UKH

Obesity is far too widespread. Eating junk food really shouldn't be encouraged. Everyone knows this, especially people who struggle with their weight.

However, buy a magazine at whsmiths and you are offered a "chocolate slab for a pound". Buy a box of salad at marks and you are offered a packet of "chocolate treats for a pound". Buy a coffee at Nero (even a zero cal one) and you are asked "are you having any muffins or pastries today?"

Politely declining the kind offer of wrecking your diet is easy of course, but I find it really irritating. Do they do this to really fat people too? I can't remember from personal, and maybe I'm sensitive for personal reasons - but I hate this aspect of food culture.

Should I ask to speak to manager and get answers to what they are playing at, where is their corporate responsibility? How about offer to pay with Monopoly money? Fill in one of their damn "your opinion matters" feedback forms?

Or am I on my own with this one?

In reply to Mutl3y: You're not on your own at all, many will agree with you. However, the shops don't give a toss about your health or the obesity of the population, they just want to shift products and make money - that's what they define as corporate responsibility.

In reply to Mutl3y:

I remember a woman in asda offering a free taster of a new lager at a little stand at the end of the beer aisle.

I told her I was ok because I was driving, and she replied that it was only a small glass, I'd be fine.

Mind boggles sometimes...

In reply to ThunderCat:


That may be the case, but I suspect it's due to other factors than alcohol. I'm not personally a drinker, but I really don't think that tasting a small sample amount of lager in a supermarket is going to make anyone with a normal metabolism unfit to drive. Your point of view sounds almost like a religious principle, rather than one that is factually based.

In reply to Mutl3y:

Yes it really annoys me too. WH Smith and coffee chains seem the worst at it.

Also supermarkets with their bags of sweets near the checkouts to tempt last minute impulse purchases and bored kids. I admire Lidl for having bags of mixed fruit at the checkouts rather than sweets.

I suspect complaining to the manager won't do much though, it will be a directive from head office that they have to offer you the slab of chocolate or the muffin. Head office will also send in mystery shoppers, and staff members will get in trouble if they don't offer the junk.

In reply to Mutl3y:

The other day I popped into the shop at one of the hospitals we work with, to get some lunch. I chose a nice Cranks houmous and veg sandwich and a bottle of water. Got to the till, and the lady said "That's £4.29, but if you add a bar of chocolate, it counts as a £3.79 meal deal". There's no hope with that mentality, and I'd have expected better from a shop within a healthcare establishment.

In reply to Mutl3y:

Filling stations are the worst.

In reply to ThunderCat:

I remember a woman in asda offering a free taster of a new lager at a little stand at the end of the beer aisle.
I told her I was ok because I was driving, and she replied that it was only a small glass, I'd be fine.
Mind boggles sometimes...

Perhaps you should consider not going back for a third or fourth free taster then...

In reply to mountain.martin:

Of course it's a directive from up high, at least I would hope it is. The point of speaking to the manager would simply be to check that and offer polite feedback.

I am tempted to do the Monopoly money thing though but that's just me

In reply to Mutl3y:

Our Tesco has replaced all of its chocolates at the queue with "healthy options", which is quite clever, because those packs of nuts are more expensive than a snickers.

In reply to climbwhenready:

And some of the dried fruit ones probably contain far more sugar!

In reply to Mutl3y:

I remember I was once at a motorway services, and I fancied a bar of chocolate.
I took the bar to the checkout, I think it was about £1.50.
Assistant said, "if you but the Sun Newspaper, you can get that chocolate free.
I had to think hard about this. I suggested I gave her the price of the paper, I get the chocolate and they could keep the paper.
No, to get the chocolate for the price of the paper I had to take the paper.
So I took the paper and put it in a bin in the forecourt, and was just getting in the car when the assistant ran out, with another copy of the paper saying I had to keep it, I couldn't throw it away.

In reply to Mutl3y:

Welcome to the world of 'up sell' where staff bonus and threat of poor performance is measured by the findings of mystery shoppers. The poor staff are forced into the position where they simply have to ask.

I want a tee shirt that says "if I want a large meal then I'd f**king ask for one!"

In reply to wilkie14c:

Awful that. I will have to explain to the staff at my local Nero that I am not a mystery shopper and will never ever want a muffin with that*.

*Unless, of course, I ask for a muffin with that....

In reply to Fredt:

That is properly funny. Surprised he didn't demand you read it there and then too.

In reply to Mutl3y:

Sorry that's complete bollocks. Where does personal responsibility come into this. I'm trim, do regular excercise and eat healthily. If I'm offered a bar of candy at the checkout I just say no. If people are incapable of saying no then there's more to their weight problem that just food.

People need to stop blaming everyone and everything else and face the fact that fat people are fat because they CHOOSE to over eat.

In reply to Indy:

Perhaps a slightly simplistic view.

In reply to tmawer:

Stop making excuses.

In reply to Indy:

In hospitals there are loads of vending machines selling crap - choc bars, fizzy drinks etc. Same in some schools.

The managers of these outfits that permit this are villains.

In reply to lowersharpnose:

They are there because they make a profit they make a profit because people buy things.

Am I not allowed to buy a bar of chocolate becase some people are unable to control there eating????

In reply to Andy Morley:


Mmm. I didn't get that from the post, and don't understand your reasoning that this could be religious? Bizarre.

In reply to Indy:

Such lazy thinking.

In reply to Indy:



No one is suggesting the banning of chocolate, so yes, you are allowed to buy chocolate under any and all of the positions put forward thus far.

What's being registered is disapproval at the massive-bar-at-the-counter-for-discount "pushing" of junk in order to maximise profit by exploiting people's weakness and greed. But, the entire way we organise the world is driven by chasing profits at any cost (social, health, integrity) and through whatever exploitation can go unpunished, so picking this one tiny little reflection of the entire economic system seems a little myopic to me.

In reply to Indy:


There's quite a big leap between "people shouldn't be pushing unhealthy foods at the point of sale" and "chocolate should be banned from the shelves"... you seem to have made that large leap all on your own.

In reply to Indy:
I'm going to have to beg to differ with you on this one.

People are way fatter these days than they were just 20 years ago and it is not because they just decided to become lazy and feckless. It's because of the system. There can't be any doubt about this.

Yes some/many people remain trim in a toxic food environment. Good for them. But that doesn't make the pushers any less morally culpable.

In reply to Indy:

I know a number of larger people with impeccable spelling and grammar.

In reply to Caralynh:


Free chocolate and some money back? I certainly wouldn't complain; seems like a win win situation to me. Is their a hitch I've missed?

In reply to Caralynh:

Maybe the person in the queue behind you was some fat bastard buying a chocolate bar and a can of coke and the lady said "That's £4.29, but if you add a houmous and veg sandwich, it counts as a £3.79 meal deal". It could be a life changing experience.

I expect that the sort of people who buy houmous and veg sandwiches are pretty health aware in the first place.

Anyway, I've got more ethical issues with bottled water than with chocolate bars.

In reply to wilkie14c:


There is one "No I dont have a f*cking loyalty card". I was tempted to buy one when the nearest shop was a BP/M&S petrol station.
The bit that really pissed me off about it was the bloody alcohol prominently displayed for anyone taking a quick break from the motorway.

In reply to dissonance:


That seems like a bad idea whichever way you look at it.

What do you make of this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2335001/Wetherspoons-plans-open-24-...

