• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

The UK Obesity Crisis

Matt N

Matt N

TS Member
Favourite Ride
Shambhala (PortAventura Park)
Hi guys. I apologise in advance if this is an overly sensitive topic, as I’m aware that this will naturally be a contentious debate, but there has been a new flurry of headlines about it as of late and I would be intrigued to hear some of your thoughts about it.

The topic I’m talking about is the UK “obesity crisis”, as it’s been coined in the media. The number of people in the UK who are overweight or obese is growing and has been for a number of years, and correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Britain might have one of the highest rates of obesity in Europe.

In terms of the recent flurry of headlines:
  • A government report has warned that the number of obese adults in the UK will outweigh the number of healthy weight adults within 5 years without “drastic government action”, with a tipping point where a third of UK adults are obese (which would outweigh the percentage who are a healthy weight) forecast to come in 2027: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...ocial&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1652937077-1
  • A recent study conducted by Cancer Research UK forecasts that more than 42 million UK adults will be overweight or obese by 2040. This equates to 71% of UK adults being overweight or obese by 2040, and 36%, or 21 million, being obese: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/may/19/more-than-42m-uk-adults-will-be-overweight-by-2040
  • This same study also predicts that the rate of severe obesity (a BMI above 40; for reference, the healthy weight range is 18.5-25, and obesity begins at 30) is expected to rise to 6%, up from 3% currently.
  • The government has recently come under fire for delaying certain anti-obesity measures by at least a year, and potentially scrapping them altogether, due to the cost of living crisis. The proposed measures included a ban on BOGOF deals for junk food and a ban on junk food advertising before 9pm, but these measures have been shelved at least in the short term: https://www.theguardian.com/food/20...rmarket-junk-food-deals-and-pre-watershed-ads
So my question to you today is; what are your thoughts on this issue? Do you think this is a big issue, or do you think it’s being overblown by the media? What do you think is causing this issue? How could we solve it?

Personally, I do think that this could become an issue if it’s not managed in some way. Having a high percentage of overweight and obese people is not an issue in itself, but I think the side effects of that are more of a concern. It could put a lot of strain on the NHS, as overweight and obese people are at greater risk from certain health problems, such as cancer, heart problems and such, and the NHS is already struggling from the additional impact of COVID.

However, I don’t think criticising people and punishing them for being overweight is the way to go about solving this issue. I think it needs to be solved in a completely non-judgmental way that focuses on helping people instead of telling them off.

Being thin myself, I won’t pretend to understand the exact struggles of overweight and obese people, but I do have a somewhat complicated and strained relationship with food, so in that regard, I can empathise with many overweight people when they say that they can’t help having the eating habits they do. It’s very easy to say “eat more healthy food”, “eat less junk”, “eat less” etc etc to someone, but in many cases, I can imagine that that is easier said than done. Your relationship with food is one of the first relationships you form in life, and a relationship with food is certainly hard to change once you’ve had it for a number of years. As such, I think it needs to be approached in a non-judgmental way that focuses more on helping people and being supportive rather than disciplining them and punishing them.

In terms of any particular measures; I’m not particularly sure how you’d go about solving this issue. I’ll admit that I’m not sure whether the ban on junk food advertising would do an awful lot; I know things like cigarette adverts were banned previously, and that did reduce the rate of smoking, but fast food chains are quite ingrained in people’s conscious anyway, and I feel like stopping pre-watershed adverts wouldn’t stop frequent visitors from visiting these restaurants. Although as I said, I can’t think of anything better…

But I’d be keen to know; what are your thoughts on this issue?
 
Easy to say, not as easy to get people to do it though.
When I was a kid, there was a lardarse in every class, now there tends to be one sat in every group.
Far more common problem than in my youth.
Increase taxes on fat and sugar.
Simple, but not the tory way to tell business what to do.
Free liposuction on the NHS, put the blended fat into McDonalds shakes for reuse.
 
Firstly, it's important to know what is classed as "overweight". To be overweight in the UK, you have to have a BMI of 25 or above. Look this up and you'll find just how low that threshold is. I'm willing to bet there are people who think they're perfectly healthy or "thin" (and they probably are) but would be surprised to find they're a part of these statistics. Try it guys, you'd probably be surprised.

