Rinkadink wrote:So government bodies who actually run the NHS are not valid sources of information on the NHS?

Ha-ha, if you say so m'lard. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, have fun!

Rinkadink wrote:Of course, fat people are the problem. Perhaps I should have said, "Fatty Tax" instead of "Fat Tax"!

Rinkadink wrote: an aside, I can't say I'm really convinced about your argument in favour of saturated fats - there are many, many links between saturated fats and various illnesses and health problems ranging from cancer to bone mineral density. I will agree that replacing fats with carbohydrates isn't good though.

Rinkadink wrote:Many of the complications involved with obesity do not materialize until the later years of someone's life. I do not think that sporting injuries amount to obesity's £4.2 billion cost to the NHS in 2008. Happy to be proven wrong though if you can provide the evidence?

Mintball wrote:No. It's not that simple.

Many people do not, for instance, understand that calories in v calories out is not the full story; that cutting fat and 'filling up' with complex carbs – as per the diet advice, certainly some years ago – is actually one thing that will make you put on weight. It is no coincidence that distance runners 'carbo load' before a long race. It's also no coincidence that the two countries that use cereals to 'carbo load' at breakfast – the UK and US – are also countries with some of the biggest obesity problems.

Because of the same dismal advice, many people do not know that they need fat for good health – and also that saturated fat will sate far quicker than complex carbs. They have been fed a lie that natural fats – lard, dripping and butter, for instance – are 'bad', while processed poisons like marg and spray-on fats are 'good' (and more expensive, thus producing higher profits).

Our parents and grandparents did not have an obesity epidemic from eating bread and dripping. And the French Paradox, as it known, shows not only that a diet high in natural saturated fats does not cause an obesity epidemic, it also shows that it does not cause record levels of heart disease and early death. But then again, that myth was only based on the lies of Ancel Keyes.

Many people don't realise that not taking proper time to eat – and not in front of a computer or the telly – doesn't help either.

Processed and junk food doesn't help – I read somewhere recently that some of these things are high in MSG (far higher levels than in soy sauce) and that at these sort of levels, MSG effectively switches off the body's ability to feel sated.

So no: we don't "ALL" know what the solutions are.

liedetector wrote:You see just because you think your a nutritional expert youve already overcomplicated it for mr and mrs ordinary, youve garbled on quoting this and stating that, its pretty simple really, you can eat anything you want, as long as its in moderation. A balanced diet with good phiz is whats needed so really Mintball it is that easy.

cod'ead wrote:Then you need to define "balanced" and also "in moderation". And WTF is "good phiz" when it's all at home?

I could easily follow Mintball's statement, yours left me totally confused.

Mintball wrote:People who post such semi-illiterate stuff as "good phiz" are clearly are not getting the right fatty nutrients to support their brain cell.

Horatio Yed wrote::lol:

Reminds me of something my nan said a good few years ago when my grandad was alive

i remarked when he was eating fish that it helped develop your brain eating a lot of fish to which my nan replied in another room

"He must have been eating bloody goldfish all his life then"