TBH, personally, these days I'd be loathe to easily trust anyone on the issue.

[iBad Pharma[/i by Ben Goldacre shows the mess in the pharmaceutical industry, with conflicts of interest etc, and I personally think that it's very similar in food.

For instance, in 2003, the WHO published a report on nutrition, which recommended that sugar should form no more than 10% of a healthy diet. Result? Massive lobbying by the sugar industry against the recommendation, to which the WHO responded by including, in the report, the statement "The Consultation recognized that a population goal for free sugars of less than 10% of total energy is controversial". That's the WHO, FFS, bullied by big business.

Until a couple of years ago, when I started reading more deeply, I didn't [ilike[/i supermarkets etc, but I still thought them essentially benign – or at least certainly not companies that would do anything that was clearly detrimental to the populations' health. That opinion has changed the more I've read – and it's similar with all other aspects of big food.

I think it's easier for such companies here and in the US. There is, as Standee and I have touched on in this thread, an attitude that is remarkably widespread of food simply as fuel. I'd suggest that, if you really enjoy your food, you don't eat junk. But we have a vast disconnect with food culture/heritage and it makes it lot easier, then, for companies to exploit the consumer.

And in many cases, even the more interested consumer will find it difficult to be able shop for food away from the supermarket aisles.

For various reasons, this week, in the daytime, I've had more processed food than I normally would in a whole month. Not massively processed, but still ready salads, for instance. And it's become almost an experiment – even knowing what I know, I've been grimacing at the general awfulness of it. And if you have that as your standard, then it's not really going to encourage you to change from that food-as-fuel attitude.

Anyway, those are just a few rambling notes. I may try to add more later.

'Food as fuel' isn't necessarily a bad attitude to have. I mean, if you want your nice new shiny car to run properly and last a decent amount of time, you don't fill the tank with used chip fat. Food IS fuel - it's just that some people make poor choices as to what that fuel should consist of.

Food as fuel is hardly likely to make people value spending any more than they think they can get away with. It's fuel – so you buy the cheapest, most 'convenient' variety around and, when the cost of living rises, you complain about the cost of food and demand it become ever cheaper.

If, on the other hand, you actually really enjoy food, you'll be far less likely, I would suggest, to buy and eat lots of (highly) processed stuff; you'll be more likely to cook from fresh regularly and also be more likely to educate yourself about related matters – what is pumped into your food, for instance.

In terms of your analogy, if you want your car to run well and last well, you don't simply look for the cheapest option from the nearest pump (simply because it is the nearest).

To add to that - it isn't just the quality of food that's important. Quantity plays just as vital (if not more vital) a part in determining whether or not we end up overweight. I know a very overweight chap who prepares all of his own meals from fresh ingredients. His problem is that he eats (and drinks) too much, not that he doesn't eat the right things.

I would suggest, though, that quality can also sate far better.

As an example, I make chips about four times a year – I don't have a deep dryer or a chip pan, so it's a bit of a performance.

Anyway, when I do, we have very few – but enough to be satisfying. What struck me a year or so ago, though, when working away from home, was how many more crappy chips we'd all eat when we were working through lunch and the conference centre people would bring us in a plate of crappy chips. You stuff them – for two reasons: 1) because you're not sitting down properly to eat; 2) because they taste poor and so you don't bother to slow down to appreciate the taste.

And that's without mentioning the presence of high levels of MSG* in some processed foods, which are increasingly thought to switch off the body's ability to feel and recognise that it is sated. There is some belief that aspartame and artificial sweeteners do something similar.


* Far, far higher levels than in soy sauce.

One of the two types was over 7 (5 or lower is supposed to be OK). It did drop like a stone much to the surprise of the GP when I changed my diet and I reckon it was down to cutting out the crisps and consuming quite a hit less red wine which I had become rather partial to!

Where does the "...that low cholesterol, certainly after 50, is actually unhealthy." come from? I am over 50 and my GP was obviously well aware of that and had I not managed to reduce it myself they were lining me up for medication to lower it, some sort of tablet I believe.

