 calories. That's your input.
But your output is not fixed. If your calories are carbs then your body can process them very easily so you will burn less. If your diet is low-carb then your body works harder to process fats etc so burns more calories.
Exercise routines one day calorie intake the next I wonder what tomorrow will bring, favorite yoga positions?
I have to report a complete lack of panic at the local hospital, no queues of ambulances, no patients on trollies in the corridors just a quiet calm as everyone, staff and patients getting on with business all wearing masks.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.
Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.
Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
100 calories is 100 calories is 100 calories. Whether from broccoli or mint-choc chip ice cream.
And no one is saying only pay attention to your main meals.
We are saying your daily calorie intake (including celery at lunch and chocolate biscuits at 3pm) relates to your daily calorie expenditure in that if you intake more than you expend you will put on weight and if you intake less than you expend you will lose weight.
Yes 100 calories is 100 calories. That's your input.
But your output is not fixed. If your calories are carbs then your body can process them very easily so you will burn less. If your diet is low-carb then your body works harder to process fats etc so burns more calories.
I don't buy the argument that the NHS gives the Government a moral duty to be meddlesome on food.
We have to eat. And it's entirely possible to be fit and healthy whilst enjoying tasty treats that don't meet with approval of the PM.
If that's the argument it's fairer to have people weighed once every six months and making policy based on who's fat/unfit and who is not. Why should healthy people pay more?
Humbug to this nannying, meddling tosh.
Sorry, we have to put a sugar surtax on humbug.....
I don't buy the argument that the NHS gives the Government a moral duty to be meddlesome on food.
We have to eat. And it's entirely possible to be fit and healthy whilst enjoying tasty treats that don't meet with approval of the PM.
If that's the argument it's fairer to have people weighed once every six months and making policy based on who's fat/unfit and who is not. Why should healthy people pay more?
Humbug to this nannying, meddling tosh.
The laissez faire attitude to health has failed. Repeating the same mistakes for the next generation is stupidity.
I won't be at all surprised if the government don't swiftly rescind the Spain thing following the obvious pressure from the entire travel sector about how many people they are about to make redundant. Contradiction and hypocrisy to do so? Perhaps, but as they're making it up every day with no clue what they did previous days (cf eat half price burgers / don't eat burgers) it fits the pattern of behaviour.
If the "quarantine" was actually quarantine then perhaps they had a point. As it is if someone is even there at the airport to collect your form the authorities appear to spend zero enforcing it as them calling on you and you not being there is fine for a whole host of reasons. As with so much of their stuff it is nonsense on stilts.
That would require the Government to admit that they made a mistake. And as with Cummings when forced to choose between admitting they made a mistake and doubling down the Government will double down.
So if we all need to lose weight and the government is announcing a stack of anti-obesity measures from August including the plan to scrap buy one get one free on food, was not buy one burger get one free in August a mistake...? Or just the usual disorganised chaos.
QTWAIN.
Not a mistake. The industry is devastated at the minute. And while going out it's entirely possible to think about what you order and choose a healthier option and not a supersized meal with sugary drinks.
The key to having a healthy weight is to make smart choices ... it is categorically NOT to never go out!
I know you are on the libertarian end of the spectrum and I respect that. Which means that you know as well as I do what people are in most cases likely to be eating. It is not "sneering condescension" to point out that half price burgers in McDonalds paid for by the government is a direct contradiction to "stop eating burgers" said by the government. Yes its a fine balance between jobs and health. They don't attempt a balance or nuance. Its "eat burgers / don't eat burgers" in the same breath.
No hypocrisy. It's half price anything but be careful and don't overeat.
One meal does not obesity cause. A lifetime of smart choices is required to keep healthy.
The government should not be saying all or nothing. Education and moderation are key, what is wrong with that?
Philip. "Be careful and don't overeat". In McDonalds. On Half Price Big Macs. With restaurants specifically reopened to allow people to do so.
Come on. You know what McDonalds punters are in there for. Its not for a salad bowl.
How often do you eat at McDonald's? I do, do you with your sneering pretensions?
If you actually eat their nobody puts a gun against your head and forces you to buy a meal with large fries and large sugary Coke.
When we go we get out children chicken nuggets with carrot sticks instead of fries in their happy meal. I tend to get a burger and side salad instead of fries and Coke Zero.
