Low fat or Low carb - so confusing!

Here here!

Taking all of that into account and a life time of dieting, fasting and feasting here's what I'm doing. Daily exercise of various kinds including walking, gym, and golf. Lots of fresh fruit and vegetables, whole grain cereal, rice, pasta and bread - not in large quantities though, lean meat, chicken and fish all cooked fresh at home. No processed foods. Some treats like glass of wine with dinner and dark chocolate at weekends. The occasional restaurant meal. That is the best I can do and stay sane and a size 14.

That will be the Professor Susan Jebb who had funding from Coca Cola will it?
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11407141/Government-obesity-adviser-Susan-Jebb-took-research-funding-from-Coca-Cola.html
All I can say is that after eighteen months on the low-carb way of eating, I am having no trouble maintaining 9 stone, dress size 10, BMI 21 with regular exercise from walking and gardening.
Lots of fruit and veg, meat including fat, wine, butter, cheese. No sugar or sugar substitutes, white flour, pasta or rice. I eat well and don't feel hungry between meals.
Cholesterol is down, blood sugar down, sleeping well. No further need for blood pressure tablets (BP 110/60).
Works for me.

and that is absolutely wonderful Mamie- this post is NOT to counter your thread on low or no carb. I think the article says 'the best diet if the diet you can stick to' - and for many people, living with no carbs is almost impossible- so if they can switch to small amounts of low GI good quality carbs, so that it helps them stick to the diet and not feel hungry all the time (which may well be psychological) - and all well and good.

I've never drank Coca Cola or any fizzy drinks- but I will look into her background. But the article is worth reading and asessing- irrespective.

Respect to you Mamie.

I remember reading about it the first time GJ. It seems that the study, which was published and reported on in March (not sure why the BBC is reporting it again) may actually have been comparing very low-fat with moderate carbs.
www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/03/did-a-low-fat-diet-beat-a-low-carb-diet-for-fat-loss/
I think the main issue is that it looks at fast weight loss in a very small group of people. The point about low-carb (not no-carb) is that it is a gentler weight loss over time, which is surely more sustainable for most people?
I know that low-carb is not possible for everyone and I am not for one minute saying that it is the only possible diet.
I don't know about that particular study, but I do know that companies whose products are full of sugar are busy funding "research" to try and prove that sugar and refined carbohydrates are not a problem.

thank you Mamie- it is so nice and civilised when we can discuss things openly and without bias - merci.

Indeed it is
The other thing that worried me about that study was that the weight loss experiment lasted six days. Most diets last a bit longer than that!

I think people are confused by the term 'diet'.

To some simply it means a way of losing weight.

To others, like Mamie and myself it means a way of eating that suits us. It suits me to eat a reduced carbohydrate régime.

In general, we in the UK eat both too much fat and too much carbohydrate. That is why we are a nation of porkers with a high percentage of over-weight and obese people, and why the NHS struggles with diseases related to obesity.

But this is about personal choice as Mamie says, chacun a son gout.

Personally I have found that cutting down on carbs has curbed my appetite. I still have carbs in my diet, but these are found in tomatoes, sweet peppers and other vegetables rather that potatoes, bread, pasta and sugar rich foods. Just to knock one myth of the head, this is not a diet which is especially high in fat either. As Merlot so aptly said 'with no bread there's nothing to put your butter on!' (or words to that effect)

My cholesterol has dropped to below 5, I have no heart burn any more (I think Whitewave attributed hers to gluten! which of course is almost nil on this régime), I'm sleeping better and I have lost weight.

Simples!

Simples - and yet so hard for many. I know the NHS and all health services is finding it hard to cope with obesity and its consequences- totally.

But calling people 'porkers' is hardly going to help- truly. Some here have sometimes called my posts 'judgemental' - but that takes the biscuit- or is that the carrot. A shame, we were doing so well...

Come on- we can try and discuss and support without this kind of insult and hurt- really, Thanks.

I knew, I just knew, that the word I put in and crossed out (as a bit of devilment) would be picked upon. Isn't it always the way, that some people just ignore the main text of a post and have to pick, pick, pick.

Let's be honest. Too many fat people. There, is that better?

And why is it 'so hard for many'?

I could answer that question myself, but I'd be interested to hear your reasoning granjura though I warn you....I'll not be impressed if you play the 'it's all in the genes' card.

if you knew it- why write it. It is insulting and you knew it, as you have just said. I shall switch off my computer- as I intend to refuse any exchange here which is not civil or that insults. Life is too short.

Anyone with a thyroid insufficiency and on insulin will find it harder than most- this is not an excuse but a fact. I have no genetic excuse, both my parents were very slim, and skeletal in very old age. For some, there are psychological issues too.

Especially if those people have severe arthritis or other problems that make exercising very hard, or impossible.

Yes, too many fat people- and it does indeed have a massive cost. No need for insults.

Anya wasn't insulting you, Granjura.
How could you possibly infer that? She said that the Brits as a nation have a high percentage of fat people.
You're always telling us that you're not British.

