BBC Big Challenge: All Free

This is a perfect example of Politically Correct Nutrition. This is what the government has decided you will think about nutrition.

My first complaint is that they use the BMI scale. There are people with normal BMIs that are still obese (over 30% body fat for men or over 35% for women). Tom Venuto refers to someone like this as a "skinny fat person". On the other hand, there are bodybuilders who are leaner than most of us will ever be that are obese by the BMI scale. Body fat percentage is the real measure of how overweight you are.

Next, they make gross assumptions about nutrition. They claim high fat food is bad and starches should make up most of your meal, because they're low in fat. Fiber may be good for your intestines, but so is cholesterol. No government doctor will tell you that though.

The information at this site is outdated and/or extremely biased. It aims directly at one approach to health.

You'd be amazed at what Politically Correct Nutrition will tell you despite their findings. Saturated fat and cholesterol is the worst example.

In one study, they had a bunch of people who smoked and ate saturated fat and cholesterol a lot. They took half of them and had that half stop smoking and eat "heart-healthy" polyunsaturated fats instead. The group that didn't change diet were healthier and lived longer, despite the fact that they were still smoking! However, the end result of the study was they still recommended the change in diet.

In another study, they found that people who generally consumed more saturated fat and cholesterol had more vitality and energy and tended to be thinner and more active. However, those who ate saturated fat and cholesterol that were overweight seemed to have health problems. The end result of this study was a blanket statement that saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for everyone.

Go to these pages if you wish, but take what they say with a grain of salt.

Very nice. I would like to see a bit more items in 'Friend or Foe' test, but I think this is my favorite.

BBC sonds like a very interestiung methods on gettig people going with healthy living and exercise. I like everything except the BMI as I feel it is unaccurate with some people have more muscle and it would say they are overweight. Going by body fat might be a little hard online but it would be a lot more accurate.

iFitandHealthy: Weight loss doesn't have to be about cutting calories. Instead, why not maintain calorie intake and introduce more exercise to create the calorie deficit? This encourages an increase of metabolism and prevents a decrease. When you put more calories into your body, you can exercise harder. This not only leads to a leaner body, but a stronger and more powerful body. Maybe the solution is to eat more and not less.

Weight loss doesn't have to be about increasing fiber or decreasing fat either. Dietary fat makes us feel full just like fiber does. Also, cholesterol, which often comes with fat, is necessary for the health of your intestines.

This Friend or Foe game comes from highly antiquated information. This kind of information comes from the same people who think saturated fat and cholesterol will raise your cholesterol, while excess carbohydrates and fats like vegetable oil are the real culprits.

"This Friend or Foe game comes from highly antiquated information. This kind of information comes from the same people who think saturated fat and cholesterol will raise your cholesterol, while excess carbohydrates and fats like vegetable oil are the real culprits."

Ryan, are you visiting from the future? If so, can you post the stock prices of a few blue chips here? Thanks!

Haha, no. The medical community is just starting to realize their mistakes. The thing is they just really didn't know much about fat metabolism in those days. Many doctors now know that refined flour and sugar are more responsible for our heart problems than anything. Vegetable oil and other "supermarket oils" are processed fats. These aren't quite as bad as hydrogenated fats, but still harmful. Look for pieces by Mary Enig and
ignore what the vegans have to say about it. They'll do anything to convince you that animal products are bad.

Cholesterol is a funny thing. You'd think eating cholesterol would have a big impact on the amount of cholesterol in your blood, but it just doesn't work that way. In addition, we need to start thinking about cholesterol as a nutrient and not a hazard.

I like their tools, but I don't like the test. Those tests are always too generic. People aren't machines and I wonder if one size fits all recommendations like these really do any good.

I got annoyed at a couple of recommendations (Like the majority of the world's population I don't drink milk, but really, I do get enough calcium. And increasing my starches would mean decreasing my vegetables, surely that can't be good?). I understand that I am probably not their target audience though.

What I truly don't understand though was one of the last questions. I often eat while feeding my child, and therefore they recommended I "Treat myself to a book on time-management"?!

"Weight loss doesn't have to be about cutting calories. Instead, why not maintain calorie intake and introduce more exercise to create the calorie deficit?"

That sounds reasonable, but when put into practice, it's not that simple. Speaking as a formerly obese person, I got that way because I didn't have a realistic concept of how many calories I was actually eating or how many calories I would burn when I exercised.

It's too easy to overestimate how many calories you burn and underestitmate how many calories you eat.

For instance, a 175 pound person who walks briskly for 60 minutes will burn approximately 318 calories. That's not even enough to burn off one McDonald's cheeseburger (330 calories).

