1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Campaign to end the 'stigma' of obesity

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Uther, Oct 11, 2018.

  1. Screeeech


    Joined: Dec 29, 2014

    Posts: 3,269

    Location: Dublin / LA

    Well, clearly it is difficult because around 65% of the UK population are overweight or obese, that implies that the majority of people are having very real issues, not just a few fatties who can’t control themselves, the majority are having very real issues.

    Most people are fat. 65% here and rising, 70% in the US.

    Consider this;

    One of the biggest problems we have is overweight and obese children, the schools contain bad food, the streets they walk home on are tiled with cheap takeaways and fast food outlets (especially in cities), Fast food advertising is engineered to attract children, schools have reduced the amount of PE classes over the last couple of decades. The parents are also overweight and have poor nutritional education.

    Still want to lay the blame at the door of the individual and blame self control?

    The government are allowing fast food companies (McDonald’s Burger King, kfc, dominos, papa johns, Starbucks, Greggs, etc) to fill our high streets left right and centre, without any environmental or health considerations, despite the explosion in metabolic disease and weight problems. The government is allowing supermarkets to fill their shelves with food that mostly serves no useful purpose whatsoever other than to taste good, whilst being either high in calories or high in added sugar (70%+ of products on shelves)

    Still want to lay the blame at the door of the individual and blame self control?

    When you fill the environment with toxic unhealthy choices - don’t expect anything less than serious widespread health problems, personal responsibility doesn’t stand a chance when you put average people into a consumption oriented society, geared to provide pleasure for money.
  2. Sasahara


    Joined: Feb 12, 2009

    Posts: 3,727

    Food isn't the problem. In the last 30 years calorie intake has fallen by around 15-20% in the UK.

    But you have touched on what has changed, that being exercise.
    You exercise so are not fat, but more people are not doing enough exercise and are becoming fat.

    There are way more sedentary jobs then there used to be, so if you don't do a physically active job you will need to do some other form of exercise to stop putting on weight, or eat a lot less.

    Other than the jobs we do, we have too many labour saving devices, car usage and better heating/insulation that also makes us burn less calories.
    How many people have a dishwasher, even washing up will help you lose weight in the long run. :)
    So if we want to stop kids becoming fatties, ban the school run. :)

    A pound of fat stores about 3,500 calories, so it's not that hard to work out what is required to loose weight.
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2018
  3. Sasahara


    Joined: Feb 12, 2009

    Posts: 3,727

    Total sugar consumption has been reducing, but people are getting fatter.

    Also Germans consume more sugar and fat than us, but there are less overweight and obese Germans.
    UK 93.2g vs Ger 102.9g sugar per day, 2015. And UK 71g vs Ger 86.5g fat per day 2015.

    UK per capita sugar consumption has been falling since the 70's.

    Some of the problem may be when people are drinking smoothies thing they are low in sugar when they can have more sugar than a can of coke. So it's not helping them reduce calories.
    But in the main it's just lack of calorie burning.
  4. jacksgotbones


    Joined: Jul 6, 2015

    Posts: 127

    I agree that not enough people exercise enough. I walk about up to 10 plus miles a day, plus the gym on top of that. I try to eat as healthy as possible but too healthy flares my IBD but given the amount of exercise I do.per day, a little junk isn't a bad thing and I've been the same weight for over 10 years! I am not one to sit around all day
  5. Screeeech


    Joined: Dec 29, 2014

    Posts: 3,269

    Location: Dublin / LA

    Sorry but I think your quite far off there.

    Exercise is good for many reasons, but it’s not that good for losing weight and never has been, not by itself. You cannot outrun a bad diet, the only exception being someone like Michael Phelps who eats 6k calories of carbohydrates because hes training for the olympics, and only for a limited time.

    Food is the main part of the problem, a sedentary lifestyle doesn’t help - but it’s the food that’s killing us.

    Fat is not the root cause of the problem. Speak to anybody who was born before the 1960s, they all mostly grew up on fat, lard, dripping - they ate lots of fat (like our ancestors) yet there was practically no type 2 diabetes and the word “obesity” didn’t even exist.

    The one thing they didn’t have, was highstreets, shops and even sports centres packed full of fast food because fast food didn’t exist.

