ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ ||| The 2023/2024 Gym Rats Thread ||| ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ

You may want to pick this up and give it a read.
No i really dont. The very top of the book cover " lose 4-7lb of fat and 10-20lbs total weight in two weeks" is all you need to know that its absolutely not a sustainable approach and going to come with big negatives, or doesn't actually detail the post weight loss rebound that will happen due to water weight.

Ive already achieved good quality sustained weight loss and bulking and very happy with the results i achieved. I didnt need to do it using any gimmicky approaches, and followed the fundamentals for weight loss, calories in vs calories out. All this paired with the strategy of good levels of protein combined with weight training to retain as much lean mass as possible (even increase it at stages).

Literally you are regurgitating information without good context, and thats miss leading and incorrect as well.
 
Last edited:

Key part starts 101
Literally first thing he says at 1:01 "going from 20%body fat to 10% body fat takes a really long time".............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
 
Literally first thing he says at 1:01 "going from 20%body fat to 10% body fat takes a really long time".............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Yea it does.

But that's not the point.

These are not gimmicks.
 
Last edited:
I get the impression you do not know who Lyle McDonald is...

Anyone that does know who he is would not call he's thoughts gimmick.

Fact!


Lyle is god tier exercise scientist.
I get the impression that you are not taking in the content in its full context and you are not a god tier exercise scientist, and thats the repeated pattern problem. You spout a lot of rubbish and try and connect it back to relevant but unrelated science!
 
I get the impression that you are not taking in the content in its full context and you are not a god tier exercise scientist, and thats the repeated pattern problem. You spout a lot of rubbish and try and connect it back to relevant but unrelated science!

Basically you have nothing to say.
 
Last edited:
I do agree that carbs are important.

And if I was to do this again I wouldn't get so fat so I would have less to cut and then maybe I could choose to either do an RFL or a more gradual approach using carbs.

That's true and the way I am doing it is not optimal.

But it works.
 
Last edited:
Basically you have nothing to say.
I mean please go back and pinpoint where what i have said is incorrect, because what i have been saying is correct, therefore something useful to say.

I do agree that carbs are important.

And if I was to do this again I wouldn't get so fat so I would have less to cut and then maybe I could choose to either do an RFL or a more gradual approach using carbs.

That's true and the way I am doing it is not optimal.

But it works.

Finally some sense in agreement that carbs are important, the approach you are taking is not optimal as well.

Im not going to question how fat you got or your reasons, they are personal challenges and differences for everyone, and even though ive never personally gotten to a stage where i would have considered myself fat, i have struggled on my own level with weight, and body dysmorphia issues. Its different for everyone, but the basics are the same.

I never said it didnt work for you, or doesnt work for people, merely just highlighted that it really is not optimal/efficient/sustainable, thats all.
 
This I agree with. And I never said otherwise.

"Many different ways to skin a cat and all that."

I said this above.

It's just we all want to be over with the diet asap.

Which is why I prefer no carbs.

And regarding squats... You do realise that squats are NOT functional right?

In most real-world situations, people rarely squat with an evenly distributed external load on their upper back.

Simply, Squats don’t mimic real-world movement patterns directly, as most real-life lifting is asymmetrical and involves rotation or shifting loads.

Functional strength involves handling unpredictable forces, which squats lack compared to carries or sandbag work.

Squats focus on the sagittal plane, whereas real-world strength often involves frontal and transverse plane movements.

Suitcase carry, Farmer’s Carry, Sandbag Clean and Press, fireman's lift, Trap Bar Deadlift, Kettlebell Turkish Get-Up, Single-Arm Landmine Press, Step-Up with Load,Sled Push/Pull, Zercher Squat (MAYBE!!), Medicine Ball Rotational Throw, One-Arm Suitcase Deadlift

Those are functional.

Traditional barbell squats are not functional.

The functional argument is just bro science.
Put a guy who squats big numbers against a guy who can leg extension the world in a fight and it won't be the leg extension guy that wins.

In the nicest possible way you seem to be finding stuff that a lot of us in this thread watched and tried and researched and some studied at great depths nearly 20 years ago and presenting it as new info. We all know who Lyle is, many of us have been there and done it.

Some of his ideas are good, some are outdated but don't forget he's trying to sell you something.
 