And, honestly, how many adults do you see eating just a cheeseburger at Micky D's? Usually it's the Quarter Pounder with Cheese, large fries, and a large Coke(1250 calories total). That 175-pound person would have to walk briskly for four full hours to burn that off.

And, honestly, how many people actually can walk briskly for a full hour? It's hard enough to get 30 minutes of exercise in today's crazy-busy society.

So, I have to say from my experience (and I think being obese for most of my life and losing over 100 pounds gives me plenty of experience!) that both restricting calories and exercising is a MUST if you want to LOSE weight. Now, if you want to just maintain, you may be able to get away with just exercising...if you already eat fairly healthy foods.

Ryan,

"iFitandHealthy: Weight loss doesn't have to be about cutting calories. Instead, why not maintain calorie intake and introduce more exercise to create the calorie deficit?"

I have used this approach and it was successful. However, without supervision, I saw that it might not work for some people.

You are correct, it does not have to be this way, but for an average Joe, it is often a "game" of counting calories. More exercise is not necessarily better. Without understanding the intricacies of weight loss and strength training, more exercise could do more harm than good.

It could lead to overtraining, injury, and the loss of muscle. Therefore, while this approach is valuable, it comes with some important caveats. BBC has to appeal to a wide audience, which is why they use tools that are easy to understand for the majority of people.

"both restricting calories and exercising is a MUST if you want to LOSE weight"

And yet, it's not a "must". What a lot of people don't realize is that your metabolism can change and it will respond to certain things in predictable ways. Eating 6 half meals a day versus 3 full meals will elicit an incredible response from your body. 100 calories of protein takes 30 to digest, so protein will boost your metabolism. Eating more and exercising more results in a double boost of metabolism and doesn't just cancel out.

What bothers me about your post is that it implies or even states that a person has to eat fast-food or junk food and has no time to exercise. I barely ever eat fast-food or junk food anymore. I eat the most natural foods I can balanced to optimize my performance in the gym 6 times a day. If I eat out, I get Vietnamese or something equally healthy. In short, I make sure almost everything I eat is helping my body. I go to the gym for 40 minutes 6 times a week. I'm a Silicon Valley programmer, so it's not like I'm idle. I didn't find time to exercise, I made it. All I had to do was set my alarm earlier. Also, I have a food scale in my kitchen, but I've also learned to eyeball portions.

This all takes a lot of work, but so does anything worth achieving. Instead of briskly walking for an hour, I'm pounding out sweat on the cardio machines. I burn an estimated 1100 calories per hour. I train with the heaviest weight I can lift with strict form for at least 6 reps.

However, all this effort does have a reward, which is where we get to why it's not a "must". Before I changed my lifestyle, I was maintaining weight on 2800 calories a day. Now, I can eat 3300 and lose two pounds of fat a week as well as put on muscle. When I reach my goal of 6% body fat, I'm going to have an easy time maintaining weight loss. It's hard enough for me to eat 3300 calories a day. I might end up having to eat 3800 to maintain.

"...your post is that it implies or even states that a person has to eat fast-food or junk food and has no time to exercise."

I never said that a person HAS to eat fast food. But, if you look at the statistics, at least in the US, people ARE eating fast food. The fast food industry is growing like crazy. Therefore, it is safe, I think, to assume that the majority of Americans ARE eating fast food.

And, if you peruse the many, many weight loss and exercise blogs and websites on the web, you'll see the number one complaint about exercise is that people don't have time for it.

My point is...you have to work with what you've got. People do eat fast food and people think they don't have time. Thefore, restricting calories IS a must to combat those factors.

No, discipline and lifestyle change is the real "must" here. Stop eating junk (or at least only eat it once or twice a week) and make time for exercise. That's the only way to stay thin and fit. This is what people need to hear, but few will tell them that, because it doesn't sell. They need to stop hearing that exercise isn't necessary and that they can still eat their old foods; they need to stop being coddled by people selling scams.

I think Tom Venuto sums up pretty well the tone that people who sell these weight-loss programs take:

“Poor baby, It’s not your fault, we understand...we know you don’t have any time...no one does...Don’t worry, it’s okay, OF COURSE you don’t have to workout for hours and hours – who ever gave you THAT idea?? Awwwww... there now...Working out too much is bad for you anyways... breaks down muscle, suppresses your immune system, causes oxidative damage and releases cortisol... Follow our easy 5 minute program and you’ll be just fine...”

This doesn't mean that you can't overtrain of course; I've done it to myself from going to the gym for 8 hours a week, so I had to cut back.

I think the same thing could be said for people with "thyroid problems". Not that there aren't people with thyroid problems, but few that claim to have thyroid problems really do, and natural food and exercise is more than enough to get these people losing weight. They just need to be more disciplined than the rest of us.

