Nutritional myths masquerading as fact.

norwegianwood

laoch na mona wrote: »

I'd agree with most of what you are saying but saying the rise in obesity is solely down to individuals is a simplification, the reality is that people just don't know enough about nutrition or get told the wrong things in school, that along with the increase of sugar in peoples diets are contributing factors as well.

did you ever see the documentary 'the men who made us fat'? It looks at how diet change over the last 40 years has created the problem.

I agree people as individuals can take responsibility, but in reality regulation and education are needed to address the problem at a societal level

I do get what you're saying, but education will only take us to a certain point. Everyone has the internet pretty much, that information is out there but a lot of people don't bother with it. And really, everyone knows deep down that eating too much shíte food or drinking pints every weekend will make you gain weight, but changing is really hard and personally I think people would rather blame the government or the food industry because it's easier than taking ownership of their own health.

Alf Veedersane

norwegianwood wrote: »

I do get what you're saying, but education will only take us to a certain point. Everyone has the internet pretty much, that information is out there but a lot of people don't bother with it. And really, everyone knows deep down that eating too much shíte food or drinking pints every weekend will make you gain weight, but changing is really hard and personally I think people would rather blame the government or the food industry because it's easier than taking ownership of their own health.

People know that too much junk food and lots of pints will make you gain weight. But you'd be surprised at how many people don't think they eat 'too much' junk food or 'lots of' pints.

A lot of people genuinely don't realise the the source if their problem or have convinced themselves it isn't what it is.

laoch na mona

norwegianwood wrote: »

I do get what you're saying, but education will only take us to a certain point. Everyone has the internet pretty much, that information is out there but a lot of people don't bother with it. And really, everyone knows deep down that eating too much shíte food or drinking pints every weekend will make you gain weight, but changing is really hard and personally I think people would rather blame the government or the food industry because it's easier than taking ownership of their own health.

some of it may just come down to saving people from themselves in the end, as you say people won't always make the change themselves thats why the state should try and push people in that direction (how to do this is a whole other discussion)

_Tombstone_

norwegianwood wrote: »

I'm doing a masters in food safety at the moment and a personal gripe of mine is when people bang on about 'dangerous chemicals' in food or say they're making people obese. No, no they're absolutely not. They're not nutrients, your body doesn't need them, but that doesn't make them harmful. The majority of them are there for some technological purpose and are completely benign.The ones that may be toxic at high doses are so rigorously tested for safety that there's no way you could put yourself at risk by eating foods that they've been added to. Nearly everyone that says this to me is obese, a chain smoker or a heavy drinker or all three. Food additives are by far the least of your worries bud. It does my head in the way people focus on minute irrelevant matters like chemicals in their food rather than looking at the real culprits for the obesity crisis-eating too much and not moving enough. I suppose it's easier to do that than to take personal responsibility but it's not going to solve anything long-term.

What about the hundreds and hundreds...it's probably thousands at this stage I doubt anyone knows of “generally regarded as safe” (GRAS) that have been added to Food as far back as the 1960s with little, but mostly no scientific studies into their effects then or since???

Clearlier

norwegianwood wrote: »

I'm doing a masters in food safety at the moment and a personal gripe of mine is when people bang on about 'dangerous chemicals' in food or say they're making people obese. No, no they're absolutely not. They're not nutrients, your body doesn't need them, but that doesn't make them harmful. The majority of them are there for some technological purpose and are completely benign.The ones that may be toxic at high doses are so rigorously tested for safety that there's no way you could put yourself at risk by eating foods that they've been added to. Nearly everyone that says this to me is obese, a chain smoker or a heavy drinker or all three. Food additives are by far the least of your worries bud. It does my head in the way people focus on minute irrelevant matters like chemicals in their food rather than looking at the real culprits for the obesity crisis-eating too much and not moving enough. I suppose it's easier to do that than to take personal responsibility but it's not going to solve anything long-term.

Do you focus much on obesity in your course? Could it be argued that the purpose of some food additives is to make food a bit 'moreish'? If so, could that be a contributor to obesity?

I suspect that if manufactured chemicals weren't allowed in food you'd find that obesity would drop fairly quickly. That's not of course because the chemicals cause obesity but because the food that they're added to do.

The simplistic causes of obesity identified by some such as 'people eat more and move less than they used to' are a cop out to explaining the phenomenon of obesity. For sure there's a grain of truth there but if you really want to address obesity you've had to dive a little deeper and understand the drivers for changes in behaviour. The environment that we live in is obviously a big driver of those behaviours and it's worthwhile IMO attempting to understand the changes that have occurred over the past 50 years or so.

