 Ac rwy'n cael ei gilydd o ddweud o'r pablau ymlaen i'ch bod ni'n cael y blaen o'i wneud, roedd hynny o blwyddyn o'r 70 o wfwyr o'r casodd ar gyfer hynny o'r adeiladau, ond hynny yw hynny chi'n fawr i'r casodd, roedd y gallwn ni'n cael ei gwybod ddaw ni'n cael yno? Felly mae'r gweithio'r rhai gweithio'r ddweud o'r casodd. Roedd y problem wedi rhoi ddweud y dyna hwn wedi bodi'n gweithiau ac mae gennynig yn fadr yn violol, cychwyngiad, niad, cychwyngiad, yn ymgyrch i chi'n ffyrdd y teimlo. Felly hanfodd yw'r rai gwirioneddau, esfydlio fy nhw, ac rwy'n credu bod yn digwydd fel gweld gweithio. Ond gallwch yn ddod gradd gyflym, Why might this not be a very effective way for losing weight? Why am I running for 30 minutes five times a week not really accelerate your weight loss? Anyone? What makes you hungry? So some people get very hungry when they exercise. Some people reward themselves with food after exercise or drink. Anyone done that? Played a bit of footy to have a few beers. What other things? It's not efficient. It isn't efficient. You're absolutely right. It is horrendously inefficient. Has anyone here ever exercised on a piece of equipment that counts calories? Was it you at the back there? Was it a joyful experience for you? You weren't ripping through calories thinking oh you know at the end of your 40-minute run I've burnt 2,200, 300 maybe. Just not that many. About three apples were seeing as you're eating an apple. Not a huge amount has been burned there. You're right. It's not efficient. There's another thing. That's a bit of a problem with exercise and it is this. I know we tell people that it stimulates the metabolism but actually there's very good evidence to suggest that overall exercise suppresses the metabolism. I know it sounds counterintuitive but it makes sense doesn't it? We found out that when the body has less calories going into it it puts a dent in the metabolism. It's a survival mechanism. If you exercise the body more it does the same thing. It basically reduces its output because it doesn't know you're not going to exercise it to death. Here's the other two things. The calorie burn during exercise is depressingly small and people who tend to exercise more will often eat more too. Let's think about weight control in a different way. Forget about calories, forget about eating less than exercising more and start thinking about maybe doing these things. How about eating in a way that would have effects on our hormone levels in the body that would just allow us to lose weight very naturally indeed. Thank you very much. We'll look at some more detail around that in a moment. That would mean basically having lower levels of insulin. It would mean optimising our leptin functioning. It would not mean starving ourselves and going on anything that resembles a diet. And how about this? Because hunger I have to tell you is the enemy when it comes to eating healthily and weight control. I can't tell you how fundamental this fundamental thing is. It is almost impossible for people to regulate what they eat and their weight by going hungry. Let me put this another way to you. If individuals want to eat healthily, lose weight, feel better. This is a prerequisite. They really do need to be able to not struggle with hunger and feelings of deprivation in the long term. This is critically important. In fact, I sometimes say to people, say in practice or if I'm working with a corporate client, the less hungry someone is, the more weight they'll lose if they need to lose weight and the easier they will find it to maintain that weight loss. That is almost universally true. It's the exact opposite in my view of what we've basically been taught to believe. So what's satisfying? So out of carbohydrate protein and fat, one of those seems to shake the appetite more than the other two. What is it? It's protein. That's right. So relatively protein rich diets. You don't have to go mad, but some protein in it hopefully with every meal. So that could be some meat or fish or eggs, possibly some nuts if you're using nuts as a snack food would be a generally good idea. Also fat for some people is very satisfying. It's why they don't get a lot of satisfaction necessarily from a chicken breast but a chicken leg or a piece of duck for some people is much more satisfying and much more sustaining. So one of the fundamental problems that we have with conventional nutritional advice in my view is that it basically pushes people towards a diet that is relatively low in fat, relatively carbohydrate rich, that is inherently unsatisfying. Now if you eat, I don't know, a bowl of cereal in the morning, you might be momentarily satisfied with that, but I can tell you time and again you'll see people in practice say, well you know what, when I eat cereal and toast in the morning by about 11 o'clock I'm starving again. So I've realised that it's better for me to eat nothing because I'm actually less hungry at 11 when I eat nothing than I am when I eat cereal or toast. So why is that? Well these foods are not inherently satisfying and also, and I'm going to build on this later, they are inherently disruptive to blood sugar in ways that can cause highs and lows of blood sugar that stimulate appetite that really shouldn't be there. It's a fundamental problem. Shift the emphasis away from those foods towards foods that are more stabilising for blood sugar, that are a bit richer in the way of sustaining, satisfying portons of the diet like protein and fat and this is usually what allows people to fundamentally, when they eat right, to eat less. Now this is not just my experience in practice, okay. There are studies that show when individuals who are eating a standard western relatively low fat carbohydrate rich diet as we're encouraged to eat, move their diet away from that to more of the diet that we're looking at here, they will spontaneously eat several hundred calories less each day. That is common. Not because they're consciously restricting how much they're eating. They're not as hungry. They're not as hungry because they've stabilised their blood sugar level. Number one. And number two, they're eating much more satisfying foods. So they just naturally eat less. Now if you could get yourself to a state where you're eating healthily, eating well, enjoying what you're eating and if you wanted to lose weight and you've lost weight and there's no hunger, wouldn't that be a kind of nirvana? I always say it would. Can this be achieved? Very, very rarely does this approach not work in men. Very rarely indeed, okay. They're really in the minority. If