Very interesting comments. I agree that making a lifestyle change is the only way to permanently lose weight. It's very easy to underestimate how much you eat and overestimate how much you exercise. People seem to think that a half hour of walking will undo a brownie sundae. It'll help, but you'd have to run for about an hour to burn that off. Once I started being accountable for my calories, I became more conscious of how I was "spending" them. I ate more fruits and veggies and no more fast food and other garbage. Also, I began to exercise. I started with walking but I quickly began running. I now run something like 50 or so miles a week and I can eat a lot as well. My metabolism has gone up a lot since I began running and lifting weights. Most women think you'll bulk up if you lift heavy weights, but that is just not true. I can lift heavy weights and I am very small. I have a lot of lean mass though, so I can eat quite a bit and still stay thin. If people would realize that, people may consider exercise. But I don't see that happening anytime soon as long as people out there are pushing pills that help you "lose weight and STILL enjoy your favorite foods".

Also...Ryan, where do you get the figure for the cardio machines burning 1100 calories/hour? If it's from the machine's readout, it's probably off by quite a bit. Most of them overestimate the amount of calories burned. Maybe what we need are gym machines that UNDERestimate how many calories we burn so we work more, lol.

I once worried that the machine was overestimating how much I was burning. I used elliptical machines, and the formulas they use on those machines aren't that extensively researched. However, I started walking uphill on a treadmill, and I could hold the pace at what they said was 1200 calories per hour. The formulas in treadmills have much more research behind them. Plus, certain assumptions they make about your lean mass work to my advantage. They expect someone of 220 pounds to be very obese. I have more metabolically active tissue.

Anyways, in the end it doesn't really matter that much to me, since my results have been quite good. The number of pounds of fat I lose plus the number of pounds of muscle I gain each week consistently adds up to something between 2 and 3. It would be very foolish of me to ask for better results than that.

In one hour of moderate level aerobic the average calorie consumption is around 600 calories (consuming 2 litres of oxygen oper minute)- you can increase this to 1200 calories but this rate (4litres O2 per minute) cannot be sustained.
The fat consumption is 20% at moderate so we burn only 120 fat calories = 13.3 grams of fat (half is from muscle fat, so body fat = 6.6 grams divided over every tissue of the body, subcutaneous and so on and therefore not measurable.
If we increase this to intense exercise the fat consumption drops to 10% so the result is the same.
However recovery biology consumes only body fat and not muscle fat, so is more efficient and at rest the body consumes some 70% fat (30% glucose).
Overnight we can consume around 70 fat calories per hour or 560 overnight and every single calorie is body fat sourced, so more attractive than during exercise which burns both muscle and body fat (50/50) and the proportion is low (10% body fat = 60 calories per hour).
thus we can use recovery biology to burn body fat optimally.
For this to happen blood gluocse must be stable, and the pituitary activated to release recovery (fat burning) hormones.
For blood glucose to be stable the liver must be fuelled prior to bed and honey (1:1 fructose/glucose) is perfect for optimising liver replenishment prior to bed.
So refuel the liver prior to bed, activate recovery biology and burn fat during recovery sleep, simple, effective and efficient.
Nothing wrong with exercise, is is simply not efficient from the point of view of burning fat.
Resistance exercise does not use fat but the pay off is in recovery where EPOC (excess post exercise oxygen consumption) is increased optimally and fat is consumed.
If exercise really burned fat no construction worker on the planet could be obese - have you ever seen such a person?
We have to grow out of this illusion about exercise and fat metabolism.
It is true, but only 20% true and for body fat only 10% true and therefore a myth.
Most people (told not to eat late)go to bed with a depleted liver, activate the adrenal glands and degrade muscle and bone, not fat.
They spend the night fast in adrenal overdrive, sdo not recover, do not burn fat, and suffer long term ill health
as a result.
Mike

That's interesting, because I've heard that you burn about 67% of your calories from fat in morning fasted cardio and 50% of your calories from fat during cardio if you do it later in the day or after eating. The research was done at Kansas State University and published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, if you want strict citing.

Construction workers may get fat because you can always outeat how much you burn. It sounds like you're forgetting calorie balance. If you're preserving or gaining muscle mass/glycogen and eating less than you burn, then you will lose fat weight. Period. The BFFM program will certainly do this with no strange tricks.

I looked at your site. The diet sounds a tad crazy to me as far as a pure fat loss program. However, it's not like I totally disagree with everything you're saying; I am against avoiding eating later at night and believe weight training is more important than cardio. I feel your book might be able to help me devise a better before-bed meal, but that's about it.