The seven-day GM diet is back – but is it actually good for you?

Bananas are your GM friend

Bananas are your GM friend CREDIT: BLOOMBERG NEWS

Shoulder pads, sequins, and a seven-day diet plan that asks you to eat eight bananas in one day – the 80s certainly gifted us with some weird and wonderful trends. And now (along with the shoulder pads and sequins), that diet plan is making a comeback.

Supposedly the brainchild of General Motors (GM), the GM diet plan was developed to help their employees lose weight – although the automotive company has never actually confirmed the connection. A quick Google search reveals pages of fans of the diet, who rave about their 11lb weight loss after just seven days.

So what’s behind this ‘miracle’ diet plan – and is it actually good for you?

In short, the GM diet is an extremely strict seven-day plan that suggests you drink 12-15 glasses of water a day while cutting out alcohol, tea and coffee; and restrict your calorific intake from food.

Wondering what to eat on 8th day after GM diet? Many of the readers have asked this question in the comments and a few through email. So, I thought of explaining this topic as a separate post rather than replying to them so that it can help everyone who’re in a confused state about what to eat after completing GM diet program for a week.

  • Overweight or Obesity, is undoubtedly, one of the biggest problems faced by most of the people these days. The scientific solution to lose weight is to increase the expenditure and decrease the consumption of calories. Generally, our body burns a certain number of calories even while we’re completely at rest.

    That is called the Basal Metabolic Rate aka BMR. This BMR varies from one individual to another, based on several factors such as height, weight, age and lifestyle. So, if a person’s BMR is 1500 calories per day, then his body will burn those 1500 cal even if he does nothing. However, if the same person consumes around 2000 calories or more, then his/her body will store the remaining 500 calories in the form of FAT cells, resulting in weight gain. So, according to this principle, losing weight is purely calculation. Spend more than you consume and you’ll obviously shed weight.

    Now, let us come to our topic. Most of the people who follow the 7 day diet plan will lose around 4 to 7 kgs, depending on how they followed it. Unfortunately, there are several other factors that interfere with weight loss, due to which a few people might not get such fantastic results.

    Let us assume you’ve followed the diet properly and lost around 5 Kgs of weight in the span of 1 week. You’ll definitely gain weight after the 7 day diet, if you get back to your old lifestyle (eating habits). There is actually no guarantee that the weight you’ve lost is permanent. To be frank, there is no diet plan in this world that promises such guarantee. It is because, our body weight depends on how we manage it and it is a continuous process. If you wanted to stay fit and healthy, then you should always see what you’re eating. Consuming unhealthy or fast foods may lead to obesity and it is an open secret.

    What to Eat on GM Diet 8th Day?

    So What Should You Eat After Completing GM Diet?

    If you want to avoid those lost pounds from coming back, then you should definitely change your diet routine. It is advised to consume low carb high protein diet in order to maintain your weight permanently or until your next GM diet session. Failing in doing so will obviously ruin your efforts that were put into following the General Motors diet program.

    Simple Weight Loss Logic:

    1 pound of FAT = 3500 calories; 1 KG = 2.2 Pounds; In order to lose 10 Kg of weight, you should spend/burn around 10 x 2.2 x 3500 = 77000 calories. Since, reducing such a huge number of calories won’t happen even in the dreams, it is recommended to reduce a minimum of 500 to 800 maximum per day. So, if you cut down 800 calories per day, then it would take 77000/800 = 96 days to lose 22 pounds/10 Kgs of weight naturally without following any crash diet plans.

    What to Eat After Finishing GM Diet?

    First, calculate how many calories you need per day and based on the BMR value, you should plan your meal plan accordingly. Below, you can find sample meal plans for both vegetarians and non-vegetarian eaters.

    If your BMR is under 2000 calories, then you can consume either the 1200 calorie meal plan or the 1500 calorie meal plan. No matter, what your BMR is, you should never go below the 1200 calorie limit as it would impact your health in a negative manner.