There has been debate in the past about how low a BMI the NHS consider overweight compared to some other countries and how much of a blunt instrument it can sometimes be. You can have a healthy level of fat within your body but still be classed as overweight simply because of the way you are built.

But lumping overweight in with obese makes for more sensationalist headlines doesn't it?

The High Fat Sugar and Salt legislation is on its way regardless in October. From a retail perspective, it prevents is from promoting HFSS products in certain locations. It will work in that these things won't be so much in your face anymore, but as with any legislation there are loop holes. Shops can simply just lump them all together away from the front of the store but I suppose it'll probably have a positive impact like the sugar tax does.

Speaking of sugar tax, it was quite successful. Where there were alternatives, sales rose significantly on the less sugary products. The old Tory back bench "freedom" arguments also now lookss rather silly as you can still buy full sugar stuff, it's just a little bit more expensive. It also led to a lot of food and drink manufacturers reformulating many of their products to remove some of the sugar to avoid the tax. I think this will be the way to go more than banning multi buys. Multi buys are already far less a part of supermarket pricing strategy these days so by banning BOGOF's, which themselves have almost gone the way of the dodo, is like solving the problems of 1990's in 2022. I think further expansion of the sugar tax to include saturated fats would be far more effective.

Then that leads me on to Public Health authorities advice. In America for instance, there's far more of focus on sugar in public health advice but we seem obsessed with reducing fat consumption in this country. I think it's led to a mentality that you can have a fat free yoghurt laced with sugar and it's all good, or that a bowl of pasta and portion of Shreddies is good for you. There needs to be more of a focus on reducing carbohydrate (of which sugar is one) intake as well. Low fat diets suit some people, but a low carb, almost zero sugar diet but high protein diet can be just as effective.

A move to make the Traffic Light labelling system compulsory has been resisted time and time again, but labelling and letting people make educated decisions could be the most effective way of dealing with this. People already know that a chocolate bar is bad for them but might be surprised about what's in the other stuff they eat if you had a colour scheme on the front of the packets. When I went low cab and high protein a few years ago, there was loads of squinting and looking up tiny little bits of information.
 
kinda linked because of its effect on health but this reading this today

www.bbc.co.uk

Retail sales jump in April driven by cigarettes and alcohol

Demand for tobacco and alcohol was behind a surprise rise in sales, but the longer term trend is still down.
www.bbc.co.uk

Might be because people are feeling depressed with the current state of affairs. Drink I can understand but really surprised cigarette sales have gone up given many have quit and the price of a pack is extortionate especially given the cost of living crisis.

Actually, I have no idea but how much is a pack of 20 these days? Last time I bought some as a teenager a pack of 10 was just under £2 and 20 was £4 ish
 
Matt.GC said:
Firstly, it's important to know what is classed as "overweight". To be overweight in the UK, you have to have a BMI of 25 or above. Look this up and you'll find just how low that threshold is. I'm willing to bet there are people who think they're perfectly healthy or "thin" (and they probably are) but would be surprised to find they're a part of these statistics. Try it guys, you'd probably be surprised.

There has been debate in the past about how low a BMI the NHS consider overweight compared to some other countries and how much of a blunt instrument it can sometimes be. You can have a healthy level of fat within your body but still be classed as overweight simply because of the way you are built.

But lumping overweight in with obese makes for more sensationalist headlines doesn't it?

The High Fat Sugar and Salt legislation is on its way regardless in October. From a retail perspective, it prevents is from promoting HFSS products in certain locations. It will work in that these things won't be so much in your face anymore, but as with any legislation there are loop holes. Shops can simply just lump them all together away from the front of the store but I suppose it'll probably have a positive impact like the sugar tax does.

Speaking of sugar tax, it was quite successful. Where there were alternatives, sales rose significantly on the less sugary products. The old Tory back bench "freedom" arguments also now lookss rather silly as you can still buy full sugar stuff, it's just a little bit more expensive. It also led to a lot of food and drink manufacturers reformulating many of their products to remove some of the sugar to avoid the tax. I think this will be the way to go more than banning multi buys. Multi buys are already far less a part of supermarket pricing strategy these days so by banning BOGOF's, which themselves have almost gone the way of the dodo, is like solving the problems of 1990's in 2022. I think further expansion of the sugar tax to include saturated fats would be far more effective.