Last edited:
Tried those creatine gummies a few months ago, was convinced on the effects after a week or two, but then didn't seem to think much of them - any recommendations for the powder variant (ideally gentle on the stomach - the gummies in fairness had zero side effects).
 
Tried those creatine gummies a few months ago, was convinced on the effects after a week or two, but then didn't seem to think much of them - any recommendations for the powder variant (ideally gentle on the stomach - the gummies in fairness had zero side effects).
Some of those gummies have been tested and found to have zero creatine in them so good idea to switch away ignoring the mad cost.

A good quality creapure monohydrate is worth a shot, break your doses down if it gets your stomach a bit tied up or creatine HCl is another good one for sensitive stomachs. Most of the others are just expensive marketing.
 
Tried those creatine gummies a few months ago, was convinced on the effects after a week or two, but then didn't seem to think much of them - any recommendations for the powder variant (ideally gentle on the stomach - the gummies in fairness had zero side effects).
Any cheap creatine monohydrate powder is fine, if you havea delicate stomach then you should consider the micronised stuff.
 
I feel like people are slightly confused on this subject.

The human body does not actually need carbs at all.

Lyle McDonald has often explained that, from a strictly biochemical standpoint, carbohydrates aren’t “essential” in the same way that certain amino acids or fatty acids are. In other words, the human body doesn’t require dietary carbohydrates for survival because it possesses the metabolic machinery—like gluconeogenesis—which can synthesize the necessary glucose from proteins and fats. This means that even on very low‐carbohydrate diets, the body can generate the glucose required for critical functions, such as fuel for parts of the brain and red blood cells.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying that from an optimal perspective carbs for gym performance are not critical but when it comes to the human biology we do not actually need carbs at all.

This is why a low carb diet is so effective because low carbs will make the body burn fat for fuel and the larger your deficit then the more fat you can lose in the quickest time.

Theres obviously many different ways to run a diet. Fast or slower. All will get you to where you want to be.

You just have to choose a path.

But do not conflate the idea that you "need" carbs. Because this is scientifically false.
Whilst technically our bodies don't *need* carbs, it's like you don't technically need to put 99 RON fuel in your car, but if your car can exploit it, why wouldn't you use it?

However in you're spot on about the strict biochemical definition – carbs aren't technically essential for survival because our bodies have that amazing backup plan with gluconeogenesis, just like Lyle McDonald explains.

I think the key distinction, especially for us hitting the gym, is the "eessential for survival" vs "optimal for performance". While we can function without dietary carbs, they're definitely the body's preferred and most efficient fuel for high-intensity exercise like lifting. Having glycogen stores ready to go really helps power through tough sessions and aids recovery - but I suppose that also depends on your intensity and how sedentary you are.

On the fat loss point, totally agree that low-carb can be effective. It definitely shifts the body to burning more fat for fuel. But ultimately, fat loss itself boils down to being in a calorie deficit, regardless of where those calories come from. Low-carb often works because it helps people achieve that deficit, maybe by cutting out processed stuff or increasing satiety. It's the deficit doing the work, rather than the lack of carbs itself causing fat loss, if that makes sense? Also bear in mind a lot of modern carbs are highly processed and as such have a greater impact on the body.

Like you said though, loads of ways to approach it, and finding what works sustainably for each person is key. That said, I personally would never cut out carbs.
 
Last edited:
Following on from my post about carbs – it kind of leads into the bigger picture of energy balance, calories, and how we tackle goals like fat loss or building muscle. It opens up the bigger picture of energy balance – the calories coming in versus the calories going out – and how it relates to our gym goals, food choices, and overall health.

Our Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TEE) – the total calories burned in a 24-hour period – is made up of a few key components.

The biggest slice of the pie for most people (often 60-75% of TEE) is the Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR). I used to tell people this is your body's "idling speed" – the energy burned just to keep vital functions going if you were completely at rest: breathing, blood circulation, maintaining body temperature, brain activity, cell repair etc...