    Furthermore processed food, high in both sugar and fat, but low in fibre and essential nutrients, essentially pleasure food - didn’t really exist in any amounts until the 1980s


    You say sugar consumption isn’t the problem, then link a piece of propaganda from a sugar trading and supply company, that’s a text book way to demolish your own argument.. I reject everything the study says because it’s biased.

    It may be true that in the short term, sugar consumption from fizzy drinks may have dropped ever so slightly - potentially due to the availability of artificial sweetened versions, we are still consuming more than 3 times the recommended daily intake - information which is widely available;



    Furthermore I never actually claimed that sugar alone was the root cause, it’s a whole host of things, but I would argue strongly that junk food and processed food, the cost and availability of which is unprecedented - are the root cause.

    I think if most people look at the evidence, it’s irrefutable.
  6. Nasher


    Joined: Nov 22, 2006

    Posts: 14,103

    The problem is the type of fat you get in junk food. But still...everything in moderation. I could get fat if I stuffed KFC all day long while sitting on the sofa watching Jeremy Kyle, but I don't.

    In the old days, people ate heather foods and did more exercise. It was far less social acceptable to be a fatty as well. It still is in Japan, if your overweight and go and visit you'll be looked down upon.
  7. Screeeech


    Joined: Dec 29, 2014

    Posts: 3,269

    Location: Dublin / LA

    The main problem with Junk food and processed food, isn't just the fat - but in many cases they combine large amounts of saturated fat with sugar at the same time - this makes it hyper-palatable and really pretty incredible in terms of taste. Foods like this are engineered on purpose to make as much money as possible, take Starbucks for example - they're selling "coffee" drinks that weigh in as much as 500 calories - 1/4 of your daily intake in a drink, it's just sugar and fat and it's no use to anybody other than for pleasure I'd also say there's evidence to suggest things like this can be addictive.

    It's very very rare to find food in nature that contains both sugar and fat at the same time, we've evolved to crave high energy, high calorie foods - because 500 years ago that would be a survival advantage. But when you put our "old fashioned" digestive and endocrine system into today's environment, it's just an onslaught of high-energy, rich food.

    Also, it's easy to look at the minority of super obese people and blame them - in many cases I agree; If you sit on the sofa and eat KFC all day, you will get very fat - there are people who do this and end up being 20-30 stone, and some don't even seem to care, and in cases like this it can be put down to personal responsibility, but these are a minority - the extreme end if you will.

    The vast majority of overweight people are not super-obese, they're overweight - they don't binge eat, but they do eat more calories than they should, to make it worse - a large proportion of those calories come from poor-quality junk food and things like added sugar, which could be one of the reasons behind problems like type-2 diabetes (although there are lots of debates around this)

    Do I think all fast food and junk food should be banned? No of course not, there's nothing wrong with occasional pleasure - I've eaten one chocolate bar this week and I broke it in half and shared the other half with my partner, moderation and balance.

    But we do need restraint, the food industry is hellbent on making as much money as possible - next time you're at a petrol station, look at the way you're herded through a maze of terrible junk food on the way to the checkouts, look at the number of 2 for 1 offers. is it really so hard to believe, that the food and the lack of consideration for public health might be the root cause here?
  8. Sasahara


    Joined: Feb 12, 2009

    Posts: 3,727

    It's a fact we are consuming 15-20% less calories than we were 30 years ago. Are you disputing this?

    If you aren't then how do you explain us getting fatter overall, but consuming less if it's not our sedentary lifestyle?

    Most fat people aren't eating 1000's of calories a day more then they are burning, it's 100-200 or even less. An average 100 calories a day excess can gain you almost 1 pound in fat a month so over a year that's almost 1 stone. So a person can be come gradually obese over a many years without appearing to have a significant eating problem.

    A very minor change in activity levels can cause this.

    There may not have been as many fast food outlets in the 60's as there are now, but they did exist. And they did eat more fat and sugar.

    There were no artificial sweeteners in significant commercial usage so everything was sweetened with sugar. Sauces that were used to make bland foods taste better were loaded with sugar and we consumed a lot. Ketchup and Salad Cream, baked beans, Jams/Marmalades, Jelly were consumed in far greater amounts then they are today. Full fat milk was standard.

    So pleasure food didn't exist before the 1980's, really?

