Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46   ^
Old Thu, Aug-20-20, 02:10
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 23,205
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 217/180/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 65%
Location: UK
Default

What we learned from Michael Mosley's Lose a Stone in 21 Days

https://www.getthegloss.com/news/lo...-what-we-learnt

Quote:
The three-part show which put five volunteers o a three-week rapid weight loss diet, focuses on losing 'corona' pounds. It comes after reports that two-thirds of the population put on weight in lockdown. In July the government launched a major new obesity strategy urging UK adults to lose weight in order to reduce the risk of serious illness including COVID 19. It includes an NHS app with a 12-week weight loss programme.

We know that obesity significantly increases the chance of becoming seriously ill from coronavirus, as well as being a risk factor for a host of other life-limiting diseases such as heart disease and diabetes. Shedding the extra pounds has become a potentially life-saving intervention.

The doctor behind the show Michael Mosley is the creator of The Fast Diet 5:2 diet and The Fast 800 online plan, says in episode one of the three-part series, “It’s not about looking good in a swimsuit, it’s about fighting disease.” And with the chances of becoming seriously ill with COVID increasing with your BMI, obesity has become an even more pressing health issue.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #47   ^
Old Wed, Aug-26-20, 23:32
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 23,205
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 217/180/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 65%
Location: UK
Default

A sugar tax – and a drop in obesity-related diseases – could save the NHS billions

The Institute for Public Policy Research wants to go beyond Boris Johnson's own obesity crackdown


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...e-nhs-billions/

Quote:
A sugar tax on sweets and chocolate could help save the NHS £66 billion over the course of a lifetime, by not having to treat obesity-related diseases in the general population, research suggests.

The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) has called on ministers to go further than the Government's own obesity crackdown measures by extending its sugar tax, which is already applied to fizzy drinks, to unhealthy foods.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson last month launched the Better Health campaign, designed to tackle Britain’s obesity crisis.

Junk food adverts before the 9pm television watershed are set to be banned, along with confectionery stands next to checkout tills.

However, the IPPR said more needed to be done to bring child obesity levels down to the low levels of the 1980s. The think tank stated that fewer than two per cent of children had obesity in the 1980s, whereas today a fifth of children entering secondary school are classified as medically obese, according to publicly available data it analysed.

To ensure that the Government reaches its target of halving child obesity by 2030, the IPPR recommends that a non-essential levy of 8 per cent is applied to unhealthy foods exceeding a set "energy density".

The report authors said that similar taxes on junk food in Mexico and Hungary had been successful in driving down consumption, and argued it would provide an incentive to food producers to reformulate their products to be healthier.

It also called for a healthy food subsidy scheme, worth £21 per week, for all children on free school meals, redeemable for any essential foods, in a bid to recognise the demographic inequality at the heart of the obesity crisis.
Costing around £1.5 billion a year, the scheme would be funded by the levy on fattening food, said the IPPR.

Chris Thomas, IPPR senior health fellow, said: "In July, the Government made welcome commitments to tackle obesity, but faced with the scale of the obesity epidemic, it was just one small step, not a giant leap.

"The disastrous impact of obesity on our health and society demands we go further.

"Success could facilitate the kind of major health gains the Victorians achieved through sanitation, or childhood immunisation in the 20th century.
"Failure could mean a century of stalled progress,” he said.
Reply With Quote
  #48   ^
Old Thu, Aug-27-20, 13:14
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,853
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/230/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 45%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

The picture is getting clearer.

Quote:
Chris Thomas, IPPR senior health fellow, said: "In July, the Government made welcome commitments to tackle obesity, but faced with the scale of the obesity epidemic, it was just one small step, not a giant leap.

"The disastrous impact of obesity on our health and society demands we go further.
Reply With Quote
  #49   ^
Old Thu, Aug-27-20, 14:34
Zei Zei is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 1,554
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/185/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: Texas
Default

Quote:
To ensure that the Government reaches its target of halving child obesity by 2030, the IPPR recommends that a non-essential levy of 8 per cent is applied to unhealthy foods exceeding a set "energy density".

If the tax money is spent on something genuinely health-promoting that would be a plus, but realistically if I decided I wanted some junk food an eight percent higher price wouldn't deter me from buying it so don't know if it will others. Energy density? I wonder if that would include sugary foods like fat-free candies and sweet drinks that are a bit lower in absolute energy density but not healthy. Hopefully the unhealthy food definition won't expand to include high energy density nutritious foods like meat, dairy or natural fats that some people still picture as unhealthy.

