Possible path to weight loss - the 15% solution

Link

Short English version:
3 groups were studied. The only difference was the level of protein in their diets. The level for each respective group was 10%, 15% and 25%. The 10% group increased their consumption by more than 70%. {note: actually it says consumed 70% more energy, which I assume means calories. Also note that the 70% was just from snacks, the actual total amount seems to have been higher}. As a result, apparently, the 10% group gained about 1kg (2.2lbs) per month.

Also, of the 70% extra calories, 57% was from snacks the flavor of which would be classified as "savory." They speculate that this flavor preference may be due to an unconscious association of the flavor with protein.

Geeky nutshell version.

Explain that lean subjects consuming controlled but disguised macronutrient composition diets took in significantly more calories on a diet containing 10% protein than one containing 15% protein.

Note that most of the excess energy consumed came in the form of snacks, and that those on the 10% protein diet reported more hunger after breakfast than those on a 25% protein diet.

And finally (anybody still reading?), drumroll . . . the actual article.

People who ate less protein consumed more fats and carbohydrates, typically in the form of snacks, researchers found.

Study participants' overall energy intake was significantly higher when they ate a diet that was only 10% protein compared with one comprised of 15% of the macronutrient, Alison Gosby, PhD, of the University of Sydney in Australia, and colleagues reported online in PLoS One.

But there was no difference in total energy intake between a 15% and 25% protein diet, they reported.

"Humans have a particularly strong appetite for protein, and when the proportion of protein in the diet is low this appetite can drive excess energy intake," Gosby said in a statement. "Our findings have considerable implications for body weight management in the current nutritional environment, where foods rich in fat and carbohydrates are cheap, palatable, and available to an extent unprecedented in our history."

The "protein leverage" hypothesis proposes that a decline in the ratio of protein to fat and carbohydrates in the diet drives excess energy intake, potentially promoting the development of obesity, according to background material in the article.

To test that idea, the researchers gave 22 lean patients a special diet over three four-day periods. Patients didn't know the macronutrient content of the foods they were eating and were allowed to choose their meals and snacks freely in an inpatient setting.

The diets were comprised of either 10%, 15%, or 25% energy as protein, and carbohydrates were adjusted to comprise 60%, 55%, or 45% of energy, while fat was held constant at 30%.

Gosby and colleagues found that participants took in significantly more energy overall when they ate a 10% protein diet than on the 15% protein diet (P<0.0001).

The majority of that excess energy -- 70% -- came from snacks, not regular meals, they reported (P=0.02). And over half of that energy (57%) was due to increased intake of savory foods (P=0.03).

"This may reflect habitual preferences, or may be an indication of participants seeking protein due to associating savory sensory qualities with protein," they wrote.

However, there was no difference in overall energy intake between the 15% and 25% protein diet, they reported, which may indicate an optimal protein intake.

Hunger levels were generally similar across all diets, although there was a greater increase in hunger score between one and two hours after the 10% protein breakfast compared with the 25% protein breakfast (P=0.005). There was also a trend toward greater hunger after the 15% protein breakfast compared with the 25% one, but it wasn't significant.

They said the findings were consistent with other studies that protein leverage may be a contributory mechanism to the increased energy intake that has gone hand-in-hand with the rising prevalence of obesity.

"Even when the macronutrient composition of foods was disguised and the variety controlled, increased energy intake occurred on diets containing a lower proportion of energy from protein," they wrote, which could potentially "increase the risk that obesity might develop."

[The_Ish]

This has been common knowledge for a long time. At least if you have any interest in your well being.

[FordGT90Concept]

Conclusion: more protein is a good plan for losing weight (so long as it isn't packed with fat). Correct? I think we knew that.

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Conclusion: more protein is a good plan for losing weight (so long as it isn't packed with fat). Correct? I think we knew that.

So you're assuming that the other 90% of calories in the 10% group are carbs? Or are you assuming that the only the 5% difference (15% in the case of the 25% group obviously) between each group was carbs and otherwise the diets were identical.

Because if what you're referring to is something like the Atkins diet, that's more a low-carb diet than a high protein one.

edit: Oh, forgot. Also, what is the mechanism that would explain the difference between the groups?

[qubit]

Yes, this seems to give some scientific evidence to why the Atkins diet and other low carb diets work. I know from my own experience that eating more protein leads to greater satisfaction and a longer interval until I feel hungry again.

