A recent UK government report stated that “obesity is caused by an energy imbalance: taking in more energy through food than we use through activity”. This is a gross simplification that leads to high rates of failure and despondency.

We should instead be asking: “what drives the obese to consume high calorie (especially sugary) foods and drinks?” and “what inhibits their inclination to be physically active?”

If an adult or child has central obesity, it is possible they have undiagnosed insulin resistance (IR) – a metabolic dysregulation that decreases people’s ability to metabolise carbohydrates from any source. It limits their body to burning sugar for energy, which leads to fat storing and an inability to access stored fat.

By following typical healthy eating guidelines, these people will likely exceed their body’s individual carbohydrate tolerance and be unable to deal with their IR – the precedent of almost all obesity. An energy-reduced diet and/or added exercise will simply make them hungrier, and hunger is the enemy of weight loss.

The solution? Offer a coaching programme that helps them determine their body’s individual carbohydrate tolerance and, based on this, provide a list of foods they’ll like and can tolerate. They’ll lose weight without hunger – and at that point, many will want to start exercising.

The common belief is that exercise leads to weight loss. In fact, the opposite is true: weight loss leads to exercise. Help people with obesity to lose weight and they’ll become more interested in exercise.

The Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) recently published its Post-16 Skills Plan, drawing on recommendations from the independent panel headed up by Lord Sainsbury.

The plan, which is aimed at reforming the ‘overly-complex’ skills system in England, proposes that just one awarding body should be licensed to deliver all qualifications within the 15 new technical routes.

At YMCA Awards, we believe that having one single body with full control over cost and quality would be detrimental to the leisure sector. Not only could it present a single line of failure if that one body fails to deliver, such monopolisation would also diminish the drive to compete and improve – stifling research and innovation, and potentially holding back the development of new delivery and assessment strategies.

Not only that, Lord Sainsbury’s model could also threaten niche and non-profit award organisations, such as trade or professional bodies. With the proposed technical routes covering less than half of occupations, this would mean a sizeable portion of the labour market isn’t catered for – making it even more difficult than it already is for young people to secure employment.

Given, however, that we are a charitable organisation and have evolved over the last 175 years, we do need to be open to reforms. We are willing to help implement these changes, but only in a way that ensures the best outcome for our young people. In order to do that, we need the government to listen to the needs of the leisure sector and to be willing to work with us – not against us.