Last edited by Zei : Thu, Aug-27-20 at 14:44.
Reply With Quote
  #50   ^
Old Thu, Aug-27-20, 17:58
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,495
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zei
If the tax money is spent on something genuinely health-promoting that would be a plus, but realistically if I decided I wanted some junk food an eight percent higher price wouldn't deter me from buying it so don't know if it will others.



My guess is that it won't affect most people, unless they really, truly can not afford it. Since taxes are shown as part of the purchase price on the shelf in the UK, chances are that 8% will only be looked at as an 8% price increase - they'll complain but pay it anyway, because they want that particular junk food.



Quote:
Energy density? I wonder if that would include sugary foods like fat-free candies and sweet drinks that are a bit lower in absolute energy density but not healthy. Hopefully the unhealthy food definition won't expand to include high energy density nutritious foods like meat, dairy or natural fats that some people still picture as unhealthy.



Unfortunately, I strongly suspect that's exactly what will happen. If they expand it to starch based junk (instead of just sugary junk), then they're dangerously close to putting a junk food tax on the staff of life: Bread, and other staples, such as pasta, rice, and flour. Even just using the term energy dense implies fats, since fats have more than twice the cals/gram as carbs and protein. And fats still have a widely held reputation as the baddest of the bad baddies in the dietary world, and that's not likely to change any time soon, unless they really start listening to those who actually know what they're talking about, such as Maholtra and Mosley.


Quote:
Chris Thomas, IPPR senior health fellow, said: "In July, the Government made welcome commitments to tackle obesity, but faced with the scale of the obesity epidemic, it was just one small step, not a giant leap.

"The disastrous impact of obesity on our health and society demands we go further.


If they leave it at sugars, and expand into starch based foods (such as chips/crisps, and biscuits/cookies), then that would certainly help.

The problem is that when it comes to taxing the chips and cookies, it's far more than likely they'll be going after fat, not starch, for the exact reasons I stated above.
Reply With Quote
  #51   ^
Old Fri, Aug-28-20, 06:02
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Posts: 13,068
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

It's just more of the "lose weight dammit" exhortations if they aren't helping anyone figure out what they should do.

It's easy to say "just don't eat junk food" which led to me eating LOTS of unbuttered toast with jam, baked potatoes with fake butter on them, and those rice cakes with caramel drizzles on them.

Sooooooooo healthy.
Reply With Quote
  #52   ^
Old Fri, Aug-28-20, 07:49
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,493
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Open the door a crack, and all hades breaks loose as taxes are applied to any food determined to be unhealthy including red meat, bacon, and high (healthy) fat-ladened foods. Yet, taxes are unlikely to ever be applied to healthy whole grain-based foods making it so easy for the food manufacturers to skirt the issue. Since there is currently no agreement on how healthy foods are defined, this is the slipperiest of slopes. Sheer ice.

Also gutless of them to set 2030 to halve childhood obesity. It's indicative of how clueless many who make these pronouncements are. Malhotra recommends a 21-day plan to enhance health and immunity. If we ever achieve agreement on which foods are healthy, this goal wouldn't be unreasonable to be set for 2023 for those willing to comply.
Reply With Quote
  #53   ^
Old Fri, Aug-28-20, 08:38
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 23,205
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 217/180/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 65%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRB5111
Open the door a crack, and all hades breaks loose as taxes are applied to any food determined to be unhealthy including red meat, bacon, and high (healthy) fat-ladened foods. Yet, taxes are unlikely to ever be applied to healthy whole grain-based foods making it so easy for the food manufacturers to skirt the issue. Since there is currently no agreement on how healthy foods are defined, this is the slipperiest of slopes. Sheer ice.
So not exactly a tax, but I did give a wry smile when I read this:

Quote:
Dismal wheat harvest could push up the price of bread

Heavy rain and flooding meant only 40pc of wheat was planted last year compared to normal


The worst wheat harvest in four decades could cause the price of flour and bread to rise, farmers have warned.

Heavy rain and flooding meant only 40pc of wheat was planted last year compared to normal, while this year droughts followed by rain in the summer have meant the crop has been of a poor quality.

The harvest crisis, along with the risk that the UK’s farming sector could be hit with tariffs if Brexit talks fail, could push up the price of flour and bread.
Farmers told Sky News they feared the price of wheat would go up with a knock-on effect on consumers.

