I disagree. I think we consume FAR more calories than we used to. I was looking at the size of wine glasses and dinner plates that my mum had in her day (e.g. around 1950) - noticeably smaller!
People have more takeaways, i.e. that have trans fats - BOUND to be more highly calorific than conventional meals.
In 1944-45, Dr. Ancel Keyes undertook a study - The Minnesota Starvation Experiment - to help the understanding of the effects of starvation (in the aftermath of WW2, millions of people in Europe were on the brink of starvation. The study led to a relief-worker's field manual). 36 healthy young men were selected. For the first three months they received a standard diet (i.e. calorie counted to be typical) of 3200 calories a day. This was so a base line could be established. Then, for six months of semi-starvation, they ate 1570 calories a day. Look at those figures. A standard of 3200 and semi-starvation of 1570!
Studies of hunter-gatherer peoples show that the average daily intake of calories is far higher than our average (between 3000 and 4000) - and not so much moving around, either.
Yes, plates are larger. But think how many people are on a diet at any one time.
I don't really follow what trans-fats have to do with your argument. They are, indeed, unhealthy. But they are the same calorific value as any other fat.
Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in the United States from 1990 to 2010 indicates that calorie intake stayed virtually stable, while obesity increased by 0.37% per year.
"Calories in = calories out" does not work.
In 1944-45, Dr. Ancel Keyes undertook a study - The Minnesota Starvation Experiment - to help the understanding of the effects of starvation (in the aftermath of WW2, millions of people in Europe were on the brink of starvation. The study led to a relief-worker's field manual). 36 healthy young men were selected. For the first three months they received a standard diet (i.e. calorie counted to be typical) of 3200 calories a day. This was so a base line could be established. Then, for six months of semi-starvation, they ate 1570 calories a day. Look at those figures. A standard of 3200 and semi-starvation of 1570!
Studies of hunter-gatherer peoples show that the average daily intake of calories is far higher than our average (between 3000 and 4000) - and not so much moving around, either.Yes, plates are larger. But think how many people are on a diet at any one time.
I don't really follow what trans-fats have to do with your argument. They are, indeed, unhealthy. But they are the same calorific value as any other fat.
Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in the United States from 1990 to 2010 indicates that calorie intake stayed virtually stable, while obesity increased by 0.37% per year.
"Calories in = calories out" does not work.
Yes the trans fat mention was a bad example.
A study done in 1944? Wow...we have undergone drastic change in what we eat since then!
It is abundantly clear that we are getting fatter here in UK! It's on the news a lot. Here is a link from the NHS citing high calorie foods as a factor in this.
I am sure you will agree that sugar makes us fat and we have consumed increasingly more of this.
https://authoritynutrition.com/11-graphs-that-show-what-is-wrong-with-modern-diet/
I disagree. I think we consume FAR more calories than we used to. I was looking at the size of wine glasses and dinner plates that my mum had in her day (e.g. around 1950) - noticeably smaller!
People have more takeaways, i.e. that have trans fats - BOUND to be more highly calorific than conventional meals.
Trans fats are banned in this country
Trans fats are banned in this country
Yes I forgot! Hallelujah to that though! 
Yes the trans fat mention was a bad example.
A study done in 1944? Wow...we have undergone drastic change in what we eat since then!
It is abundantly clear that we are getting fatter here in UK! It's on the news a lot. Here is a link from the NHS citing high calorie foods as a factor in this.
I am sure you will agree that sugar makes us fat and we have consumed increasingly more of this.
https://authoritynutrition.com/11-graphs-that-show-what-is-wrong-with-modern-diet/
Indeed yes. I'd go so far as to say that refined sugar is the baddie. Along with other refined carbohydrates and processed food. (It does occur to me that we have strayed away from Ray's post about exercise and health, but I do think the popular notions of both diet and exercise - the whole 'calories in/ calories out - need to be re-evaluated in the light of actual evidence.
This is the problem with anything the NHS says about obesity. It is not evidence based. Ancel Keys (him, again) came up with the 'low fat is healthy' hypothesis. At the time, heart disease was increasing (Eisenhower had had a heart attack and the whole problem was high profile) and the US government was desperate to find out why. Key's hypothesis came (politically) just in time. Low fat (and, because lowering the percentage of fat in the diet will, of course, raise the percentage of the other macros, high carbohydrate) was adopted enthusiastically, first by the American Heart Association, then, in 1961, by the US government, then by the European governments and health associations - including the NHS.