Personal choice and responsibilities are things for people to learn.
You are clearly their average consumer.
Perhaps. There is a very snobbish attitude on this site sometimes that people here are "too good" for McDonalds, KFC etc and their customers. Its not big and its not clever.
More than one things can be true at the same time at the moment two things are true. 1: The hospitality industry has been devastated by the virus and the government mandated social distancing and lockdown and needs support to get back on its feet. 2: Obesity is an issue and people need to try and make smart choices.
The government is trying to tackle both truths. No hypocrisy.
McDonalds have actually done a lot to offer healthier meals than 10-20 years ago. And healthier fast food joints like Leon have become more popular too.
Indeed. You can tell by some posts here those who are going based off preconceptions of what McDonalds is, versus customers who actually go there and know what it really is.
I worked there while a student at uni 20 years ago when Supersize meals were still an option and Supersize Me came out as a movie. The menu then, compared to the menu now, is completely different. Supersize options were dropped immediately when that movie came out and carrots sticks, fruit bags, salads, grilled chicken and far more other options have long been introduced too. Its entirely possible to have a fully healthy meal at McDonalds now in a way that wasn't possible 20 years ago.
This is true. You can play Macs safely if you keep your wits about you. I, for example, never have fries unless it's with a single burger, and even then it's small fries. So if I'm doing a Big Mac that is all I'm doing. A Big Mac. And no puddings obviously.
Others get it all wrong. I've seen it many times, heard people ordering in ways that make no sense at all -
"Quarterpounder with cheese, large fries, apple pie, please ... and a diet coke."
America seems to have levelled out its daily new corona virus cases.
Houston is slowly emptying it's beds of Covid patients but at the expense of a current 11% hospital mortality rate (which has increased it's long term figure from 6.5% to 7.6%)
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.
Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.
Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
Nope, nope, nope. If you create a daily calorie deficit you will lose weight regardless of what the intake is.
I'm not saying it's a good way to go about it but it will absolutely work.
I think my body has learnt the ability to absorb neutrinos.....
I don't buy the argument that the NHS gives the Government a moral duty to be meddlesome on food.
We have to eat. And it's entirely possible to be fit and healthy whilst enjoying tasty treats that don't meet with approval of the PM.
If that's the argument it's fairer to have people weighed once every six months and making policy based on who's fat/unfit and who is not. Why should healthy people pay more?
Humbug to this nannying, meddling tosh.
The truth is, we are meant to enjoy delicious foods, and delicious foods are, by definition, healthy. We have evolved (or you can believe this of creation too) to love foods that don't kill us, by natural selection. The *only* issue with delicious foods is that the food industry can fake them, keeping the 'bait' of the deliciousness and removing the benefit.
Therefore, a fruit, which at its maximum sweetness is at its maximum ripeness, and its maximum nutritional value, becomes sugar. Butter, healthy animal fats, are replaced by hydrogenated vegetable oil. Milk is pasteurised, homogenised, and skimmed. If you can spot a fake, you can enjoy food as it's meant to be enjoyed.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.
Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.
Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
100 calories is 100 calories is 100 calories. Whether from broccoli or mint-choc chip ice cream.
And no one is saying only pay attention to your main meals.
We are saying your daily calorie intake (including celery at lunch and chocolate biscuits at 3pm) relates to your daily calorie expenditure in that if you intake more than you expend you will put on weight and if you intake less than you expend you will lose weight.
For once, Hollywood made a fair stab at getting it right. Typically, it looks like this
I did see an interview with Matthew Broderick where he says the terminal was programmed to display the correct text no matter which keys he pressed so he didn't need to learn how to type.
I wish my terminal did that sometimes
I think we all do I suspect that there is a Law of Programming that when you hit two keys simultaneously, the wrong one comes up first so you have to delete two characters instead of one ...
My personal hate is the decision to use the slash / as a delimiter in regexes as I wind up escaping all the separators in folder paths and reducing a nice clear regex to goobledegook.
At least Perl compatible regexes allow you to change the delimiter, but the abomination known as Javascript...
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.
Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.
Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
Nope, nope, nope. If you create a daily calorie deficit you will lose weight regardless of what the intake is.
I'm not saying it's a good way to go about it but it will absolutely work.
Of course if you create a calorie deficit you will lose weight. How you create that deficit is far more complicated than "eat less" though. Eating better works if it changes how your body reacts.
