Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Nanny State now targeting breakfast cereals

2456

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,661 ✭✭✭fxotoole


    Every time I see people throwing around phrases like “nanny state” in the context of Ireland, I have a good chuckle.

    Try living in the UK or USA for a few years and you’ll know all about nanny states.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,089 ✭✭✭✭Macy0161


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    There's probably far more sugar, and other unhealthy ingredients in our foods now though, and we're probably eating far more food overall, due to the larger availability of foods. Are people working longer hours, and spending more of their time doing work related activities than previous generations?
    Portions are the issue, imo, not any one food or food group. Focusing on single food groups such as carbs, or specific types of carbs like sugar and bread are just ignoring the underlying issue.

    Plates and bowls have got bigger, portion expectations have got bigger, but everyone (including people wanting to sell their latest fad diet based on limited research) want a quick and easy fix.


  • Posts: 5,094 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Time for the "nanny state" to target everybody who robs that term from the British tabloids in the 1980s and applies it to Ireland.

    There's a reason rightwing Tory rags owned by ultrarich, tax-dodging oligarchs love to push the concept of a "nanny state" that "interferes" in their riding us all senseless. Jesus.

    I look forward to the day when the marginal rate of tax paid by these oligarchs is the 50%-60% it is for heaps of us in the "squeezed middle". Long past time that the state - which supplies the educated workforce, roads, utility infrastructure and everything else for their businesses to thrive - interfered with that.


    And, yes, when even All Bran has c. 25% sugar, you know breakfast cereals with the exception of porridge are really bad for you.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭gctest50


    ......

    And, yes, when even All Bran has c. 25% sugar, you know breakfast cereals with the exception of porridge are really bad for you.

    Porridge is worse for you


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,089 ✭✭✭✭Macy0161


    And, yes, when even All Bran has c. 25% sugar, you know breakfast cereals with the exception of porridge are really bad for you.
    Breakfast cereal isn't really bad for you on it's own, whether you include porridge or not. No one element makes a diet/ what you eat bad - it's the overall not individual items.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,291 ✭✭✭lbc2019


    Yes boo nanny state- lets be influenced by billionaires instead!

    Zero Fcuks they give!

    We consume far too much sugar and processed sugar. Our portion sizes are way out of control. We complain about obsiety in children them complain when the government try to address it!

    Cereals have become a joke. They need to be reined in.


  • Site Banned Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Balanadan


    gctest50 wrote: »
    Porridge is worse for you

    What's wrong with porridge?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    Unfortunately I'd imagine there's been incredible amounts of lobbying by the food industry to make sure we continue to consume more and more sugar, and potentially other unhealthy ingredients.

    Unhealthy as in? The articifial sweeteners are the worst


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,291 ✭✭✭lbc2019


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    Breakfast cereal isn't really bad for you on it's own, whether you include porridge or not. No one element makes a diet/ what you eat bad - it's the overall not individual items.

    Eating some breakfast cereals now - you might as well eat a bowl of sugar!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Balanadan wrote: »
    What's wrong with porridge?

    maybe he means with cream and the dreaded sugar!?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,291 ✭✭✭lbc2019


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Unhealthy as in? The articifial sweeteners are the worst

    Sugar and processed sugar are worse for our diet.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,266 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    gozunda wrote: »
    The bizarre thing though was in the 1970s nearly everyone added sugar to the breakfast cereal, their tea, ate sweets and biscuits made with real sugar and were generally skinnier than people today!

    :confused:

    Bet they weren't sat on their arses for 8 hours a day.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    lbc2019 wrote: »
    Eating some breakfast cereals now - you might as well eat a bowl of sugar!

    eating frosted flakes from the packet..... yummy!


  • Site Banned Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Balanadan


    Graces7 wrote: »
    eating frosted flakes from the packet..... yummy!

    Sometimes I'd have a bowl of coco pops for dessert.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Humanity needs to drastically change everything about its food production model for the good the species and the planet. If we don't manage to cause ecological collapse, we will start seeing teenagers being admitted to hospital for obesity-related heart failure.

    If taking steps to make those changes is "nanny state", then so be it. People on their own will not make changes for the good of everyone. They have to be corralled into doing so.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    lbc2019 wrote: »
    Sugar and processed sugar are worse for our diet.
    nah!


    But each to his or her own. chemicals are nasty things. sugar is lovely.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭gctest50


    Balanadan wrote: »
    What's wrong with porridge?