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I wouldn't call it myopic, sometimes a little thing being grumbled about or causing annoyance can be just what's on the surface, or a representation of something deeper.

It doesn't mean they aren't aware of the dark side of capitalism. I think you'd have to be a sceptical and vaguely cynical sort to assume they're 'only' bothered about the selling of chocolate etc, if you see what I mean.

In reply to Fredt:

No way. A bit of a crap situation for the shop assistant to be in.

In reply to Dave the Rave:


Don't worry about it Dave. I think that treating the internet like an electronic smörgåsbord is always a good plan - take from it what you can handle, and leave the rest.

In reply to Indy:


No you're not, the world is going to hell in hard cart, man the fortresses, and stand up for individual liberties.

Good grief.

In reply to Timmd:


I'm saying that with an appreciation of how absolutely rotten the whole way we do things is, then the millions going blind and then dying from diabetes at the hands of those getting rich from selling poisonous junk, really is just par for the course. If I'm clever and well-educated and disciplined enough to stay fit and healthy while I sell you poisonous junk that will kill you, then I'll get rich and buy and a big house, and you'll go blind and die. I win and you lose. That's how we roll. I think if you get upset by the chocolate bars, then you've not quite seen the whole picture of how this is organised.


Yeah. I think that the actual horror of how we live is enough to give sufficient reason to become very resistant to appreciating the reality of it. At any reasonable level, it's f*cked.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

You miss my point, that getting irked at the chocolate could be representative of somebody also being annoyed at the bigger picture too.

In reply to Caralynh:


I'm largely indifferent to the meal deal/free treat with this/get a blah for only blah offers in shops. But perhaps someone could explain how a shop offering to give you more stuff for less money is evidence of evil faceless corporations desire for increased profits over all else? After all surely the aim in that case would be to give you less stuff for more money? (This isn't directed just at Caralynh, and I can see the point that is been made I just think there are bigger fish to fry, or should that be smaller..., with regards to the obesity issue.)

In reply to Nik Jennings:

Two things count: Footfall and spend per head.

A meal deal can persuade customers to pick one shop over another when it's time for lunch, and can tip the balance between having a sandwich and having a sandwich, crisps, chocolate bar and coke meal.

(Supplier funding will play a part as well. More volume sold can equal a lower cost price)

In reply to Nik Jennings:

It isn't more stuff for free though. It's overpriced food unless you buy sugary stuff too. In this example it's like a shop-imposed tax on healthy eating, but in any case pricing that encourages overeating can't be a good thing. People only have so much self-control and very few will resist indefinitely, especially when there's a financial incentive not to!

In reply to Fredt: you get this a lot at airports . free bottles of water with a newspaper. cheaper than buying bottle. I just get the paper and then put it back on the way out .

In reply to john arran:


Yes, there's psychology behind it, behind all of retail in fact, the psychology of how to get people to part with money is a huge part.

In reply to Caralynh:


Would it really be a problem to have a bar of chocolate with an otherwise healthy meal?

Many of us eat responsibly AND enjoy a bar with our lunch. Why shouldn't meal deals reflect this fact?

In reply to john arran:


Do you really think that £4.29 for a ready made sandwich and a bottle of water is overpriced?

Maybe we just undervalue all food and the work that goes into preparing it?

In reply to lowersharpnose:



The items in themselves are not crap.

People may eat them as part of a crap diet but that is a different issue!

In reply to timjones:


Do you think M&S make a loss on their sarnies then, and they're just providing them out of kindness knowing just how peckish we get during the working day? Or that we should think of all the love and care that went into the pre-packed delicacies and reward shareholders with higher dividends as a token of our deep appreciation?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Isn't it shortsighted to only consider M&S profits?

What about their suppliers and staff?

The value that we place on food has impacts far beyond the dividends paid to the shareholders of the major retailers.

Convenience food will never be cheap.

In reply to timjones:

I don't agree, for a change with this being UKC, . (:~))

That eating crap in moderation won't make a person unhealthy is definitely true, but I think that chocolate bars and fizzy drinks are crap, when it comes to nutrition.

Perhaps excluding people who need to keep loading up on energy in situations like the Arctic, or people who have 'hypos' like myself being type 1 diabetic.

You don't get any healthy vitamins or essential minerals in vending machine chocolate and fizzy drinks though...

In reply to timjones:


Are just playing devils advocate, or are you actually completely naive? The system works such that costs (money going to suppliers and staff) are reduced to the minimum while profits are increased to the maximum. If M&S charge an extra quid for a mozarella baguette, what incentive is there for this additional income to anywhere other than profit? A business charging higher prices so that it can remind consumers of the "true value" of their pre-packed lunch, and sharing this extra income with its staff and suppliers will not last long. I for one will go to Sainsbury's next door and buy the same sarnie for a quid less. There is no incentive for higher prices for better deals for suppliers and staff, it's an anti-business idea.

In reply to Timmd:

Lettuce is nutritionally crap on its own. Stuff really only becomes junk food, if it is the sole content in your diet. Eat from different food groups, eat in balanced amounts, and in moderation.

What do we really mean by junk food. Can someone point me to definite definition rather than tabloid headline?

In reply to Jon Stewart:
I'm saying that it is utter crap to say that food is overpriced. Food is cheap, the fact that too much of the margins are retained by the retailers doesn't alter that fact.

In reply to Timmd:


You are probably right about fizzy drinks, but I'm fairly certain that you're wrong about a significant number of the chocolate bars that are on offer.

Unless of course the manufacturers have discovered a cunning way of removing the vitamins, minerals, protein and fibre from the raw ingredients

In reply to Orgsm:


Junk food is usually defined as anything that allows the writer to feel self righteous when they abstain from eating it

In reply to timjones:


I agree that it doesn't sound like a lot on the face of it, but consider that the shop is quite happy to sell the same meal for 50p less, presumably still making an acceptable profit, and they're also down by the wholesale price of a bar of chocolate, then it becomes apparent that they're charging quite a bit more than they need to make an acceptable profit. That counts as overpriced to me. Of course they may be paying pittance wages and cutting all sorts of corners to get the price that low but we don't know anything about that so it would be speculative at best. What does seem apparent is that they're charging more than their costs suggest is appropriate.

If people are willing to pay it then good luck to them - that's market forces - but it's still overpriced compared to costs.

In reply to john arran:

I suspect that their real aim is to get you to add a bar of chocolate AND a drink onto your purchase of a £2.75 sandwich. Therefore increasing turnover at a reduced overall margin.

Staff that invite you to add on one item, therefore spending less whilst buying more are a real downside in this strategy

In reply to timjones:

I suspect you're right. In which case they're giving away both bottled water and sugary snacks for a reduced profit margin, and sometimes probably at a loss. Can't see that's a great template for society, but it's where we are right now.

In reply to Andy Morley:


Indeed. I will leave your Rakfisk offering

In reply to timjones:


Ah OK, I see where you're coming from. I think M&S sarnies are particularly good value in fact and in general I warm to them as a company. Unlike WH Smiths with their 2kg Dairy Milk with The Sun offers designed to clog up and deteriorate the soul as well as the arteries.

In reply to john arran:

Possibly, but are we so easily offended by a harness, helmet and belay device deal

In reply to Jon Stewart:


You have to persuade people to read the Sun somehow

In reply to Orgsm:
I generally think of things which are full of salt and sugar and which are liable to make you fat (more easily than other foods), but you're absolutely right that it's the overall diet which counts.