The hypothesis had not been tested, but everyone concerned was certain that studies would be done to show they were right. Two studies were done. The first, named The Seven Countries study was launched in 1956, by (you've guessed) Ancel Keys. It was published in 1984 and was a great example of how not to do a study. Keys looked at many countries and cherry picked the ones that backed his hypothesis. If he had chosen other countries, there would have been no correlation. In fact, the correlations were so absent that he could not totally ignore this and had to tweak his hypothesis towards what is now called 'the good fat / bad fat hypothesis. He invented the Mediterranean Diet. Again, he ignored all the places around the Mediterranean that didn't fit.
The Framlington Study is also quoted as 'proving' the low fat hypothesis. But the study was so badly done that the results can be interpreted however the researchers wanted.
All this means is that the NHS advice on obesity, whether referring to diet or exercise, is worthless.
Indeed yes. I'd go so far as to say that refined sugar is the baddie. Along with other refined carbohydrates and processed food. (It does occur to me that we have strayed away from Ray's post about exercise and health, but I do think the popular notions of both diet and exercise - the whole 'calories in/ calories out - need to be re-evaluated in the light of actual evidence.
This is the problem with anything the NHS says about obesity. It is not evidence based. Ancel Keys (him, again) came up with the 'low fat is healthy' hypothesis. At the time, heart disease was increasing (Eisenhower had had a heart attack and the whole problem was high profile) and the US government was desperate to find out why. Key's hypothesis came (politically) just in time. Low fat (and, because lowering the percentage of fat in the diet will, of course, raise the percentage of the other macros, high carbohydrate) was adopted enthusiastically, first by the American Heart Association, then, in 1961, by the US government, then by the European governments and health associations - including the NHS.
The hypothesis had not been tested, but everyone concerned was certain that studies would be done to show they were right. Two studies were done. The first, named The Seven Countries study was launched in 1956, by (you've guessed) Ancel Keys. It was published in 1984 and was a great example of how not to do a study. Keys looked at many countries and cherry picked the ones that backed his hypothesis. If he had chosen other countries, there would have been no correlation. In fact, the correlations were so absent that he could not totally ignore this and had to tweak his hypothesis towards what is now called 'the good fat / bad fat hypothesis. He invented the Mediterranean Diet. Again, he ignored all the places around the Mediterranean that didn't fit.
The Framlington Study is also quoted as 'proving' the low fat hypothesis. But the study was so badly done that the results can be interpreted however the researchers wanted.
All this means is that the NHS advice on obesity, whether referring to diet or exercise, is worthless.
I don't understand how you can be supporting the low fat hypothesis, which (by your own admission) has not been adequately tested whilst being so dismissive of NHS advice! Do you really think our government would be ploughing money into plans to combat obesity without having investigated it sufficiently? To say the NHS advice is worthless is obviously nonsense because some good will come from following their advice plans. It's a case of something is better than nothing here.
Trans fats are banned in this country
Trans fats are banned but I always find white fat on leftover fish and chips the next morning.....hydrogenated oil surely?
Hydrogenated are still permitted. Not terrific for us
Trans fats are banned but I always find white fat on leftover fish and chips the next morning.....hydrogenated oil surely?
Hydrogenated are still permitted. Not terrific for us
It might well be beef dripping which is known to be used in certain chip shops - notably more in the north of England.
Just to be clear 'google' says that transfats is banned is USA but permitted in UK.
I'm not sure that experiments carried out decades ago can reflect living in modern times. Our water supply is contaminated with hormones which is found to impact on obesity levels. Meat products are also injected with anti-biotics, we're surrounded by pesticides, dioxins, GMOs, chemicals in plastics, everyday household cleaners, the list goes on. Combined with ever available fast food, high sugary drinks, many people not knowing how to cook a meal from scratch, not to mention relying on allopathic 'medicine' to cure them and outdated 'health' advice from a strained NHS, no wonder people are in trouble with their health. I'm off for a run!!:)
Ray
Just to be clear 'google' says that transfats is banned is USA but permitted in UK.
I'm not sure that experiments carried out decades ago can reflect living in modern times. Our water supply is contaminated with hormones which is found to impact on obesity levels. Meat products are also injected with anti-biotics, we're surrounded by pesticides, dioxins, GMOs, chemicals in plastics, everyday household cleaners, the list goes on. Combined with ever available fast food, high sugary drinks, many people not knowing how to cook a meal from scratch, not to mention relying on allopathic 'medicine' to cure them and outdated 'health' advice from a strained NHS, no wonder people are in trouble with their health. I'm off for a run!!:)
Ray
Thanks for pointing that out about trans fats! I knew it had been banned somewhere! In the UK there is no ban, but in 2012 most supermarkets and the bigger fast food chains agreed to sign up to a voluntary agreement not to use artificial trans fats. It is unclear how many products still contain trans fats.
