Coca-Cola and sugar

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

Googled 'provide health'

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.

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

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).

Can we get a discount ja?!

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.

Agree with you mamie

I need to declare an interest too. DD has a business providing sports related activities to young children.

I think the point is that both are important and are also interrelated. An overweight child is I suspect less likely to take part in physical activity for all sorts of reasons.
The problem with the exercise more / calories in / calories out theory is the implication that the quantity (of calories) is the important bit. It should be obvious that it is the quality of the food in nutritional terms that is important, but I don't think the focus on "calories" encorages that view. Taken to the absurd it would suggest that you could get all 2000 calories a day from fizzy drinks and as long as you exercised them off sgain it would be fine. Which clearly it wouldn't.
I still think that "you can't outrun a bad diet" is the important message here.

www.provide.org.uk/modules/downloads/download.php?file_name=349

Provide Public Health appear to be a privatised version of the school health service and other services relating to young people. That's another issue of course.

wilma Gavin Sandercock is
Reader in Sports Science (Clinical Physiology) , at the University of Essex.
Most research at universities receives funding from commercial interests. I think it's a bit naive to imagine otherwise.
At least the authors of articles at the Conversation do clearly declare their interests.

jing why do I get the feeling you really wanted to use a 'rolls eyes' smiley instead of the 'smile' one? I know I can be a pompous twonk at times.

Interesting read jane. It bothers me though that the author is part owner of a company FitMedia Fitness that offers the kind of services of the report concludes is urgently needed. That company provides services to the organisation Active Essex and the disclosure section of the article states he receives funding from Active Essex. To me receiving funding is different to being paid for services. Also, I can't find any information about the other organisation/company Provide Public Health given in the disclosure section. I know I am becoming cynical about the whole subject of health and fitness, but I am not happy to take the article at face value.

wilma here's an article about children's declining levels of fitness and why it is a bigger threat to children than obesity
theconversation.com/poor-fitness-is-a-bigger-threat-to-child-health-than-obesity-43653

Forgot to say the report is from the British Heart Foundation.

You know best Wilmaknickersfit.

jing sorry but I disagree about how active teenagers are in the UK. The 2015 report on physical activity shows this for children in England,

* Around one in ten boys and girls aged 2 to 4 years met the recommended levels of activity.
* A higher proportion of boys (21%) than girls (16%) reported meeting recommendations in the 5 to 15 years age group.
* Boys in the 8 to 10 age group had the highest proportion of active children (26%), while for girls it was found in the 5 to 7 age group (23%).
* Only 14% of boys in the age group 13-15 reported meeting recommendations, while for girls it was only 8%.

(The picture changes in the 16-24 age group for boys/men with 83% of men reported as meeting recommendations, while the figure is 57% of women).

That doesn't sound like teenagers are particularly active to me.

Was talking to Minibags on the way back from her volunteering for RDA this afternoon and she says having rules about stuff (tobacco, alcohol, sugar) just makes many teenagers even more determined to do the opposite of what they're told because it is seen as "badass" and badass is cool.

Re sugar and healthy eating, she said what I have been saying all along, that schools are telling kids that too much sugar is bad for them right through from year one. They all know perfectly well.

I still think part of the psychological problem could be that we simply haven't adapted to the easy availability (abundance even) of food. Up till very recently in human history most of us were like all other animals in having to work quite hard to get enough to eat so when there was plenty of food it didn't matter if we overate for a while because there would be lean times too that compensated. It'll be interesting to see if any research corroborates that.

When my children were at school they put a tooth in cola to see how long it took the enamel to rot.
Not Long!!

My 14 year old DGS eats Weetabix. He has 3. And then piles the bowl sky- high with the dreaded Cheerios.

Skinny as a rake too. And got all his teeth.

Like I said - if you can get them to eat.....