Mintball wrote:I wouldn't dispute this. But we do have a gym/exercise culture where we didn't have one only around 30-40 years ago.
That, in my view, can only be a good thing. The more people take regular exercise, the better.
Mintball wrote:There are, though problems with a lot of gyms demanding a year's money up front.
I've worked in the industry for several years and been a consumer for several more years. I can honestly say it's not a problem I've ever encountered. Maybe it's a London thing. That said, many gyms do expect you to commit to them for a minimum of a year, but I suppose they're no worse than mobile phone companies, broadband suppliers etc for that.
Mintball wrote:I walk a lot. Indeed, that's pretty much what I was referring to in terms of the French example – they walk more than us in the course of everyday life, but don't have the same level of gym use etc.
Fair enough. Whatever floats your boat. But I don't think the French way is somehow 'better' as you are (I think) implying. What's important is whether or not people take exercise - not whether they do it in a gym or not.
As an aside, though, the benefits of resistance training are numerous (not least for increasing bone density - a very good idea for women of your age!) and it could be argued that weight training is best/most safely performed in a gym environment.
Mintball wrote:I'm an old person, remember!
It was absolutely mainstream advice when I was in my teens and twenties – a period that has had a massive impact subsequently. Once you get trapped in what I described, it is a circle.
And indeed, most of the women that I can think have had similar experiences would be in the same age bracket as myself. But the point stands: that it's too simple (IMO) to say that everyone 'knows' what the solutions are.
Most overweight people are overweight because they eat too much and exercise too little. They know they need to eat less and exercise more, but it's hard to make these changes, so they put it off. Sure, they might not know by how much they should reduce their calorie intake, or what particular exercises to do, but we both know that it wouldn't be too hard for them to find out. There's a lot of really bad advice kicking about these days, but finding good advice isn't as hard as it's made out to be sometimes.
I appreciate there'll always be people who find it hard to lose weight no matter what they do, but these people are far from the norm. For most people, it really is a simple equation. I'm not saying it's easy for anyone - it's bloody hard - but it is quite simple. I mean, it's not as if the overwhelming majority of overweight people are eating sensible diets and exercising regularly, but just can't seem to shift the weight.
Mintball wrote:I honestly don't know what my calorie intake is these days. So I wouldn't know what deficit I have (or not). I only know, on the basis of falling clothes sizes over several years (and comments from people who don't see me often) that I'm now losing weight slowly, where for years I'd lose – and then put more on.
Then I'd guess you do have a small deficit. Which is good if you want to lose a few pounds and keep it off.
Mintball wrote:Not my GP for a couple of decades plus.
Good job!
Mintball wrote:When you see what's being suggested in some media, in terms of totally boners 'advice' (and I'd add, diets such as that which Kelloggs are allowed to promote in TV advertising, of two bowls of Special K a day and one 'ordinary' meal), then I think that, for many people, the advice is confused and confusing.
To start with - ha ha - you said 'boners'.
I'd add to Kellogs and the like organisations like Weight Watchers and Slimming World. They promote traditional dieting because they know most people will end up putting the weight back on and they'll get return business. So, yes, I'd agree that the advice can be confusing, but I think a lot of people use diets like that because they want a 'quick fix'.
"Drop two dress sizes in a week, you say? I'll have some of that."
My sister yo-yo diets like crazy using Weight Watchers. Every time I challenge her on it, she says, "it works for me." I can't get through to her that if it worked, she wouldn't have to keep going back. But I don't think it's because she doesn't understand that deep down, it's that she thinks it doesn't matter if she puts weight on, because she can just go back to WW and lose it again with their incredible crash diet stupidity.
Mintball wrote:And basic ideas of calorie reduction remain the core of most people's dieting – certainly most women's dieting – together with a demonisation of natural fats.
Calorie reduction
should be at the core of weight loss programmes - it has to be (whether from diet or exercise). What shouldn't be happening is the very severe calorie restriction that occurs and the less than healthy food these places promote. Weight Watchers cherry bakewells? WTF?
Mintball wrote:As mentioned before, I do think we have a far. far larger gym/organised exercise culture than at any time previously. Yet this coincides with rising obesity.
I'm not sure I like the insinuation here. Surely you can't be suggesting that gyms and organised exercise are somehow contributing to rising obesity rates? Obesity is rising because we are increasingly sedentary and eat much more junk/processed food than at any time before. And I'd say that most of the people in gyms are not obese or overweight (though some are).