There's quite a lot that influences your BMR and it's not the same for everyone. The list isn't exhaustive but there's a few here:
  • Body Size (Weight & Height): Larger bodies generally require more energy to maintain.
  • Body Composition: This is super relevant for us – muscle tissue is significantly more metabolically active at rest than fat tissue.This means building and maintaining muscle mass through resistance training directly increases your BMR over time!
  • Age:BMR typically declines slowly with age, partly linked to changes in muscle mass.
  • Sex: On average, men tend to have higher BMRs, largely due to differences in average size and body composition.
  • Genetics & Hormones (like thyroid function) also play a part.
  • Then you have the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF): The calories burned digesting and absorbing the food you eat (protein has the highest TEF)
  • Activity Energy Expenditure (AEE): This covers everything from planned exercise sessions (like lifting or cardio) to general daily movement, walking around, fidgeting etc. (often called NEAT - Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis).

So, the challenge often is that modern diets (especially now with the prevalence of UPF) can drive excess calorie intake, while our adaptive calories burned (Constrained TEE) makes it hard to just burn off that excess through activity alone. This highlights why focusing on both dietary quality (minimising UPFs, nutrient variety) and overall quantity (calories aligned with goals) is key.

Diving into the point about our bodies potentially constraining energy expenditure, as it challenges a lot of common assumptions. The traditional view was pretty simple: your baseline metabolism (BMR) plus digestion costs plus activity calories equals your total daily burn. Exercise more, burn more overall – simple addition.

However, research, particularly groundbreaking work by anthropologist Professor Herman Pontzer studying groups like the Hadza hunter-gatherers in Tanzania, paints a more complex picture. The Hadza live incredibly physically demanding lives, far more active than typical Westerners. Yet, when Pontzer and his team used gold-standard methods (doubly labelled water) to measure their TEE and crucially, adjusted the figures for body size and composition, they found the Hadza's average daily calorie burn was remarkably similar to that of people living much more sedentary lives in the US and Europe.

This wasn't a one-off; similar patterns have been seen in other populations too. This led Pontzer to propose the "Constrained Total Energy Expenditure" model. The core idea is that over evolutionary time, our bodies have developed ways to keep our total daily energy budget within a relatively tight range, regardless of huge variations in physical activity.

When energy spent on activity goes way up, the body seems to adapt and compensate by reducing the energy allocated to other, less immediately vital physiological processes. The savings have to come from somewhere – the thinking is it could be subtle down-regulations in areas like inflammation levels, immune system responses, stress hormone production, cellular repair and turnover, perhaps even reproductive functions over the long term.

Essentially, the body cleverly rebalances its energy budget. The major takeaway is that physical activity, while burning calories itself, doesn't necessarily increase your total 24-hour energy expenditure in a straightforward, additive way, especially at higher or sustained activity levels. This provides a strong physiological basis for why creating a substantial calorie deficit purely through exercise is so challenging for weight loss – the body fights back by conserving energy elsewhere, making dietary management the more potent lever for altering overall energy balance.

There is a trade off (in extreme cases) such as reproductive functions, immune function and over training syndrome, tissue repair and injury plus potentially other illnesses but these potential negative trade-offs seem most relevant under conditions of extreme and prolonged energy demands, often coupled with insufficient calorie intake or inadequate recovery. Overall the vast majority of people engaging in regular moderate-to-vigorous exercise as part of a balanced lifestyle, the profound health benefits (including improved immune function and reduced chronic disease risk) are the dominant outcome. The body is generally well-adapted to handle reasonable levels of activity.

What about those needing loads of calories (e.g., 4000+)? (ie. people like me, I'm on just over 4k cals a day on average). Quite simply it's because of:
  • Having a higher BMR: larger body size or more muscle mass needing more cals.
  • Higher AEE: Fuelling high intensity levels of activity (1 martial arts session burns at least 800 cals for me and I do at least 3 a week, plus lifting 2-3x a week) requires massive amounts of energy, resulting in a high TEE even with some metabolic compensation.
  • Specific Goals: Actively building or maintaining muscle requires a calorie surplus above the TEE.
Highly trained individual's high intake reflects their specific energy demands (a high TEE) or goals (a surplus), not a contradiction of the principles.

Managing weight and reaching gym goals involves understanding energy balance (TEE = BMR + TEF + AEE). Building muscle boosts our BMR. Prioritising nutrient-dense whole foods over UPFs helps manage the calorie intake side effectively. Consistent exercise is non-negotiable for health and body composition, even if TEE adapts. Tailoring overall calorie intake (deficit, maintenance, surplus) to your specific goals, body, and activity level, while respecting our body's adaptive nature, is the path forward.