Instructing people to 'move more and eat less' has the advantage of being simple and catchy and it may even work on an individual level but it has very little use at a societal level.

Latatian

Agree with your point on the obesogenic environment Clearlier. Similarly, looking at food makes you hungry- spurs you to eat. We are now continually bombarded with advertisements for food, and we are bombarded with them because they work, so we all eat more. Portion sizes have got bigger. Food is more readily available, and we have a 'clean your plate', 'good value for money in that= big portions', 'fill yourself up' culture. Mammy says you look hungry and food is love. Have another grossly oversized sandwich. I'm not arguing entirely against personal responsibility- but people are shaped by the environment and culture they are in.

Packaging makes it more attractive. But I can see that it would inaccurate to say 'dangerous plastic/paper packaging makes you fat' because the danger isn't from what people think it is- the implication is that the chemicals themselves are making you fat somehow, and that is absolutely a msiperception that would lead people to have a lesser understanding of food and their bodies (and possibly blame those rather than the quantities and calories).

I would imagine the most 'dangerous chemicals' you can find in food aren't e-numbers. They're sugar, salt, and fat. These are the things that spur us to eat more. Maybe colourings that make food more attractive, sure, and preservatives reduce waste and therefore cost, but I don't eat any more of those 'chemicals' now than I did when I was a stone heavier. I don't think it would be enough to make obesity drop to remove them. Maybe if you took off the market all the foods processed enough to contain them, leaving behind whole grains, uncooked vegetables and meats etc.

laoch na mona

i think the eat less move more is about eating less calories and burning more. the basics maths behind weight gain loss is calories in - calories out.

I agree that the reasons why we over consume are more complex

norwegianwood

Clearlier wrote: »

Do you focus much on obesity in your course? Could it be argued that the purpose of some food additives is to make food a bit 'moreish'? If so, could that be a contributor to obesity?

I suspect that if manufactured chemicals weren't allowed in food you'd find that obesity would drop fairly quickly. That's not of course because the chemicals cause obesity but because the food that they're added to do.

The simplistic causes of obesity identified by some such as 'people eat more and move less than they used to' are a cop out to explaining the phenomenon of obesity. For sure there's a grain of truth there but if you really want to address obesity you've had to dive a little deeper and understand the drivers for changes in behaviour. The environment that we live in is obviously a big driver of those behaviours and it's worthwhile IMO attempting to understand the changes that have occurred over the past 50 years or so.

Instructing people to 'move more and eat less' has the advantage of being simple and catchy and it may even work on an individual level but it has very little use at a societal level.

My primary degree is in nutrition so I know a fair bit about obesity. In this course we covered risk perception, basically one part of that is people are more willing to accept a risk if they see it as a benefit to them, if it's familiar to them or they actively choose it, which explains why someone might accept a risk like overeating food they enjoy or drinking pints and worry about something like additives. But really the point I was trying to make was that if you engage in destructive behavior on a regular basis, you should just accept blame for the consequences, rather than saying something relatively harmless is going to destroy your health.

Of course we live in a more obesogenic environment than 50 years ago, although I'd argue that's down to the fact that you can get energy-dense crap for cheap now rather than specific chemicals, fat and sugar are really what we're hard-wired to crave and that's available now in abundance. Most chemicals serve a technological purpose like making the food last longer, or they might enhance the flavour of something that's already there like MSG. But they're not what's making people fat, and to say that they are is just going to take focus off the issue of personal responsibility which ultimately, is the only thing that will solve the obesity crisis. No government or education programme can do the work for people.

"Eat less and move more" is a bit simplistic but really weight loss is simple. Not easy obviously but there's nothing complicated about it, positive energy balance is the only reason people gain weight and vice versa. In my opinion banning chemicals would make no sense. The global food economy is huge and advances in food science like additives are what makes that possible and gives choices that wouldn't be there otherwise. For everyone to eat all unprocessed food we'd have to go back to an agricultural society and given the huge population growth and industrialization in recent years that's not possible.

Banning foods high in sugar and fat would definitely eliminate obesity but that wouldn't make sense either. The food industry isn't forcing food into anyone's mouths and no food is harmful in moderation. If I were a chronic alcoholic people wouldn't say it was the alcohol industry's fault, they'd say I made poor life choices and that's my personal viewpoint on obesity. All you can do is make people aware of information regarding healthy diet and even after that it's up to them whether they use it, you can't hold their hands.