I think of the two types of cholesterol one is considered "good cholesterol" and it's that one I was OTT on. I must admit Iwas quite surprised that if it was considered "good" why was having a lot of it "bad"?

Anyway it dropped rapidly when I changed my diet so that was just even more confusing as I had cut out stuff that [iis[/i bad for you yet the good cholesterol went down

.

As I said, both play a role. I think it's too easy to fall into the trap of laying all the blame at the door of the food manufacturers. Many are undoubtedly unethical, but that's only part of the problem.

Exactly. Which was entirely my point. It's not a bad thing to see food as fuel, it's a bad thing to buy rubbish fuel.

Quote ="DaveO"One of the two types was over 7 (5 or lower is supposed to be OK). It did drop like a stone much to the surprise of the GP when I changed my diet and I reckon it was down to cutting out the crisps and consuming quite a hit less red wine which I had become rather partial to! Where does the "...that low cholesterol, certainly after 50, is actually unhealthy." come from? I am over 50 and my GP was obviously well aware of that and had I not managed to reduce it myself they were lining me up for medication to lower it, some sort of tablet I believe. I think of the two types of cholesterol one is considered "good cholesterol" and it's that one I was OTT on. I must admit Iwas quite surprised that if it was considered "good" why was having a lot of it "bad"? Anyway it dropped rapidly when I changed my diet so that was just even more confusing as I had cut out stuff that [iis[/i bad for you yet the good cholesterol went down .'" Dr Malcolm Kendrick is certainly saying things along these lines. There's a host of stuff out there from reputable sources. And much comes back to the (so-called) French Paradox. The French have, apparently, similar levels of cholesterol to us – yet have lower rates of hearts disease, even though they eat a diet higher in (natural) saturated fat. The 'paradox' has been particularly commented on in relation to the south west of the country, where as well as cheese, cheese and more cheese, this is the area that has created such culinary delights as duck confit and foie gras. Actually, the foie thing reminds me of a point: they don't fatten the ducks or geese up with a diet of fatty foods – it's grains that are used. A quick Google produced this at the top of the results. articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... mbers.aspx This also looks at the idea that there is 'bad' cholesterol and 'good' cholesterol. And to repeat: the only 'proof' that a diet high in saturated fat leads to high cholesterol leads to heart disease was found by Ancel Keyes, who lied. In essence, after WWII, there was a sudden boom in heart-releated deaths in the US. People obviously wanted to know why. Keyes believed he knew – saturated fat = high cholesterol = heart disease. So he set out to prove it (which is a bad way to start anyway). His first study in the US supported his belief. He tried the same on a wider scale, with the Seven Countries Study, which also 'proved' his theory. The trouble was, Keyes had actually surveyed 22 countries. Unfortunately, the results from 15 of them didn't suit his desired results, so he 'forgot' them. But the impact of his lies continues to be felt. You might want to read Kendrick's [iThe Great Cholesterol Con[/i – although plenty of other people are saying the same basic things. Unfortunately, cholesterol-related drugs are a big money-spinner, just as are margarines etc that promise to lower cholesterol.