Or do you think 100 kcal of sugar or 100 kcal of gin are reacted to exactly the same?
Again, I'm not making a judgement on whether it's a good way of doing it, just that it will definitely work.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.
Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.
Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
100 calories is 100 calories is 100 calories. Whether from broccoli or mint-choc chip ice cream.
And no one is saying only pay attention to your main meals.
We are saying your daily calorie intake (including celery at lunch and chocolate biscuits at 3pm) relates to your daily calorie expenditure in that if you intake more than you expend you will put on weight and if you intake less than you expend you will lose weight.
Your view on this is a little outdated
Which bit have I got wrong/is outdated?
Which calories you eat matter. Your body doesn't burn a fixed amount of calories. Your calorie burn can vary by 250kcal per day based on what you eat even at the same exercise levels. 250kcal per day is 1 pound per fortnight difference.
If you consume 2500 kcal but burn 2350 you will put on weight. If you consume 2500 but burn 2600 you will lose weight.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.
Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.
Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
Nope, nope, nope. If you create a daily calorie deficit you will lose weight regardless of what the intake is.
I'm not saying it's a good way to go about it but it will absolutely work.
Of course if you create a calorie deficit you will lose weight. How you create that deficit is far more complicated than "eat less" though. Eating better works if it changes how your body reacts.
Or do you think 100 kcal of sugar or 100 kcal of gin are reacted to exactly the same?
Again, I'm not making a judgement on whether it's a good way of doing it, just that it will definitely work.
It will work as long as you can keep the deficit. Since your body is smart and can react, that's easier said than done.
Mr. Gate, a similar thing happened with Ribena and Irn-Bru.
The Government has enough to be getting on with that it needn't trouble itself inflicting more red tape bullshit on businesses or preaching morality at the public.
What's next on Boris' hypocrisy tour? A guide to fidelity?
This kind of thing bloody irritates me. [As an aside, I've been deliberately eating more trying to arrest a declining waistline, which has now reached such proportions it's proving mildly tricky finding jeans that fit. The idea of being lectured by a fat fool and perhaps having to pay more does not entice me to vote for him again].
I think the government feels it has the right to push a healthy eating message (which isn’t really anything to do with morality) because it will be paying for our treatment when we get ill and wants to reduce its costs. It is sort of part of the deal with the NHS.
The main reason the NHS is a sub optimal system is that it’s essentially a giant health insurance scheme where premiums are determined by socialist taxation orthodoxy rather than through a mechanism which reduces moral hazard. Clumsy attempts have been made to address this, mainly through duty on fags and booze but it’s not enough.
They should be prescribing resistance based exercise and the ketogenic diet to the masses and making direct cash payments if you’ve made sufficient progress at quarterly check ups. Outside the EU it’s easy enough to subsidise this too (subsidies for grass for life meat farming and fibrous veg, remove VAT on exercise goods and services etc...).
Certainly sugar should be taxed. That’s not regressive but compassionate, given the correlation between income and obesity/health outcomes. I’m a fairly free wheeling capitalist but think hydrogenated vegetable oils should be added to the list of controlled substances (I’d take a few off the list mind).
The other failing of course is that the excess mechanism sucks, done by proxy through prescription charges. It’s perfectly possible to blend a compassionate welfare / socialistic approach with appointment and treatment excesses. That’s another discussion though.
+1 for the positive nudge stuff. Said it a million times - the Vitality scheme is a very interesting example.
A sugar tax would be obsurantist virtue signalling - in the literal meaning of the word, with no particular benefit.
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.
Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.
Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
100 calories is 100 calories is 100 calories. Whether from broccoli or mint-choc chip ice cream.
And no one is saying only pay attention to your main meals.
We are saying your daily calorie intake (including celery at lunch and chocolate biscuits at 3pm) relates to your daily calorie expenditure in that if you intake more than you expend you will put on weight and if you intake less than you expend you will lose weight.
Your view on this is a little outdated
Which bit have I got wrong/is outdated?
In terms of the strict mathematics, you have controlled the input, but you don't have anywhere near the control you think you do of the output.
Went out for lunch on Sunday at a notable local restaurant, which is trying to get going again. Asked the owner, whom we know slightly, whether or not she was going to join the 'Eat Out' scheme. It was n't she said, worth it for her; most of her business was at weekends. I remarked that it seemed rather more suitable for Wetherspoons and other 'friends of Boris' and she agreed.