I just find myself thinking that with diabetes and obesity and heart disease being things which the UK seems to have problems with, going on what I've absorbed from the media, that salty sugary food which is liable to make you fat is the last thing which should be being sold in hospitals, and schools too, from when I went to the one near my childhood home for evening classes.

Something about fizzy drinks and chocolate and similar being sold in places where people have no choice in attending doesn't feel right to me, given current health trends in the UK.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Some people just want to buy what they want, and pay what it costs including a fair profit margin. They don't want their shopping experience over complicated by shallow marketing gimmicks intended to manipulated consumers. The widespread "meal deal" ranks close to the top of my shopping pet peeves list.

In reply to Timmd:

Something about fizzy drinks and chocolate and similar being sold in places where people have no choice in attending doesn't feel right to me, given current health trends in the UK.

If they're sold alongside healthier alternatives, what exactly is the problem?

In reply to wintertree:


But then there'd be no jobs for people whose purpose in life is to think up cheap scams to manipulate people into buying crap they don't need, don't want, and does them harm. As Bill Hicks said...

youtube.com/watch?v=pR1Sftec5nc&

In reply to FactorXXX:


So long as the pricing and ease of access are comparable, there isn't one, but apples can cost 70p and a Snickers can cost 40p-ish (it's a while since I've bought one).

It's not hyperbole to say that the NHS is approaching struggling to cope, and that it won't be able to be if current health trends continue, so the problem is very serious and real. The current generation of children are the first (for a hell of a long time) who are plausibly going to die younger than their parents did.

Obviously, not all of them will, but the ones with the health problems will have a shorter life expectancy than that which follows the trend of the past century and a bit.

In reply to mountain.martin:


Yes. If you hear about a murder at WH Smith in Inverness station then it's because somebody couldn't take it any more.

In reply to Mutl3y:

WHS hack me off, not because of the choccy[1], but because of the vouchers, which I always refuse, and leave on the till if they really try to push them. They have become a voucher specialist, not a newsagent and stationer. An embarrassing shadow of what they were 20 years ago.

[1] I find it amusing that they try to push even more choccy on you even when you go there with the intention of buying choccy. How fat do they think I look?

Neil

In reply to ThunderCat:

These tasters are normally in shot glasses or something of that kind of size (under 100ml). Credit to you if you have an absolute zero tolerance policy, but that's a principle rather than that under 100ml of beer would have any appreciable effect on your BAC unless you have some kind of kidney/liver failure, particularly if you went on to complete and pay for your shop before driving. So to that extent she is completely right, though it would seem to bring slightly bad publicity on the store, and I'd imagine if you wrote in a complaint she'd get a telling off for it.

Neil

In reply to Caralynh:

I'd take pleasure in having the chocolate and either visibly returning it to the shelf (thus playing merry hell with their stock control) or throwing it in the bin right in front of the store manager

WHS are even funnier on this - bottle of water well over a quid, but if you take the Torygraph it's just the price of that. Though I have in the past got them to scan but keep the Torygraph as I didn't want it. Have done something similar with petrol station coffee - free water with a large but only wanted a small, so I asked them to scan it as if it were a large. If they'd said no I'd have gone back to the machine and poured the small into a large cup

Neil

In reply to dissonance:

If the mere presence of alcohol at a motorway service station is enough to make you drink it while driving, frankly you are not responsible enough to hold a driving licence and should have it taken off you on the spot. I support its sale at services; you don't have to drink it. You might want it for later. And it's no worse than a Tesco Express by an A-road.

As for 'Spoons, in some ways it's just McD's with a plate, knife and fork. The beer is somewhat incidental in many locations - at lunchtime you'll see more soft drinks on the tables in a lot of places.

Neil

In reply to Indy:
I'm a bit podgy, it's because I eat too much (I don't do any shortage of exercise). This is generally excessively-sized portions of otherwise healthy food, though when it's chocolate it's always because I went into the shop with the intention of buying it. I don't recall ever having been swayed by its presence at the till - indeed the selection there is usually pretty poor anyway.

As for kids wanting it, parents just need to say "no". My Mum managed it, and when we did have sweets we only got 2oz - never a quarter.

Neil

In reply to Robert Durran:


I don't, frankly, think that one experience at a checkout will make any difference at all. Witness how many people still smoke when they can't afford to do so.


I have mixed views. Better to drink out of the tap and remove the distribution networks etc (I have a couple of Sigg bottles I carry around to that end), but equally it's good that you can buy water rather than sugary rubbish, particularly when the bottles run out (I drink quite a lot of water particularly when it's hot).

Neil

In reply to Mutl3y:


To me, it's much more because...

1. Of the motor car. When I was a kid most families had one, and Dad went to work in it. Mum and the kids (as it was then, though these days the same thing would of course work for Dad and the kids if preferred) walked, or walked to the bus stop/railway station and took public transport. I've recently started London commuting a couple of days a week, and it's amazing how much exercise that gets in even if you drive to the station at the home end. I know quite a few young adults from Scouting, and almost all seem to follow the pattern of skinny teenager->get car->drive everywhere->get fat.

2. Of the fact that jobs (e.g. IT) are much more sedentary than they were.

3. Of the fact that (for kids) many aren't allowed to play out any more and spend all day on games consoles.

There were sweets at the checkouts in the 1980s, and the range of fast food available was much narrower - no boxed fresh salads and the likes, just chips, pasties and burger restaurants. But in the 1980s a fat kid was a rarity.

It's not the system, it's *our* habits.

Neil

In reply to Timmd:


I'd put it in the bin again. They would give up eventually, or there would be something silly like an attempted prosecution which would (a) be fun and (b) fail because I hadn't signed any kind of contract that I would actually read the filthy rag. Though I suppose there would always be the option of chopping it into squares, which is all it's good for.

Neil

In reply to Timmd:
Schools I have mixed views on - there always used to be tuckshops, and the kids are in the playground running around (or should be) and will burn it off. But selling healthy food would be better.

Hospitals - inpatients will get fed meals, if you have an outpatient appointment there's no need to eat anything as they are short, while if you're in A&E with a broken leg where's the harm in a bit of one off comfort food which will help your no doubt weak mental state? I therefore have no particular issue with this.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


That's not my experience of Spoons, horrible places, but one thing they tend to do quite well is local real ale.

In reply to The New NickB:

That is true (and a wide selection of ciders etc) - but I do notice at lunchtimes people mostly aren't drinking alcohol. Maybe that's a regional thing.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

I suspect it's location, days times in Spoons tends to be a mix of serious drinkers and the office crowd. Dependant on location, one is likely to be more dominant than the other.

In reply to Andy Morley:


You're entitled to an opinion, despite it being way off the mark. I don't think it's responsible marketing to offer alcohol to anyone who has already turned it down giving 'I'm driving a car' as a reason.

In reply to Dave the Rave:


Yeah, scratched my head a bit there as well. Quite funny if he actually knew me in person. I drink a silly amount of alcohol, but like to keep a clear boundary between drinking and driving.

That appears to make me some kind of religious zealot.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I appreciate the effect would be almost homeopathic ...it's more the idea of having it pushed on me despite telling her that I was driving, and didn't want it. Maybe it's sending the wrong message. I don't know. Maybe it's ok. I don't know. It was just an opinion.

In reply to The New NickB:

Very true.

