My view on obesity.

Genetic conditions that affect metabolism are rare. Hyperthyroidism (a condition that affects metabolism) is estimated to affect 2.5% of the UK population (http://www.webmd.boots.com/a-to-z-guides/underactive-thyroid-hypothyroidism) and yet a quarter of adults are obese (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Obesity/Pages/Introduction.aspx).

Genetics is quite rare as shown already hyperthyroidism affects 2.5% of the population. If we were to look at less frequent obesity conditions and say that it is 5% then the 20% that adds up to the quarter of adults being obese means 80% of people who are obese have no disposition to being obese. Just run or cycle more and you'll be fine.

It is a choice for most fat people. The colour of your skin is mainly not a choice, being fat however is a choice.

I agree. I think it's often an addiction to food, in the same way someone might be addicted to drugs. It's a psychological process. I think both parties need help and intervention, but both are equally responsible for their situation (disregarding special cases).

I strongly disagree. It's extremely easy to get into a habit of eating portion sizes that are simply too large, and foods that are a bit problematic, and not noticing that you're piling on the pounds until it's well into the process. Then you're stuck in the diet/exercise issue which so many people struggle with.

Very few people really know what exactly it is that is the problem - they think they're eating too much fat, but don't understand that fat can be an issue because of the amount of calories, and not just because 'fat is bad', they think they're eating too much sugar, but again, even if they know it's the calories that are an issue, they don't know that it's spiking their blood sugar and making them feel hungry - they just think they're hungry and there's nothing they can do about it so it's just impossible for them to deal with. They're unaware that losing weight is 80% diet and make themselves miserable by obsessing over the exercise they can't do or don't enjoy, instead of learning about their food problem and how they're accidentally sabotaging it for themselves.

Drugs, on the other hand - everyone knows the risks. We have them hammered into us from an early age and we know that if we even so much as touch a cigarette, we're seriously risking addiction by exposing ourselves to the temptation (never mind anything more extreme). Our parents don't set us up to smoke or take drugs by giving them to us as part of our daily intake. They often do that with food. There is virtually no education on the matter when it comes to food, and even where there's education, it doesn't mean that parents are going to magically be able to cook properly and feed their children in a way that sets them up to know what to go for later. Eating 'well' or 'clean' is still seen as a rather yuppyish or 'fitness' thing to go for. Not to mention that that's because food can be so expensive and time-consuming, especially when you're starting out with a change, and you have a job and children to sort out.

Hopefully Intermittent Fasting will catch on a bit more and make people more aware of exactly how much they really need to be eating/when they are actually hungry or not, and maybe that way they'll get a better hold on calorific and sugary foods and portion sizes for themselves and their children.

I'm not entirely sure what you think you're achieving my naming some random disorders and giving me links to WedMD and the NHS. It might come as a shock to you that obesity is a complex issue, not simply caused by a single genetic disorder. There are literally thousands of proteins that directly or indirectly affect a person's disposition to put on weight, which will be influenced by the greater genetic continuum. You don't need to have an extreme medical condition with a name to have genetic grounds to be more likely to be obese.

I understand perfectly that obesity is a complex issue. However, it would appear that you have completely overestimated the impact of genetics in the matter. I gave you an example of one of the most common metabolic conditions that can cause you to put on weight, not a 'random disorder'. I provide links as I like to talk about things with evidence from reputable sources, rather than personal unsubstantiated claims/views when it comes to scientific matters, which obesity and genetics are. Obesity is, more often than not, a result of eating too much and moving too little. Yes, outside of rare medical disorders, one can be more genetically predisposed to becoming obese, however, you must still eat excessively for this to have any effect. I will provide you with another quote from the NHS, which you love so much:

"Some people claim there is no point in trying to lose weight because "it runs in my family" or "it's in my genes".
While there are some rare genetic conditions that can cause obesity, such as Prader-Willi syndrome, there is no reason why most people cannot lose weight.
It may be true that certain genetic traits inherited from your parents – such as having a large appetite – may make losing weight more difficult, but it certainly doesn't make it impossible.
In many cases, obesity is more to do with environmental factors, such as poor eating habits learned during childhood."

Yeah I agree with you. I wasn't saying drugs and obesity are the same thing. I just meant they are both results of someone's action. Nobody is just wakes up one day obese, and neither does one wake up addicted to drugs. Yes of course there is a lot more awareness about the dangers of drugs, but this is because they are a tangible 'evil'. Unlike food.

At the end of the day, if someone is on the road to obesity and doesn't do anything about it, it's their own fault. You can't blame a 'lack' of guidance (despite the millions of pounds pumped into the everyone active and other various healthy eating government agendas). Yes of course some parents over feed their children, but I'm talking about grown adults who have the autonomy to control their own calorie intake.