All that is more important than worrying about carbs alone. :p
 
Following on from my post about carbs – it kind of leads into the bigger picture of energy balance, calories, and how we tackle goals like fat loss or building muscle. It opens up the bigger picture of energy balance – the calories coming in versus the calories going out – and how it relates to our gym goals, food choices, and overall health.

Our Total Daily Energy Expenditure (TEE) – the total calories burned in a 24-hour period – is made up of a few key components.

The biggest slice of the pie for most people (often 60-75% of TEE) is the Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR). I used to tell people this is your body's "idling speed" – the energy burned just to keep vital functions going if you were completely at rest: breathing, blood circulation, maintaining body temperature, brain activity, cell repair etc...

There's quite a lot that influences your BMR and it's not the same for everyone. The list isn't exhaustive but there's a few here:
  • Body Size (Weight & Height): Larger bodies generally require more energy to maintain.
  • Body Composition: This is super relevant for us – muscle tissue is significantly more metabolically active at rest than fat tissue.This means building and maintaining muscle mass through resistance training directly increases your BMR over time!
  • Age:BMR typically declines slowly with age, partly linked to changes in muscle mass.
  • Sex: On average, men tend to have higher BMRs, largely due to differences in average size and body composition.
  • Genetics & Hormones (like thyroid function) also play a part.
  • Then you have the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF): The calories burned digesting and absorbing the food you eat (protein has the highest TEF)
  • Activity Energy Expenditure (AEE): This covers everything from planned exercise sessions (like lifting or cardio) to general daily movement, walking around, fidgeting etc. (often called NEAT - Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis).
So, the challenge often is that modern diets (especially now with the prevalence of UPF) can drive excess calorie intake, while our adaptive calories burned (Constrained TEE) makes it hard to just burn off that excess through activity alone. This highlights why focusing on both dietary quality (minimising UPFs, nutrient variety) and overall quantity (calories aligned with goals) is key.

Diving into the point about our bodies potentially constraining energy expenditure, as it challenges a lot of common assumptions. The traditional view was pretty simple: your baseline metabolism (BMR) plus digestion costs plus activity calories equals your total daily burn. Exercise more, burn more overall – simple addition.

However, research, particularly groundbreaking work by anthropologist Professor Herman Pontzer studying groups like the Hadza hunter-gatherers in Tanzania, paints a more complex picture. The Hadza live incredibly physically demanding lives, far more active than typical Westerners. Yet, when Pontzer and his team used gold-standard methods (doubly labelled water) to measure their TEE and crucially, adjusted the figures for body size and composition, they found the Hadza's average daily calorie burn was remarkably similar to that of people living much more sedentary lives in the US and Europe.

This wasn't a one-off; similar patterns have been seen in other populations too. This led Pontzer to propose the "Constrained Total Energy Expenditure" model. The core idea is that over evolutionary time, our bodies have developed ways to keep our total daily energy budget within a relatively tight range, regardless of huge variations in physical activity.

When energy spent on activity goes way up, the body seems to adapt and compensate by reducing the energy allocated to other, less immediately vital physiological processes. The savings have to come from somewhere – the thinking is it could be subtle down-regulations in areas like inflammation levels, immune system responses, stress hormone production, cellular repair and turnover, perhaps even reproductive functions over the long term.

Essentially, the body cleverly rebalances its energy budget. The major takeaway is that physical activity, while burning calories itself, doesn't necessarily increase your total 24-hour energy expenditure in a straightforward, additive way, especially at higher or sustained activity levels. This provides a strong physiological basis for why creating a substantial calorie deficit purely through exercise is so challenging for weight loss – the body fights back by conserving energy elsewhere, making dietary management the more potent lever for altering overall energy balance.

There is a trade off (in extreme cases) such as reproductive functions, immune function and over training syndrome, tissue repair and injury plus potentially other illnesses but these potential negative trade-offs seem most relevant under conditions of extreme and prolonged energy demands, often coupled with insufficient calorie intake or inadequate recovery. Overall the vast majority of people engaging in regular moderate-to-vigorous exercise as part of a balanced lifestyle, the profound health benefits (including improved immune function and reduced chronic disease risk) are the dominant outcome. The body is generally well-adapted to handle reasonable levels of activity.