What I'm trying to say is obesogenic environment or not, everyone has a choice, if you choose to overeat and gain weight fine, but if you say that chemicals in food are dangerous then you look a bit hypocritical.

norwegianwood

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

What about the hundreds and hundreds...it's probably thousands at this stage I doubt anyone knows of “generally regarded as safe” (GRAS) that have been added to Food as far back as the 1960s with little, but mostly no scientific studies into their effects then or since???

GRAS is more a thing in the US than Europe, pretty much all food additives here are pretty stringently evaluated by EFSA, who are an independent scientific body. I'll admit that most of my studies focus on Europe so I don't know as much about procedures in the US except that they take less of a precautionary and more of a trade-oriented approach to food safety. For something to be GRAS over there I think it has to have a history of safe use or the manufacturer of a new additive has to put an expert panel together to assess its safety and then the FDA approves it. Obviously that's not a perfect system because I don't know how independent the panels are, but really the dose makes the poison, if you have enough of anything it's toxic. The whole point I was trying to make is that health risks from additives, if any, are so minor compared to the way a lot of people abuse their bodies on a regular basis and I don't like hypocrisy.

RainyDay

norwegianwood wrote: »

If I were a chronic alcoholic people wouldn't say it was the alcohol industry's fault

Actually, they might. They might say that the way the alcohol industry get to advertise their products to easily influenced young people through sport was a significant factor in developing your alcoholism.

LiamaDelta

norwegianwood wrote: »

But really the point I was trying to make was that if you engage in destructive behavior on a regular basis, you should just accept blame for the consequences, rather than saying something relatively harmless is going to destroy your health.

All you can do is make people aware of information regarding healthy diet and even after that it's up to them whether they use it, you can't hold their hands.

personal responsibility which ultimately, is the only thing that will solve the obesity crisis. No government or education programme can do the work for people.

While I agree with you on the 'chemicals' side of things, I have to strongly disagree that 'no government or education programme can do the work for people'. In my opinion it's ALL about educating people as to what's in our food and how it affects you. It's shocking how gullible some people are when it comes to believing what's written on the packaging....and that's exactly what food companies want.

Slick and honed marketing means that many of the things we see are branded 'healthy' really are not healthy, but you would be shocked at the number of people that simply do not know what makes them fat. Even Irish Sugar had a marketing campaign a number of years ago based on the fact that sugar was 0% fat!!! People need to be educated so that they can see through the marketing.

You only have to look at the reaction to the recent RTE programme about sugar to see how little people understood about it. Also the likes of operation transformation....while it has it's flaws, at a very basic level it gives people goals and gets them eating healthily and exercising.

Lack of education is only one of the myriad of reasons that people 'overeat'. As I'm sure you know from your studies there are many many personal reasons that people engage in destructive behaviours - 'choosing to overeat' is often a symptom of another problem.

Also, frankly, if people were even just taught how to cook food from scratch then that would be a good start!

norwegianwood

LiamaDelta wrote: »

While I agree with you on the 'chemicals' side of things, I have to strongly disagree that 'no government or education programme can do the work for people'. In my opinion it's ALL about educating people as to what's in our food and how it affects you. It's shocking how gullible some people are when it comes to believing what's written on the packaging....and that's exactly what food companies want.

Slick and honed marketing means that many of the things we see are branded 'healthy' really are not healthy, but you would be shocked at the number of people that simply do not know what makes them fat. Even Irish Sugar had a marketing campaign a number of years ago based on the fact that sugar was 0% fat!!! People need to be educated so that they can see through the marketing.

You only have to look at the reaction to the recent RTE programme about sugar to see how little people understood about it. Also the likes of operation transformation....while it has it's flaws, at a very basic level it gives people goals and gets them eating healthily and exercising.

Lack of education is only one of the myriad of reasons that people 'overeat'. As I'm sure you know from your studies there are many many personal reasons that people engage in destructive behaviours - 'choosing to overeat' is often a symptom of another problem.

Also, frankly, if people were even just taught how to cook food from scratch then that would be a good start!

Yeah I see your point, I'm not for a minute saying the food companies are innocent, they're out to sell people a product and they'll do shady stuff to do that. I actually think the nutrition and health claim regulations in Europe are way too liberal but that's a whole other argument.

I don't think I was really getting across what I was trying to say well, I think people do need to be armed against misinformation but I think in a lot of cases you can only help people so much. The fact is trying to live a healthy life is hard, I know I struggle with it. While I definitely think nutrition information has to be more accessible to people that can't/won't seek it out themselves, it's far from the whole battle. I'm all for education and support but if you're not willing to take responsibility for your own health really it's futile.