In reply to ThunderCat:

Not really, but it does mean what you were told was (to all intents and purposes) factually correct, just that it didn't tally with your (very respectable and disciplined) stance on the matter.

That said, I agree it wasn't appropriate to argue with you, and a complaint would I'm sure be taken very seriously if you felt minded to do that.

In reply to Mutl3y:
Chocolate is a health food, even milk chocolate with a much lower % of coca solids.

In reply to Neil Williams:



Ha ha. I'll keep you posted when I finish here at the Northern General. Currently 3 hours 15 minutes and counting...

In reply to ThunderCat:


This isn't a matter of opinion. It's science. Of course science too is subject to opinion, but as things stand, there are legal limits for the levels of alcohol in the blood that are deemed safe for driving, and those limits are scientifically based. You can argue about absolutely anything, science included and at the end of the day, some element of judgement is always involved. But personally, I would rather put my trust in the judgement of government-backed scientists than in that of the more opinionated know-alls of UKC.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Argue all you like - I think it's bad form to offer any amount of alcohol to someone who has already stated "no thanks, I don't want any - I'm driving"

If not wanting to mix any amount of alcohol with driving makes me an opinionated know it all, then I'm happy with that

In reply to ThunderCat:


Drink and driving is not a matter of 'bad form' - it's a matter of science and legislation, something for which we all have reason to be thankful. There's plenty of other wiseacres with the opposite point of view to yours when it comes to drinking and driving and it's a good thing that we have, for the past 50 years or so, followed the law in these things and by and large pay no attention to people like that.

In reply to Andy Morley:


I'm having trouble following this now Andy, so I'll sign off. And maybe go for a beer, or something.

Laters.

In reply to ThunderCat:

I'm having trouble following this now Andy, so I'll sign off. And maybe go for a beer, or something.

Tesco are currently doing 2 x 4 packs of half decent beer for £8. Bargain...

In reply to ThunderCat:


Well it's certainly good to be aware of your own weaknesses and limitations. That's one reason why I personally gave up drinking at the start of this year, and strangely, I don't have any difficulty saying no to proffered refreshments, nor do I get offended when people offer them to me twice.

I may not be typical in this though. People who give up smoking, reformed alcoholics and converts to catholicism are all legendary for being somewhat excessive in their zeal, hence my earlier comment about religion. But when it comes to driving, if someone's so weak-willed as to be incapable of saying 'no' to a supermarket sales person, and then goes back for more enough times to take themselves over the limit, then they shouldn't be driving in the first place in my opinion and to try to blame their weak-will on some shop assistant or salesperson is completely *rse-about-face.

In reply to Andy Morley:



I'm not entirely sure where you get the idea I'm a some sort of reformed alcoholic Andy. Love to drink, just prefer to keep it and driving very, very far apart. It's a preference, and an opinion. That's all.

In reply to ThunderCat:


It's not about you as an individual. It's about the arguments and opinions as you have sort of noticed but then gone on to dismiss as 'just' an opinion. Opinions and the arguments that back them up are the stuff of the internet.

If an individual punter can't take responsibility for their own actions and say 'no' to a proffered drink, then nor can the sales girl offering the drink as she has to give in to her employer's demands, and nor can her employer who can't ignore the market forces that are putting them in that position. It's a pretty rubbish line of argument because we all have personal choice, but if it's clear that personal choices usually tend to lead people in a dangerous direction, then we sometimes fall back on the law, which is what's relevant in this situation. I think the point of the story shows that she wasn't encouraging anyone to do anything illegal, as she herself seems to have pointed out.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Not sure whether it's intentional or not Andy, but the tone of your post's seem to be looking for some sort of reaction - y'know - slightly patronising, passive aggressive etc. Very subtle mind you, so I'm happy to accept I'm reading things into it which aren't there.

Lets leave it there, and part end on an 'agree to disagree' basis eh?

Peace out.

In reply to ThunderCat:


Lol - typical internet response, circa 1995 - someone loses an argument, so they complain about 'the tone' in which they lost it. The proper thing for you to do next is to go storming off saying "I'm leaving this forum, so now you'll all be sorry!" Your attempt at doing the latter was a bit half-hearted though, so I'm afraid it's 'nul points' from me on that score.

Which is all relevant here though, because this whole obesity debate has at it's heart the same kind of 'victim' mentality that we're witnessing amongst the Greeks right now - everything is always everyone else's fault apart from that of the person who's doing the victim-stancing. I'm surprised to find that kind of mentality amongst climbers, who are more typically fairly self-reliant people in my experience. But I guess that any body of people is going to have it's victim stancers.

In reply to Andy Morley:
I don't to be fair think Thundercat is being a victim just because of having a strict view that alcohol and motor vehicles do not mix. There are countries where that is law; the UK outside Scotland has a relatively lenient limit. And I do agree that if someone says "no thanks" to alcohol because they're driving, there shouldn't be a further attempt to convince them.

But I'd have taken the sample...I've played with breathalyzers and 1 pint makes almost no different to my BAC, let alone 100ml. (2 takes me right up to the drink drive limit, interestingly, which highlights how the body can only clear out so much at once)

Neil

In reply to Andy Morley:


Not at all, it just seems to be a bit circular and non-productive, and not getting us anywhere. You seem to be going off on some increasingly erratic tangents and getting more and more confrontational and aggressive.

There's no 'storming off', I'm just calling time as it seems to be the adult thing to do. But feel free to retort with something to keep the argument going, by all means. If it makes you happy then "yes, I've lost the argument". You win.

xxx

In reply to Andy Morley:
everything is always everyone else's fault apart from that of the person who's doing the victim-stancing. I'm surprised to find that kind of mentality amongst climbers, who are more typically fairly self-reliant people in my experience. But I guess that any body of people is going to have it's victim stancers.

Climbing and climbers have changed a lot in 20 years.

In reply to ThunderCat:


Debate is the whole point of threads like this - after all, it's hardly a conversation about factual information relating to climbing. The downside with more socially/ economically/ politically-leaning internet debate is that often people only like it up to the point where they encounter opinions that coincide with their own. When that ceases to apply, they very frequently turn into self-appointed moderators and attempt to 'call time' on the discussion.

But as to being tangental to the thread, I'm afraid I disagree. The point about victim-stancing is absolutely central to the debate about obesity and particularly, the question as to whether or not obese people have personal choice. "There were no fat people in Belsen" as someone or other once said, and far fewer people were 'born fat' in any way than actually are fat now. So are those people just sad victims of someone else or do they have personal choice in the matter? How come some people seem to act as if they had personal choice and others don't? Do the people that the 'victims' are blaming for their condition have personal choice in whatever they are doing that makes the fat people fat in the opinion of the victim-stancers amongst them? Seems to me that these are all pretty relevant questions to the OP.

In reply to steveej:


I wouldn't know, I wasn't climbing 20 years ago. But I'm talking about the here-and-now.

In reply to Andy Morley:

I'm calling time (sorry, 'storming away in a huff') because of the tone, not because I feel like I'm a self appointed moderator. I just don't get the aggression. I try to conduct real world / face to face conversations with a certain level of politeness, and I find it sad that internet discussions can't have the same rules.

It's just me. Call it 'storming away' if you want. No problem. You win. I lose.

Can I go home now?

In reply to ThunderCat:


Your call. Contrary to what you appear to believe, you have personal choice in the matter. No-ones making you stick around other than you. Just like no-one made anyone eat all the pies.

In reply to Andy Morley:


Bizarre. Catch you later mate.