    What was eaten for pleasure may be different from now, but there was plenty of high calorie pleasure foods in the 60's and 70's.

    I'm guessing you must be young to thinking this?


    Today's recommended intake is based on the ideal amount for our sedentary lifestyle. So yes we are eating too much because we aren't burning it off. Both sugar, fats and other calories.

    So are you disputing the facts from the so called propaganda I linked? And if so where is your evidence to show that it is incorrect?

    If sugar is the route cause, not our lifestyles how do you explain Germany with lower rates of obesity, but higher consumption?
  9. Screeeech


    Joined: Dec 29, 2014

    Posts: 3,269

    Location: Dublin / LA

    Yes I am disputing it.

    Firstly, the actual data you refer to regarding the claim that we're consuming less calories, isn't as iron-clad as you're making out, because most experts agree that there are no cohesive, agreeable sources of truth, secondly - that there is significant evidence to show that the calories we're consuming, tend to be highly under-reported. As this study suggests;


    There are also other studies and experts which agree that in the UK we're drastically under-reporting the numbers which is skewing the data and causing errors in the reporting.

    Secondly, in the US there are a lot more people and more data to go with it, and the data shows that the US has consistently increased it's calorie intake, with it - the obesity levels have skyrocketed;

    Source (along with many others that are easy to find)


    This is a strawman argument, I never said that a sedentary lifestyle isn't part of the problem, I agree it's a problem - but it's nothing compared to the diet problem. Both play a significant part in the obesity epidemic.

    This is garbage and shows you haven't really studied this in any detail.

    Sugar consumption has increased drastically in the UK and US since records began

    Source; https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-1700-to-1978-30-31-E-and-in-the_fig1_5924426



    Second strawman.

    I never claimed that pleasure food never existed, simply that it never existed in anything like the insane quantities, as it does today.

    See the graph above, regarding why information from a sugar trading company can be proven wrong.

    Also third straw man - I never said that sugar alone was the root cause.

    I said, specifically, the root cause of the obesity problem is the high availability of hyper-palatable forms of junk food and processed food, most of which didn't exist until around 1980, incidentally when the obesity epidemic started.

    That doesn't rule out inactivity as a problem - it is a problem, but not the root cause of the problem. The root cause is nutrition in my opinion.

    As far as Germany goes, I'm not really sure why you're trying to make a point there, as looking at the data - Germany is only a fraction behind the UK in overweight and obese adults - both countries are suffering.
  10. AmateurExpert


    Joined: Aug 7, 2017

    Posts: 406

    Location: location location

    It's true that at one level obesity is simply explained as "too much of the wrong stuff being eaten for the person's rate of calorie expenditure", and there is a range of causes for why some are in this zone while others (subject to the same environmental factors) don't.

    I'm going to consider the OP's topic as focussing on our treatment of strangers rather than friends & loved ones where we have a duty of care over their health; for strangers, do we (as a society) need to fuss that much? On the one hand I'm inclined to leave them alone, but on the other there is a strong argument to address the burden on healthcare systems, which can be significant: https://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6014. For this reason alone, using the taxation system to discourage consumption of junk/processed foods and using the proceeds to offset obesity-related healthcare demands seems sensible. Sure I will have to pay more for the rare can of fizzy pop I drink, but I already pay (through general taxation) for the healthcare problems associated with obesity.
  11. Orionaut


    Joined: Aug 2, 2012

    Posts: 6,537

    I concur, My feeling is that the nature of food has changed in a way that makes it difficult for the bodies appetite control mechanism to function properly.

    Many modern processed foods contain the devils mix of High Fat AND high sugar together.

    This, as you say, was rare before 1980.

    This is a nutrient combination that almost never occurs in nature.

    In Natural foodstuffs. Sugar (As sugars) is actually quite rare and tends to be associated with fibre and starches. Fat tends to be associated with Protein and very little else.

    Both Fat and Sugar are apatite triggers directing us towards foods that possess other valuable nutritional properties.

    But put both in the same foodstuff and they become a super trigger, You can stuff your face full of a high fat/ high sugar product and still feel hunger.

    My example has always been;

    Two plates, On one there are half a dozen hard boiled eggs (Fat/Protein), on the other, a pack of chocolate chip cookies (Fat/Sugar)

    Most people could chomp their way through the plate of cookies and still feel peckish enough to open a second packet. And yet, I suspect most people would find doing a "Cool hand Like" on the plate of eggs rather difficult.

