Health / Food / Blood Pressure (merged)

Mooney_Driver wrote:

arj1 wrote: What also helped me – WFH.

What is WFH?

Working From Home

Mooney_Driver wrote:

And hopefully nobody will suggest throwing “fatsos” into a concentration camp to make them loose weight

Obviously I used that to demonstrate that without any doubt when you don’t eat much, you lose weight. It’s amusing to me as probably the most libertarian poster amongst a somewhat authoritarian-leaning group here that you would try to pin me with that

If you want to lose weight, stop screwing around and making excuses, eat less and you will lose weight. I’ve found the in the past that the best way is to establish a certain level of hunger and hold it – you won’t do it without a certain level of discomfort over an extended period but your body provides pretty good feedback. And as @Peter points out, make what you do eat quality food.

Peter wrote:

WFH is working from home. It is good for some (disciplined people) and not good for the majority because it is so tempting to just keep snacking. Well, unless “WFH” means going for a mountain bike ride

Ah, right. Did not think of that one.

I agree with @arj1 that WFH is much better than if you are dependent on canteen or restaurant food. Also there are other things to do in dead time than just snack, which a lot of people do at their workspace. Looking at the contents of the dustbin reflects the contents of the calory dispenser outside the office (Food automat).

Peter wrote:

It isn’t, but these discussions are always ultimately pointless because many people won’t change because they won’t change.

The snag is that there is no free for all. Any lifestyle is combined with consequences. There are people who like to enjoy all sorts of foodstuff and are couch potatoes where as others love running marathons on a daily basis and can write books about what to eat of you do that.

I certainly like my food, which is quite basic Swiss cuisine at the most, with some excursions to Balkan and other cuisines. I try to keep reasonably fit and to long term getting my weight back under 100kg. Well, 16 have gone so far without radical change of lifestyle so I must be doing something right. Could I do “better”? Probably but if my personal quality of life would become such that I am severely lacking something, then what is the point.

I am not saying that going vegetarian is wrong, just that it won’t work for me. I am well aware of your culinary taste and you are welcome to it, most of what I’ve seen looks lovely.

Fact is not one shoe fits all. And as in any enterprise you need to set realistic goals which are achievable without radical measures most people will fail at. going veg or vegan is one of those things which either turn into religion (particularly vegan) or are not sustainable and in the case of Vegan even a health risk. Any sort of diet which requires supplements to replace necessary ingredients to stay healthy are beyond choice, but dangerous.

I know quite a few vegetarians, most of them women. Almost all of those who totally stop using meat need supplementary iron, those who also ban dairy need supplementary calcium and osteoporosis prevention, particularly after 50. Not all of them are slender. But this is their choice. It doesn’t have to be mine.

The only way I have found which works for me is going low carb. I can eat meat and high protein stuff but should stay away from carbon hydrates over a certain quota. Of all the ways of slimming down or even maintaining weight it is the only thing i managed to stick to and which has actually shown an effect. I am not religious about it, I know that if from time to time I share an Ice Cream with my daughter I won’t die of it. My cholesterol, suger and other values are well within limits and my standard resting BP is 120/80 with 60-65 pulse, so I suppose the side effects often portrayed with low carb are not an issue.

But I won’t try to change other people. What for. Everyone will need to find out for themselves what works and how far they are willing to go.

It’s amusing to me as probably the most libertarian poster amongst a somewhat authoritarian-leaning group here that you would try to pin me with that

We’re adults here, talking largely about solutions for adults.

I think a big part of the problem at a societal level is that obesity often starts in childhood, then people continue with the habits they picked up in their childhood. Children, at least, need a bit of authority in their lives. We don’t want overreach, but it’s appropriate for at least some of it to occur in school settings. There seems to be a consensus that reducing the advertising of snacks to children is helpful.= Some of the other evidence is more mixed, but overall it seems that public health interventions can reduce obesity in children (which is pretty impressive considering that the snack cupboard is at home).

I know nothing about smoking in the UK, but in the US smoking has largely died as a result of social pressure. I have no idea why that hasn’t occurred to the same degree in other places.

You are ignoring a substantial degree of taxation on cigarettes in the USA, and a gradual introduction of legal restrictions on smoking in workplaces and food outlets. Other places such as Germany, where such measures were started later than the UK and USA, have relatively high rates of smoking despite people there knowing it is bad for them.

Be honest: admit that coercive/restrictive measures work, but you don’t believe in them because of your libertarian principles.

kwlf wrote:

We don’t want overreach, but it’s appropriate for at least some of it to occur in school settings.

Our schools are very strict in this. No sugar products at all are allowed in their lunchboxes, only fruit and non-sugary things. Same goes for drinks and for food they get if they sign up for lunchtables.

In my daughters school, where i go every day to pick her up, I have yet to see one obese kid. So it appears to be working.

I also notice that parents are very vigilant. Our small one is very slender and a picky eater, so she sometimes will get an ice cream or a piece of chocolate (with proper measures such as go brush your teeth afterwards) or from time to time a sip of sugar free lemonade/coke or ice tea. I noticed that most parents however will not have their kids have any sweets at all, let alone any kind of fizzly drinks.

When I was a kid I was underweight all my youth so the issue never arose, but I have seen kids who were denied any sweets and forced into diets they obviously resented. The result was that their pocket money went all for sweets on the way home which they hid from their parents…..

The saying goes: Forbidden fruit tasts the best. I am all for banning commercials on this (and actually many other addictive things). However, a total ban may have adverse consequences once the kids leave the nest.

My daughter will enjoy an occasional snack or fizzy drink, but she is much less rabid after them than some of her friends who are denied totally at home. So I think in a controlled environment she over all consumes less of this than those who are under prohibition.

kwlf wrote:

Be honest: admit that coercive/restrictive measures work, but you don’t believe in them because of your libertarian principles.

History has shown that generally the result is to create a long term problem in exchange for a short term benefit. A directed society and economy is not a good thing long term.

Taxation on cigarettes is lower in the US than in Europe, and incomes are higher, but smoking is more prevalent in Europe. Having actually watched it occur, it’s quite obvious to me that the mechanism by which smoking was ‘extinguished’ in the US, and particularly so among the middle class and above, was a hard core government and health care PR campaign, largely funded by a small fraction of cigarette taxes, leading to changing social norms and social pressure. So tax had something to do with it, but not as a direct disincentive to the consumer.

My son’s primary school is the same. I admit that I let him have more snacks than I perhaps should, but we walk or cycle everywhere and he remains skinny. There is a lovely off-street avenue lined with trees on the way to school. It is a nice start to the day.

One aims to gradually grant more freedom as their prefrontal cortices develop.

Do I understand correctly, that these schools your kids are going to are dictating to the parents what they are allowed to feed their children???

Am I the only one thinking “err??… I dont effing think so!!…” Very wierd..

I think a big part of the problem at a societal level is that obesity often starts in childhood, then people continue with the habits they picked up in their childhood. Children, at least, need a bit of authority in their lives. We don’t want overreach, but it’s appropriate for at least some of it to occur in school settings. There seems to be a consensus that reducing the advertising of snacks to children is helpful.= Some of the other evidence is more mixed, but overall it seems that public health interventions can reduce obesity in children (which is pretty impressive considering that the snack cupboard is at home).

Or maybe take an active approach, like to include in the curriculum how metabolism works and the advantages and disadvantages of various types of food? Would fit in perfectly as part of Biology.. Kids may find it more interesting to learn something that has a direct bearing on them.