Quote ="DaveO"One of the two types was over 7 (5 or lower is supposed to be OK). It did drop like a stone much to the surprise of the GP when I changed my diet and I reckon it was down to cutting out the crisps and consuming quite a hit less red wine which I had become rather partial to! Where does the "...that low cholesterol, certainly after 50, is actually unhealthy." come from? I am over 50 and my GP was obviously well aware of that and had I not managed to reduce it myself they were lining me up for medication to lower it, some sort of tablet I believe. I think of the two types of cholesterol one is considered "good cholesterol" and it's that one I was OTT on. I must admit Iwas quite surprised that if it was considered "good" why was having a lot of it "bad"? Anyway it dropped rapidly when I changed my diet so that was just even more confusing as I had cut out stuff that [iis[/i bad for you yet the good cholesterol went down .'" Dr Malcolm Kendrick is certainly saying things along these lines. There's a host of stuff out there from reputable sources. And much comes back to the (so-called) French Paradox. The French have, apparently, similar levels of cholesterol to us – yet have lower rates of hearts disease, even though they eat a diet higher in (natural) saturated fat. The 'paradox' has been particularly commented on in relation to the south west of the country, where as well as cheese, cheese and more cheese, this is the area that has created such culinary delights as duck confit and foie gras. Actually, the foie thing reminds me of a point: they don't fatten the ducks or geese up with a diet of fatty foods – it's grains that are used. A quick Google produced this at the top of the results. articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... mbers.aspx This also looks at the idea that there is 'bad' cholesterol and 'good' cholesterol. And to repeat: the only 'proof' that a diet high in saturated fat leads to high cholesterol leads to heart disease was found by Ancel Keyes, who lied. In essence, after WWII, there was a sudden boom in heart-releated deaths in the US. People obviously wanted to know why. Keyes believed he knew – saturated fat = high cholesterol = heart disease. So he set out to prove it (which is a bad way to start anyway). His first study in the US supported his belief. He tried the same on a wider scale, with the Seven Countries Study, which also 'proved' his theory. The trouble was, Keyes had actually surveyed 22 countries. Unfortunately, the results from 15 of them didn't suit his desired results, so he 'forgot' them. But the impact of his lies continues to be felt. You might want to read Kendrick's [iThe Great Cholesterol Con[/i – although plenty of other people are saying the same basic things. Unfortunately, cholesterol-related drugs are a big money-spinner, just as are margarines etc that promise to lower cholesterol.

I'd suggest that an attitude that denies you one of life's great pleasures (which you have to have anyway) is hardly a very coherent one.

Don't forget – particularly religious people think pleasure in food is a bad thing.

I'd suggest that seeing food only as a source of pleasure is a far less coherent attitude, personally. There are plenty of people out there who derive great pleasure from cakes and biscuits and hardly any from fresh vegetables. Only when we begin to see food as the stuff that makes our bodies work can we make truly informed decisions about what to eat and what to avoid eating.

And I never once said pleasure in food was a bad thing. You can take pleasure in food whilst viewing it as the fuel it so obviously is.

I think that, within the context of this discussion (and how 'food as fuel' was first mentioned) it was in terms that meant that food was treated as something almost inconvenient, to be bought as cheaply as possible, to have as little time spent shopping for it and preparing it as possible, and to be consumed while doing something else, so that it doesn't 'waste' time.

I'd also suggest that there are plenty of people out there who claim to be 'informed', but who don't know how their bodies work in terms of the 'fuel' they put in them. They see, for instance, fat as having no nutritional benefits, never mind the one of sating etc.

Quote ="Mintball" A quick Google produced this at the top of the results. articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... mbers.aspx This also looks at the idea that there is 'bad' cholesterol and 'good' cholesterol.'" Now that was very interesting. I think I might buy some butter on the way home As fat as I go I think what the doc was possible on about was an imbalance in one of the ratios as mentioned in that article but it just was not very well explained to me.

Quote ="Mintball" A quick Google produced this at the top of the results. articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... mbers.aspx This also looks at the idea that there is 'bad' cholesterol and 'good' cholesterol.'" Now that was very interesting. I think I might buy some butter on the way home As fat as I go I think what the doc was possible on about was an imbalance in one of the ratios as mentioned in that article but it just was not very well explained to me.

So viewing food as an inconvenience to be acquired as cheaply as possible is the problem then, not viewing food as fuel. Food is fuel, and should quite rightly be viewed in that way - it's not just about pleasure.

Not sure what you're trying to get across in your second paragraph, but it kinda goes without saying that some people who consider themselves to be well informed are, in fact, not so well informed. The same is true in any sphere of expertise.

Food lovingly prepared is no guarantee that the taste will be better than some mass-produced product.
It depends on who is the chef and it depends on the ingredients.
People may be impatient and want an instant 'hit', but that doesn't mean to say they that they don't know what tastes good and what gives them pleasure.
Food snobs will think otherwise.