Then that leads me on to Public Health authorities advice. In America for instance, there's far more of focus on sugar in public health advice but we seem obsessed with reducing fat consumption in this country. I think it's led to a mentality that you can have a fat free yoghurt laced with sugar and it's all good, or that a bowl of pasta and portion of Shreddies is good for you. There needs to be more of a focus on reducing carbohydrate (of which sugar is one) intake as well. Low fat diets suit some people, but a low carb, almost zero sugar diet but high protein diet can be just as effective.

A move to make the Traffic Light labelling system compulsory has been resisted time and time again, but labelling and letting people make educated decisions could be the most effective way of dealing with this. People already know that a chocolate bar is bad for them but might be surprised about what's in the other stuff they eat if you had a colour scheme on the front of the packets. When I went low cab and high protein a few years ago, there was loads of squinting and looking up tiny little bits of information.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your in-depth post @Matt.GC; as I know you’ve previously mentioned working in the supermarket industry (correct me if I’m wrong there), it’s interesting to hear such an in-depth perspective from someone in an industry directly affected by some of these measures.

The point about BMI is interesting. I get the impression that it’s designed to work for people of an “average” frame for their height, so if you fall within that “average” range, then it’s a fairly accurate measure to use. But if you have a big frame for your height, then it may not be as accurate. Also, people like bodybuilders and athletes are often persecuted by BMI measures, because their high amount of muscle gives them extra weight; due to muscle weighing more than fat, many people who are fitness fanatics and do all kinds of weight training and such fall into the overweight and obese BMI categories due to how much muscle they have. It works the other way too, however; people who have a small frame for their height or not a lot of muscle may have a normal BMI, but might be carrying excess fat that puts them at risk.

I’ve seen a number of news articles talking about waist-to-height ratio as another metric you can use. By that metric, you’d be seen as “overweight” if your waist circumference is more than half your height. For instance, I’m about 5’9”, or 69”, so my maximum healthy waist circumference would be around 34.5” by this measure. I know for a fact that my waist is nowhere near 34.5” based on the trouser size I wear, so this measure would have me as being below the overweight threshold by a fair distance, but that’s besides the point. For me, my BMI registers toward the lower end of the spectrum, so the two measures match, but if you are referred to as overweight by BMI and feel like you’re normal weight/healthy, then this may be a more reliable measure to try.

Although for me, it does raise another question; if people don’t mind me asking, is society possibly losing sight of what a “healthy” weight is? I don’t particularly like the term “normal”, as surely normal is whatever makes you happy, but surely people’s barometer of a “normal” weight will be guided by those around them. If everyone around you is overweight, then surely that might influence what you feel a normal weight is?

In terms of the sugar tax; interesting. I wasn’t sure how much of an effect that had, but if it had a positive effect, then I agree that a saturated fats tax might be a good thing to implement. I know a lot of fast food chains, for instance, are now attempting to reduce their saturated fats, so this might not necessarily be needed, but it would be another measure in the arsenal.

I also wonder whether some sort of initiative helping people with cooking at home might help? I know a lot of people struggle with cooking (myself included), so that might be what makes people reach for the less healthy convenience foods all the time. This might just be the way I was raised and the sort of foods my mum cooked when we were growing up (and still cooks now), but home cooked food often tends to be healthier than things you order in, and as you know exactly what’s going into it, it’s easier to make food that’s healthy and tastes nice. That point might also make you more likely to eat healthy food; if you’ve made it, then you’re naturally more likely to eat it. Perhaps cookery classes in schools teaching how to cook healthy food would be a good thing to consider?
 
GaryH said:
Actually, I have no idea but how much is a pack of 20 these days? Last time I bought some as a teenager a pack of 10 was just under £2 and 20 was £4 ish
Click to expand...

Between £10 and £14 depending on brand and shop. 10 packs have of course been long since banned (something which I find stupid as when I gave up smoking, 10 packs actually helped me cut down whereas you're less likely to ration a pack of 20), but cigarillos can still be sold in 10 packs and menthol form. Again, another silly loop hole in legislation.

As for tobacco sales, I'd say it's current smokers smoking more. Less people smoke now than ever before.
 
The tobacco sales increase will be because of those Elf Bars everyone uses.

Assuming they're included as a nicotine based smoking alternative.
 
Interestingly, I think more people smoke than you’d expect.