In reply to ThunderCat:


It is so gratifying to be present at one person's dawning realisation that the freedom of choice we all have in life only underlies the fundamental absurdity of the human condition.

Bizarre it indeed is, or as the Buddhists would have it - life is illusion. But it may be a rather fat illusion for those who don't choose to lay off the pies

In reply to Andy Morley:



<picks up pie and moves to different table>

In reply to ThunderCat:


It might help you more if you left the pie behind!

In reply to Andy Morley:


It is a very heavy pie. I will expend many more calories lifting it than eating it.

In reply to ThunderCat:


They all say that.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Which vegetable was it again that allegedly uses more calories to consume and digest than it provides? Was it celery? Vile stuff; ruins any decent salad.

Neil

In reply to Mutl3y:

The reason obesity is so widespread is because most people believe that losing weight is easy.

It's not.

It's certainly not a simple physics problem where energy in in food = energy out in exercise.

So people will put on a few pounds safe in the belief that they can easily shift them later by eating less and doing more exercise.

You can't.

The human body is a complex biomechanical organism. It's not a car.

In reply to Andy Morley:


The pies? I've eaten many pies...but no talking ones.

Silent pies, if you will

In reply to Neil Williams:



Heresy. Celery is awesome.

In reply to ThunderCat:

Celery Pie.

Eat as much as you like...

In reply to Neil Williams:




My dsughter works for whsmiths....they really hassle to shop assistants to sell %'s of special offers etc and bollock them when they don't hit yteir targets! Shocking how they treat their minimum wage staff...

In reply to DancingOnRock:



Now Leeks...food of the bloody devil

In reply to DancingOnRock:

>

Well, umm, you mostly can. It isn't as simple as that, but essentially if you burn more than you eat you will lose weight. It can become harder because your metabolism slows down if you starve yourself, but that's just reducing the calories out.

It's also the case that most exercise doesn't burn as much as people think it does. (Though for heavy people running is a bit of a miracle one - I love the fact that a marathon burns two full days' worth for me! )

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

Quite. So it's not as easy as it seems.

Those of us who run marathons and have trained our bodies over weeks/months/years have probably forgotten how hard it is for some people to run 100m.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I'd come back to the point that "there were no fat people at Belsen". Not everyone wants to go to those extremes to lose weight, but then if you're content to be of normal weight or marginally above the ideal, then examples of any situation where food isn't available to excess do demonstrate that ultimately, if you consume fewer calories than you burn, the weight will come off. It's very basic biology and taking a far less extreme example from the same period, there were no fat people in the UK during the war and immediately afterwards, apart from publicans, so I am told.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I never said it was easy - I was just backing up that the calories in vs. calories out thing *does* work. It's the mental discipline to get that balance the right way that's hard. Which is precisely why I'm aerobically quite fit, reasonably strong but have a rubber tyre around my waist I find it very difficult to shift! (I like the endorphins from exercise and being outside...I also like a plate of chips when I get back in! )


I thought for years I couldn't run (though I could cycle as a mode of transport, swim, hillwalk etc), then I signed up for a 10K obstacle race and decided to go out and see if I could run 10K, and to my amazement I actually could (not particularly quick, I'll give you, but I got round). Having been spurred on by that I found that initially fitness comes *very* quickly. But then I started from the base of "slightly fat, but not particularly lazy", which is an easier start than "fat and generally inactive". My point there is that some people might surprise themselves if they actually tried.

The other thing people get wrong (I did) is to try to run 10K in a pair of Converse or something, which hurts unless you're already quite strong in the calves etc. That can be enough to convince people they can't run.

But one thing I've got and have had for years is a very good ability to pace myself - those starting out often don't and try to sprint, rather that starting out at little more than walking pace. Not always an advantage, though - I find it hard to push past it to get the speed up.

Neil

In reply to Andy Morley:


Well that's 'easy' then isn't it.

We just lock fat people in camps, don't feed them and work them until they're nearly dead. Don't you think that would be as bad as being obese?

Note that the people in concentration camps were not thin, they were malnourished. It's a lazy comment.

It's not simple and it's not easy.

People who perpetuate the myth are only making things worse. As I said above, if simeone is told it's easy to lose weight then they start to get into the mind set that they can always do it later.
"Diet starts tomorrow"...

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Agreed. But that doesn't mean it's *not* about calorie deficit - it is. The principle is simple, but the implementation isn't.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:



I don't think it is. Otherwise you could just eat 7 Mars bars a day and do nothing. Which is obviously not right.

In reply to ThunderCat:


Especially as a conduit for hummus

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Surely the reason obesity is so widespread is because people eat and drink too much in the first place?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

You could, provided that was all you ate. You wouldn't be very healthy if you did, of course, but that's quite separate from whether you would lose weight or not.

Neil

In reply to DancingOnRock:


It's a fairly typical response of people who start chucking insults around on the internet to choose self-description when selecting a brick-bat to hurl. It's what Sigmund Freud called 'projection'.

The only lazy comment here is yours - if you'd bothered to read what I'd written you would have seen that I was acknowledging that Belsen was an extreme situation before I went on to look at a less extreme example from the same era.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I'd imagine you'd also be very hungry, which would take a lot of mental strength to overcome the desire to eat more.

I think the increase in obesity is from a number of factors. Humans are generally lazy, like all animals, if there's an easy source of food they'll take that rather than "working" for it.
It's easier to jump in the car to go somewhere rather than walk/ cycle.
Generally, a bus can take you 100m down the road. I have known people who will go on the bus rather than walk that (an extreme case I know, but not unheard of)
More sedentary working habits.
The fact that you can get your entire daily calories, cooked at the local take away for about 5 quid probably helps too.

In reply to Andy Morley:


Understatement of the year, not everyone wants to endure months or years in a death camp, with each day having a reasonable likelihood of being their last. Even weightwatchers seems preferable!

Hidden message in there for you!

In reply to Andy Morley:

Insults?

Don't use it as an example. It's fairly obvious if you don't feed someone they'll die of starvation. It's also fairly well recognised that starvation diets are a very bad thing.

The point is, it takes a long time for the body to adapt and start losing weight. It's not something that happens in a few weeks.

You see people proudly proclaiming they've lost 2lbs in a week when a pint of water weighs just over half of that.

The intial cause of putting on weight may well be laziness but once you start travelling down that slope it's a very difficult one to turn around. Especially as the human body is designed to naturally put on weight.

In reply to Andy Morley:


Your "less extreme example" was equally witless, but at least it wasn't in quite such f*cking poor taste.

In reply to deepsoup:

Lots of difficult subjects make people uncomfortable and give rise to adverse reactions like yours, but if you can get past that reaction, you can learn an awful lot from extreme situations of any kind. Avoidance of unpleasant things is a perfectly natural human reaction and probably makes sense maybe 50% of the time (e.g. don't step in the dog sh*t on the pavement) but the other 50% of the time, avoiding the unpleasant things in life can get you into all sorts of trouble (e.g. not opening unpaid bills).

One of the books I personally have learnt the most from is *Man's Search for Meaning* by Victor Frankl, which is an account of his personal experience in Auschwitz. While you may consider that too to be in 'poor taste', it can be quite enlightening to get your head around situations that are a little different from those that you might perhaps call 'good taste' where people sit around metaphorically sipping tea from china cups with their little fingers raised and making polite conversation about inconsequential cr*p. In extreme situations, things like etiquette, the sort of chat that you might think of as 'good taste' and a whole load of other highly precious nonsense goes out the window, and you are left with the essentials of life in clear view.