[Jetster]

This topic make me hungry

[puma99dk|]

erm not to say anything wrong but every attempt to try loosing weight ur body sees as an enemy to itself, bcs when u first got like a tire or what u call it at ur stomach, so that's why some ppl got problems as myself to lose weight ^^;

even my family got problems when we turn 18 we can't look at anything we r like already putting the pounds on before eating it x:

The problem with dieting is the diet, and this study is a perfect example of what I mean. The 10% group wasn't getting the nutrients they needed, so they were hungry all of the time and showed a preference for things, that on some level, that their bodies thought they needed.

So reverse that. If you're hungry all of the time, is it more likely to be your genetic makeup or the makeup of your diet?

Of course it could be either or both, but I think you have to favor the less exotic explanation. This isn't to challenge what you said in anyway, but is said only for the purpose of providing a different perspective.

Something else I just mention in passing is that the other interpretation of the catchy phrase I started with (and which I totally stole) is that weight control is a life-long issue. If you think you'll go on a diet, lose the weight, and then you're done, that is probably the worst thing you can do to yourself. But it's also completely unnecessary. All you need to do is be just a little more physically active and try, most of the time, to eat a little better. Maybe you will only lose a few pounds per month, but it will stay off - FOREVER.

[ShiBDiB]

THE path to weightloss

Exercise and eating better..

/Thread /Diets /TV Scams

That's true, but it's not enough for it to simply be true.

Say 'exercise' and people think of doing shit that they don't like and would be reluctant to do even at gun point. Say 'diet' and people think of being hungry all of the time. Now add them together and it's not much of a surprise that people tend to do neither.

And that's fine, because neither are necessary. You don't gain weight at a rate of 5lbs per week, so why should you expect to lose it at that rate? It's crazy. You gain weight because of a small, but consistent (and that's the key) surplus energy intake (=calories).

A pound of fat is worth about 3500 calories. So, if you consume just and extra 120 calories per day - CONSISTENTLY - you will gain 1 pound in a month. You can't walk past a bakery without inhaling 120 calories. But by the same token, are you really going to miss 120 calories either? NO.

What about burning an extra 120 calories? That's about 10 minutes of walking - less if you're a fast walker (4 mph). And it doesn't even have to be 10 consecutive minutes. If you park at the end of a parking lot, how much longer does it take you to get to the store? Maybe and extra 2 minutes? That's 2 down, and only 8 more to go.

So you give up 120 calories that you won't miss anyway, and burn an extra 120 calories in ways you'll barely notice once you get into a new routine, and guess what? You're losing 2lbs per month. Impressive? No. Permanent? Yes.

That's why it's important to understand what is involved and what is really required - and the answer is, not much.

[pantherx12]

Originally Posted by qubit

Yes, this seems to give some scientific evidence to why the Atkins diet and other low carb diets work. I know from my own experience that eating more protein leads to greater satisfaction and a longer interval until I feel hungry again.

That isn't it at all!

You loose weight on the Atkins diet because it's unhealthy!

Essentially starving yourself from certain nutrient groups.


All it's saying is protein keeps you full* for longer so your less likely to want to eat shit.



* Or gives you the sensation of being full.

[ShiBDiB]

Originally Posted by twilyth

That's true, but it's not enough for it to simply be true.

Say 'exercise' and people think of doing shit that they don't like and would be reluctant to do even at gun point. Say 'diet' and people think of being hungry all of the time. Now add them together and it's not much of surprise that people tend to do neither.

And that's fine, because neither are necessary. You don't gain weight at a rate of 5lbs per week, so why should you expect to lose it at that rate? It's crazy. You gain weight because of a small, but consistent (and that's the key) surplus energy intake (=calories).

A pound of fat is worth about 3500 calories. So, if you consume just and extra 120 calories per day - CONSISTENTLY - you will gain 1 pound in a month. You can't walk past a bakery without inhaling 120 calories. But by the same token, are you really going to miss 120 calories either? NO.

What about burning an extra 120 calories? That's about 10 minutes of walking - less if you're a fast walker (4 mph). And it doesn't even have to be 10 consecutive minutes. If you park at the end of a parking lot, how much longer does it take you to get to the store? Maybe and extra 2 minutes? That's 2 down, and only 8 more to go.

So you give up 120 calories that you won't miss anyway, and burn an extra 120 calories in ways you'll barely notice once you get into a new routine, and guess what? You're losing 2lbs per month. Impressive? No. Permanent? Yes.

That's why it's important to understand what is involved and what is really required - and the answer is, not much.

Which is why I kept it simple.. Exercise and eat better... :P

[the54thvoid]

Ok, my speciality.