What about those needing loads of calories (e.g., 4000+)? (ie. people like me, I'm on just over 4k cals a day on average). Quite simply it's because of:
  • Having a higher BMR: larger body size or more muscle mass needing more cals.
  • Higher AEE: Fuelling high intensity levels of activity (1 martial arts session burns at least 800 cals for me and I do at least 3 a week, plus lifting 2-3x a week) requires massive amounts of energy, resulting in a high TEE even with some metabolic compensation.
  • Specific Goals: Actively building or maintaining muscle requires a calorie surplus above the TEE.
Highly trained individual's high intake reflects their specific energy demands (a high TEE) or goals (a surplus), not a contradiction of the principles.

Managing weight and reaching gym goals involves understanding energy balance (TEE = BMR + TEF + AEE). Building muscle boosts our BMR. Prioritising nutrient-dense whole foods over UPFs helps manage the calorie intake side effectively. Consistent exercise is non-negotiable for health and body composition, even if TEE adapts. Tailoring overall calorie intake (deficit, maintenance, surplus) to your specific goals, body, and activity level, while respecting our body's adaptive nature, is the path forward.

All that is more important than worrying about carbs alone. :p

Interestingly, I stumbled across someone who decided to preach the benefits of a mainly meat diet, no more than 70g carbs a day.

They mentioned insulin control, visceral fat reduction being better controlled by eating lots of meat and animal fat. Frying everything in butter. Eating lots of ribeye and pork belly. They also said fibre is not good.

Surely all that fat isn't healthy?

I fell down a YouTube rabbit hole and to the layman a lot of it seems reasonable. And whilst YT is full of BS the pro-meat heavy/low carb dieters seem to quote a lot of science. Although, in general I'd say a balance diet is surely better? Better than any extreme, vegan or carnivore.

But it is very convincing. The person in question also had low body fat and said their whole family had low body fat and good health due to the diet.

Reading around, quite a few people with health conditions do seem to do better on a low carb/high meat diet.

I might try experimenting various approaches, with blood tests etc.
 
Last edited:
Interestingly, I stumbled across someone who decided to preach the benefits of a mainly meat diet, no more than 70g carbs a day.

They mentioned insulin control, visceral fat reduction being better controlled by eating lots of meat and animal fat. Frying everything in butter. Eating lots of ribeye and pork belly. They also said fibre is not good.

Surely all that fat isn't healthy?

I fell down a YouTube rabbit hole and to the layman a lot of it seems reasonable. And whilst YT is full of BS the pro-meat heavy/low carb dieters seem to quote a lot of science. Although, in general I'd say a balance diet is surely better? Better than any extreme, vegan or carnivore.

But it is very convincing. The person in question also had low body fat and said their whole family had low body fat and good health due to the diet.

Reading around, quite a few people with health conditions do seem to do better on a low carb/high meat diet.

I might try experimenting various approaches, with blood tests etc.

Yeah, you've absolutely hit on one of the big ongoing debates in nutrition right now. It's a bit of a minefield. :o This is a bit of a hobby of mine and something I've been reading up on for nearly 2 decades now! :o Sad ol' git really :D

Especially as advice has genuinely changed over the years (like the advice on dietary cholesterol from eggs (if you remember), which we now know doesn't impact blood cholesterol much for most people), making it easier perhaps to question current guidelines or find alternative views convincing. Those very low-carb, high-meat/fat approaches definitely have some vocal proponents, and like you said, they often present their case very persuasively.

You're right about some of the mechanisms they mention, just to expand on them a little...

  • Dramatically cutting carbs does lower insulin levels significantly. For individuals with insulin resistance or type 2 diabetes, this can lead to clear improvements, and some studies do suggest these diets can be effective for reducing visceral fat too. (Worth noting that any diet leading to weight loss will generally reduce visceral fat).
  • On the hormone front, while it's true that dietary fat, including saturated fat, is necessary as a building block for producing testosterone (and very low-fat diets can lower test levels), there isn't strong evidence that the extremely high saturated fat intake recommended by some boosts testosterone significantly beyond what's supported by just having sufficient fat in the diet. (I've highlighted sufficient as we NEED fats in our diets). More isn't automatically better here for hormones, and the potential long-term risks of very high saturated fat need consideration according to mainstream advice.
  • Anecdotal success stories are powerful. It's definitely true that some people, particularly those with specific autoimmune conditions or stubborn metabolic issues, report feeling significantly better on these highly restrictive diets.
However, there's definitely another side to the coin, and some would say is a bigger side (if that's even possible! :p ).