In reply to Andy Morley:

Gosh, that's terribly clever. Well done you.

In reply to deepsoup:


It's not something that requires any great intellectual prowess, it's more about having the commitment, will and courage to face up to difficult things in life.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Yes it is. When there is a calorie deficit and the glycogen stores are used up, the body will burn fat (or sometimes muscle) to fuel itself.

What causes the problem is simply the very large number of calories in fat, coupled with the fact that if you do a starvation diet your metabolism slows, making it further more difficult.

It *really* isn't magic - what's hard is the willpower to maintain calories out > calories in for the kind of period needed to clear a large amount of weight, without binging at the end. It's basically a psychological problem.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

I think that your right Neil - for me personally, it's just one of those famous 'lifestyle choices', whether you want to be overweight or not. I was headed for 12 stone at the beginning of this year, now I'm struggling to get under 10 stone; a goal that so far continues to elude me because I have very little fat left to lose.

The reason for my choice was that an old friend told me in January this year that he'd been given 5 months to live. As part of my attempt to give him moral support, I said that if he overcame one particular challenge that was facing him at the time, then I would climb The Sloth. That particular route would be a big deal for me personally to get up, and so I decided that I'd better lose some weight. As it happens, my friend is one of those one-in-a-thousand cases who get an unexpected reprieve, and a couple of months ago, his doctors told him that he was going to pull through. That means that I no longer need to try to climb The Sloth, but since I now feel so very much better for having lost well over a stone, I don't think that I'm going to go back to being the weight I was.

So that's my particular lifestyle choice.

In reply to Andy Morley:
I think choice is also not really helping.

Did you chose to get to 12stone, did it suddenly happen overnight, or were you aware your weight was slowly creeping up.

The idea of choice coupled with instant fix diets really doesn't help.

You suddenly had a purpose. It will be interesting what happens when you have completed your climb. I suppose the logical choice would be to target something else. Ultimately losing weight is not your objective, climbing well is, losing the weight is a means to an ends.

If you have no set reason for losing weight, other than a general wanting to look and feel better, there's no urgency to get it done.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


We all have choice. It's one of the very few things in life that are really obvious and hard to deny, like death.

But for those same reasons, it's also a very scary idea, which is perhaps why you and many others seem to want to avoid confronting the reality that at the end of your day, blaming other people for the choices you made during your own life is going to impress absolutely no-one other than yourself, and I'm not sure what good that would do you either.

In reply to Andy Morley:



There is a vast difference between making a concious choice, being driven by millions of years of evolution and blaming someone else for it.

Three entirely different things.

There is very little choice involved and it's certainly not down to big corporations. Where do you think I'm coming from here?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

There's plenty of choice. It can involve a lot of willpower over what you're evolved to do, but in the end you choose what you put in your mouth and, injury permitting, what exercise you do.

Neil

In reply to DancingOnRock:


The amount of choice we have varies from individual to individual and we are all subject to limits and constraints whether we happen to be the president of the USA or a tramp on the streets. But within those constraints, the choices we each individually make have a huge impact on what our lives are, and they are down to no-one but ourselves. Two people born into very similar situations and with very similar circumstances can have hugely different lives and it all stems from the choices they make. Whatever external limits affect the ordinary day-to-day lives of most of us here, by far the majority of us could decide not to be overweight if we so chose.

As to where you're coming from, it's probably the same place as me and everyone else here, just as your final destination will be the same, no matter how rich and powerful or poor and miserable you may happen to be.

In reply to Neil Williams:



The exercise has far less impact than the food. I spent a couple of months training for my Winter Mountain Leader assessment, I was on the hill 5 days a week doing proper winter mountaineering. I still managed to put on fat (not just muscle weight, I actually got squidgier), and I was eating fewer than 1800 calories per day. I think the problem was that convenient hill food that doesn't require much stopping to eat was not the right calories. So I still got fatter.

In reply to The New NickB:


But how many obese people currently live the life where there IS a "reasonable likelihood of [it] being their last"

A friend said an obese employee at his work seemed to disappear for a long time when he was eventually found he was sat on the toilet dead. He'd had a massive heart attack. He was 28 and married with 2 young children.

In reply to Indy:


Relative to a Nazi death camp!?!


Very sad and I'm very much in favour of people being a healthy weight, but comparisons with people being worked and starved to death are hardly helpful.

In reply to Indy:

Depends what you mean by "obese" I guess, as well as other health issues.

In reply to girlymonkey:

This is where it gets very interesting.

I don't know what my daily calorie intake is. I seem to be able to eat whatever I like.

I run a lot. Maybe close to 40miles this week. I have an active job.

Why doesn't my weight yo-yo all over the place? I can guarantee when I stand on the scales they will always, without fail, read the same. Regardless of what I eat and how much I run. Something is governing it. My hormones mainly.

In the morning I am 11st, at night I am 11st 7lb.
Z

In reply to girlymonkey:


I'm not so convinced by the "right calories" theory - if you actually were only eating that, you should have lost weight (I typically lose a few pounds on a week-long Scout camp, and because of the level of physical activity on those we are never particularly fussy about eating health food). I think the biggest issue with food is that if you add it up it contains *far* more calories than you'd think. I thought I was eating about 2000 a day, when I actually added it all up (including my slightly excessive portion sizes) I was well over 2500.

IOW, if your body needs more calories than you put in it, you will burn fat - if you didn't you'd die. I'm guessing you did put enough in (and those were of a type that caused your metabolism to slow, or whatever).

Neil

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Or that you actually are eating precisely what you require and don't realise it, and possibly your body prefers to up your metabolism to burn off excess (within reason) than to store it (and this is probably where the "wrong type of calories" thing comes in). But if you were eating too little, you would burn fat (or waste muscle) once the glycogen has gone. There's no magic trick there - the body has to get fuel from somewhere. It can't invent it.

Neil

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Obviously some people's metabolisms are much slower/quicker than average. Mine is ridiculously slow, and so no matter how much exercise I do, my body doesn't seem to burn calories (I still haven't worked out what I do run on! lol). My husband never gets how I can go all day on the hill, significantly quicker than most people I go out with, and eat a packet of oatcakes, a couple of squares of chocolate, and maybe a babybell or two. My energy levels don't drop, I am absolutely fine with just a little snacking. I do need to keep fluids up though.
Some of it will be due to the fact that I am female and in my 30s, so what metabolism I did have when younger has started to slow down.
However, it's no excuse to be fat, I fight hard to keep my weight down by eating right. However, I agree with the OP that retailers trying to sell junk at a bargain price (who isn't tempted by a bargain?!) is really not helpful. No one is saying these things shouldn't be sold, but having them presented to you as a bargain when you are not able to avoid them helps no one. If they are just on the shelves, then you just don't go to those shelves and you don't buy them.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Some people have a very well tuned appetite-hormone-mechanism and will be a "normal" weight without much conscious effort with a particular diet.

Other people find it a battle, and the worse the food (and food culture) the harder the battle.

If you don't struggle with your weight then I would suggest you are one of the lucky ones.

In reply to Neil Williams:

No, I very carefully checked packets for calorie counts, and weighed things I made myself. I genuinely have a ridiculously slow metabolism.