Our favourite restaurant is part of the scheme and opening up Mondays and Tuesday for it. They suspect that with most people working from home it's irrelevant what day of the week they are open.
Substantial extra staff costs though. Wonder what Ms Cyclefree and her daughter think off it.
In response (blockquote mess - SORRY):-
Daughter has signed up for the scheme. She provides food Wednesday to Sunday and is closed Monday. She is going to offer food on Tuesday for this scheme and will redeploy staff. She has worked out a 3-course menu costing ca. £19-20 to take advantage of the offer. Her main concern is to make sure that offering it on Tuesday does not cannibalise her takings on other days. At the moment there are enough tourists around and as it is for August only that should be ok.
As for the healthiness of the meals, all her meals are cooked from fresh: there are vegetarian and fish options and a salad is always offered. And from time to time she does Special Food nights eg Greek offering where she gets in a Greek chef to do a whole menu. Very popular and successful. Unlike some other pubs nearby she does not buy in ready-made meals.
It is perfectly possible to eat out and eat healthily as part of an overall sensible diet. Plus if you’ve been working on a farm or building site all day - as many do around here - you will certainly have burned off more calories than you will be consuming.
To tackle obesity it’s the hidden sugar in so much processed food and indeed the eating of processed food which needs to be stopped or substantially reduced.
The cricket forecast is anyone's guess. Scattered showers coming in from the NW off the Lancashire coast, but not well scattered enough to be hopeful.of escape, and some heavy enough to knock it out most of a session. I don't think Old Trafford has yet suffered more than a little rain this morning from the radar, but there's no session of play you'd guarantee with any confidence.
And suddenly a gap opens where there are no showers along and around Southport/Wigan axis feeding OT. Improving chance of a full morning session (touches wood).
@noneoftheabove the nearest “Leon” to me is in Manchester...
Nando's might sit in between McDonalds and Leon in terms of healthy options and thats everywhere.
You seen the calorie counts? My gods it's delicious but wow!
Calorie counting is pretty silly if you ask me (not targeting this specifically at you). A calorie isn't a calorie - fuel isn't just fuel. Ask anyone who's ever put petrol in a diesel engine. And how much more complex than a combustion engine is your body? If you're going to subject what you eat to such intense scrutiny, make it about something that matters to your health.
This is a typically stupid comment from you @Luckyguy1983
Let me guess - you never had to worry much about your weight.
What do you think matters more to an obese person's health than their weight?
How do you suggest someone who is overweight addresses that?
It isn't a stupid comment. I was a chubby child, and I'm now a non-overweight adult. Though that should read a non-overweight 'shaped' adult, because I don't weigh myself. I believe that being overweight stems from eating wrongly, not eating 'too much'. So simply forcing yourself to eat less (of a poor diet) whilst it will eventually lead to the body eating its fat reserves, is not going to result in a good health outcome.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
Well done on you shedding weight.
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more. Eat less."
Doesn't work - Mrs Eek exercises more than I do, eats less than I do and still gains weight.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it will is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
Hmm. Well of course I don't know the situation with Mrs Eek (whom I wish well).
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
Yup, if your calorie expenditure is higher than intake you will lose weight. It's maths.
Except your expenditure isn't set in stone.
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
It's really not the same thing. If you oncress your daily calorie burn to 2200 and reduce intake to 1800 you have a net burn of 400 cals per day, it will result in weight loss. The body is a closed system.
Your body may be a closed system but your daily calorie burn is not fixed. The very fact you mention varying your daily calorie burn demonstrates that.
Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.
Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
100 calories is 100 calories is 100 calories. Whether from broccoli or mint-choc chip ice cream.
And no one is saying only pay attention to your main meals.
We are saying your daily calorie intake (including celery at lunch and chocolate biscuits at 3pm) relates to your daily calorie expenditure in that if you intake more than you expend you will put on weight and if you intake less than you expend you will lose weight.
Your view on this is a little outdated
Which bit have I got wrong/is outdated?
Which calories you eat matter. Your body doesn't burn a fixed amount of calories. Your calorie burn can vary by 250kcal per day based on what you eat even at the same exercise levels. 250kcal per day is 1 pound per fortnight difference.
