Options

Secret Eaters..8pm..Ch4..

2456789

Comments

  • Options
    wannabegothchavwannabegothchav Posts: 1,690
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Anyone know if this is repeated?
  • Options
    clara28clara28 Posts: 1,520
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Oh and did we really need an 'expert' to tell us that poached eggs were healthier than fried eggs and that tomatoes are healthier than sausages.

    I wish Channel 4 would f*** right off with their moronic obesity obsessed programmes.

    Show me some goddamn pretty people!
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 228
    Forum Member
    Meal frequency does not relate to metabolism. Eating more frequently per day won't magically make your body burn more calories. The only thing you need to worry about is the total amount of calories consumed per day.

    Not sure this is correct. If you starve all day then scoff at 2am before going to bed that can't be the same as eating the same amount split into small portions through the day.

    This is why we're all told that breakfast is very important. If you eat nothing your body goes into starvation mode which slows metabolism, then when you pig-out later and go to bed most of what you've eaten will be stored as fat surely?
  • Options
    sarahj1986sarahj1986 Posts: 11,305
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    [QUOTE=MrsWatermelon;58257661]The whole point of the episode was that we don't remember. There have been studies on this besides the one mentioned in the programme. If you ask someone to write down what they ate the day before they will inevitably miss out some snacks or underestimate portion sizes, and even if they do remember they think they took in less calories than they did.



    Yes, that was annoying.



    Meal frequency does affect metabolism, that isn't crap. And they said on the show that the time is irrelevant.



    I thought that![/QUOTE]


    maybe so but the guy thought he drank 2 pints of beer when he realyl drank 6....prehaps denial as well as not remembering...
  • Options
    pianofortepianoforte Posts: 630
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    starvation mode is a myth:
    http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501

    This program was full of bad nutritional advice with no basis on science. Intermittant fasting as a process of weight loss has been shown to be an effective system of weight loss

    As long as you consume less calories than your basal metabolic rate you will lose weight, no matter when or in what form the calories take.
    This is backed up by scientific study.

    It comes down to this:

    http://www.builtlean.com/2011/01/18/how-many-calories-should-you-eat-to-lose-weight/
  • Options
    alternatealternate Posts: 8,110
    Forum Member
    Not sure this is correct. If you starve all day then scoff at 2am before going to bed that can't be the same as eating the same amount split into small portions through the day.

    This is why we're all told that breakfast is very important. If you eat nothing your body goes into starvation mode which slows metabolism, then when you pig-out later and go to bed most of what you've eaten will be stored as fat surely?

    neither of you point to any scientific proof so either could be right,

    I think the whole breakfast thing is over-rated - especially as even the healthy cereals they push are full of added sugar.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 310
    Forum Member
    Not sure this is correct. If you starve all day then scoff at 2am before going to bed that can't be the same as eating the same amount split into small portions through the day.

    This is why we're all told that breakfast is very important. If you eat nothing your body goes into starvation mode which slows metabolism, then when you pig-out later and go to bed most of what you've eaten will be stored as fat surely?

    You answered your own question. The same amount. No matter how you split it, you are still consuming the same amount of calories. The idea that eating small, frequent meals increases metabolism is a myth based on out of date research.

    The only reason breakfast is important is because it "breaks your fast" from sleeping. But aside from that it isn't any different from lunch and dinner.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 228
    Forum Member
    pianoforte wrote: »
    starvation mode is a myth:
    http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501

    This program was full of bad nutritional advice with no basis on science. Intermittant fasting as a process of weight loss has been shown to be an effective system of weight loss

    As long as you consume less calories than your basal metabolic rate you will lose weight, no matter when or in what form the calories take.
    This is backed up by scientific study.

    It comes down to this:

    http://www.builtlean.com/2011/01/18/how-many-calories-should-you-eat-to-lose-weight/

    Brilliant, you've said starvation mode is a myth with a linky then after that said 'it comes down to this' with another linky that says starvation mode is real. Great stuff.

    Everyones an expert!

    What I've learned over the years is basically no diets work because if you say your on a diet then that implies that at some stage you'll be off a diet which is why most put it all back on and often even more than they lost in the first place.

    You see it all the time. Slim clubs and alike may work short term but unless your going every week for the rest of your life they're pretty much a waste of time and money too.

    If your fat, eat less, move more.

    I do have a bit of a thing for Anna the presenter. She's rather yummy.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 310
    Forum Member
    Brilliant, you've said starvation mode is a myth with a linky then after that said 'it comes down to this' with another linky that says starvation mode is real. Great stuff.

    Everyones an expert!

    What I've learned over the years is basically no diets work because if you say your on a diet then that implies that at some stage you'll be off a diet which is why most put it all back on and often even more than they lost in the first place.