When I was in secondary school, and sixth form in particular, I knew of quite a few people who smoked regularly. I would often find cigarette packets lying around that I’d put in the bin, and people sometimes even used to come to classes smelling of cigarette smoke, so while they of course aren’t sure signs that people smoke by any means, it’s enough for me to infer that people around me may well have smoked. And this was, in some cases, before people were old enough to legally buy cigarettes (I don’t know the exact age limit, but it’s at least 16, isn’t it?), so I’d imagine the rate is higher among those who can legally buy cigarettes.

The smoking rate has dropped for sure, but I think the number of people who still smoke is higher than you’d expect. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing; as much as I don’t smoke myself, I know that it’s a vice in much the same vein as alcohol for many people, and I wouldn’t try and argue with anyone who did smoke or did drink alcohol even though I do neither. Each to their own and all that.
 
Cigars can still be sold in singles, menthols (in the form of cigarillos) and in branded packaging. Cigarettes have to be in 20 packs with non branded Olive green packaging and can't be called things like "light" or "fresh" anymore. Same for rolling tobacco. Smoking aids like filter tips can still be branded, carry no health warnings and menthol tips are still fine. Some cigarettes that were previously menthols now come with holes in the filter so you can insert a menthol filter into them.

The smoking age is 18 and has been for a few years.

Compared to how it used to be Matt, hardly anyone smokes now. When I started work, half the store smoked including all the big bosses. Now you'd be hard pressed to find someone who does. Bar the slight recent up tick, cigarette sales have all but collapsed compared to what they used to be like. The days of the duel manned tobacco kiosk on a lottery night are over.
 
Relating back to the original topic, I had a thought; could alcohol possibly be a contributing factor to why the UK has a high obesity rate?

I only say it because I’m led to believe that the UK has quite a large-scale drinking culture compared to other countries, and your average alcoholic drink contains a surprising number of calories.

On a separate note, an interesting thing I’m noticing to do with the obesity crisis is the recent appearance of calorie counts on restaurant menus, and the effect that can have. I think having them on restaurant menus does make me subconsciously aware of how many calories are in things and letting that partly influence what I order. I went to Wetherspoons today, and I won’t lie, seeing the calories on the menu did make me feel a bit guilty about ordering certain things and “being bad”… I wonder what effect that will have?
 
Not sure Brits do drink that much more, it’s the type and frequency. Brits are more likely to binge drink at the weekend, whereas Europeans more have a glass of wine every night with dinner. So overall number of drinks might be similar but little and often is healthier than loads all in one night followed by a kebab.
 
The top ten drinking nations are pretty much all European, Britain only just makes it into the top twenty.
Don't think it is booze that is the problem...there are a lot of very skinny alcoholics out there... sugar, fat and a lack of exercise brought on by sedentary leisure is the problem.
The bloaters need to get out from behind their screens more.
 
I'm fat because I eat and drink too much and don't move about enough, which is the case for very nearly everyone. When I move about more and eat better I start to weigh less.

Its really very simple, but people like to think they are special and they can beat that fact with cheats, so let themselves get sold to from a weightloss industry that makes things worse.

People also think healthy food is expensive and unhealthy (generally highly processed and fast food) is cheap, but that's just not true. Healthy food is often more time consuming and requires a greater level of planning, but people are lazy so don't do that.

The measure of BMI is stupid and worthless, so quite how many people are unhealthily overweight is pretty much unknown.
 
Last edited:
Matt N said:
On a separate note, an interesting thing I’m noticing to do with the obesity crisis is the recent appearance of calorie counts on restaurant menus, and the effect that can have. I think having them on restaurant menus does make me subconsciously aware of how many calories are in things and letting that partly influence what I order. I went to Wetherspoons today, and I won’t lie, seeing the calories on the menu did make me feel a bit guilty about ordering certain things and “being bad”… I wonder what effect that will have?
Click to expand...

This touches on my point about public health advice in this country and how it can actually confuse people.

Whilst it's true that the simple calories in being less than calories out equation will lead to weight loss, it is by no means the only way to leading a healthy lifestyle.

I went Keto a few years ago and lost nearly 4st. The reason I chose this was because I really don't like the food available on low fat diets. I don't crave sugar much and can do without carbs but I've always loved my meat and other protein products like cheese. Low fat diets focus on reducing calories, fat and refined sugar products. They promote root veg, fruit and carbohydrates like pasta, bread and rice.