That's true, maybe if depression and anxiety were less prevalent in Ireland obesity would be too. But I wasn't really talking about why people engage in destructive behaviors, just that in a lot of cases, like if someone's getting worked up about food additives or GMOs, that to me it comes across as hypocrisy or self denial..at least I think that's what I was trying to say, my head's starting to hurt.

_Tombstone_

Do we avoid vegetable oils like the plague now? Back to the healthy margarine?

Mellor

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Do we avoid vegetable oils like the plague now? Back to the healthy margarine?

Margarine is awful stuff.
Vegetable oil is a umbrella term, some are fine some aren't good at all.

I try to use oils close to their natural state. Coconut, olive oil, nut/avocado oils. Animal fats, butter etc

j@utis

Margarine is hydrogenated vegetable oil.

_Tombstone_

j@utis wrote: »

Margarine is hydrogenated vegetable oil.

No, it doesn't say Hydrogenated on pack. Though I didn't think their was so much vegtable oils in it....some 40 year old study was properly released last week...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/12/this-study-40-years-ago-could-have-reshaped-the-american-diet-but-it-was-never-fully-published/

More saturated Fat = Good (maybe)
Healthy Oils = Heart Attack

They haven't a clue.

Eat cake...

Good article to add to this thread I think

The Sugar Conspiracy - Ian Leslie

Discusses the 'known norms' problem of Nutrition Science. When the 'known and accepted' guidelines are proven totally wrong, but still remain the 'known and accepted' guidelines for decades!

Worth recalling the SafeFood thread from years back, and recognising that none, not one piece of their advice, has changed even though they were repeatedly told what nonsense it was that they were pedalling

Here's the competition thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72815974

And here's the posts that were removed from the competition thread and split into its own - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056307124.

Zillah

Deleted User wrote: »

Good article to add to this thread I think

The Sugar Conspiracy - Ian Leslie

Discusses the 'known norms' problem of Nutrition Science. When the 'known and accepted' guidelines are proven totally wrong, but still remain the 'known and accepted' guidelines for decades!

Worth recalling the SafeFood thread from years back, and recognising that none, not one piece of their advice, has changed even though they were repeatedly told what nonsense it was that they were pedalling

Here's the competition thread - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=72815974

And here's the posts that were removed from the competition thread and split into its own - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056307124.

They've still got it up there. I actually can't believe it.
http://www.safefood.eu/Healthy-Eating/What-is-a-balanced-diet/The-Food-Pyramid.aspx

They put salt on the same rank as sugar. They're actively promoting bread over fruit and veg.

Clearlier

norwegianwood wrote: »

My primary degree is in nutrition so I know a fair bit about obesity. In this course we covered risk perception, basically one part of that is people are more willing to accept a risk if they see it as a benefit to them, if it's familiar to them or they actively choose it, which explains why someone might accept a risk like overeating food they enjoy or drinking pints and worry about something like additives. But really the point I was trying to make was that if you engage in destructive behavior on a regular basis, you should just accept blame for the consequences, rather than saying something relatively harmless is going to destroy your health.

Of course we live in a more obesogenic environment than 50 years ago, although I'd argue that's down to the fact that you can get energy-dense crap for cheap now rather than specific chemicals, fat and sugar are really what we're hard-wired to crave and that's available now in abundance. Most chemicals serve a technological purpose like making the food last longer, or they might enhance the flavour of something that's already there like MSG. But they're not what's making people fat, and to say that they are is just going to take focus off the issue of personal responsibility which ultimately, is the only thing that will solve the obesity crisis. No government or education programme can do the work for people.

"Eat less and move more" is a bit simplistic but really weight loss is simple. Not easy obviously but there's nothing complicated about it, positive energy balance is the only reason people gain weight and vice versa. In my opinion banning chemicals would make no sense. The global food economy is huge and advances in food science like additives are what makes that possible and gives choices that wouldn't be there otherwise. For everyone to eat all unprocessed food we'd have to go back to an agricultural society and given the huge population growth and industrialization in recent years that's not possible.

Banning foods high in sugar and fat would definitely eliminate obesity but that wouldn't make sense either. The food industry isn't forcing food into anyone's mouths and no food is harmful in moderation. If I were a chronic alcoholic people wouldn't say it was the alcohol industry's fault, they'd say I made poor life choices and that's my personal viewpoint on obesity. All you can do is make people aware of information regarding healthy diet and even after that it's up to them whether they use it, you can't hold their hands.