I have been a health and fitness manager for 4-5 years and have worked within gyms for 15 1/2 years. For a very long time the recommended nutrient intake (by calorie) has been 10-15% protein, 25-30% fat and 55-60% carbs.

Protein is an appetite suppressant.
Carbs (in the wrong format - simple) create insulin spikes, and lethargy (that post meal slump).
Fat is vital for vitamins A,D,E,& K.

Starchy carbs (wholemeal/grain etc) are the preferred choice. Unsaturated Fats are also preferable.

Strangely a diet high in fat does not give you heart disease if accompanied by the adequate active lifetsyle (studies done on Innuit tribes with high prot/fat and very, very low carb intake show no significant incidences).

Overall it is (and always has been) about calorie control.

Energy In = Energy Out.

i.e., if you eat more cals than you burn off then you put on weight. Conversely, eat less than your body requires for energy and you lose weight. Lose weight fast and the loss is composed of a higher % of lean tissue than if you lose weight gradualy (say 2lbs per week).

Any how, back on topic, yeah, the 15% protein mark is about what folk in the industry and those that have followed nutrition/dietetics have known for some time.

And the only way to maintain weight loss is to change your lifestyle. Going on a diet or going to the gym for three months doesn't last a lifetime. Eat less do more.

Oh, and while I'm at it, humans are piss poor at being honest with themselves. I've had 15 stone women give me food diaries that consist of not enough daily calories to feed a child and they say, "honestly, that's what i eat and I'm still gaining weight!". (and it's not thyroid problems. If I had a pound for every fat person thats blamed their thyroid or a slow metabolism I'd have bought 4 HD7970's by now.)

Besides, fat or heavy people burn more calories when moving compared to lighter people.

Ironically, i was about to switch off pc to go do a work out when i read that thread title - couldn't resist!! Should take a pic of my gym in room and post it.

Originally Posted by the54thvoid

Oh, and while I'm at it, humans are piss poor at being honest with themselves. I've had 15 stone women give me food diaries that consist of not enough daily calories to feed a child and they say, "honestly, that's what i eat and I'm still gaining weight!". (and it's not thyroid problems. If I had a pound for every fat person thats blamed their thyroid or a slow metabolism I'd have bought 4 HD7970's by now.)

Part of the reason people lie, is to deceive themselves. The other part is to try to squeeze a little empathy from people who denigrate them as being weak-willed, gluttonous, toads. I hope you only let fit people into your gym since I have to wonder how welcome the people who aren't feel. I'm guessing not very.

And regardless of your experience, we're talking empirical study here, not anecdotes and articles from Men's Health or whatever the current leading peddler of mind-numbing pap happens to be.

People who overeat, probably do so for legitimate physiological reasons that we are only beginning to understand. By 'legitimate' I mean that, just like in this study, when people were deprived of a small amount of protein, it changed their eating habits. There's a clue there. That clue is that issues relating to metabolism generally and weight gain in particular are not now and have NEVER BEEN "simple." Sure calories in, calories out, thermodynamic balance, yada yada. Got it. Known that shit for years. Got it. And yet for some reason, none of it seems to do anyone much good. Even the success stories you're telling your new members about today will be the epic tent-dress failure of next year - or the year after that. So however "right" the conventional dogma might be, it's as infinitely useless as every other approach.

And that would be the second clue.

So if you're someone who wants to help people with eating and weight issues rather than to simply mock them, this is precisely the sort of thorough and nuanced investigation you should want to see more of.

[pantherx12]

Originally Posted by twilyth

So if you're someone who wants to help people with eating and weight issues rather than to simply mock them, this is precisely the sort of thorough and nuanced investigation you should want to see more of.

If he works in a gym, he's not going to be saying " OOOOH FATTY FATTY FATTY OOOOOOH!!!!!!!!!!" to their faces is he?



Sorry man but it just seamed a bit silly you would even say that hence the silly response.

I've worked in fitness a bit and some clients have made me mentally face-palm with their lack of even basic levels of fitness, and yet not once did I show my own personal disapproval to them.

I encouraged what to them was an achievement.

[Jetster]

Dont buy sweets and allot of carbs. Simple whole foods. That way you have to make it if you want something to eat

Originally Posted by pantherx12

If he works in a gym, he's not going to be saying " OOOOH FATTY FATTY FATTY OOOOOOH!!!!!!!!!!" to their faces is he?



Sorry man but it just seamed a bit silly you would even say that hence the silly response.