But our bodies aren't naturally built to eat the amount of carbohydrates we consume. In the grand scheme of things, root veg, wheat and sugar containing products are quite new innovations to us as a species. Our bodies will always burn the calories for energy the easiest way possible. In order, it will use "white" carbs first (sugar), "brown" carbs second (from wheat and root vegetables), fat and then protein.

As a survival mechanism, any excess calories consumed in any of those 4 groups will be stored as body fat to be burned in the event of starvation.

The reason low fat diets focus on calorie control is because they're so brown carb heavy, you need to control the calories you get from sugars, fat and protein to compensate otherwise your body will simply store them.

But a low carb diet is equally as effective and perfectly healthy. You deprive your body of the easiest energy burners (both the top 2 carbs) so it has no choice but to use the fat and then the protein you're consuming for energy. So if you cut out wheat and sugar, you need very high levels of fat in order to function (my favourite was a fillet steak with Kale fried in butter of cheese topped crispy bacon). I suspect the reason this is not advised is because it deprives people of many of the things society has become accustomed to. Bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, carrots etc are completely off the menu and it is, of course, not suitable for vegetarians or vegans.

It's a myth that fat is bad for you. Your body needs it as equally as vitamins to function. Saturated and trans fats are bad, but fat itself is a vital component the human body needs to function. It's only a bad thing when you're consuming carbs instead which makes your body store the fat instead of use it for energy.

What's also a myth is the need to eat so regularly. The mantra "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" was actually a marketing tagline invented by Kellogg's and is completely untrue. Our bodies can survive perfectly healthily eating one big meal every 3 days. When we were wild hunter gatherers, we didn't eat bread, potatoes, carrots and Muller Lights. We ate other animals, berries and above ground vegetbles. We ate very irregularly, sometimes going days without food. Our bodies would store the calories and release them when needed.

I'm not disrespecting those who don't eat meat and would prefer a low fat diet instead. I'm just saying that taking low fat and traditional calorie counting as *the* only gospel diet to lead a healthy lifestyle is just wrong. When you're consuming a diet that requires high levels of fat as your main energy source, a calorie counting system is useless. I liked the low carb foods better than the lower fat ones and that's why I chose to diet this way, but it wasn't made easy for me. The worst foods I could possibly eat for it were labelled as god's gift to weight loss, "healthy choice", proudly displaying their low fat contents and some of them completely exempt from VAT. Yet I found myself squinting on packaging to find their real content.

That's why I think it's about education and honesty more than anything. Any food that is high in fat, salt, sugar *and* carbs should be clearly labelled as such so that people can make informed choices. The government simply placing it's flag on one strategy is wrong.
 
For many people it is a mental health / addiction issue and a vicious cycle of eating to make themselves feel better whilst also being depressed becasue they're overweight.

Parents need to take responsibility and educate their kids from an early age about how to cook proper food and get them used to eating healthy and lead by example themselves. If children see that eating fatty and sugary foods every day and being overweight is a normal way to live, they'll continue this into adulthood regardless of any implemented sugar tax.
 
I think the sugar tax is very depressing, especially because you cannot by anywhere near the amount of sweets and chocolate you could buy for the same sort of money when I was young. However we only were allowed to spend the small amount of money we had on odd occasions. I think with everything becoming more open in terms of kids being able to use money we will have to increase the sugar tax. We should also look at incentives for those who stay below the overweight line, I'm not sure exactly what but things that will motivate people. The government needs to put money in schemes that really help both adults and kids loose weight and stay at there target weight.
 
JAperson said:
I think the sugar tax is very depressing, especially because you cannot by anywhere near the amount of sweets and chocolate you could buy for the same sort of money when I was young. However we only were allowed to spend the small amount of money we had on odd occasions. I think with everything becoming more open in terms of kids being able to use money we will have to increase the sugar tax. We should also look at incentives for those who stay below the overweight line, I'm not sure exactly what but things that will motivate people. The government needs to put money in schemes that really help both adults and kids loose weight and stay at there target weight.
Click to expand...

The sugar tax only affects drinks at the moment.

You can't buy as many sweets as before due to inflation and changes in the cost of raw materials, not taxation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top