Yes the use of antibiotics seems to be overlooked in many areas, e.g. just today I read that organic milk is no healthier than ordinary milk but they don't take into account the fact that cows reared for organic milk will not be subjected to antibiotics. Who wants this additional contamination? Thereagain, I am not that sure milk is a great thing to drink in the first place!
I thought I would provide a link supporting your mention of water, being contaminated with hormones (i.e. oestrogen) being connected with obesity.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1261203/How-water-CAN-make-fat-chemicals-drink-trigger-weight-gain-fertility-problems.html
Just to be clear 'google' says that transfats is banned is USA but permitted in UK.
I'm not sure that experiments carried out decades ago can reflect living in modern times. Our water supply is contaminated with hormones which is found to impact on obesity levels. Meat products are also injected with anti-biotics, we're surrounded by pesticides, dioxins, GMOs, chemicals in plastics, everyday household cleaners, the list goes on. Combined with ever available fast food, high sugary drinks, many people not knowing how to cook a meal from scratch, not to mention relying on allopathic 'medicine' to cure them and outdated 'health' advice from a strained NHS, no wonder people are in trouble with their health. I'm off for a run!!:)
Ray
Right wrong all kinds of info travels like this...someone says and that's that...
white stuff on fish and chips IS trans fat , as suspected.
In response to all that is wrong with our food , water, land etc. - "man is a rascal gets used to everything" is a fine observation by Dostoevsky. We will live, not only that we will thrive.
be a little ignorant, happiness is more important in being in the know. Play the game!
Right wrong all kinds of info travels like this...someone says and that's that...
white stuff on fish and chips IS trans fat , as suspected.In response to all that is wrong with our food , water, land etc. - "man is a rascal gets used to everything" is a fine observation by Dostoevsky. We will live, not only that we will thrive.
be a little ignorant, happiness is more important in being in the know. Play the game!
Are you so sure that the white stuff on the fish and chips is trans fats? I know you suspected hydrogenated oil but weren't sure...do you have new evidence for now saying that it is trans fats? If so, I would be interested to see it.
I did an extensive google search on it which is why I was able to post that beef dripping is commonly used to fry fish and chips in certain areas. This, of course, is a saturated fat i.e. not a trans fat.
I just today I read that organic milk is no healthier than ordinary milk but they don't take into account the fact that cows reared for organic milk will not be subjected to antibiotics. Who wants this additional contamination? Thereagain, I am not that sure milk is a great thing to drink in the first place!
I thought I would provide a link supporting your mention of water, being contaminated with hormones (i.e. oestrogen) being connected with obesity.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1261203/How-water-CAN-make-fat-chemicals-drink-trigger-weight-gain-fertility-problems.html
Thanks for that. I do think that the general media is down on organic produce. I work with a colleague who also owns a farm and he said that dairy produce that is organic has to have a six week break if the animal is given a course of anti-biotics. It makes sense to me to go for organic as much as possible. I drink goat's milk and goat's yoghurt as it's generally easier on the digestion. The only problem with that is that there is no source of organic goat's produce in the UK and my personal bugbear, that part of the herd is fed with GMO. When I'm in the right frame of mind I'm going to contact the farm with the information I posted about the impact of GMO on human DNA.
Ray
Trans fats are banned but I always find white fat on leftover fish and chips the next morning.....hydrogenated oil surely?
Hydrogenated are still permitted. Not terrific for us
Saturated fat from the batter?
I don't understand how you can be supporting the low fat hypothesis, which (by your own admission) has not been adequately tested whilst being so dismissive of NHS advice! Do you really think our government would be ploughing money into plans to combat obesity without having investigated it sufficiently? To say the NHS advice is worthless is obviously nonsense because some good will come from following their advice plans. It's a case of something is better than nothing here.
Where am I supporting the low-fat hypothesis?
Do I think our government would be ploughing money in? Yes. Why not? It has NEVER been investigated sufficiently. You have said various things on HP that are anti taking Statins (with which I agree) and yet the NHS advises taking them - another area where the in depth studies have not been done. This is so with a great deal of medical advice.
You say my comments are obviously nonsense. Please explain why this is so.
"...some good will come from following their advice plans." Not if the advice is opposite to what the evidence does actually say. In that case a great deal of harm will come from it.