you have a look on Amazon, so Waist Disposal, as I say it was published a couple of years ago, but it's got a hundred reviews on Amazon and most of them are five star and then a few four stars as a few lower stars as you will always get. Lots of people who haven't read the book that just says this is bunkham, that sort of stuff. Anyway, ignore all of that for a moment. Going to those positive reviews when you look at them, here's a very constant refrain, right. I lost loads of weight. I feel fantastic. This is totally sustainable, okay, because I'm enjoying what I'm eating and I'm not hungry. Why didn't someone tell me before? Trust me when I tell you, when people apply the sorts of principles that we're talking about here, usually they will get the result they're looking for very easily, which is why I said the easy way in the title slide. So here's a table of studies where they have pitted low carbohydrate diets or lower carbohydrate diets with low fat diets. Now in these studies, what they've typically done is with people on the low fat diet, they have restricted their calories, so they said don't eat more than 1500 or 1800 calories or whatever. Here's the food you need to eat and they're all the sort of low fat foods, grain based foods, that sort of thing. In the low carbohydrate groups, so they have not done that. They've just said don't eat all this rubbish carb, right, but you can eat as much as you like. So this really mimics in my view what real life is like for people, okay, who don't want to constantly restrict calories. And here's the results of these studies, okay. So this is a duration of the study. This is weight loss on relatively low carbohydrate diets. This is the weight loss on low calorie, low fat diets, okay, and then we've got something here called statistical significance. So statistical significance is a human generator thing. It's basically we're telling people whether or not any difference was likely to be real or due to chance, okay. Now one of the reasons that something may not be statistically significant is because there wasn't a lot of people in the study, okay. And also I have this thing about statistical significance. First of all, it's utterly arbitrary what you call significant or not, okay. But the other thing is that, you know, for example, if you know you did a study where people on a low carb diet lost an average of 15 pounds and on the low fat they lost an average of 10 pounds, okay, it doesn't really matter to people whether that is statistically significant or not. They'll take the 15 over the 10. Do you understand? In the real world, it doesn't have as much validity as you might imagine. But anyway, I'll put it in here for the sake of completeness. Now look at the results of all of these studies, okay. These were not cherry picked. These were all the studies that I could find where low carb were pitted against low fat. And in every single case, the low carb wins over low fat. And remember, these people eating the lower carb diet were not restricting calories. They were not going hungry. So I don't know, I suppose you could have a little go at, you know, the concept of low carb. But if you look at the totality of the evidence, it's pretty clear that overall it wins out over low fat and is also something that I found in practice is way more, that is way more sustainable than people going hungry and counting calories. Now there's other approaches you could take to push this on a little bit, okay. And one might be something called intermittent fasting. Has anyone here heard of this, ever applied it, tried it? Okay, there's a few very health aware people, okay. So one of the concepts behind intermittent fasting is this, okay, is that we have insulin in the body and it's a good idea not to have too much insulin. Okay, because it, first of all, probably predisposes to fat deposition, but it also may predispose to problems like diabetes and heart disease. Now one way you could get insulin levels down would be not to eat foods that cause lots of insulin secretion, like those, excuse me, crappy carbohydrates. We're encouraged to base our diet on like bread, potatoes, rice, pasta and breakfast cereals. We're going to look at them in more depth later, okay. But another way to do it of course would be not to eat because if you don't eat, you don't have spikes in blood sugar that are going to cause you to secrete much insulin, right? Obviously not. So intermittent fasting is this idea of going for relatively long periods of time without eating. Two, we hope, lower insulin and get benefits from doing that, okay. Now there are some very extreme forms of intermittent fasting out there, okay. I'm not saying people shouldn't do them, but they can be a bit scary. So for example, there are some people who will not eat outside a say four to six hour window in a day. So if they start eating at noon, right, no breakfast, they start eating at noon and they're all done by four or six and they don't eat at any other time. It's fairly hardcore, okay. People do do that. Not against it necessarily, but do you need to do that? No, here's a thought. First of all, do we need to eat by the clock and three meals a day? Now up until about two years ago, and I've been at this a long time, I generally believed that people usually needed to eat three meals a day. Is that true though? I mean, first of all, does it even make sense? Does it make sense that we are programmed to need to eat by the clock regularly like that? Because I tell you what, if we were programmed to be like that, we probably wouldn't be here, would we? Because we wouldn't been able to go for more than a day or two without eating before we get a sort of keel over and die. It doesn't make sense that we need to eat very regularly. And it turns out that some people can be incredibly healthy and eat very irregularly. So is there anyone here who doesn't really eat breakfast and doesn't really like to eat breakfast? It's just not the, yeah, right, fine. Okay, by the way, all of you are slim. Okay, so that there's a little clue there. Okay, so here's the thing, right? Why should you eat breakfast? Because you've been told you might need to. But if you wake up in the morning and you're not hungry, okay, and you get through to 11, 12 o'clock and you're still not very hungry before lunch, why would you eat? You must be living off something. And the chances are you are living off your fat. Why? Well, partly because I would hope you're not eating a rubbish diet that's causing fat to be trapped in your fat cells so you can mobilise it relatively efficiently.