What I'm trying to say is obesogenic environment or not, everyone has a choice, if you choose to overeat and gain weight fine, but if you say that chemicals in food are dangerous then you look a bit hypocritical.

I'm not sure that we disagree at all about the safety of additives. I could have been clearer but I didn't have any argument with you about the central point of your post regarding the safety of additives. I don't think that they in themselves cause weight gain or any illnesses. The anecdote about your brother illustrates very neatly the misaligned concerns of the general population (or at least some of it).

Where I think that we might disagree is about the role of additives in forming the obesogenic environment that surrounds us today (in the Western world at least).

It's my impression that the additives increase the shelf life of obesogenic foods and also make them more desirable. My knowledge is limited but an image that has stuck in my mind from a film that I saw where a fast food executive went into the lab and you see the chemist/technician asking him to smell the different flavours that he's putting together for the sauce that they put in their burgers. Are there additives out there that change the flavour of food? I get that the line between an additive and an ingredient can be quite blurred at times but I'd be interested in your opinion.

While the

All that said I wasn't trying to and amn't advocating a return to non-processed food only although I disagree that we'd need to become an agrarian society in order to do so.

The food industry isn't forcing food into anyone's mouths

Obviously the food industry isn't force feeding anyone but they do influence what people eat and I do object to the misleading advertisments that they produce. A mars a day helps make you fat and unhealthy would be a far more accurate catchline. I remember as a kid hearing that slogan, going out on the swing and swinging higher and higher thinking, they're right, it does help. What an idiot you say (as do I looking back) but I was about 6 years old. I hadn't got the mental capacity to understand that the ad was misleading. That kind of message gets burned into the back of kids minds and plenty of adults too and it leads to a misunderstanding and an underestimate of the impact of eating certain foods.

You talk about personal responsibility and you're right of course but it's hard to exercise personal responsibility appropriately if you're constantly bombarded with misleading information via food adverts. We haven't as a society, in my opinion at least, suddenly lost all sense of personal responsibility over the past 30 or so years. That would be a ludicrous position to take. We have however in my opinion lost all sense of what constitute a healthy diet and lifestyle. Processed food is certainly not all of the problem but it's a significant part of it and my point was that the chemicals that go into these foods have played a role in this. I'm not really offering answers here just point out that chemicals have helped to enable obesity even if they haven't caused it.

Mellor

Clearlier wrote: »

It's my impression that the additives increase the shelf life of obesogenic foods and also make them more desirable. My knowledge is limited but an image that has stuck in my mind from a film that I saw where a fast food executive went into the lab and you see the chemist/technician asking him to smell the different flavours that he's putting together for the sauce that they put in their burgers. Are there additives out there that change the flavour of food? I get that the line between an additive and an ingredient can be quite blurred at times but I'd be interested in your opinion.

The vast majority of additives are there for economic reasons, like shelflife, or aesthetics (as a result of shelflife). But yes there are flavouring that change the taste of food. It's much easier to add artifical smoke flavour, then to prepare something in a smoker on a large scale, for example.
But that's not going to an efect on how obesogenic the food is.

A burger with 100% natural ingredients, or a burger with preservatives, flavours, colours, etc are both equally contributing to the obesity problem. The additives are not the issue, it's the bad food choice.
Additives do however, make the bad choices more accessible to everyone. That is the major problem with modern industrial food. However, that aspect is lost on most people who are vilifying additives.

Obviously the food industry isn't force feeding anyone but they do influence what people eat and I do object to the misleading advertisments that they produce. A mars a day helps make you fat and unhealthy would be a far more accurate catchline. I remember as a kid hearing that slogan, going out on the swing and swinging higher and higher thinking, they're right, it does help. What an idiot you say (as do I looking back) but I was about 6 years old. I hadn't got the mental capacity to understand that the ad was misleading. That kind of message gets burned into the back of kids minds and plenty of adults too and it leads to a misunderstanding and an underestimate of the impact of eating certain foods.

But that slogan has been banned for a number of years. It's about as relevant now as doctors recommending smoking 50 years ago.
No sensible adult thinks smoking is healthy.
Ditto, no sensible adult thinks a Mars is healthy.

We have however in my opinion lost all sense of what constitute a healthy diet and lifestyle. Processed food is certainly not all of the problem but it's a significant part of it and my point was that the chemicals that go into these foods have played a role in this.