Ed Horton, a farmer near Cirencester in Gloucestershire, said: “It has a huge knock-on effect on our finances. We’ve produced a third of what we usually would, therefore there’s a large hole in our cash flow and we’ve had to replace wheat with other crops that we don’t make as much money out of.

“For the food chain, there’s a lack of domestically produced quality wheat so we may end up having to import wheat from other parts of the world.”

Last week, National Farmers Union vice president Tom Bradshaw warned food security needed to be high up the Government’s agenda.

He warned poor soil conditions this year could also harm next year’s harvest.

Mr Bradshaw said: “The soaring temperature we have experienced recently has taken its toll on any remaining crop growth just before harvest. Many farmers are facing a double whammy with sudden breaks in the weather causing flash floods.”

Meanwhile, millers remain concerned that a no-deal Brexit could slap a further £79-per-tonne tariff on wheat if the UK crashes out under World Trade Organisation rules. Millers importing wheat could face further costs that would ultimately show up in supermarket prices.
However, I do wonder what, if any, difference it will make to the amount of wheat consumed in the UK.
Reply With Quote
  #54   ^
Old Fri, Aug-28-20, 08:45
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,493
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demi
So not exactly a tax, but I did give a wry smile when I read this:

However, I do wonder what, if any, difference it will make to the amount of wheat consumed in the UK.

Good point. Not sure it will make a difference at all.
Reply With Quote
  #55   ^
Old Fri, Aug-28-20, 10:52
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,853
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/230/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 45%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

In a dicumentary about the royal family during Ww2, discussed the push to eat bread during that era. Included bran to stretch the loaf. Loaf kept til a day old to make slucing it very thin possible to stretch loaf out for the week. Brittish gov pushed bread eating.

Maybe the poor harvest will push some people to other foods.
Reply With Quote
  #56   ^
Old Fri, Aug-28-20, 12:45
Dalesbred's Avatar
Dalesbred Dalesbred is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 132
 
Plan: IF/no bread, no sugar
Stats: 154/148/138 Female 5 feet 6 inches
BF:
Progress: 38%
Location: Wetherby, Yorkshire, UK
Default

Just watched all three episodes of the Fast 800 “Lose a stone in 21 days” that Demi referred to above. Very impressed with the stress on low carb, he didn’t sugar coat it(!) at all. Bread, pasta, spuds, rice, sweets, cake, choc - all out. I know that sticking to 800 calories is a shock but this is designed as a shock to the system for BMI 30+, like the Atkins Fat Fast. I might even follow this two days of seven.
Reply With Quote
  #57   ^
Old Fri, Aug-28-20, 15:16
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,853
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/230/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 45%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Pair that withPhinneys presentation on BMR and looking at the Greatest Looser.
Reply With Quote
  #58   ^
Old Fri, Aug-28-20, 19:51
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,495
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms Arielle
In a dicumentary about the royal family during Ww2, discussed the push to eat bread during that era. Included bran to stretch the loaf. Loaf kept til a day old to make slucing it very thin possible to stretch loaf out for the week. Brittish gov pushed bread eating.

Maybe the poor harvest will push some people to other foods.



From what I read a year or two ago, the push to eat more bread in the US actually started in the 1920's. Those were years of plenty - and they had so much excessive wheat production that they simply couldn't store all the grain that was being produced. So the US government ran ads telling people to eat more bread.



This was of course before the stock market crash and Great Depression years, when things completely reversed -there were huge crop failures, the dust bowl, massive unemployment, and many were standing in bread lines, just to get something to eat.



My guess is in those few years between the beginning of the push to eat more bread and the depression years, people were easily indoctrinated into and addicted to eating bread 3 times a day, every day.


Interestingly enough, when the US entered WWII, there were a whole new type of bread ad - they asked people to cut down on the amount of bread they ate each day, in order to provide sufficient wheat for the troops.
Reply With Quote
  #59   ^
Old Fri, Aug-28-20, 22:02
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,853
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/230/200 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 45%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Governments do a whole lot of meddling, that is for sure. Lets hope the UK and tbe US can get this one right.
Reply With Quote
  #60   ^
Old Sat, Aug-29-20, 03:36
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,591
 
Plan: LC/DrWestman/P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/175/168 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/30%/25%
Progress: 88%
Location: NC
Default

All three parts of the Lose a Stone program are on YouTube. First part: https://youtu.be/rQOsaeduYx4
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:22.


Copyright © 2000-2020 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.