I for one have never tasted a home made curry as good as one prepared by someone who knows what they are doing, be it packaged or not.

I eat out not just because it is convenient, but that they do a better job generally.

There is a part of me that likes other people cooking anyway, simply because you know what your getting when you do it yourself. It's the 'the other person's sandwiches are always more desirable than your own' effect.

MIght not be 100% on this but i believe them things are all available, its just that thy are not very well known or advertised

Not just fizzy drinks, the bog problem at the minute is Sports drinks and energy drinks, its a massive market and they are promoted in the being good for you, if not essential.

The amount of kids playing sport "who need" these drinks is astounding.

My lads play rugby and i will only give them water for training and playing , but its suprising the amount who cannot run round a rugby pitch withouth having some energy drink.

Was an interesting documentray on Panorama a few months ago about it too, you should have seen one of the top nutritionalist in the country and his reaction to Diet sports drinks.

Also the way he explained one of these drink as "would you give you child a glass of water with 10 spoons of sugar in it"

Links www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18863293 sorry cant link the I players, but www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=act ... 52&bih=809 Or a quick google for Panorama Sports Drinks will bring them up

Links www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18863293 sorry cant link the I players, but www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&safe=act ... 52&bih=809 Or a quick google for Panorama Sports Drinks will bring them up

[url=http://www.bmj.com/press-releases/2013/02/04/study-raises-questions-about-dietary-fats-and-heart-disease-guidance[iBMJ[/i says 'Oops, we might have got it wrong on saturated fats'.[/url

[url=http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2013/01/the-british-heart-foundation-flora-pro-activ-an-unhealthy-relationship/And the unhealthy relationship between the British Heart Foundation and the manufacturers of Flora[/url.

Really just that there is information out there, in the mainstream (for want of a better word) and many people think that, because they know about that, they're informed and can make informed choices.

So for instance, many people think that it's really healthy to eat loads and loads of fruit, without realising that there are sugar implications – which is why nutritionists/dieticians dealing with someone with diabetes will advise against fruit juice.

But the mainstream message is simply that fruit is good per se.

To begin with, there's a difference between eating a whole piece of fruit and drinking a glass of fruit juice. There's little wrong with having a few pieces of fruit a day as part of a balanced diet. Sure, there's some sugar in there, but there's also plenty of beneficial nutrients and usually a bit of fibre, too. As long as you stay fairly active and/or eat the fruit as part of a larger meal, there's little wrong with it.

I'd agree that loads of fruit juice isn't a good idea as most of the pulp is removed and you're just left with a very sugary drink (albeit one containing some nutrients).

There's definitely a place for those drinks. Like if you're undertaking intense training or some sort of endurance event. The place certainly isn't on a kids' sports field, I'd agree, but it's even worse when you see people drinking them who aren't even doing anything.

I understand that completely, and apologies if that wasn't clear.



but what do you mean by "a few"? I'm not remotely suggesting 'none', but how many is "a few"? and activity doesn't change the impact of consuming lots of sugar.

But I was specifically meaning who think it healthy to, say, munch fruit (including dried fruit) a lot. And that will impact on the body's sugar levels – regardless of activity.

Completely agree, i have occasionly let them have them, very hot days and tournaments, but for a normal training or game i find it unneccesary. In fact even myself when doing a normal gymworkout id rather use water

And as for people not playing sports ha ha

Although they do wash down a Greggs Steak Bake well

On the contrary, exercise/activity does affect how the body metabolises sugar. If you drink a sports drink whilst sitting in a chair, your body will use a small amount of the sugar released into your bloodstream, and the rest will end up in your fat stores. If you drink that same sports drink immediately before (or after) an intense bout of exercise, the sugar is utilised immediately by the working tissues for energy and/or to replenish depleted glycogen stores.

The same applies to consuming fruit. If you just sit in a chair all day eating nothing but fruit, that's probably not a good thing. If, however, you have a fairly active job, or are on your feet all day, eating the same amount of fruit will be far less likely to cause you any problems.