People in general have a terrible sense of what is healthy. However, It's in the opposite direction to what you refer to.
Nobody thinks a fast food burger is healthy. Nobody.
A lot of people are fooled by natural, additive free, low fat, no added sugar. Etc These are the labels that mislead people, and a lot of it is down to overemphasis on the bad additives.

I'm thinking of a food. It's 100% natural, additive free, no added sugar, no added flavours or colours. Sounds like a perfectly healthy right. Well, its a large bag of chips.

Latatian

Could be organic, and is most likely also gluten-free Mellor. Cooked with 100% sunflower oil!


Edit: Also, no GMO. Never mind that usually the product making this claim is something for which there is no GMO equivalent currently on the market. Shhh about that part. Wouldn't want to detract from the marketing.

laoch na mona

suitable for vegetarians

Trained Monkey

Mellor wrote: »

A burger with 100% natural ingredients, or a burger with preservatives, flavours, colours, etc are both equally contributing to the obesity problem. The additives are not the issue, it's the bad food choice.


.

So a burger with 100% steak mince, organic onions, a free range egg and a handful of flour to bind it isn't a better choice than low quality meat washed in ammonia stuffed with a heap of e numbers, preservatives, artificial flavourings etc?

Both options are a bad food choice?

Latatian

Both options will make you equally fat if they've the same calories. Not different in terms of the obesity problem.

Look at the sweets made with '100% fruit juice' i.e. pure sugar.

Clearlier

Mellor wrote: »

The vast majority of additives are there for economic reasons, like shelflife, or aesthetics (as a result of shelflife). But yes there are flavouring that change the taste of food. It's much easier to add artifical smoke flavour, then to prepare something in a smoker on a large scale, for example.
But that's not going to an efect on how obesogenic the food is.

A burger with 100% natural ingredients, or a burger with preservatives, flavours, colours, etc are both equally contributing to the obesity problem. The additives are not the issue, it's the bad food choice.
Additives do however, make the bad choices more accessible to everyone. That is the major problem with modern industrial food. However, that aspect is lost on most people who are vilifying additives.

Just to be clear I'll repeat that I'm not villifying additives nor am I stating that they themselves cause obesity. I'm simply stating that they have played a significant role in creating the obesogenic environment that we live in today. I can't see how this is a controversial statement. It's really onbly a little stronger than stating that the environment that we live is obesogenic and that environment includes additives.

Do you really think that the food environment would remain similarly obesogenic if additives and chemicals were removed from food? That's not saying that additives cause obesity, it's saying that they've helped to enable it.

Mellor wrote: »

But that slogan has been banned for a number of years. It's about as relevant now as doctors recommending smoking 50 years ago.
No sensible adult thinks smoking is healthy.
Ditto, no sensible adult thinks a Mars is healthy.

Is it really banned? An article here about it being revived in 2008.

In any case my point obviously wasn't about that one particular ad. It was an anecdote illustrating the impact that advertising can have. I'm not that aware of contemporary food advertising - if you can tell me that food adverts are no longer aimed at children then that would be an improvement.

Mellor wrote: »

People in general have a terrible sense of what is healthy. However, It's in the opposite direction to what you refer to.
Nobody thinks a fast food burger is healthy. Nobody.
A lot of people are fooled by natural, additive free, low fat, no added sugar. Etc These are the labels that mislead people, and a lot of it is down to overemphasis on the bad additives.

I'm thinking of a food. It's 100% natural, additive free, no added sugar, no added flavours or colours. Sounds like a perfectly healthy right. Well, its a large bag of chips.

I think that you need a little more nuance in your understanding of what's going on. Of course nobody thinks that a fast food burger is healthy but there will be wide variations in people's understanding of how unhealthy it is. Food isn't divided into healthy/unhealthy. It falls somewhere along the healthy/unhealthy spectrum. Too much of anything is bad for you - even water. To make it slightly more complicated where a particular food falls on the healthy/unhealthy range changes from person to person and even for a single person from one occasion to another. In other words you can't really pin down how good or bad a particular food is for you to consume. What the big food companies do with their advertising is to nudge your understanding of how healthy a food is towards to healthier end of the spectrum by promoting the things that you mentioned - 0% fat etc.

To get back to my original point I agree that additives are safe to consume, I agree that they do not cause obesity in and of themselves. I think that it's a mistake to dismiss their role in the creation of the obesogenic environment that we have today.

Clearlier

Latatian wrote: »

Both options will make you equally fat if they've the same calories. Not different in terms of the obesity problem.

Look at the sweets made with '100% fruit juice' i.e. pure sugar.