If you consume 2500 kcal but burn 2350 you will put on weight. If you consume 2500 but burn 2600 you will lose weight.
In addition what you eat, will in turn impact what you eat subsequently, so if you start off eating unhealthily but calorie controlled, you are very unlikely to be able to control it and are at a high risk of becoming overweight.
If you eat healthily but a bit too much, that can be resolved much more easily, by doing more exercise or eating less.
Comments
It’s as if we referred to distances on between towns in metres rather than kilometres because saying “kilo” was too much effort.
For some reason that always irritates me.
The meddling busybody should bugger off.
"Either imported cases matter, in which case stop fucking about and ban RyanAir from flying and take arrivals to central quarantine facilities. Or it doesn't matter in the grand scheme with good flight hygiene and pre-boarding testing and let people do what they want."
The government have been all over the place on this. They missed the chance to impose complusory quarantine in the early days when it might have helped. Since then they have been regularly flip-flopping on quarantines. This latest change was badly thought-through and badly done.
Given the headlines, especially from their natural support wing, they won't be extending it to other European countries any time soon.
My advice to someone who is overweight would be firstly to stop punishing themselves for being a 'greedy pig' with no 'self control', because I don't think that is true, and doesn't help. We were meant to enjoy food. In terms of more specific advice, I'd gravitate toward intermittent fasting combined with a ketogenic diet focused around nutrient-dense foods. Effectively I'd keep eating within a window of 12 midday to 6pm, with exceptions for important occasions. Ketogenic diet is largely based around limiting intake of carbs, especially empty carbs, and the degree of overweightness and speed of results would dictate the amount of carbs incorporated. Lots of eggs, lots of oily fish, good meat, vegetables and fruit. Lots of healthy fats. Combine this with an exercise regime, not based on 'how many calories you can burn' - which is like taking your car out to put miles on the clock, but based on building muscle and increasing endurance and stamina.
I would be appealing the leniency of that sentence.
This was thirty years ago though, and she was not someone who drank much; in fact she had the lowest tolerance for alcohol of anyone I’ve ever met.
The Government has enough to be getting on with that it needn't trouble itself inflicting more red tape bullshit on businesses or preaching morality at the public.
What's next on Boris' hypocrisy tour? A guide to fidelity?
This kind of thing bloody irritates me. [As an aside, I've been deliberately eating more trying to arrest a declining waistline, which has now reached such proportions it's proving mildly tricky finding jeans that fit. The idea of being lectured by a fat fool and perhaps having to pay more does not entice me to vote for him again].
Here's an exclusive preview of my forthcoming best-selling diet book:
"Exercise more.
Eat less."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDneyrETR2o
Edit: what I should have said is “want to be told they can lose weight without doing either of those things”. I know from experience that you are right, but you won’t sell a diet book that tells people something they don’t want to hear.
Actually most diets work (to start with). The reason being that if someone is overweight to the point whereby they decide to go on a diet then just by regulating their calorie intake will almost certainly mean they are consuming fewer calories and hence will lose weight.
It could be a diet of cream cakes and coke or broccoli and grilled chicken.
It is how to manage the ongoing food/drink intake thereafter that is of course usually the issue.
Tim Spector's book The Diet Myth is excellent on this.
For me the following points are clear: Not all calories are equal and not everybody absorbs them equally, but for an individual who wants to lose weight reducing his or her calorie intake while increasing their exercise is always going to work. For many people who a concerned about their weght, failing to count calories (or rather failing to have an appreciation of the calories in the food they are eating) is a major blocker.
I sit at home and use a telephone line to remotely connect to a computer system where I type commands to make things happen...
I don't have to dial the number, although I still do that on occasion. Out of Band management systems still operate exactly like that movie. Analogue modem connected to a POTS line. Screeching noises, and if you're lucky, a prompt from the remote end.
She also continually complains about feeling cold so sometimes it really is to do with metabolism and nothing else.
But first off she should be eating less than you do as her daily calorie expenditure will be different to yours.
And secondly, that is surprising. It is a pretty fundamental phenomenon whereby if you eat less (not than your husband but than usual) and exercise more (ditto) you will lose weight.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1287984124460969984?s=20
I eat fewer calories than you (quality)
Sadly, neither are true...
https://twitter.com/resfoundation/status/1288039451898400769?s=20
A major revision like this will (a) Embarrass, (b) Get questions asked in front of select committees, and (c) get the ant-government types on their case. The kind of people who will start Twitter Bombing with "Tory Stooges Hide Dead Grannies". Completely with death threats....