    And yet both plates contain the same amount of calories...

    The "Apistat" can analyse the eggs, but it cant analyse the cookies and underrates their calorific content.

    This is why people over eat. They over eat mostly because they feel hungry "Sometimes" it is as a result of medical/psychological reasons. But mostly, it is simply because feel feel hungry. Because their Apistats misread the food consumed and do not tell them that they have had enough. And hunger is right up at the top of the list of things that are hard to resist, Only sleep and thirst are more powerful drives (Sex is Wayyyy down the list)

    And you do not have to over eat by much either. Overeating the equivalent of a couple of chocolate biscuits/day, consistently over a decade and you too can become a 30 stone blimp.

    The stereotype of Fat people stuffing themselves with Pizza and doing no exercise is also a dangerous myth.

    Imagine your 30 stone blimp.

    Now imagine a healthy bloke wearing a 17 stone back pack, all the time,

    Simply walking down the road will involve rather a lot of exercise in fact. And the three double cheese Pizzas he he eats every day will be needed because he will actually be using that many calories just getting about.

    You see your typical blimp staggering along the pavement all hot and bothered and puffing like a steam engine. He isn't lazy at all. He is actually working bloody hard. Far harder in fact than most people could endure for more than a couple of minutes at a time let alone all day. Not even a full fitness 3 Para could do that!

    The reason why Low-Carb diets (AKA "Banting") work isnt as a result of some magince metabolic trick. It is simply that cutting out sugar alows the apistat to operate correctly, people only feel hungry when they actually are, They feel full when they have had enough, and they just eat less calories.

    So yes, it is easy to bleat on about discipline and personal responsibility. And yes those are factors. But the food industry is nowhere near being blameless in all this...
  12. Screeeech


    Joined: Dec 29, 2014

    Posts: 3,269

    Location: Dublin / LA


    I always wondered, how is it possible - that when I go to the cinema or something, I can get through an entire tube of Pringles, or an entire share bag of Maltesers, (both around 1000 calories) and a coke (200-300 calories) and feel like I've not eaten anything at all, and furthermore - still feel hungry?

    Conversely, if I cook 1000 calories of eggs or steak, or something high in protein and eat it as part of a main meal made with proper ingredients - I feel seriously full and don't even feel like eating at all for about 6+ hours. Turns out that the protein and fibre helps to trigger the various hormones and mechanisms, that tell your brain that you've eaten well and don't need any more food.

    I see it as a public health problem, not a collective failure of self control in the individual - the problem is too large to simply blame everybody, and the problem affects the full gamut of society, we have even obese babies now and children with type-2 diabetes - are we blaming them for a lack of self control too..?

    For me it goes back to government, if you look at the purpose of government and the politicians that operate within it - their purpose is to run society and also protect society, there's literally no bigger bullet point in the job description - then the responsibilities around maintaining and protecting society.

    The problem with the food industry, is they're taking endless advantage of the lack of diligence and controls that should be put in place by the government to protect society. The food industry has so much money - it can perform huge expansions, seemingly without any checks or controls, with nobody asking basic questions like - "is this a good idea for public health, given the current state of it?" Case in point; Starbucks/Greggs.

    Over the last 12 months, Starbucks/Greggs have performed an enormous rollout of new outlets - they're everywhere now, they're building their own drive-thru's and have taken over many high street stores - very quickly, without any real scrutiny, because Starbucks sell coffee - they're exempt from things like sugar tax, even through some of their products contain twice as much sugar as a can of coke. (talk about incompetent tax policy?)

    Amid all of this, nobody seems to have asked the question "How much is enough?"

    How much bad food do we need? Do we want to let the food industry do exactly what it wants, continue expanding without any checks or controls at all? Do we literally want it to end up like the US where a small town can have 20-30x fast food outlets in a square mile? Is that ok for us? Are we going to continue to blame the individual when the overweight/obese percentages goes from 65% to 80% ?

    Why are there no common sense laws or regulations that exist in planning legislation that apply to junk food outlets, like they apply to other building proposals?

    If I want to build a nightclub - I have to go through the eye of a needle to get a planning approval, I've got noise regulations, I've got drinking law problems, licensing, so many hoops to get through before I can get it approved.