A quick thought experiment:

What if you invented an additive that made it much harder to digest food and that the body had to work harder to digest it, i.e. expend more calories to digest it. Would both options then make you equally fat?

Latatian

Clearlier- there has been some research done on 'usable' calories, things like 'does chopping your food smaller make a difference to how many calories you absorb from it'. It seems to be a small contribution but even small changes can sometimes make differences. Can't seem to locate the research at the moment. Cooking does seem to increase the usable calories in a food. At the end of the day, though, the calories you are getting from that food is the important factor in obesity.

There are also drugs that prevent or delay absorption of fat, so that that source of calories just goes straight through you. Not a pleasant thought.

Hell, if that additive was added then the "low quality meat washed in ammonia stuffed with a heap of e numbers, preservatives, artificial flavourings etc" would be a less obesogenic choice if it had that additive. I was trying to make the point that it is important to distinguish between 'obesogenic' and 'healthy' and 'natural' and make sure not to confuse terms. They often get conflated. I know people who can't understand why they eat 'so healthy' and gain weight or how I can include unhealthy foods in my diet and not gain weight.

If you removed chemicals from food you don't get any more food, all food is chemicals. And what is an 'additive' specifically? Is the same chemical any healthier when it's advertised as a plant extract vs a scary chemical name even though it's the exact same thing ('natural' flavourings etc)? Like 'celery extract' in processed meats. What about e numbers- is a vitamin scarier when it's called an e number or a vitamin?

I think individual chemicals, and overall foods and diets, should be assessed in and of themselves as to their own (a) health or danger and (b) potential to contribute to the obesogenic environment. I don't like when people assume natural= safe or healthy- and you're not doing this, I'm just bringing it into the discussion since it's a common thing with additives.

Mellor

Clearlier wrote: »

Just to be clear I'll repeat that I'm not villifying additives nor am I stating that they themselves cause obesity. I'm simply stating that they have played a significant role in creating the obesogenic environment that we live in today.

Did you not see how my post agree with that. I specifically said that additives make the bad choice accessible for everyone.

Do you really think that the food environment would remain similarly obesogenic if additives and chemicals were removed from food? That's not saying that additives cause obesity, it's saying that they've helped to enable it.

I didn't say anything remotely like that tbh?

I'm saying that additives don't make a particular food stuff any worse. The bad options exist with or without them. And people can't blame their poor food choices on additives.

Is it really banned? An article here about it being revived in 2008.

I think they removed it before any one thought to challenge them on the misleading nature of it. The 2008 slogan wasn't misleading, not in a way they would be liable. They get the assoaition with the old slogan, but they don;t say anything that could get them in hot water.

I think that you need a little more nuance in your understanding of what's going on. Of course nobody thinks that a fast food burger is healthy but there will be wide variations in people's understanding of how unhealthy it is. Food isn't divided into healthy/unhealthy. It falls somewhere along the healthy/unhealthy spectrum. Too much of anything is bad for you - even water. To make it slightly more complicated where a particular food falls on the healthy/unhealthy range changes from person to person and even for a single person from one occasion to another.

I'm well aware how the healthy/unhealthy spectrum of food works. But that's anyway for the condescending reply.

In other words you can't really pin down how good or bad a particular food is for you to consume. What the big food companies do with their advertising is to nudge your understanding of how healthy a food is towards to healthier end of the spectrum by promoting the things that you mentioned - 0% fat etc.

I disagree. With a little education, its quite easy to pin down what you should should be eating based on your activity, goals, etc. But education is key.
If people are getting their understanding of of how healthy a food is from advertising, that's never going to end well. if they fall for the marketing labels, that's their own mistake. I'm not saying its necessarily their fault though, as the offical line of healthy food from the likes of SafeFood (see above) is utterly woeful.

To get back to my original point I agree that additives are safe to consume, I agree that they do not cause obesity in and of themselves. I think that it's a mistake to dismiss their role in the creation of the obesogenic environment that we have today.

As above, I didn't dismiss that in the slightest. Again, I specifically said that additives make the bad choices accessible for everyone.

If they made all food additives legal tomorrow. Fast food industry would be crushed. Frozen food, microwave meals, pot noodles, junk food would all be off the shelves. Almost everything in a packet would be gone.

But I don't think this would see people forced to eat healthily. I think you just have millions of people who don't have a clue how to feed them selves with fresh food only. They struggle along for a few months, and by that stage, somebody would have started selling additive free fast food and junk and we'd be back to where we are now.

joeprivate

Mellor wrote: »

I'm thinking of a food. It's 100% natural, additive free, no added sugar, no added flavours or colours. Sounds like a perfectly healthy right. Well, its a large bag of chips.

