Do you blindly believe that food labelled a "healthy" is really better for you?

Cantona's Collars

A woman in the UK decided to go for a healthier option to cut down on her kid's sugar intake,she found that the so-called healthy foods actually contained more sugar.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/10/article-2536913-1A88252000000578-837_634x447.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/10/article-2536913-1A88252000000578-206_634x331.jpg

The new Special K low fat oats ad is one that I particularly despise,bog standard porridge is about a healthy a breakfast you can eat yet somehow they try to convince us that their one with dried fruit is somehow lower in fat & sugar????

GrandSoftDay

Yes...I believe everything the add's tell me.

SV

Well if they're just going to go by sugar content then that's a bit silly.

"Low fat" always means "high sugar". If it says low fat, run away screaming

Seriously, who thinks special k and cereal bars are good for ya

CardBordWindow

I am always highly suspicious of any diet foods. Normally lower fat means they've removed any 'healthy' fats and pumped up the saturates instead, but it's still lower total fat.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

bluewolf wrote: »

Seriously, who thinks special k and cereal bars are good for ya

morons

humbert

Article summary: Fruit contains a lot of sugar.

"Healthy" snacks are usually "low fat"
"low fat" usually means high sugar

When people get the idea out of their head that fats = bad then we might finally be on our way to tackling obesity.

Cienciano

A general rule is anything with the word "Kellogs" on it is bad for you

SV

bluewolf wrote: »

"Low fat" always means "high sugar". If it says low fat, run away screaming

Seriously, who thinks special k and cereal bars are good for ya

but the ad said that if I eat them I'll be a newer slimmer me.....

noodler

bluewolf wrote: »

"Low fat" always means "high sugar". If it says low fat, run away screaming

Seriously, who thinks special k and cereal bars are good for ya

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

morons

I am here to defend Special K!


I think its a bad example when it comes to cereal products as they do not generally contain huge amounts of fat.

Surely you would find Special K has less sugar than the average cereal?

kylith

Neither of those lists seem to contain any food that's actually cooked from scratch. Either diet is pretty piss poor for kids.

Daqster

Complete tosh and very misleading. Their new diet is healthier.

Total Sugars tells us very little as it is the quality of the sugar that is paramount.

The vast majority of the sugars in their old diet where from processed and refined sources (sucrose, white bread etc) and in their new diet, a lot of the sugar has been replaced with far healthier sugars that come in their natural form with lots of fiber, phytochemicals etc.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

I am here to defend Special K!


I think its a bad example when it comes to cereal products as they do not generally contain huge amounts of fat.

Surely you would find Special K has less sugar than the average cereal?

Have you checked?

You'd be in for a surprise.

force eleven

White processed bread is never healthy. The flour is bleached to give it its whiteness. Bleached in all sorts of crap.

Artful_Badger

SV wrote: »

but the ad said that if I eat them I'll be a newer slimmer me.....

*A newer slimmer you will only be achieved in conjunction with a diet plan and exercise that makes it unnecessary to eat this product to begin with.

SV

Svlad Cjelli wrote: »

*A newer slimmer you will only be achieved in conjunction with a diet plan and exercise that makes it unnecessary to eat this product to begin with.

*as part of a calorie controlled diet


always makes me laugh, well yes..if you burn more calories than you take in then of course you'll lose weight :pac:

they're snacks, under the guise of healthy.

Temptamperu

Low fat crisps and chocolate make me laugh. Even diet drinks are ridiculous. If your dieting and eating sweets and drinking sodas you are not dieting.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

special K is ****ing delicious though


and as with all cereals you never fill a bowl with their pissant tiny reccomended portion sizes

noodler

noodler wrote: »

I am here to defend Special K!


I think its a bad example when it comes to cereal products as they do not generally contain huge amounts of fat.

Surely you would find Special K has less sugar than the average cereal?

I think if I want to eat a bowl of sugar, I will eat cereal. And maybe once in a blue moon I will because coco pops are tasty.
Afaik special k has more sugar than frosties

Eat some porridge or eggs

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

special K is ****ing delicious though

s

I don't even know you anymore

Daqster

Daqster wrote: »

Complete tosh and very misleading. Their new diet is healthier.

Total Sugars tells us very little as it is the quality of the sugar that is paramount.

The vast majority of the sugars in their old diet where from processed and refined sources (sucrose, white bread etc) and in their new diet, a lot of the sugar has been replaced with far healthier sugars that come in their natural form with lots of fiber, phytochemicals etc.

It may be healthier - but it's not healthy.

Toto Wolfcastle

There are a lot of misconceptions about
what healthy eating is. The low fat thing is a legacy, it's what we were always told growing up. The Safefood website still promotes the food pyramid, suggesting that people should eat plenty of starchy foods and very few fatty foods. Those who have educated themselves will know better, but not everyone will educate themselves.