  • The point about frying everything in butter, loading up on ribeye and pork belly – that raises valid concerns for most mainstream health organisations regarding long-term cardiovascular health. This mainstream view (linking high LDL cholesterol, which is often raised by high saturated fat intake for many people, increasing heart disease risk) is based on decades of diverse research.
    • Although there are vocal critics like Uffe Ravnskov who challenge this interpretation, arguing the evidence is flawed, his views remain controversial and outside the broad scientific consensus.
    • Proponents of high-fat diets argue the body handles fats differently without carbs, but robust, long-term data demonstrating safety for everyone with extremely high intakes primarily from animal sources is still debated compared to diets more aligned with traditional healthy eating patterns.
  • The claim that fibre "is not good" is complete crap in my opinion and goes directly against decades of research highlighting fibre's crucial role in feeding beneficial gut bacteria, aiding digestion, and promoting satiety. Suggesting it's broadly unnecessary or harmful is an extreme stance not supported by the bulk of evidence. Furthermore, it's critical in its ability to modulate digestion (rate of absorption of minerals) and reduce insulin spikes.
  • Relying almost exclusively on meat and animal fat to me and many papers out there does raise the concern about getting adequate amounts of certain micronutrients commonly found in plants and other sources (such as vitamin C, potassium, magnesium, various phytonutrients etc.).
  • Maintaining such a restrictive diet long-term can be very challenging in my opinion, and potentially expensive.
  • While these diets avoid UPFs (a plus!), a balanced, whole-food approach also minimises UPFs while providing fibre and a wider nutrient range - the "Med" diet that has been so commonly touted as a good all rounder.
With regards to experimentation I personally think it's worth it as I'm generally a curious person. If you (or anyone) were considering trying something so restrictive, doing it cautiously would be wise. Getting baseline blood tests (lipids, inflammation markers, kidney function, key nutrient levels etc.) and monitoring during the diet, as you suggested, is sensible. Another thing you could potentially consider, especially given the controversy around fibre and its impact on gut bacteria, is looking into a gut microbiome test. It could offer some interesting baseline insights, although the science on accurately interpreting these tests is still evolving. You could potentially chat with a knowledgeable GP or a registered dietitian/nutritional therapist first about all of it, especially before diving into something extreme - or if you're comfortable with researching it, do it yourself, but I'd certainly get a baseline first!

These diets where extreme restriction could offer benefits for some people with specific issues, perhaps short-term. But whether it's optimal, healthy, or sustainable long-term for the general population compared to a more balanced, varied, whole-food diet (that manages UPFs and overall calories appropriately for goals) is where the debate really lies, and that balance usually has more robust long-term evidence supporting it. I mean maybe in a decade or so it'll prove to be completely wrong/right, but there's just not enough long term studies. The internet is short term, and youtube whilst brilliant, also only shows 1 side that has been edited to make the video compelling a lot of the times.

Don't forget that for decades Coca Cola sponsored many medical studies to prove that UPF were absolutely safe. It wasn't until a deep investigation into conflicts of interests were brought to the surface with freedom of information requests that we found out that companies LIKE Coca Cola and many others, indirectly or directly (but not overtly) funded research. So you have to be careful in even the experts with PhDs as they may be working for companies that are on the payroll of large UPF corporates skewing the data somewhat.

Look up the controversy over the The Global Energy Balance Network which was almost completely funded by Coca Cola - they basically selected the leadership, and were stooges to emphasise the importance of physical activity over dietary intake (specifically, sugary drinks) as the primary solution to obesity. Whereas we know now that you can't out-train a bad diet. This is it's own rabbit warren - it's not just coca cola, there's a shed tonne of UPF manufacturers trying to sell their products as not the issue for obesity... UPF is the scourge of society unfortunately, and this is why generally the less wealthy are generally more obese as their diets are mainly UPF sourced. :( This is not sensationalism unfortunately, it's been proven :( It's a concept that has been coined "food deserts" i.e. the ability to find fresh foods is hard, and as such people rely on UPF foods. The marketing from UPF companies is also insidious :mad: But health inequality benefits so many people (and politicians) but that's another rant for another day!

Sorry, went full geek on this post, didn't realise I had typed so much.
 
Back
Top Bottom