Also, intermittent fasting isn't a particularly effective solution long term. Why not just eat healthily. Starving yourself just makes you eat more when you do eat.

You clearly don't understand what intermittent fasting is or the point of it, then.

Intermittent fasting is a perfect long-term solution - in fact weight loss is only an extra bonus for most people (or something they have to actively avoid by trying to eat calorie-dense foods on their feeding days). You don't retain the benefits of intermittent fasting if you don't keep doing it. It's a lifelong thing for many, many people - indeed the main point of it would be lost were it not a long term thing. It's also proven to be just as effective in terms of weight loss as permanent calorie restriction - just with a much higher adherence rate because people actually get to eat how they want on the other days. Fasting also doesn't make you eat up the difference on your feeding days. It's quite odd that you seem to think you know enough about it to come out with a load of nonsense about it with no actual research. But then again, with food, no-one thinks they have anything to learn.

Of course obesity comes down to taking in too many calories in comparison to your calorie expenditure - I made that perfectly clear in my first post here. What I have said many times now - I don't get what's so difficult to understand about that - is that your genetics have a big influence in this area. Genetics don't make you obese, but they make it a heck of a lot easier or harder to get and stay obese. I am not saying that people who are obese should simply accept that it's their genetics, I'm saying that it's arrogant, ignorant and rude to say that it's all completely down to choice. Since, on top of the genetic argument which you have refused to understand, there's also the - probably more important - argument about wealth inequality, which you haven't even responded to.

And why did you say "the NHS, which you love so much"? I mentioned the word NHS once in this thread, and that was when I said you linked to them.

I would also add that money is a massive factor. In a recent National Geographic article, they showed how regions of poverty correlate perfectly with regions of obesity. Fresh, healthy food is more expensive than fast food. Many people living in poverty don't actually have a choice to eat a healthy diet because they have neither the time, money or resources. It's very easy to sneer at people from the perspective of someone who has had proper education on healthy eating and the money and time to invest in a healthy diet, but some people don't have that option. Obesity is a function of inequality, something that you will see clearly if you look at global trends or even trends within countries. I can say with absolute certainty that the rate of obesity in, for instance, South Kensington is much lower than in Tottenham.

Lool you think obesity is a non-existent issue? It's actually more common than you think.


I also notice this trend where people practically say 'live and let live' with obesity. Apparently helping people stay healthy is bad.

I didn't say it doesn't work, I said it's not the best long term solution for most people.

Nobody wants to fast. Try giving a fat person the option of eating nothing all day, or eating a healthy 1,800 calories. Pretty sure they will take the calories. Despite what they will be able to eat on non fasting days, the main problem many obese people have is self control. It's like if you put a sweet in front of a kid and say you can either eat the sweet or if you can resist it for an hour you can have a whole bag - they'll invariably choose the immediate gratification.

I never said it didn't work at all, but it only really works if you're absolutely dedicated to doing it properly. Most people I know who have gone on such diets as the 5:2 end up gorging on their non fasting days because they see it as a free pass to eat whatever they want. They also found themselves practically passing out on fasting days and putting off exercise that they would otherwise have done on those days.

I have a friend who is a dietician and she also says although it may work for some, it's not the best way of losing weight in a lot of people as it is very difficult to maintain such a low calorie intake on fasting days, not to mention it depletes your energy if you consume nothing or next to nothing. It also causes your body to go into 'fat storing survival mode', meaning when you do eat your body clings on to all the fat.

You seem to be very passionate about this diet. For which I am not really sure why but anyway....

Gorging on your non-fasting days really isn't an issue unless you're eating up the entire difference. Which it is very hard to do, especially when you've allowed your stomach to shrink back a bit on your fasting days (literally or in the sense that you remind yourself how it feels to actually need food or not). 'Practically passing out' sounds like something your friends have said to excuse their giving up on the programme.

Your dietitian friend (is she a dietitian, or a nutritionist/other?) needs to go back to school if she thinks that fasting two days a week (especially where you do get to eat 500-600 kcals per fasting day) puts you at any risk whatsoever of going into starvation mode. It's simply not true. That really is 'bro-science'. Not even eating 25 kcals a day for four consecutive days will put you in starvation mode. Unless Dr Michael Mosley is lying to me and the rest of the British public. Which I understandably doubt.

Surely it's fairly obvious that I would be 'passionate' about a diet if I clearly know a hell of a lot more about it than you do, and all it takes to be 'passionate' about it is to not want to sit and let you claim things about it from a point of utter ignorance? People don't get away with claiming nonsense about things they've never researched, generally. I don't know why you'd think a 'diet' wouldn't be the same.