Much easier to kick the can down the road.
Once heard, never forgotten.
Of course, as we saw in eg. Supersize Me, if you have the "wrong" calories for too long that will throw up other health issues. But on weight it is a pretty golden rule.
It is instructive though to find that the Spanish government is so sensitive to unilateral measures the British government has put in place that restrict tourism to their country. Perhaps we should remember that leverage the next time the issue of Gibraltar raises its head.
And is there really any prospect of bilateral EHIC cards ceasing to be valid from 1st January, given that so many European countries seem keen not to discourage visits from UK tourists in the future? If there is, it says a lot for how far the EU is negotiating out of pique rather than with regard to the interests of their member states.
Long may it continue! 🤞
Your simplicity is like saying that the key to financial success is don't spend more than you earn, without any consideration for paying your bills, paying your rent, or spending all your money at the bookies.
Or do you mean the downward revision would be treated as fake (because it would be compared with the still higher number of figures in ONS stats and excess deaths)?
They should be prescribing resistance based exercise and the ketogenic diet to the masses and making direct cash payments if you’ve made sufficient progress at quarterly check ups. Outside the EU it’s easy enough to subsidise this too (subsidies for grass for life meat farming and fibrous veg, remove VAT on exercise goods and services etc...).
Certainly sugar should be taxed. That’s not regressive but compassionate, given the correlation between income and obesity/health outcomes. I’m a fairly free wheeling capitalist but think hydrogenated vegetable oils should be added to the list of controlled substances (I’d take a few off the list mind).
The other failing of course is that the excess mechanism sucks, done by proxy through prescription charges. It’s perfectly possible to blend a compassionate welfare / socialistic approach with appointment and treatment excesses. That’s another discussion though.
In fact all this talk of less food and more exercise has reminded me to go for my daily walk.
Later everyone.
Of course your expenditure isn't set in stone. If you sit all day posting on PB it will be less than if you spend all day hiking in the Urals. But the principle remains the same.
If sitting at your computer means you expend 2,000 calories per day and you consume 1,500 calories per day, over time you will lose weight. If hiking in the Urals means you expend 5,000 calories per day and you consume 4,000 calories per day over time you will lose weight.
We are talking about people who posted images of fake instructions to doctors about death certificates to "prove" that the government was "hiding the truth".
Any number that is less than another number will be pounced upon. Professor Piers Morgan (FRS, DipShit) will undoubtedly weigh in etc etc.
However, provided third country arrangements are allowed by the EU on a bilateral basis (are they?) it's surely fairly likely a govt (Portugal??),will quietly offer a bilateral arrangement for tourists that looks remarkably like EHIC, fairly soon post final separation and the dam wall will break. I'd expect Cyprus, Malta, Croatia, Italy, to follow pdq, then Spain with the French sniffily holding out for a bit.
I don't know about market share, though. Pfizer had said they'd deliver it 'at or near cost', but the $40 for dose plus booster they are talking about sounds as though that includes a whole load of R&D expense, and then some.
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-eu-talks-pfizer-sanofi-151629571.html
The U.S. government last week agreed to pay nearly $2 billion (1.5 billion pounds) to buy enough of the vaccine being developed by Pfizer and BioNTech to inoculate 50 million people, but with payments conditional on their vaccine being successful in large clinical trials.
The price agreed under that deal of nearly $40 per course of treatment is considered too high by the EU, officials told Reuters last week.
The EU is relying on about 2 billion euros (1.8 billion pounds) from an emergency fund to finance its possible deals with vaccine makers, which could be topped up with payments from EU governments.
For instance, the agreement with AstraZeneca initially negotiated by Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands cost the four countries 750 million euros for 300 million doses of the potential shot, an Italian official said, with an option to buy a further 100 million doses.
That works out at 2.5 euros per dose...
Having said all that, the benefits of a very effective vaccine, available before the year end, would amount to far, far more than that.
Simply cutting a bit of food while still eating junk and not moving works at first but stops working because your metabolism can adjust. Not all calories are created equal so if you're having 100 calories of sugar, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of alcohol or 100 calories of protein, the body will react differently to those.