    Along with the above diet routines, below are a few tips which if followed will result in much quicker weight loss.

    • Avoid high calorie foods like noodles, samosas, pasta and all kinds of foods that are high in carbs or starch.
    • Replace the white foods (white rice) with brown colored foods (whole-wheat). Brown rice is always better than the White rice.
    • Try to stop your coffee or tea drinking habit and consume Green tea for weight loss. It is both healthy and boosts your metabolism.
    • Drink enough water per day (min of 3 to 4 liters)
    • Soups are very beneficial for losing weight as they aid in better digestion. Include this Cabbage soup or Tomato soup in your daily routine.
    • Try to allot at least 30 minutes every day to perform exercises like cardio workouts or Yoga poses. If time is your biggest problem, then at least try to perform this 7 minute HIIT workout instead.

    If you follow these tips, you’ll definitely lose weight and also keep it OFF after finishing the GM diet.

 

[“Source-7daygmdiet”]

Forget lifestyle – we need to end poverty to combat cancer

The Minister for Health, Simon Harris, and Minister of State for Health Promotion, Catherine Byrne, during the launch of a new ‘National Cancer Strategy 2017-2026’ at Iveagh House, Dublin. Photograph: Gareth Chaney Collins

From the point of view of early diagnosis, treatment, and support for survivors, the new National Cancer Strategy 2017-2026 is an excellent document. However, the prevention section is a big disappointment. According to the foreword by the Minister for Health, Simon Harris, “cancer prevention is a cornerstone of this strategy as it offers the most cost-effective, long-term approach for cancer control”.

Prof John Kennedy, chairman of the steering group that put the strategy together, also stresses the need for prevention and aggressive programmes of public education and “that the most strenuous efforts must be made to target more deprived populations in cancer prevention”.

Although recognising the “incontrovertible evidence of the enormous impact of socioeconomic status and deprivation on death rates from some cancers Ireland”, he blames smoking and poor diet. In fact, the prevention chapter is all about the promotion of healthy lifestyles. This approach will not prevent cancer or reduce inequalities.

Did the members disregard the evidence that inequality and health inequality are the main cancer risk factors? No, they knew about the health impact of inequality. “Reducing health inequalities is a priority of this strategy, as lifestyle risk factors generally follow social, deprivation, gender, and age patterns.” The steering group included a representative from the National Cancer Registry which produced a report on cancer inequalities last year titled Cancer Inequalities in Ireland by deprivation, urban/rural status and age: A National Cancer Registry Report 2016.

This report showed that not only was there a higher incidence of cancer in deprived populations but these populations had much lower survival rates. “Strong patterns of inequality . . . are documented for most of the measures examined [nine major cancer types].” None of the proposed prevention actions in the new cancer strategy will reduce inequality and may widen the health gap between socioeconomic groups. It is more likely that the steering group recognised the impact of inequality but did not know what to do about it.

There is overwhelming evidence that focusing on getting the lifestyle message across and public health education does not prevent cancer or any other disease. Prevention groups know that poor people get sick more often than those who are better off but do not analyse the problem. They assume it is a health education issue and believe that if only “the poor” realised that smoking, drinking, and being overweight was bad for their health they would change their behaviour. Because of this erroneous belief, health professionals, the Department of Health and the HSE rely on health information campaigns. They believe that if they say it often enough people will change.

For example, Goal 1 in the National Cancer Strategy is directed at reducing the cancer burden by focusing on health inequalities through information campaigns. “A significant effort is required to ensure that prevention and awareness campaigns have a particular focus on addressing health inequalities” and “it is vital that we are effective in getting the message across to the population that each person can impact significantly on their own level of risk of developing cancer.” This is so stupid.

According to Margaret Whitehead, a World Health Organisation expert on the social determinants of health and health inequalities, “the solutions may seem so complex that people can easily become frozen into inaction” leading to “lifestyle drift.” In 1988, she wrote The Health Divide which analysed the huge differences in health between socioeconomic groups.

According to a 2016 paper by Whitehead, the reason poor people do not adopt healthy lifestyles is because they do not control their own destiny. “Being in a low social position; living in a disadvantaged environment with a sense of collective threat and powerlessness and the degree to which people are discriminated against and excluded from the society in which they live”, means that people are more likely to develop cancer and other chronic diseases.

According to the new cancer strategy, “As more evidence emerges regarding the development of cancer . . . there will be a need to identify the most effective prevention methods.” We already know the most effective method which is to reduce or, as far as possible, eliminate inequalities and thus health inequalities. Unless this happens the numbers of people with cancer will not just double by 2040, as predicted in the National Cancer Strategy, but treble.

[Source:-.irishtimes]

EXERCISE CAN BE PUNISHING – BUT HERE’S HOW TO STOP THINKING OF IT AS A PUNISHMENT

Image result for EXERCISE CAN BE PUNISHING – BUT HERE’S HOW TO STOP THINKING OF IT AS A PUNISHMENTThe fitness industry is said to be worth £4.4bn in the UK alone. But, despite medical research telling us that exercise will help us live longer, the majority of people do not engage with health and fitness. Could it be that exercise is still considered a punishment – as it was in Victorian prisons?

Or do we just need to increase the fun and social aspect to exercise to get more of us working up a sweat?

Medical research suggests exercise is good for our health and will help us all live longer. But a report by the British Heart Foundation says that 20 million people living in the UK are physically inactive.

To be considered active, the Department of Health recommends adults should accumulate at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity activity per week. So it begs the question: why do close to a third of the country’s population struggle to meet this recommended amount of exercise, when doing so could prolong their life?

A reason why inactive people may not engage in enough exercise is because it is not perceived to be a fulfilling or satisfying leisure pursuit. Other competing pastimes of a more sedentary nature, such as watching TV, reading and gaming, are seen by some as being more enjoyable.

Exercise as punishment

The treadmill was devised as a form of punishment for convicted criminals in the Victorian era. At this time, prisoners had to undertake long hours of hard labour by walking on treadmills to grind flour. This form of punishment was abolished in the late 19th century for being too cruel.

Exercise also has a long history of being used as a form of correctional behaviour in schools. Indeed in 2014 the then-Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan, proposed to ban exercise being used in schools as a form of punishment for fear that it would put children off being active.

Given that exercise has a lengthy historical association with the use of discipline for the purpose of punishment and obedience, can 21st century society ever be truly accepting of exercise as a leisure pursuit that can have personal fulfilment?

At present, the high volume of inactivity levels in the UK suggests a large amount of people are not motivated to take exercise. Getting people to be more active, therefore, would require a shift in people exercising because they want to rather than having to.

Making it social

My research explores the role of social psychology for the development of interventions that make physical activity a fulfilling pursuit for long-term condition sufferers. This is because social psychological science has consistently demonstrated that people are motivated to seek social connections in order to fulfil their psychological needs as human beings. For example, “the belongingness hypothesis” states that people have a basic need to feel closely connected to others.

So it is important people have positive social exercise experiences that enrich their quality of life and, in doing so, make the pursuit of exercise a more satisfying and worthwhile activity. This can be achieved by creating exercise environments that provide individuals with a shared sense of social connectedness, creating opportunities for people to form friendships, meaningful attachments and mutually supportive relationships.

For example, the EuroFit programme takes a unique approach for improving men’s health and fitness by allowing fans to train in the environment of a professional football club they support. City Ride events are another example, where families and friends of all ages and abilities can enjoy cycling together through the streets of a vibrant traffic-free environment. Similarly, walking sports offer a social atmosphere of fun, laughter and camaraderie for those who may have difficulty participating in high impact activities.

Connecting people in dynamic and socially rewarding exercise environments has the potential to offset the drudgery often associated with exercise and make it a leisure pursuit worth doing.

[“Source-independent”]