I've worked in fitness a bit and some clients have made me mentally face-palm with their lack of even basic levels of fitness, and yet not once did I show my own personal disapproval to them.

I encouraged what to them was an achievement.

You see, that is precisely the problem. You "believe", sincerely, I'm quite sure, that you were nothing but nurturing and supportive. But if you're going to be honest, the fact of the matter is that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever of how you came across to any of these people. And the fact that this thought obviously didn't even occur to you, pretty much wraps up my case your honor.

You also don't realize that people who are morbidly obese simply assume that you are looking at them like the hideous slugs that they are. Why? Because often, maybe the vast majority of the time, that's how they see themselves. So even if you were utterly neutral, that neutrality would still be seen as condemnation - the condemnation that they believe they so richly deserve.

Fat people don't like being fat and if being fit were simple matter, simply everyone would be fit. But in addition to our near complete ignorance of what is involved on the molecular level, we slap a nice thick layer of 'hey you useless fuck' on top - whether we've actually done so or not.

[the54thvoid]

Originally Posted by twilyth

Part of the reason people lie, is to deceive themselves. The other part is to try to squeeze a little empathy from people who denigrate them as being weak-willed, gluttonous, toads. I hope you only let fit people into your gym since I have to wonder how welcome the people who aren't feel. I'm guessing not very.

And regardless of your experience, we're talking empirical study here, not anecdotes and articles from Men's Health or whatever the current leading peddler of mind-numbing pap happens to be.

People who overeat, probably do so for legitimate physiological reasons that we are only beginning to understand. By 'legitimate' I mean that, just like in this study, when people were deprived of a small amount of protein, it changed their eating habits. There's a clue there. That clue is that issues relating to metabolism generally and weight gain in particular are not now and have NEVER BEEN "simple." Sure calories in, calories out, thermodynamic balance, yada yada. Got it. Known that shit for years. Got it. And yet for some reason, none of it seems to do anyone much good. Even the success stories you're telling your new members about today will be the epic tent-dress failure of next year - or the year after that. So however "right" the conventional dogma might be, it's as infinitely useless as every other approach.

And that would be the second clue.

So if you're someone who wants to help people with eating and weight issues rather than to simply mock them, this is precisely the sort of thorough and nuanced investigation you should want to see more of.

You say we're talking empirical, not anecdotal, then you say this;

People who overeat, probably do so for legitimate physiological reasons

which means that itself isn't based on fact.

People overeat because they can. We, like every other animal are programmed to eat to survive. Despite our cultured abstractions we still deep down see food as essential and by golly we'd better eat it. Evolution hasn't caught up with us yet. For most of our existence we lived a hunter gatherer life and only for the past several thousand years have we started an agrarian culture (which also ramped up carb consumption contrary to the millenia of meat eating.)
In our Western world consumption is no longer a need but a desire. We buy because we can and we eat because we can. It is a majority decision to take consequence for our actions and as such, food is the same. The excuse of physiological reasons for over eating is not valid. We are ALL programmed to over eat. It is our CHOICE not to do so.
For some that choice is truly very hard and for others it is something they cannot be bothered to do.

As for my gym etiquette - it is very good. Every individual that walks into my gym has taken the biggest step. And for that they receive attention. My comment about having a pound yada yada yada (as you like to say) was a statement of fact. It doesn't mean I spit in their faces and rip out their stomach.
However, identifying the individuals weakness is the second step (first being building rapport). The means to overcome problems is to identify, address and overcome. Once the rapport is there, it makes the job easier.
All too often though people have unrealistic expectations and are not willing to put the effort or sacrifice in to lose weight or attain a goal. There is no magic pill for that. And no diet that will work forever.
If people do not WANT to change they will not, no matter how much help we give them.

So, i took offence at your assumption I'm a gym fascist when you are so very far from the truth.

And finally, be very careful when talking empirical data with health and diet. My industry is populated with many 'bad science' studies (this 15% isn't one ) so often you'll find one journal stating 'X' and another article stating 'NOT X'.

Let's hug and make up.

[Completely Bonkers]

I heard that chewing indigestible bits of string also works.



Really. Exercise. Happiness. Sex. Nothing more needed.

[pantherx12]

Originally Posted by twilyth

You see, that is precisely the problem. You "believe", sincerely, I'm quite sure, that you were nothing but nurturing and supportive. But if you're going to be honest, the fact of the matter is that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever of how you came across to any of these people. And the fact that this thought obviously didn't even occur to you, pretty much wraps up my case your honor.