In general people haven't a clue what's good for them and what's not good for them. I was at a course for newly diagnosed diabetics (with my husband who had just been diagnosed) and a woman there said that after she was diagnosed she started drinking Lucozade as a health drink.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't even know you anymore

wat, it is lovely tasting and the more of it I eat the closer I get to my goal of fitting into my new red dress

Duggy747

I only eat cereal grown in the African forests of China, handpicked by Indian farmers, with milk-free milk gluten-free soya, flower extract, sugar.

Gongoozler

People are stupid. Of course lots of people believe this ****, that's why they do it. How many people ever think to check the salt content of anything? There are ads out now about not giving children juice because of the sugar content. Facepalm. People really need a proper education on nutrition.

topper75

If it ran around, swam, or grew on a plant, then it is food.

Everything else is processed junk.

Clue - nobody is paid to pick Special K off a plant.

kylith

Gongoozler wrote: »

People are stupid. Of course lots of people believe this ****, that's why they do it. How many people ever think to check the salt content of anything? There are ads out now about not giving children juice because of the sugar content. Facepalm. People really need a proper education on nutrition.

Those ads drive me nuts. How many parents are thinking "My child won't drink water. I'll give them this sugar-free coke instead."

Jesus I love cereal. Fcuk you sugar. Fcuk you right in the eye.

y0ssar1an22

Surly levels of fat and sugar should be secondary to the amount of calories per 100g or whatever? Eat less calories than you burn = lose weight. Does it matter where the calories come from as long as you burn more than you eat?

dee_mc

Special K contains 17% sugar, and more than 1.1g salt per 100g.
There's a good study here (Which/NHS) giving a rundown of sugar, salt and fat levels in popular cereals: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/02February/Pages/breakfast-cereals-still-too-high-in-sugar.aspx
I've always found Special K's 'low fat cereal' advertising strategy laughable, but so many people are sucked in by it!
Shredded Wheat and Weetabix seem to be the purest cereals out there, although even Weetabix has relatively high salt levels.

Anyone

I'd love a bowl of Sugar Puffs with ice cold milk right now.

dee_mc

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

Surly levels of fat and sugar should be secondary to the amount of calories per 100g or whatever? Eat less calories than you burn = lose weight. Does it matter where the calories come from as long as you burn more than you eat?

That depends: is the aim to lose weight/maintain a low weight, or to have a healthy body? Calorie counting can lead to weight loss, but if you want to be healthy you need to look at where exactly those calories are coming from.

Chefrio

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

Surly levels of fat and sugar should be secondary to the amount of calories per 100g or whatever? Eat less calories than you burn = lose weight. Does it matter where the calories come from as long as you burn more than you eat?

Yes obviously, you need a variety of vitamins and minerals to be healthy. Eating 10 mars bars a day won't give you that.

wolfpawnat

Temptamperu wrote: »

Low fat crisps and chocolate make me laugh. Even diet drinks are ridiculous. If your dieting and eating sweets and drinking sodas you are not dieting.

Diet drinks have all this crap in them that makes me think you are better off with the sugar versions.

And if you are dieting, it is recommended to have one day a week where you have some junk foods, it keeps you on the diet longer knowing that there is one day where you can eat most foods and it makes sure the body is able to deal with different intakes of food.

Chefrio

dee_mc wrote: »

Special K contains 17% sugar, and more than 1.1g salt per 100g.
There's a good study here (Which/NHS) giving a rundown of sugar, salt and fat levels in popular cereals: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/02February/Pages/breakfast-cereals-still-too-high-in-sugar.aspx
I've always found Special K's 'low fat cereal' advertising strategy laughable, but so many people are sucked in by it!
Shredded Wheat and Weetabix seem to be the purest cereals out there, although even Weetabix has relatively high salt levels.

Plus weetabix contains wheat so steer well clear.

Toto Wolfcastle

dee_mc wrote: »

I've always found Special K's 'low fat cereal' advertising strategy laughable, but so many people are sucked in by it!

Brennans have been advertising their bread as being low in fat recently too.

chopper6

bluewolf wrote: »

"Low fat" always means "high sugar". If it says low fat, run away screaming

Seriously, who thinks special k and cereal bars are good for ya

This.

People think "low fat" means it's in some way healthy but it actually means "high sugar".

Obesity isnt caused by fat its caused by refined carbohydrate or processed sugar that converts to fat due to its effect on body insulin.

Dravokivich

SV wrote: »

but the ad said that if I eat them I'll be a newer slimmer me.....