Potato are a healthy food but not if you soak them in a processed oil or lard.
I would class potatoes as a healthy food and they have a low calories density, at less than 1 calorie per gram compared to sunflower oil which they are soaked in at 9 calories per gram.
The longest lived people from the Okinawa island get 70% to 80% of their calories from potatoes, eating approx 1Kg per day so eating plenty of potatoes may extend your life but not if they are soaked in oil.

Mellor

joeprivate wrote: »

Potato are a healthy food but not if you soak them in a processed oil or lard.
I would class potatoes as a healthy food and they have a low calories density, at less than 1 calorie per gram compared to sunflower oil which they are soaked in at 9 calories per gram.
The longest lived people from the Okinawa island get 70% to 80% of their calories from potatoes, eating approx 1Kg per day so eating plenty of potatoes may extend your life but not if they are soaked in oil.

I never said potatoes where inherently unhealthy. I was describing a 1kg bag of chips specifically. All those pseudo-health labels apply, I'm pointing out the nonsense of them

gctest50

joeprivate wrote: »

Potato are a healthy food but not if you soak them in a processed oil or lard.
I would class potatoes as a healthy food and they have a low calories density, at less than 1 calorie per gram compared to sunflower oil which they are soaked in at 9 calories per gram.
The longest lived people from the Okinawa island get 70% to 80% of their calories from potatoes, eating approx 1Kg per day so eating plenty of potatoes may extend your life but not if they are soaked in oil.

purple sweet potatoes them




lunch kinda craic :

just making a pot of kerr pinks or whatever into wallpaper paste in a pot on it's own isn't magically going to help no matter how much you wish it will

_Tombstone_

10 Scientific Papers That Can Transform Your Understanding of Health & Medicine

http://darwinian-medicine.com/10-scientific-papers-that-can-transform-your-understanding-of-health-medicine/

Ziphius

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

10 Scientific Papers That Can Transform Your Understanding of Health & Medicine

http://darwinian-medicine.com/10-scientific-papers-that-can-transform-your-understanding-of-health-medicine/

These are nutritional myths (masquerading as facts)?

NiallBoo

Mellor wrote: »

If they made all food additives illegal tomorrow. Fast food industry would be crushed. Frozen food, microwave meals, pot noodles, junk food would all be off the shelves. Almost everything in a packet would be gone

There would still be a market so there would still be people selling.

It would all just get slightly more expensive as producers would have to allow for much shorter shelf-lives.

Mellor

NiallBoo wrote: »

There would still be a market so there would still be people selling.

It would all just get slightly more expensive as producers would have to allow for much shorter shelf-lives.

In the next sentences that's essentially what I said. Not sure why you deleted that part.

But I don't think this would see people forced to eat healthily. I think you just have millions of people who don't have a clue how to feed them selves with fresh food only. They struggle along for a few months, and by that stage, somebody would have started selling additive free fast food and junk and we'd be back to where we are now.

Gamebred

The American Heart Association recently released a report advising against the use of coconut oil.

The Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease advisory reviewed existing data on saturated fat, showing coconut oil increased LDL ("bad") cholesterol in seven out of seven controlled trials. Researchers didn't see a difference between coconut oil and other oils high in saturated fat, like butter, beef fat and palm oil. In fact, 82% of the fat in coconut oil is saturated, according to the data — far beyond butter (63%), beef fat (50%) and pork lard (39%).

"Because coconut oil increases LDL cholesterol, a cause of CVD [cardiovascular disease], and has no known offsetting favorable effects, we advise against the use of coconut oil," the American Heart Association said in the Dietary Fats and Cardiovascular Disease advisory.

Frank Sacks, lead author on the report, said he has no idea why people think coconut oil is healthy. It's almost 100% fat.



What is the experts view on Coconut oil? plenty of conflicting reports on how healthy it is? is it still the best to use when frying chicken ect?

Mellor

Is the basis of their opinion the fact it's saturated fat, going off old and obsolete info. Or are they going off new information, a study, etc.
If the former, I wouldn't pay it much heed.

ford2600

If you are going to use a fat for cooking, it is difficult to recommend anything other than a saturated fat; way more stable under heat. Coconut is one of the better ones for that.

The worst oil/fat to use is poly(many)unsaturated fat as it is the opposite in terms of stability.

Steam your veg and add the fat after works too