My assumption meter is through the roof!

I won't bother replying seriously to this man.

You can't have a discussion if one party is making all their points based on assumptions about the other party.

[digibucc]

Originally Posted by the54thvoid

Going on a diet or going to the gym for three months doesn't last a lifetime. Eat less do more.

... Oh, and while I'm at it, humans are piss poor at being honest with themselves... every fat person thats blamed their thyroid or a slow metabolism

it's not an easy subject to discuss because it's personal, but i do agree. i see people using splenda instead of sugar and think "NO! Use SUGAR!! JUST LESS of IT!"... it takes willpower to not overeat. i was beginning to head down the path myself, but luckily caught it early enough. it's still so much harder to fix than it is to break. and that's because there is no real "fix"... it's not a one time thing. you have to be responsible for your body, for the rest of your life.

eat healthy & exercise. at some point you will be the most fit you've ever been in your life, and it'll be downhill from there. are you already past that point? let's hope not.

[the54thvoid]

Originally Posted by digibucc

it's not an easy subject to discuss because it's personal, but i do agree. i see people using splenda instead of sugar and think "NO! Use SUGAR!! JUST LESS of IT!"...

Mmm... sugar. Like my gf says to me "do you want some weetabix (cereal) with your sugar?"

The best has got to be when people hammer cardio for an hour and then as soon as they're outside the buidling light up a cigarette.

Originally Posted by the54thvoid

You say we're talking empirical, not anecdotal, then you say this;

which means that itself isn't based on fact.

It was an educated guess, which is why I said "probably". That's means I might be wrong but there is evidence to suggest otherwise. As I'm sure is also true in your case, this isn't the first article regarding human physiology and metabolism I've ever read. But also like you and probably anyone else on the planet, I can't necessarily pull up cites to all of the sources that lead me to that educated guess.

But prudent speculation is some thing different from claiming to know the mental state of another person. I think that I'm always pleasant and deferential - until someone gets pissed off at me and I have no idea why. The only point there was, you have an impact and the force and quality of that impact is mostly independent of what you do and say and mostly dependent on what the other person perceives. And since my ex was a personal trainer and read volumes on this stuff, I know that most overweight people have self-esteem levels that are virtually subterranean. So their perceptions are already primed to see the worst. Therefore, you have to assume that they are going to see you very differently than whatever way you think is warranted.

Originally Posted by the54thvoid

People overeat because they can. We, like every other animal are programmed to eat to survive. Despite our cultured abstractions we still deep down see food as essential and by golly we'd better eat it. Evolution hasn't caught up with us yet. For most of our existence we lived a hunter gatherer life and only for the past several thousand years have we started an agrarian culture (which also ramped up carb consumption contrary to the millenia of meat eating.)
In our Western world consumption is no longer a need but a desire. We buy because we can and we eat because we can. It is a majority decision to take consequence for our actions and as such, food is the same. The excuse of physiological reasons for over eating is not valid. We are ALL programmed to over eat. It is our CHOICE not to do so.
For some that choice is truly very hard and for others it is something they cannot be bothered to do.

Except in that case, everyone would be fat. Most are, 2 out of 3 in the US I think, but that's not everybody. So where did the skinny 1/3 go wrong - or right? This is speculation. I will assume it's educated speculation, but I think it is a sufficiently sweeping and unqualified pronouncement that it might be incumbent upon you to provide at least one or 2 documented facts to hang your hat on.

Originally Posted by the54thvoid

As for my gym etiquette - it is very good. Every individual that walks into my gym has taken the biggest step. And for that they receive attention. My comment about having a pound yada yada yada (as you like to say) was a statement of fact. It doesn't mean I spit in their faces and rip out their stomach.

Obviously. If it seemed that I was suggesting as much, it was because I was using some small amount of hyperbole to make my point. I may have overdone that part of it. I can get wrapped up in the words at the expense of their meaning.

Originally Posted by the54thvoid

However, identifying the individuals weakness is the second step (first being building rapport). The means to overcome problems is to identify, address and overcome. Once the rapport is there, it makes the job easier.

Except my point is that this might be the worst possible way to have a lasting impact on someone's life.

People come in with a particular goal, and that right there is the first problem. They've already chosen to "attack" the "problem" of their weight and they want a disciplined plan to crush and obliterate their enemy - themselves, essentially.

So that is what you have to work with to start out. But I think that you would do them much more good in the long run to encourage them to think small rather than big. If you haven't read post #10, please do that. Small is good. Small is doable. Big and hard is ok, but once big and hard is done with you, big and fat will still be waiting for you at home.