Yes, but the idea is that you don't eat anything else.

wandatowell

bluewolf wrote: »

"Low fat" always means "high sugar". If it says low fat, run away screaming

Seriously, who thinks special k and cereal bars are good for ya

I always wondered why I never liked putting sugar on my Special K.

The one "plain" cereal that I couldn't stomach adding sugar to.

Pumpkinseeds

People should just look at the ingredients label to see what the sugar, salt and fat contents of a product are. I looked at a dear enough packet of soup recently and the salt and fat content was insanely high. Fat free just means the manufacturer is going to lace it with sugar or salt. Not all fats are bad fats.

Dravokivich

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

Surly levels of fat and sugar should be secondary to the amount of calories per 100g or whatever? Eat less calories than you burn = lose weight. Does it matter where the calories come from as long as you burn more than you eat?

Yes, as you need protein to sustain muscle mass and carbs for energy.

Otherwise you'll just end up a wreck and feel worse than you thought you looked initially.

longshanks

Duggy747 wrote: »

I only eat cereal grown in the African forests of China, handpicked by Indian farmers, with milk-free milk gluten-free soya, flower extract, sugar.

But is it fair trade certified?
Is It?

You animal!!

y0ssar1an22

dee_mc wrote: »

That depends: is the aim to lose weight/maintain a low weight, or to have a healthy body? Calorie counting can lead to weight loss, but if you want to be healthy you need to look at where exactly those calories are coming from.

I'm no expert but was always under the impression that it doesn't matter.

eg: burn 2000 calories/day. Eat 1000 calories of fat or sugar. Net calorie loss = 1000.

I suppose thats probably an over-simplification.

ScumLord

topper75 wrote: »

If it ran around, swam, or grew on a plant, then it is food.

Everything else is processed junk.

Clue - nobody is paid to pick Special K off a plant.

Nobody went and picked spaghetti bolognese or samwidges of a plant either. Just about every food eaten by humans goes through some form of processing. What do you think they make processed food out of? Animals and plants, they just stretch the ingredients by adding in cheaper bulking agents.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

thats true if allyou're concerned about is weight loss. but you'd be malnourished and skinny at the end of it

y0ssar1an22

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

Surly levels of fat and sugar should be secondary to the amount of calories per 100g or whatever? Eat less calories than you burn = lose weight. Does it matter where the calories come from as long as you burn more than you eat?

Well, if you try getting most of your calories from sugar, you'll probably be tired, grouchy, and starving. Same calories from steak and veg, you'll be more content.
Plus muscle

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

ScumLord wrote: »

Nobody went and picked spaghetti bolognese or samwidges of a plant either. Just about every food eaten by humans goes through some form of processing. What do you think they make processed food out of? Animals and plants, they just stretch the ingredients by adding in cheaper bulking agents.

yeah, like stinger bars, monster munch and findus crispy pancakes. good nutrition doesn't have to be expensive

the_syco

bluewolf wrote: »

cereal bars are good for ya

Would they be better or worse than a Yorkie bar? I've replaced the Yorkies with the cereal bars.

humbert wrote: »

Article summary: Fruit contains a lot of sugar.

Laughed at that one as well.

Dravokivich

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

I'm no expert but was always under the impression that it doesn't matter.

eg: burn 2000 calories/day. Eat 1000 calories of fat or sugar. Net calorie loss = 1000.

I suppose thats probably an over-simplification.

Calories is just a unit. You can fill yer fuel tank with 40 litres of petrol or 40 litres of water. The tank is full, but it wont work with water.

the_syco wrote: »

Would they be better or worse than a Yorkie bar? I've replaced the Yorkies with the cereal bars.

Look at the two side by side and compare what's in'em. Anyway it's not the 1 item taken sparingly that'll be the problem.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

the_syco wrote: »

Would they be better or worse than a Yorkie bar? I've replaced the Yorkies with the cereal bars.

wouldn't be a huge amount of difference in them tbh. theyre basically just "candy" bars but with a more health food focused packaging and less chocolate

dee_mc

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

I'm no expert but was always under the impression that it doesn't matter.

eg: burn 2000 calories/day. Eat 1000 calories of fat or sugar. Net calorie loss = 1000.

I suppose thats probably an over-simplification.

You're repeating what I said. If you decided to go on a calorie controlled diet, you could eat (for example) 1000 calories worth of Special K per day, OR 1000 calories worth of Smarties per day, OR 1000 calories worth of fruit, veg and lean protein per day. Your weight loss would be the same no matter which of these plans you followed, but following the Special K or Smarties plan will leave your body a wreck because of the 'empty calories' from sugar, and the lack of protein, vitamins and minerals needed to keep the body healthy. Calorie counting is very basic, as we've both said eating a certain number of calories per day will lead to weight loss/gain/maintenance, but if your aim is to be healthy, you need to look at more than just the calorie content of foods.