    You see it all the time. Slim clubs and alike may work short term but unless your going every week for the rest of your life they're pretty much a waste of time and money too.

    If your fat, eat less, move more.

    I do have a bit of a thing for Anna the presenter. She's rather yummy.

    Starvation mode is a myth, kind of. Your metabolism will slow down if you're eating a minimal amount of calories for a few months. But your body won't magically stop losing weight.

    if people really want to lose weight, they need to recognise it's a lifestyle choice and not some fad diet.
  • Options
    Nard DogNard Dog Posts: 1,193
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Did either of these 2 deludes do a jot of exercise?

    Why did blokey not go to his bed at night?

    They drank an awful lot

    And they had no idea why they were both fatties? - my arse - noone is that stupid

    The presenter was annoying
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 22
    Forum Member
    Weight loss is 80% diet so I doubt the exercise wouldve changed much, maybe given them more excuses to fool themselves into thinking they're eating healthily.

    I think more education needs to be done on portion sizes.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 310
    Forum Member
    Ah yes, my weekly dose of diet myths and stating the obvious. "Help me I don't know what I'm eating. I eat healthy food, honest!".
  • Options
    guernseysnailguernseysnail Posts: 18,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Anyone watching?
  • Options
    orangesmartieorangesmartie Posts: 3,709
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm watching. i think its very easy to underestimate what you eat in a day - both in terms of snacks or drinks. most people don't count the milk in their tea or coffee and yet each cup is about 15cals. also portion sizes and weights are never what people think.
  • Options
    guernseysnailguernseysnail Posts: 18,922
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If I drank 3 cans of cider there would be no cooking going on!
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,143
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Damn, her liver must be like pate.
  • Options
    chickpeachickpea Posts: 1,445
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If I drank 3 cans of cider there would be no cooking going on!

    Haha GS and she gulped them down too :eek:
  • Options
    orangesmartieorangesmartie Posts: 3,709
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jeez that woman can drink! The amount of rum she was getting through is staggering
  • Options
    iamsofirediamsofired Posts: 13,054
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    clara28 wrote: »
    Oh and did we really need an 'expert' to tell us that poached eggs were healthier than fried eggs and that tomatoes are healthier than sausages.

    I wish Channel 4 would f*** right off with their moronic obesity obsessed programmes.

    Show me some goddamn pretty people!

    Totally this, im not sure what enjoyment people are getting out of these programmes -being healthy really isnt rocket science.
  • Options
    jamiepr74jamiepr74 Posts: 133
    Forum Member
    How can all four of the family be totally unaware that they are all snacking each day? It really mystifies me!

    If they want to lose weight, then stop buying all the extra snacks!!
  • Options
    Keith_13Keith_13 Posts: 1,621
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No way was she a size 14
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 10,163
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    They were a lovely family tonight I thought, really nice people.
  • Options
    billyboy789billyboy789 Posts: 1,373
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The son didn't look over 15 stone.

    Nothing new here, move on, been done to death in other shows.

    Family of fatties swear blind they don't eat any more than the skinny folk next door, the epiphany finally, and thankfully, takes place when C4 shows conclusive proof that each greedy fat bag a lard eats enough food per day to feed a Ethiopian village for a week.:confused:
  • Options
    riverside 57riverside 57 Posts: 14,380
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I find it very hard to believe that girl is now only a size 14-16! More self delusion, I think! Don't mean to sound harsh, but as an obese person in the process of losing weight, I have come to learn about all the lies and denial that people like me go through, but it was quite obvious to me anyway that she is not really facing up to the severity of her weight problem, and neither is the mum! I didn't think 7lbs in 10 weeks was a lot to lose for someone as large as her, but I suppose it's a start!

    The Dad on the other hand looked brilliant! He really looked a lot better than he did at the start, but I have to say that they live very extravagantly with all that food and alcohol! If I had been eating and drinking like that, I reckon I would have had twice as big a problem than I have!
  • Options
    PorcupinePorcupine Posts: 25,248
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Keith_13 wrote: »
    No way was she a size 14
    I find it very hard to believe that girl is now only a size 14-16! More self delusion, I think!

    I came on here to say just that !! She was still about 15 stone and 5 ft tall .... so i cant see how she could say she was a size 14-16. It really galls me when people lie about stuff like that. I know height etc can make all the difference, but I am on a diet and have been for 2yrs. I started off at 14.8 stone and im now 11.8 stone. I am 5ft 7 tall and i was a size 18-20 to start with and im now a 14-16. Why lie about it.

    But I agree that the Dad looked great, as did the son who really did look slimmer around the face. I wonder though why they get the make over to end make overs ? The new hair and makeup makes everyone look instantly better.
Sign In or Register to comment.