So while you have them, talk to them about all of the easy little things they can do, that are also really easy - as easy as repeating yourself. And follow up. Every session ask about one of your suggestions. How was it. Will they do it again. Find what they enjoy and then encourage that.

Show them that running 5 miles every morning is great, but it's also good to see if they can walk 2 flights of stairs 3 or 4 times during the day. Tell them walking, even strolling is good too, and very enjoyable. Tell them how few calories they actually have to give up to lose weight in a slow but consistent and repeatable manner. Because 5 or 10 years down the road, that's what they'll remember and those are the things that will really make a difference in the long run.

Originally Posted by the54thvoid

All too often though people have unrealistic expectations and are not willing to put the effort or sacrifice in to lose weight or attain a goal. There is no magic pill for that. And no diet that will work forever.
If people do not WANT to change they will not, no matter how much help we give them.

You are dead on about having not only the right attitude, but an open and focused mind.

I would however like to mention something that may actually be a magic pill. There is a drug combo called Qnexa that is mix of Phentermine (a mild stimulant) and topiramate (an anti-depressant). People on the drug lost about 14% of their body weight in a year. FDA approval is expected in April, but you know how those things can go. Both drugs are pretty safe from what I can recall. Here is the Wikipedia entry for what it's worth.

Originally Posted by the54thvoid

So, i took offence at your assumption I'm a gym fascist when you are so very far from the truth.

The problem is that EVERYONE is far from the truth. We have to accept that we know very little and should probably question, constantly, what we think we know.

Originally Posted by the54thvoid

And finally, be very careful when talking empirical data with health and diet. My industry is populated with many 'bad science' studies (this 15% isn't one ) so often you'll find one journal stating 'X' and another article stating 'NOT X'.

Absolutely. It's the process of discovery. People have to understand that. However that doesn't mean we can't use our own intelligence and tuck away the little morsels we can find.

Originally Posted by the54thvoid

Let's hug and make up.

OK, but only when no one else is watching.

[Paulieg]

Originally Posted by The_Ish

This has been common knowledge for a long time. At least if you have any interest in your well being.

This. Back when I was actively doing personal training, and running a wellness program, this was the one bit on nutrition advice I always gave. Eat plenty of lean proteins and veggies, and limit carbs to morning and early afternoon only. Anyone who did this, even with minimal exercise, lost a significant amount of body fat. It's a no brainer. Protein takes more energy to process, and it stays in your system longer than carbs, which helps to curb hunger.

[the54thvoid]

Jeez Twilyth do i have to reply?

This bit:

Except in that case, everyone would be fat. Most are, 2 out of 3 in the US I think, but that's not everybody. So where did the skinny 1/3 go wrong - or right? This is speculation. I will assume it's educated speculation, but I think it is a sufficiently sweeping and unqualified pronouncement that it might be incumbent upon you to provide at least one or 2 documented facts to hang your hat on.

Alll the scientific info i garner comes from here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ - damn good site, well done USA.

My summarisation (and educated speculation as no proof can exist) of why America and increasingly UK is becoming obese is very simply, the readiness of calorie dense foods combined with the increased automisation of living. Obesity in some respects is caused by the food manufacturers by instilling their products with more calories than is required by us. Also, said foodstuffs generally are made extra palatable so as to be preferred to the natural foods. What you get is therefore nice things with massive calorie counts versus more 'bland' foods with lower calorie densities.
This two prong approach adopted by the food industry creates a pseudo dependance on these foods. This is why i cringe when parents take their kids to MacDonalds and other fast food outlets. It creates the sweet food bond early on.
And here's the rub, given the US is the leader in food produce (fast food style) with very powerful lobby groups, it is impossible to curb their behaviour. Does anyone recall Bob Dole defending tobacco lobbies by linking milk with cancer?

This bit:

Originally Posted by the54thvoid View Post
However, identifying the individuals weakness is the second step (first being building rapport). The means to overcome problems is to identify, address and overcome. Once the rapport is there, it makes the job easier.

Except my point is that this might be the worst possible way to have a lasting impact on someone's life.

For speed i did not include goal setting in my description whereby goals should be realistic and broken into short and long term goals. We do goal setting a lot. For beginners the goal is often simply to come to the gym twice a week, we'll deal with the weight loss when they're ready.

I think we're singing the same song but due to the nature of the written word, a lot of meaning is being lost. That's forum posts for you

No one's looking, quick hug. GAY! (please refer to Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey).