Why diet culture missed the average British bloke
In fact, you hardly ever see an ordinary working bloke. And one over 40 carrying a bit of timber? Unimaginable!
This makes no sense.
After all, if anyone needs help losing weight, it's this exact group, with 69 per cent of men in England overweight, and ages 55 to 64 the worst time for loading on fat¹.
So, despite the health and fitness industry booming, ordinary middle-aged guys have been pretty much left out of the conversation.
Well, they were before SHED – a new British brand offering nutritionally complete meal replacement shakes specifically designed for normal men.
They've already racked up some impressive results in real-life trials, which you'll hear about below.
But first, let's deal with the key question – why does the diet industry have such a blind spot for ordinary blokes?
To understand why normal men are ignored by traditional weight loss marketing, consider what it's trying to achieve.
In most cases, these ads are about selling an ideal.
In other words, they want you to look at the man with the chiselled abs who runs a marathon a week and think – if I buy this, I could be him.
But real life, as we all know, doesn't work like that. Most of us have busy jobs and lots of commitments. So, while there's nothing wrong with aspiring to be a gym god, pretending this is a reasonable aspiration for everyone is a non-starter.
That's not the only way weight loss regimes exclude everyday blokes. It's also the fussy recipes and complex diet plans – hardly suitable for someone who's working long hours and always on the move.
And while tech bros might be able to pay £20 for a cup of 'magic' juice, most of us have better things to spend our money on.
How SHED breaks the mould
SHED took one look at the diet industry and turned it on its head.
They've not only created a weight loss product specifically for men but also made it simple and fuss-free at the same time.
So instead of having to follow a mindboggling regime, you simply ditch unhealthy meals and opt for a SHED SHAKE, which provides a balanced meal containing less than 300 calories.
Just make sure not to over-indulge elsewhere and keep on eating a normal, healthy evening meal.
It's that simple. Oh, and they're great value too, coming in at under £1.80 per serving.
That's all well and good, you say, but does it actually work?
To test this out, SHED ran a trial² involving 50 middle-aged men – factory workers from Darlington and Leeds and the members of a specialist league for fat footballers in Chelmsford, Essex. In other words, a bunch of ordinary blokes.
Tronny, 52, and his five-a-side teammates all went on the SHED for the 14 weeks of their league season: 'SHED's been a game-changer for me. It started me on my weight loss journey, and now I feel like I am heading in the right direction.
'I love the vanilla and chocolate. Both really nice. I would recommend it to anyone.'
Each of them was asked to swap one meal a day, either breakfast or lunch, for a SHED SHAKE – recording their weight before and after, as well as journaling how it went.
A remarkable 95 per cent of those who stuck to this routine for the whole six weeks lost weight, with the average SHED-ing (sorry…) four kilograms. They also lost 3cm off their waistlines, with 33 per cent returning to a healthy waist-to-height ratio.
Unsurprisingly, the great majority – 80 per cent – said they would recommend SHED to other men.
For too long, the diet industry hasn't given normal British blokes the time of day.
SHED stands out by being inspired by regular men like you and designed specifically for your needs.
Their launch range of meal replacement shakes comes in three tasty flavours, Vanilla, Chocolate or Coffee, with 14 servings in each pack.
Visit shedshake.com TODAY to take their 6-week challenge at a special launch price
Consult your doctor before starting on a new diet programme.
¹ NHS Digital, 2023 to 2024 .
² Six-week real-world study of 50 British men aged 35-65 (mean age 47), published 13 December 2024.
Your free newsletter guide to the best London has on offer, from drinks deals to restaurant reviews.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
5 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
'I thought I had a hangover - it turned out to be a killer infection'
Alysha Pyrgotis, 27, revealed that she thought she was going 'to die' after a night of partying on a remote Indonesian island - the Brit backpacker caught a potentially deadly infection A young British backpacker revealed how her post-party hangover, after a night on the town, turned out to be a deadly infectious disease. Alysha Pyrgotis, 27, said she thought she was going to die after catching typhoid while on a remote Indonesian party island, called Gili Trawangan, in June. The backpacker, from Bradford, said she was left vomiting and with "extreme diarrhoea" before realising she caught a disease that kills nearly 100,000 people every year. Alysha revealed why she was particularly unlucky to have fallen ill on that remote party island and why she "had to leave the country soon". She said: "I was bed bound, in a lot of pain with my muscles and my bones. I was a bit delirious. I couldn't concentrate at all, that's when I started to panic. The guy I was travelling with at the time started to realise I was quite poorly, I wasn't hungover. He spoke to the person at the hostel and we had a look online, there weren't any hospitals or anything." The backpacker explained the small island did not have adequate healthcare so a local doctor had to come out and test her blood. She added: "I was on a very small island, there wasn't really healthcare, it was just really unlucky that I was there at the time." The doctor found Alysha had typhoid - a bacterial infection which can kill one in five of those infected if they do not get treatment. The Brit believes she could have caught the infection from something she ate. She said: "I thought I was going to die, to be honest. It was that bad, I was literally like 'this is it'. I was so annoyed as I was so close to the end of my trip. I'd been ill before, but not that ill before." Alysha revealed why she did not tell her family about the traumatic ordeal she faced while in Indonesia, saying: "I was really worried about telling my family - I didn't tell them, actually, because they were having a lot of stress at work at the time. I didn't tell them until after I'd been poorly. I just thought it was not going to end well for me. I was panicking as I knew I had to leave the country soon, I was really, really scared." The Brit revealed the shocking symptoms she faced while sick with the potentially deadly infection. Alysha added: "It was just like my body didn't want anything inside it, it was trying to get rid of everything. I didn't eat anything for the whole time I was really ill - probably five or six days. "Even water, I would sip water and it would come straight back up. It was a very, very extreme sickness." After six days on a drip in a small, cramped medical shack, Alysha received a negative typhoid test and had to get out of the country. The former social media marketing executive said: "I had to get out of Indonesia because my visa would run out. I'd spent almost my whole time in Indonesia being sick. I had to get out, I had a flight to Thailand. "They took me off the drip and the next day I had to fly to Bangkok. I still was very sick, the flight was horrific. Even the next few days in Bangkok were very difficult, I couldn't do anything. The lasting effects of it were still a couple of weeks of not feeling quite right." Alysha was in the middle of a seven-and-a-half-month trip abroad when she came down with the fever. Following a breakup, she made the spontaneous decision to fly out to south Thailand in December 2024. The Brit then visited Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and the Philippines before going to Indonesia. The backpacker is now urging anyone who visits these countries to ensure they wash their hands and watch what they eat. Alysha said: "I'm not going to say 'nobody pet the stray animals', because that's one of my favourite parts of travelling. I think washing your hands is really important afterwards, because that's something I really didn't do. I was in the middle of nowhere petting stray animals and then going about my day for hours and hours without access to any water to wash my hands in, I didn't bring any sanitiser either." She also urged people to be careful of what the eat, saying: "A lot of street food you eat isn't kept in clean conditions, it's in a hot country on the street." She added: "I just wasn't careful where I ordered my food from. I was just eating everything that looked good and smelled good at the time - and that's probably not the wisest thing to do." According to the NHS, typhoid fever is spread through unclean food or water and symptoms include high temperature, headache, coughing, chills, aches, pains, feeling tired, constipation, and a lack of hunger. Those travelling in areas where there's a risk of catching it are advised by the health agency to get a vaccination against the illness. Travellers should try to see a GP six to eight weeks before travelling. The vaccine lasts for three years and comes as an injection or tablets.
The Guardian
9 hours ago
- The Guardian
Why antibiotics are like fossil fuels
In 1954, just a few years after the widespread introduction of antibiotics, doctors were already aware of the problem of resistance. Natural selection meant that using these new medicines gave an advantage to the microbes that could survive the assault – and a treatment that worked today could become ineffective tomorrow. A British doctor put the challenge in military terms: 'We may run clean out of effective ammunition. Then how the bacteria and moulds will lord it.' More than 70 years later, that concern looks prescient. The UN has called antibiotic resistance 'one of the most urgent global health threats'. Researchers estimate that resistance already kills more than a million people a year, with that number forecast to grow. And new antibiotics are not being discovered fast enough; many that are essential today were discovered more than 60 years ago. The thing to remember is that antibiotics are quite unlike other medicines. Most drugs work by manipulating human biology: paracetamol relieves your headache by dampening the chemical signals of pain; caffeine blocks adenosine receptors and as a result prevents drowsiness taking hold. Antibiotics, meanwhile, target bacteria. And, because bacteria spread between people, the challenge of resistance is social: it's as if every time you took a painkiller for your headache, you increased the chance that somebody else might have to undergo an operation without anaesthetic. That makes resistance more than simply a technological problem. But like that British doctor in 1954, we still often talk as if it is: we need to invent new 'weapons' to better defend ourselves. What this framing overlooks is that the extraordinary power of antibiotics is not due to human ingenuity. In fact, the majority of them derive from substances originally made by bacteria and fungi, evolved millions of years ago in a process of microbial competition. This is where I can't help thinking about another natural resource that helped create the modern world but has also been dangerously overused: fossil fuels. Just as Earth's geological forces turned dead plants from the Carboniferous era into layers of coal and oil that we could burn for energy, so evolution created molecules that scientists in the 20th century were able to recruit to keep us alive. Both have offered an illusory promise of cheap, miraculous and never-ending power over nature – a promise that is now coming to an end. If we thought of antibiotics as the 'fossil fuels' of modern medicine, might that change how we use them? And could it help us think of ways to make the fight against life-threatening infections more sustainable? The antibiotic era is less than a century old. Alexander Fleming first noticed the activity of a strange mould against bacteria in 1928, but it wasn't until the late 1930s that the active ingredient – penicillin – was isolated. A daily dose was just 60mg, about the same as a pinch of salt. For several years it was so scarce it was worth more than gold. But after production was scaled up during the second world war, it ended up costing less than the bottle it came in. This abundance did more than tackle infectious diseases. Just as the energy from fossil fuels transformed society, antibiotics allowed the entire edifice of modern medicine to be built. Consider surgery: cutting people open and breaking the protective barrier of the skin gives bacteria the chance to swarm into the body's internal tissues. Before antibiotics, even the simplest procedures frequently resulted in fatal blood poisoning. After them, so much more became possible: heart surgery, intestinal surgery, transplantation. Then there's cancer: chemotherapy suppresses the immune system, making bacterial infections one of the most widespread complications of treatment. The effects of antibiotics have rippled out even further: they made factory farming possible, both by reducing disease among animals kept in close quarters, and by increasing their weight through complex effects on metabolism. They're one of the reasons for the huge increase in meat consumption since the 1950s, with all its concomitant welfare and environmental effects. Despite the crisis of resistance, antibiotics remain cheap compared with other medicines. Partly – as with fossil fuels – this is because the negative consequences of their use (so-called externalities) are not priced in. And like coal, oil and gas, antibiotics lead to pollution. One recent study estimated that 31% of the 40 most used antibiotics worldwide enter rivers. Once they're out there, they increase levels of resistance in environmental bacteria: one study of soil from the Netherlands showed that the incidence of some antibiotic-resistant genes had increased by more than 15 times since the 1970s. Another source of pollution is manufacturing, particularly in countries such as India. In Hyderabad, where factories produce huge amounts of antibiotics for the global market, scientists have found that the wastewater contains levels of some antibiotics that are a million times higher than elsewhere. Like the climate crisis, antibiotic resistance has laid global inequalities bare. Some high-income countries have taken steps to decrease antibiotic use, but only after benefiting from their abundance in the past. That makes it hard for them to take a moral stand against their use in other places, a dilemma that mirrors the situation faced by post-industrial nations urging developing nations to forgo the economic benefits of cheap energy. This may be where the similarities end. While we look forward to the day when fossil fuels are phased out completely, that's clearly not the case with antibiotics, which are always going to be part of medicine's 'energy mix'. After all, most deaths from bacterial disease worldwide are due to lack of access to antibiotics, not resistance. What we are going to need to do is make our approach to development and use much more sustainable. Currently, many pharmaceutical companies have abandoned the search for new antibiotics: it's hard to imagine a more perfect anti-capitalist commodity than a product whose value depletes every time you use it. That means we need alternative models. One proposal is for governments to fund an international institute that develops publicly owned antibiotics, rather than relying on the private sector; another is to incentivise development with generously funded prizes for antibiotic discovery. And to address the issue of overuse, economists have suggested that health authorities could run 'subscription' models that remove the incentive to sell lots of antibiotics. In one pilot scheme in England, two companies are being paid a set amount per year by the NHS, regardless of how much of their product is actually used. Finally, we have to remember that antibiotics aren't the only game in town. Supporting other, 'renewable' approaches means we get to use the ones we do have for longer. Vaccines are vital to disease prevention – with every meningitis, diphtheria or whooping cough vaccine meaning a potential course of antibiotics forgone. And the 20th century's largest reductions in infectious disease occurred not because of antibiotics, but thanks to better sanitation and public health. (Even in the 2000s, the threat of MRSA was addressed with tried-and-tested methods such as handwashing and cleaning protocols – not new antibiotics.) Given that antibiotics themselves emerged unexpectedly, we should also be investing more in blue-skies research. Just as we no longer burn coal without a thought for the consequences, the era of carefree antibiotic use is now firmly in the past. In both cases, the idea that there wouldn't be a reckoning was always an illusion. But as with our slow waking up to the reality of the climate crisis, coming to appreciate the limits of our love affair with antibiotics may ultimately be no bad thing. Liam Shaw is a biologist at the University of Oxford, and author of Dangerous Miracle (Bodley Head). Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End by Atul Gawande (Profile, £11.99) Infectious: Pathogens and How We Fight Them by John S Tregoning (Oneworld, £10.99) Deadly Companions: How Microbes Shaped our History by Dorothy H Crawford (Oxford, £12.49)
Metro
10 hours ago
- Metro
What does a tick bite look like?
Lyme disease, a bacterial infection which is spread to humans through bites from infected ticks, is 'increasing rapidly', with the number of people who've been diagnosed with the disease, including several celebrities, rising. Signs and symptoms of Lyme disease include a circular red rash, flu-like symptoms and – if the infection is not treated swiftly with antibiotics – it can cause nerve and heart problems, pain and swelling in the joints, and trouble concentrating for years. Therefore it's important for people to be able to recognise what tick bites look like, and the tell-tale red rash that can be the first sign that a person has Lyme disease. A tick bite usually results in a small red bump – similar to the bump you get when a mosquito bites you – and it will likely go away after a few days. The bites aren't always painful, so it's important to check your skin for ticks and bites after you've been outdoors. The distinctive red rash associated with Lyme disease is circular and forms a pattern not unlike a bullseye – but it's important to note that not everyone who gets Lyme disease will get a rash. These rashes can develop up to three months after a person has been bitten, but most of the time they will be noticeable within the first month after the bite. The NHS points out that the majority of tick bites are harmless, and that only a small amount of ticks carry the bacteria that can cause Lyme disease in humans. More Trending If you spot a tick on your body, don't panic – you can use fine-tipped tweezers to remove it. Then simply disinfect the bite. The NHS also stipulates that you should see a GP if you've been bitten by a tick or been in an area in the last month where infected ticks have been found and you have flu-like symptoms (headaches, aching muscles, nausea) or a circular bullseye rash. According to the NHS, to remove a tick safely: Use fine-tipped tweezers or a tick-removal tool – you can buy these from some pharmacies, vets and pet shops. Grasp the tick as close to the skin as possible. Slowly pull upwards, taking care not to squeeze or crush the tick. Dispose of it when you've removed it. Clean the bite with antiseptic or soap and water. View More » This article was fist published on August 1, 2019. MORE: British mum steals towels from sunbed hoggers in dead of night saying 'they deserved it' MORE: Cost of Mounjaro weight-loss drug to go up by 170% in the UK within weeks MORE: Chikungunya cases double in UK as expert warns 'all it takes is one mosquito bite' Your free newsletter guide to the best London has on offer, from drinks deals to restaurant reviews.