    If I want to buy out a small shop and turn it into a Dominos pizza - near to a school, there aren't really any additional rules or regulations that apply, I can just do it - provided I have the cash.. (which I'm swimming in)

    In summary;

    Do I think junk food should be banned? course not - I love treating myself every now and again, but I think there has to be some regulation imposed on the food industry, to me the current situation is insane - and it's completely obvious and expected that we're experiencing the tsunami of metabolic health problems that currently exist. The situation is out of control - to the point where you can't tax or spend your way out of the problem, it needs tough legislation.
  13. FoxEye


    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 21,140

    Location: Cornwall

    All of my family (bar one - who is always slim), including myself, has put on weight and become overweight, and then made the decision to lose it, then subsequently slimmed down.

    We mostly didn't change what we ate (although naturally you have to avoid an excess of junk food). Just cutting down is normally sufficient.

    I'm not sure how you can argue that your own food intake is anything other than 100% your choice and your responsibility. Nobody here is being force fed. Nobody is being hypnotised and told to drink Coke and eat McDs.

    Your weight is under your control, and I can't see any logical way that this couldn't be the case.

    >50% of us being obese can be - and probably is - a reflection of our society and culture, at this moment in time. We are used to having a glut of food, available 24/7, of every single type imaginable. Food is shown on TV all the time; is advertised all the time. Plus the "stigma" of being overweight - as per the topic title - where is it? We all work with overweight (not necessary whale class) people, socialise with overweight people; when do you ever seriously encounter "fat shaming"? It's already completely acceptable to be overweight.

    It's choice and we can all choose to do something or nothing about or own weight.
  14. Screeeech


    Joined: Dec 29, 2014

    Posts: 3,269

    Location: Dublin / LA

    It depends how you characterise control.

    Whilst it may be true, that at an individual level you control what you choose to put in your own body, the majority of people are making a decision to not only eat unhealthy food - but more than they need. So if you're going to claim that it's a choice - then you must also claim that the majority of people are making a conscious choice to over-feed themselves on dangerous amounts of junk food, because the majority of people are overweight or obese.

    In my experience, people generally tend to have a finite amount of self control - it doesn't go on forever, people have natural cravings for rich, sweet and fatty foods. For many people, when exposed to such an onslaught of rich, sweet, junk food - more often than not, self control tends to break down and people cave in, because it's there 24/7, delivered right to your door in 30 minutes at the click of a button.

    Furthermore, the types of foods on offer - specifically processed food and junk food, are not only very easy to eat - they're easy to keep eating, many studies show how some types of food can be addictive, this isn't an accident - these products are engineered to act this way, because it makes a lot of money.

    If you look at children, most sugar sweetened beverages and things like Haribo and other junk - are marketed directly at children, when they come flooding out of the school gates at 3pm and walk home - they have to make it back through streets lined with fast food, sweets, fizzy drinks, then go through checkouts which are arranged like a maze - full of sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks.

    How much control do you reasonably expect them to have, when you look at the combined elements;
    • Advertising and packaging aimed at kids
    • Food engineered to taste incredible but offer zero sustenance for the calories consumed (you can just keep eating and eating)
    • It's very cheap - endless 2 for 1 offers or get a large option for 10p more
    • Every shop you go into - is filled with the same temptations
    • Human biology craves the intense hit you get from very sweet/rich food
    • Low fat junk mis-sold as being a healthy alternative, but full of added sugar instead
    When you add all of these elements together and imagine them working in tandem focussed on each individual, then I think it's a pretty convincing case to defeat the notion that it's all down to personal self control. Control is finite - most people cave in, some earlier or later than others, but the majority of people can't exist in an environment such as this and stay healthy, because the entire game is rigged to defeat people's self control.

    And here's another question, in the UK the obesity epidemic started around 1980(ish) if it's all down to personal responsibility - why did it suddenly fail in 1980? why not 1950 or the 1800s? Why did a failure of personal responsibility happen to coincide with the mass proliferation of terrible unhealthy food? Could it actually be the food that's the problem here? Is it really so hard to see?
  15. FoxEye


    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 21,140

    Location: Cornwall

    Nobody said self control was easy, otherwise we'd all have almost perfect self control.