I'd suggest that it's the appetite that some people have which needs to be understood. I think some people do have a genetic predisposition to want to eat more. Which means it is easier for some to say 'no' than for others.

This is not making a judgement on these people, indeed possibly the opposite, by recognising it is harder for them. This would also explain why obesity is on the rise, as I'm generations past there simply wasn't the easy availability of food. You often had to go hungry.

Today food is too easily available. If we want it, we can have it. And junk food in particular.

Does that make sebse?

'as in generations past'

Sense!

Absolute sense. I think junk food is a big part of the problem as are grazing and portion size.
What worries me is that a study like this which basically took 19 obese people and gave them a diet either extremely low in fat or moderately low in carbohydrates for six days and then measured fat loss, is then used to try and prove something about long-term weight loss. How can it?

A six day experiment with nineteen people is useless. Ignore it.

The final sentence of the OP is the only sensible thing to remember: it's cutting calories, any calories and enough calories, that makes the difference.

It isn't sufficiently rigorous, I agree Mamie

I think we've forgotten that feeling hungry is A Good Thing. I mean genuine 'tummy hunger' not that 'I fancy a cake' hunger. So your point about grazing and portion size is very relevant.

It was fashionable to graze throughout the day a few years ago. So we were encouraged never to go hungry.

And because of large portions some people have lost that 'I've had enough' feeling. Little children can stop eating very suddenly, push their plate away and say 'I've had enough' .

Don't really agree with that Bags. There is no calorie counting involved in the low-carb way of eating. If I understand the science correctly (I am not a scientist but have read a lot around the subject), if you eat carbs and fat then the body burns the carbs because it is easier and retains the fat. If you eat normal food including fat but low / no carbs then the body burns the fat, but slowly and in a more sustained way. We have certainly lost lots of weight eating food that would be considered high in calories. All calories are not the same.

jane, of course Anya did not insult me personally- all I said is that using insulting words like 'porkers' is not helpful in the discussion about weight. There is indeed much less obesity in Switzerland than in the UK, that is true- and for all sorts of reasons. And it starts very young- kids eat as part of the family, do not snack, walk to school and do lots of sport as a family, etc (sadly this is also slowly changing here- but it will take a looooooog time before we catch up the UK and also the USA of course).

As far as being British- well, you tell me. I was born and grew up in Switzerland of Swiss parents, dad being of French Huguenot stock. When I finished Baccalaureate and trilingual secretarial training, I went to work in London for 6 months- and met future OH- British but born in South Africa of English, African, Indonesian, African, Dutch and Norwegian stock- but lived all his life in UK. British children, British Degree, and all my adult life in GB- not too good at maths, but 19 + 6 years in Switzerland = 25, and 39 years in the UK - what is the proportion? I do not believe I ever said I am not British, ever (I swore my Allegiance to the Queen under Oath and got my British passport in 1973, I think) - just that my mothertongue is not English. So what does that make me. I lived in London, Newcastle under Lyme and Leicestershire. But of course this is totally irrelevant- just thought I'd put the record straight here. But I would like you to tell me what I am- if you please. Thanks.

And no, calories are not all the same. And some bodies, for very specific reasons and impairments- or due to certain drugs (like insulin or steroids) do not react the same to them.

Gj you wrote if you knew it- why write it. It is insulting and you knew it, as you have just said. I shall switch off my computer- as I intend to refuse any exchange here which is not civil or that insults. and Come on- we can try and discuss and support without this kind of insult and hurt- really,

That did sound rather as though you felt insulted.

I'm familiar with your life history, but wouldn't presume to tell you what you are. You have always stressed your Swiss origins and seem to take any opportunity to compare the UK unfavourably with Switzerland, whether it's education, health services or assisted dying.

No I felt the word 'porkers' was insulting and certainly not helpful- as said. I am not a 'porker' - I am overweight by firm and fit- despite my disability.

I wonder which posts you are linking too. I was a teacher for 30 years in the UK, and I am forever saying that UK education is much better in so many ways, and has huge advantages- as well as saying that some aspects are different- but not necessarily worse or better. For instance, the A'Level system (and I was an A'Level specialist) is VERY narrow- uniquely so- and this has huge advantages, but negatives too.

OH was absolutely and totally dedicated to the NHS ever sinc ehe qualified at UCH in 1969, just before we met. And I have said again and again, that the NHS was, and to some extent still is- the very best system in the world.
I hardly saw my DH when we first got married, and he hardly saw his kids when they were little- but we believed what he was doing was so worthwhile- so again, where on earth are you talking about???

Well, assisted dying does not exist in the UK - as was so tragically illustrated again today- so yes, there is no contest there- the Swiss system is indeed absolutely and totally better. Thank you for listening.

So if 'porker' is ok, what else woudl be acceptable? Crossing it out makes it worse imho- as said English is not my MT- and I struggle to think of any other word that could be more insulting (not to me however).