In reply to girlymonkey:


On almost all occasions when I buy unhealthy food e.g. chocolate, it's been a conscious decision (albeit a bad one) and I've gone looking for it - indeed, I'm more likely to want something interesting than the basic bars that sit by the till. Those till displays are much more of an issue with relation to young kids and parents who can't or won't say "no".

Neil

In reply to girlymonkey:
Fair enough then! But you put weight on because calories in > calories out, not for any other reason. If it were the other way round you would have lost weight. It would be impossible otherwise, as the body cannot produce energy itself.

While I do eat a lot, I think I have quite an efficient metabolism as well. That probably was an evolutionary advantage when there wasn't a shop down the road full of choccy bars and sweets! (Though being quite heavy running does burn quite a lot, and if I ever go through a period of losing significant weight it's usually when I up my running as well as eating better).

I've heard of the theory that there are basically two types of metabolism that survived evolution - the efficient one that doesn't need much food, stores it easily etc to survive between finding meals, and the fast, athletic hunter who needs a lot of calories but is nimble and quick to hunt easily. The latter can stuff their face on choccy bars etc without worrying provided they do keep an average level of activity up, the former can't.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

Or adults who have a craving anyway. Sometimes I really want some chocolate, but manage to just not go to that part of the supermarket. However, it is much harder to resist if it is being offered to you as a bargain. It combines the chocolate, which I want, with *saving money, which is always tempting!

*I know it's not saving money if you wouldn't buy it anyway, but the way it is presented you have to remind yourself that it is not a saving.

I have got well practised at saying no to these things, but I also get why people do fall for them.

In reply to girlymonkey:

Yes, fair point.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

But my point was that exercise rarely uses as many calories as most people think it does. As you say, there are those whose bodies burn calories at a crazy rate (I sometimes walk with a guy who has nearly collapsed on me because he didn't have his second breakfast before we headed up the hill, he takes the biggest lunch box on the hill that I have ever seen, and he is a proper stick insect build), but most people who are overweight need to focus more on food than exercise. (Not saying they shouldn't bother exercising, but should rely on sorting out their food to loose their weight!)

In reply to girlymonkey:

Yep, agreed. My general inability/unwillingness to do this (I'm not blaming anyone else!) is why I tend to get fit enough to run marathons and the likes but with about a 3 stone[1] spare tyre round my waist.

[1] Not as bad as it sounds when 13.5 stone is the lightest I've ever been and that's before I started climbing, I reckon I've probably put on a stone of muscle on my upper body since then.

In reply to girlymonkey:

I just find it annoying not really the money side of things. Though it is particularly irksome when, like the meal deal, having more costs less.

A mate (who is battling with his weight) was given a cookie on arrival. One of those big ones that pack 200+ calories into a few mouthfulls. "but I don't want it" "but it's free" so took it without making a scene/causing offence etc. with every intention of putting it in the bin. Of course, he ended up eating it and feeling bad.

Its easy to wake up in the morning with every intention of being good but it's a real struggle for some folk!

Others, and I envy them enormously, will genuinely "spoil their tea" if they have a cake or something an hour before mealtime. They go around being naturally slim completely baffled by people who seem to insist on overeating like they are on some sort of sponsored gorge-a-thon!

In reply to girlymonkey:

Agree with this. Five minutes with a food diary is a better weight loss parra tegu than an hour of exercise.

If someone eats more than they think or doesn't need much to maintain being overweight then the food diary will reveal it.

Generally though the fast metabolism thing is a myth. People who are thin and can eat anything generally don't.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

It is really, it's the first law of thermodynamics in fact.

You simply mean that human nutrition is complex, and human psychology infinitely more so, such that remaining healthy, happy and motivated while maintaining a (calories in) <(total energy used) balance, as required for weight loss, is very difficult. the physics, though, really is as simple as you deny.

But Neil W. has explained that quite well, so I doubt I'll be making a difference.

In reply to Mutl3y:

It's all about the Internal and External locus of control.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Not having a go at you personally, just a reality check, but it is very unlikely that you have put on a stone of muscle in your upper body unless you have been doing some incredibly serious strength training with huge gains. Obviously I have no idea what you look like etc but a stone is a lot of muscle to build on the upper body even over a long period of time. I remember thinking I was a lot more muscly than I was because build and stuff, but I was delusional. Just sharing that

In reply to steveej:
Interesting, could you expand on this?

In reply to Mutl3y:

Individuals with a strong internal locus of control believe events in their life derive primarily from their own actions: for example, when receiving exam results, people with an internal locus of control tend to praise or blame themselves and their abilities. People with a strong external locus of control tend to praise or blame external factors such as the teacher or the exam.

The construct is applicable to such fields as educational psychology, health psychology and clinical psychology.

Locus of control is one of the four dimensions of core self-evaluations – one's fundamental appraisal of oneself – along with neuroticism, self-efficacy, and self-esteem.

In reply to steveej:


It's not about cake then!

In reply to Mutl3y:

Funnily enough, I first heard about it from a University lecturer during my studies some 14 years ago.

I always remembered it.

In reply to Just Another Dave:




No. Because exercise is only a very small factor in our energy expenditure.
Go for a 5k run. That's about 300cals. Of a possible 2500 calories you might consume.

I can think of at least 6 ways in which you use energy and at least three ways it's stored. You can try to reduce it to thermodynamics but that is an extremely oversimplified equation of what happens and for a very complex system it completely ignores feedback and delay mechanisms.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

'Energy used' doesn't just mean 'exercise'. It means the energy used by the body for all its functions*. In which case, it still has to adhere to the first law of thermodynamics, whatever feedback and delay systems your throw into the mix. The fact that the body changes its base metabolic rate is immaterial; it's still a matter of energy in vs energy out. Just that, if your BMR reduces, you'll need to reduce your energy input further, to maintain the balance.

* One of those functions is thermoregulation. Sitting in a heated house means you're not expending energy maintaining your body temperature. This is another 'invisible weight gain' cause.

Just because I support the energy balance argument, doesn't mean that I think overweight people 'lack willpower'. There are genuine differences in satiation between people, so the issue of 'willpower' isn't simple. Some people feel full when they have eaten the 'right amount'. Some people genuinely don't, and continue to feel hungry, even when they've eaten 'more than they need'. I used to think it was simply greediness, but the studies in satiation changed my mind; for some people, not overeating means constantly feeling hungry; that cannot be fun.

In reply to captain paranoia:
If you want to 'simplify' it to energy in over several years and energy dissipated over several years that's fine. But that's a massive simplification. Mainly because it's impossible to measure the energy out.

So what is 'simply' the law of thermodynamics is, as I say, a massive and disingeneous, oversimplification.

Especially when the human being is regulating it's output.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Of course it's a simplification. It's also true. Nothing you've said can possibly deny that the absolute fact that thermodynamics' first law is the deciding factor in whether weight is gained or lost.

The many ways we have of using and storing energy, and the very small proportion of total energy used that can be attributed to exercise, is all irrelevant to how fat is accumulated or reduced. It is relevant to how difficult people find it to achieve, and I summed this up in reference to our complex physiology and psychology.

You don't really think humans are an exception to the laws of thermodynamics, do you?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

And it doesn't need to be averaged over years, days will do.

And it doesn't matter that we can't exactly measure the amount of energy used, or that we the humans are regulating it. If weight is being gained, then energy in is too high compared to the energy being used. That's enough to know.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

By the same argument it is hard to gain weight as well.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

But it doesn't work like that.