    Are you saying that because exercising self control isn't easy, that it's not really a choice? So things are only a choice if they aren't too difficult? And anything with a modicum of difficulty becomes impossible (in practice) for the majority?
  16. Screeeech


    Joined: Dec 29, 2014

    Posts: 3,269

    Location: Dublin / LA

    I'd say, that when you take average people and you subject them to a never-ending onslaught of terrible choices everywhere, bombard them 24/7 to the point it's almost unavoidable - then personal responsibility gets blown apart for most people, they don't stand a chance really.

    A good example of this, would be to look at a different country - somewhere very healthy with a mediterranean diet, Italy for example, as the Italians are some of the slimmest in the EU;


    So why are Italians thin? Is it because for some reason they have heaps of personal responsibility we don't have? or could it be the fact they historically lived a very healthy diet, did lots of home-cooking and for years held out against importing American junk food?

    The evidence suggests, that it's the Mediterranean diet that's kept them healthy, not personal responsibility. However in recent years younger Italians have started to consume junk food as the big fast food companies have moved into Italy and started replacing the traditional Mediterranean diet.

    The result is that obesity rates are rapidly increasing, to the point where Italy actually has the highest percentage of overweight two year olds;


    Here we can see a historically healthy country becoming obese before our very eyes, where the evidence is directly pointing to a change in diet linked to the importation of terrible borderline-toxic food, not a collective failure of personal responsibility.

    If personal responsibility was to blame, I'd expect to see people getting obese from simply eating great food all day long (something Italy is known for) regardless of what food is on offer - but that's not the case, the problem only started when they started importing junk, and not before that time.
  17. Avenged7Fold


    Joined: Sep 12, 2012

    Posts: 11,629

    Location: Surrey

    I will tell you my two cents of why as an Italian.

    The culture is (was) different. Fast food wasn't popular and neither was sugar crap. We have plenty of unhealthy foods but it simply isn't consumed in the same volume or frequency. At lunch time people dont go to Mcdonalds or KFC or Subway, they go home if they can and have lunch with the family. They way people eat in Italy is reminiscent of more traditional values where people sit down at lunch/dinner and have proper food rather than ready meals or takeaway.

    That said, that attitude is dying with the younger generation. What has changed except marketing and popular culture? Yes the blame with being obese is with the people but as you say, the companies are responsible with the increase in obesity and if we want to target this we have to target them to make things easier for people to remain healthy.
  18. Screeeech


    Joined: Dec 29, 2014

    Posts: 3,269

    Location: Dublin / LA

    Agreed, this is exactly what I'm saying.

    The situation is also true of many of the Mediterranean countries, I have a number of Portuguese and Greek friends - the older ones tend to stick to their traditional Mediterranean diet and statistically remain at a healthy weight, however it's the younger generations which are very rapidly running into problems - because they're the ones who are replacing their traditional diet with junk, probably because they're far easier to target as consumers by the food industry.
  19. Orionaut


    Joined: Aug 2, 2012

    Posts: 6,537


    because you shouldn't need self control in order to avoid chronic over eating.

    You dont need self control to avoid over breathing and you do not need self control to avoid over drinking (Well, water anyway :p # )

    The only time people over breathe or over drink is if there is something medically wrong with them or if they have actually been poisoned (for example, E and Water toxicity, # and indeed Alcohol!)

    Up until the 1980's chronic overeating was rare. Now it is the new normal.

    Either there is some mysterious Virus/Bacteria/whatever that has made us all ill.

    Or we are all basically being poisoned!

    I tend towards the latter!

    This may seem a bit extreme, but when you take a step back and just look, objectively, at how this plague has blighted the lives of hundreds of millions of people. I dont actually think it is extreme enough.

  20. Jonnybmac

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Dec 17, 2009

    Posts: 1,756

    Location: Brotton

    I dont get obesity. I've maintained a pretty average weight throughout my adult life. I eat what I want when I want, and generally eat the same if not more than my girlfriend who has to go to fitness classes 3-4 times a week to keep the weight off. Whether i exercise or become a slob nothing changes.

    Call it gross but the only thing i can presume happens differently is that i generally poo 3-4 times a day. It isn't even that i actually need one half the time i just sit and force one through. I think this gives increased movement tbroughout my body rather than allowing my body to digest everything. I don't really drink water either to be honest.