Plus one of the biggest mistakes is to only pay attention to your mail meals nutrition while ignoring everything else. Eating a low calorie meal isn't going to be very great for you if it means two hours later you're hungry again and reaching for the Doritos.
What you eat, when you eat and how you move are the key determinants of metabolism. If you eat the right stuff your body will auto regulate your appetite and the calories balance will take care of itself without you even having to try. If you eat the wrong stuff (sugars and digestible carbs) and have a degree of insulin resistance, you’ll always feel hungry when dieting and will continue getting fatter.
And no one is saying only pay attention to your main meals.
We are saying your daily calorie intake (including celery at lunch and chocolate biscuits at 3pm) relates to your daily calorie expenditure in that if you intake more than you expend you will put on weight and if you intake less than you expend you will lose weight.
I'm not saying it's a good way to go about it but it will absolutely work.
But your output is not fixed. If your calories are carbs then your body can process them very easily so you will burn less. If your diet is low-carb then your body works harder to process fats etc so burns more calories.
According to this research the difference can amount to 250 kcal per day which is a very, very substantial difference: https://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20181114/low-carb-diets-may-work-by-boosting-calorie-burn#1
https://youtu.be/0PxTAn4g20U
Or do you think 100 kcal of sugar or 100 kcal of gin are reacted to exactly the same?
We have to eat. And it's entirely possible to be fit and healthy whilst enjoying tasty treats that don't meet with approval of the PM.
If that's the argument it's fairer to have people weighed once every six months and making policy based on who's fat/unfit and who is not. Why should healthy people pay more?
Humbug to this nannying, meddling tosh.
I wish my terminal did that sometimes
I have to report a complete lack of panic at the local hospital, no queues of ambulances, no patients on trollies in the corridors just a quiet calm as everyone, staff and patients getting on with business all wearing masks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQM-OTVUMHs
Houston is slowly emptying it's beds of Covid patients but at the expense of a current 11% hospital mortality rate (which has increased it's long term figure from 6.5% to 7.6%)
Therefore, a fruit, which at its maximum sweetness is at its maximum ripeness, and its maximum nutritional value, becomes sugar. Butter, healthy animal fats, are replaced by hydrogenated vegetable oil. Milk is pasteurised, homogenised, and skimmed. If you can spot a fake, you can enjoy food as it's meant to be enjoyed.
My personal hate is the decision to use the slash / as a delimiter in regexes as I wind up escaping all the separators in folder paths and reducing a nice clear regex to goobledegook.
At least Perl compatible regexes allow you to change the delimiter, but the abomination known as Javascript...
If you consume 2500 kcal but burn 2350 you will put on weight.
If you consume 2500 but burn 2600 you will lose weight.
Per head sugar consumption in the UK is down nearly 20% since 2000 (from 135g per day in 2000 to 112g per day in 2018) with none of this gubbins being needed.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/family-food-datasets
The real decline started around 2005/6. What changed then?
(Alcohol is a similar story)
Our favourite restaurant is part of the scheme and opening up Mondays and Tuesday for it. They suspect that with most people working from home it's irrelevant what day of the week they are open.
Substantial extra staff costs though. Wonder what Ms Cyclefree and her daughter think off it.
In response (blockquote mess - SORRY):-
Daughter has signed up for the scheme. She provides food Wednesday to Sunday and is closed Monday. She is going to offer food on Tuesday for this scheme and will redeploy staff. She has worked out a 3-course menu costing ca. £19-20 to take advantage of the offer. Her main concern is to make sure that offering it on Tuesday does not cannibalise her takings on other days. At the moment there are enough tourists around and as it is for August only that should be ok.
As for the healthiness of the meals, all her meals are cooked from fresh: there are vegetarian and fish options and a salad is always offered. And from time to time she does Special Food nights eg Greek offering where she gets in a Greek chef to do a whole menu. Very popular and successful. Unlike some other pubs nearby she does not buy in ready-made meals.
It is perfectly possible to eat out and eat healthily as part of an overall sensible diet. Plus if you’ve been working on a farm or building site all day - as many do around here - you will certainly have burned off more calories than you will be consuming.
To tackle obesity it’s the hidden sugar in so much processed food and indeed the eating of processed food which needs to be stopped or substantially reduced.
If you eat healthily but a bit too much, that can be resolved much more easily, by doing more exercise or eating less.