Let's say that tomorrow you get up in the morning and you go and take a long run without eating anything first (thus nicely taking out a big chunk of your glycogen stores and blood sugar). Then you do your normal day still not eating anything, just drinking water. By the end of the day you'll be burning fat, as the body has nothing else left to burn. What would you propose it does?

You won't burn *much* fat, a pound of fat is about 3500calories. But you will burn fat.


You're heading into cross-purposes here. The body can regulate energy used in a number of ways, so the amount of "energy in" varies. But it's *still* energy in vs. energy out. You haven't given any sort of explanation as to how you think the body can create or destroy energy - and you won't, because that is impossible.

Neil

In reply to Just Another Dave:



Of course they're not. But as I've said many times. Some people can eat huge amounts of food and not put any weight on.

The complex bit is the most important and vital bit to understand and just reducing the amount going in will not reduce weight.

Mainly because if you reduce what's going in, the body will self regulate energy expenditure to maintain its weight.

Anybody who continually says eat less is disregarding how the system reacts when you reduce the energy input.

It is not a simple energy out is constant and reducing energy in reduces the mass. The most important feature of the whole problem is being missed.

In reply to Neil Williams:

The body would pretty quickly shut itself down. Maybe faint or at least reduce its further expenditure.

Most importantly it'll be impossible to not eat anything over the next few days. This is where we get to ridiculous extremes and someone starts talking about concentration camps.

That starvation diet is not healthy maintainable. Continue it for a number of weeks and you'll end up with organ failure.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Because they do one of (or a combination of):-
1. Having a high basal metabolism rate, or one that speeds up to burn off spare energy by moving the body or raising its temperature.
2. Doing a *lot* of exercise (I've lost count of the number of skinny 17-18 year olds I've known through Scouting who have quickly got fat when they have started driving and thus stopped walking, running and cycling everywhere as they were prior to that).
3. Eating a lot but largely of healthy food. Put away a few kilos of salad and you're just going to spend a while in the loo, not get fat.


Yes it will, *if you reduce sufficiently*. It isn't the case that reducing by 100 calories a day will cause a loss of a pound of fat (3500 calories for the sake of argument) in 35 days, it'll take more than that.

>

Nope, it is exactly what will happen if you bring energy in down below energy out.


At no point have I said that, you're oversimplifying what I was saying. You have to reduce energy in below energy out by the required amount. Energy out will vary on a load of factors - exercise, how cold you are, and how fast your metabolism is going at that point. But that does not change the basic fact of the equation - if calories in < calories out you *will* lose weight.

Neil

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Again, at no point did I suggest long-term fasting as a particularly sensible idea (though most healthy adults can go without food for 3 weeks if they have to, fatter ones may manage longer - it does have some evolutionary advantage!).

Again, that has nothing to do with the basic equation.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

And you think that basal metabolic rate is fixed?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


It's not, stop trying to simplify stuff to try and make a weak point.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

No, when did I say or even imply that it was?

In reply to Orgsm:


Its a strong point. And if you tell someone to eat less and they then don't lose weight, you'd better have a better explanation than they're defying the laws of physics.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
Who's simply "telling people to eat less".

What you need to do is *eat fewer calories than your body consumes*. You are trying to oversimplify my point. When you eat fewer calories than your body consumes and all the glycogen and blood sugar stores are gone, you either drop dead or burn fat. Those are the only two options.

Neil

In reply to DancingOnRock:

If they haven't lost weight, then either they didn't eat less, or their energy expenditure of the same period went down as well. How long a period are you measuring this, and how are you verifying they've eaten less?

In reply to Neil Williams:

Quite a few posters have.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Besides simply telling someone to eat less doesn't mean they do, despite what you think.

In reply to Orgsm:

Particularly given that some don't understand what it means, e.g. they switch to "low fat" yogurts and the likes which often have more calories, they're just full of sugar instead.

In reply to Neil Williams:

And the free chocolate bars they are plied with at the checkout won't count as 'eating'.

Maybe Dancing's got a point, I can see how these details would bend the laws of physics.

In reply to Mutl3y:

Oh well, I was 10 stone zero pounds on the nose this morning, and that's from a position of being between 11st 8lbs and 11st 10lbs at the start of the year. I'm really quite pleased about that.

This conversation is a bit like the weight-loss process. You start of making big strides and obvious gains (meaning weight-loss). But the final stages are increasingly frustrating with only very minimal progress in return for lots of effort. My own personal weight-loss/ health-gain process is still going places though, whereas I don't think this conversation is!

In reply to Andy Morley:

That's because it's not simple is it? You've got to the point where your body has decided it is your optimum weight for your current 'activity' levels.

You'll have to drastically change something to get it to change now.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I'm really not that fussed now it's down to something reasonable - although I didn't appear overweight before, I feel so much better for it that it was obviously worth doing. However, wanting to shift that last little bit of flab is more about vanity than health

In reply to Andy Morley:
Simple would be a bucket with holes in it. You pour water in the top, the water comes out the holes. If you fill it faster than in drains, it accumulates. When you stop pouring water the accumulated water runs out and stops.

In reality that bucket has expanding bladders, weirs, dams and variable pressure holes with taps that open up and close depending on various factors. Couple with the water going in isn't pure and is being filtered is changing state and some of the changed state is recycled to be used again within the system.

It's anything but simple.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
>

Overall, it isn't. But the formula still works. It's simply that "calories out" varies with exertion, metabolism etc.

It is in a way like driving your car. The petrol runs out at a different rate depending on road conditions, how fast you drive, how hot it is[1] etc. But the point that you run out occurs when energy out has exceeded energy in.

[1] if you have aircon.

In reply to Andy Morley:


My guess is you actually need that to maintain your health. If I drop to 10st6lb I have to eat all the time to maintain my energy levels. There's no buffer.

In reply to Neil Williams:




I think we both agree. The point is though; that simplifying it to cals in and cals out doesn't help anything.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


That's a really interesting point and one that I had been thinking about. However, one of my sons who's marginally taller but otherwise similar to me and is starting to show signs of climbing better than me (the dirty rat ) has reduced his weight over the past year from 13 stone to 9st 10lb, and still has a bit of a gut. Given the similarity in our builds, I reckon I'm by no means underweight.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

In a mathematical sense no, because trying to work out what calories out is is a bit hard. But if you do more exercise *and* reduce eating substantially[1] you're going to lose weight. (This approach appears to be working for me at the moment).

[1] If you find you aren't losing weight, do it more, assuming the weight is there to lose

In reply to DancingOnRock:

I have wondered if that spare-tyre "buffer" is one reason I'm reasonably good at half marathons etc (If I try to eat then run I feel sick)

There will however be a sensible cut off point for that, and just over 18 stone isn't it

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


You can carry your buffer round your waist in the shape of body fat or you can carry it wrapped in paper/plastic/foil in the shape of chocolate, nuts, cereal bars or what have you, which you can take as and when you need it. You can also, as some advise, eat it as a spag bol the night before you go running, climbing or whatever else.

You're not then obliged to take your buffer with you all the time, wherever you go and whatever you do. You don't need a buffer when you're watching telly or sat at a desk.

In reply to Andy Morley:

This is all very true (it was a bit of a joke, and I do really want to lose most of it! About 15-16st would be ideal I think.)

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


You shouldn't need food during a half marathon whatever size you are!

In reply to The New NickB:

Before, not during