Coca-Cola and sugar

You are absolutely right about the nutrients in one's diet being of paramount importance, mamie. However, that does not alter the fact that if you eat more calories (of any kind and containing whichever nutrients) than your body burns up, you will not lose weight. The bottom line about losing weight is about the number of calories consumed.

The number of nutrients consumed is a related but separate issue.

Can we get a discount ja?!

What has he got on offer for 11 year olds please? 'Mine' is at this moment on the way to the Peak District where his older bro and his Dad will spend their time climbing very steep hills etc etc, whilst he spends all the time he can sneak in, on his Nexus7 and his brand new Kindle (that his evil Granny introduced him to).

I'll ask jingl
He will have a wonderful time in the Peak District. My old stamping ground

jane I can read, so obviously I saw the other information about the writer. That information does not cancel out his commercial interests or change the information in the report which as I said was interesting. I worked for years in the market research industry, doing the job from start to finish, so I am well aware of how research consultants work and that makes me a bit cynical not niave. His work done on behalf of the university will generate work for his company and his association with the university will give prestige and credibility to his company.

May I ask how you found the website for "Provide Public Health "? What search terms did you use? I'm usually pretty good at searching and couldn't find anything.

Googled 'provide health'

I'm a committed calorie counter since I went to University and became somewhat addicted to Slimming Magazine (remember that?). According to this publication, it didn't matter really what you ate as long as you didn't exceed 1000 calories per day. Great! I used to save myself up for a meal of jumbo sausage and chips, and that was my lot. Nutritionally, not great, but, boy, was I thin!

It was easy though; this way of eating was about calories in, calories out with no pesky worries about nutrition.

I think the trouble is that, today, we can't see the wood for the trees, and we've become obsessed with nutrition to the point of faddiness. And whilst I believe that calories are not always the same, I still believe that, broadly speaking, you should always aim to use up the calories you've consumed and try not to overconsume.

Unfortunately, this approach takes self-control, discipline and a focus that many people find difficult to sustain, particularly over time. And, furthermore , a message that puts discipline , hard work and focus at its core is not headline -grabbing enough for sleb endorsement. It's easier to simply demonise one "badass" food and cut that particular item out rather than take the steps that will really make a difference. It's easy to cut out coke, or Tango. It's not so easy to eat a balanced diet in a sustainable way.

There does, however, seem to be an increasing body of evidence that says that the body burns calories from different foods in different ways and that therefore you can eat more calories from some foods.
I haven't counted calories at all as it isn't part of the low-carb way of eating, but the weight has still come off and stayed off without difficulty.
Why would I want to waste time counting calories?

Because whatever order the body burns calories in, if the total number of calories taken in exceeds the total number of calories used, the net result will be that the excess is stored as fat and weight gain. If the total number of calories taken in is less than the total number of calories used, the net result will be weight loss.

If your body were a cupboard - If you have in your store cupboard six tins of beans and six packets of chocilate biscuits, you can eat them in either order - all the beans first then the biscuits, or all the biscuits first then the beans, or or alternately beans then biscuits. Whichever way, the cupboard will become empty at the same time, and you will either have to refill the cupboard or leave it empty.

Sorry - last post was off-topic. I will stick with "you can't outrun a bad diet".

Except, Elegran, does that match the evidence that says that if you eat carbs and fat, the body will use the carbs and leave the fat. If you don't eat the carbs it will just burn the fat. That doesn't really match the store cupboard analogy does it?
Or maybe it does? If I eat avocado, salmon and eggs I won't want the biscuit. If I eat biscuits I will be hungry again in five minutes.

"if you eat carbs and fat, the body will use the carbs and leave the fat. If you don't eat the carbs it will just burn the fat." It won't leave the fat forever - when it need the calories it stored from the fat, it will use them.

mamie I agree with you about "different sorts of calories" but I don't believe the research has had the endorsement of the scientific world just yet.

I think you are, in fact, counting calories by default. High-carb foods are relatively calorie-dense and it's easy to overload on them. If you are limiting carbs you are probably eating a lower-calorie diet as I'm guessing you are filling up on protein, fruit and veg rather Tha bread, cakes ,pasta and rice.

I'd definitely agree that you can't outrun a bad diet. Generally, people think that a couple of press-ups will work off a muffin. It won't. You need to be doing a lot of exercise for it to have an effect on weight. Great for fitness, but not for weight loss unless combined with a healthy diet.

Thanks jane I was thinking too literally and searching using all three words! Have you heard of the organisation or the writer before?

gettingonabit I do indeed remember that magazine and all the little supplementary magazines on specific diets. I followed one of its diets for years. It's a shame because I thought it was the best diet magazine out there and often ahead of its time.

Research now shows more clearly the relationship between the effect of what we eat and our insulin production., which then has a knock-on effect on things like cholesterol and helps explain why slim people can have high cholesterol and diabetes.

I have read quite a few reports from the scientific community talking about calories being used in different ways, but I agree it is not widely accepted yet.
Yes to low-carb but filling up on vegetables, limited fruit, eggs, meat, fish and good fats (olive oil mostly).

Oh! And there as me thinking it was all scientifically verified. It does sound like calorie counting under a different name. But I will shortly be having my jacket spud. With cheese.

No beans on top jing?

wilma no I haven't.
But I think the Conversation is a wide-ranging publication that aims to be honest in the ideas it presents and is scrupulous in declaring interests, and the articles are well-referenced.
Interests don't always have to be conflicting. Just because an organisation is providing some of the funding for a researcher or department, doesn't mean that the findings of a paper are a tissue of lies.

And I don't have any links with the Conversation either.
I found out about it because another Gransnetters posted some links to it.

Calorie counting without ever counting or thinking about calories? Er-ok.
Should have added that the diet also includes cheese, butter and full-fat everything.

However as I am sure I have already said, my objection to the use of "calories in calories out" as a measure is that it allows the food industry to suggest that it is perfectly ok to consume their artificial, sugary products as long as you exercise the calories off afterwards.

Yes, calories from carbs are easier to convert to sugar so they get used first. Proteins and fats take longer, but they will be burned if there is nothing else to burn. Even stored fat will be broken down and used up if you are taking in fewer calories (you don't have to count them to do this; I've never counted calories either) than your body needs to function without losing weight. People who don't get enough, or only just enough calories do not get fat regardless of which foods they are eating.

I didn't say anything about lies??? I said I would not take it at face value, that's all. Why are you so defensive about this??? What have I said that makes you think I am suspicious of what you have said?

If you search for articles by the writer off that website (which is perfectly respectable to my mind), you will see he's written quite a lot of articles on children of school age. One I was not impressed by that purporting to be showing a link between sports activities and taking a shower afterwards. It doesn't and the comments are more reasonable than the article.

I suspect, mamie, that by going on your low carb diet you are eating fewer calories than you did even though you are not counting them. Since high protein and high fat foods are more filling, and take longer to digest, you may not realise that you are actually eating less because you don't feel hungry so often.

Sorry for my slow typing. My last post is in reply to jane