    Non- diabetic woman wore a continuous blood glucose monitor for a few days :






    Enter: OATMEAL.
    Another interesting finding was my oatmeal test. Now, for the duration of the experiment, I ate my normal breakfast, which is typically some variation of 2 eggs cooked in butter or lard, vegetables (usually rotating between kale, broccoli, mushrooms, onions, etc.), and possibly some breakfast meat, like sausage or bacon. Alongside this, I have black tea (unsweetened) with heavy cream. [Read: I eat a low carb, high fat, moderate protein breakfast.]

    This style of breakfast was a dream for my blood sugar, essentially flatlining it in the 80s or 90s. It’s also excellent for my energy levels, satiety, and productivity (low carb + real food + mindful eating for the win!). I can easily go for 3-5 hours without getting hungry (depends on the day and how active I am), which is nothing short of a miracle for someone who used to be a huge snacker.

    There’s a reason I tend to return to a variation of this day after day. Even when I added a small slice of sourdough one morning and ½ cup of leftover roasted potatoes another morning, my blood sugar didn’t exceed 100 (the magic of not eating “naked carbs”).

    I started to wonder if I was just super insulin sensitive in the morning or maybe had more wiggle room for carbs.

    So, the final day of my CGM sensor, I decided to eat a breakfast similar to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ sample meal plan in their pregnancy guidelines. Their meal plan is oatmeal, skim milk, and strawberries. In other words, all carbs.

    (For those of you familiar with my book, Real Food for Pregnancy, this is the same meal plan that I use to make a comparison on the nutrient-density and macronutrient ratio compared to my real food meal plan. This excerpt of the book is included in the free chapter download; see the bottom of this post or this page to get it.)

    I don’t have skim milk in the house (and I never will), but I do have whole, grass-fed milk for my son. I also didn’t have strawberries, but I have raspberries, which are nutritionally similar. So I whipped up measured portions of rolled oats (1/2 cup dry, which is 1 cup cooked) prepared with water, a little milk poured on afterwards (I’m really not a fan of straight up milk, so I only used a few Tbsp), ½ cup raspberries, and because it was in-edibly plain, I added 1 measured teaspoon of honey (not heaping). Total carb count was 45g.

    All things considered, this was NOT a large bowl of oatmeal and it was essentially NOT sweet, despite adding a little honey. (I say this to point out that the average person adds A LOT of extra sweeteners to their oatmeal, either with sugar/honey or dried fruit. My version would be unpalatable to many people.)

    At first, I thought my blood sugar was doing ok after the oatmeal, but I then watched with horror on my Freestyle Libre as the readings climbed. When you scan the sensor, the Freestyle Libre reader shows an arrow next to the numerical reading with an up, down, level, or slightly up/down error, indicating your real time blood sugar trends. This was the ONLY time during the entire 10 days that I saw the straight up arrow, indicating my blood sugar was rising FAST.

    My blood sugar went from 74 to a peak of 178 in an hour. By two hours, I was down to the 120s and by three hours, finally back down to 100.

    This perfectly illustrates why I preach “no naked carbs” (meaning carbs eaten without a source of fat or protein). The spike from oatmeal was 40 points higher than my Thanksgiving dinner, which included stuffing, sweet potatoes, cranberry sauce, pumpkin pie (in other words, the same or more carbohydrates than this unsatisfying, bland oatmeal breakfast). I’d wager that I didn’t spike as high from Thanksgiving because there was sufficient fat, protein, and fiber in the meal to slow digestion and absorption of the carbohydrates.

    This image shows 4 days of blood sugar data.



    8eu75CP.jpg.


    Continuous glucose monitor experiment in a non diabetic - oatmeal spike
    3 days of happy blood sugar readings on my moderately low carb diet.

    Day 4: OATMEAL for breakfast.

    It was really interesting to watch it pan out in real time on my CGM. I had always assumed that I wouldn’t be hungry until my blood sugar was back down to normal or in the hypoglycemic range, but this experiment showed me that the hunger trigger (for me, anyways) is in response to the impending crash.

    I actually didn’t end up hypoglycemic in response to this meal, but I literally had to eat something with substance (fat/protein) around the two hour mark (~ 2 oz of leftover grass-fed beef burger patty) to avoid going hangry. That probably stopped me from going into reactive hypoglycemia.

    After this oatmeal experiment, I started wondering if my glycemic response to oatmeal was exaggerated or unusual. It’s surprisingly hard to find data on blood sugar responses in non-diabetics, especially when trying to examine the “peak” blood sugar response.

    As you can recall, as long as blood sugar is back down to 140 mg/dl by two hours after eating, then you’re supposedly “in the clear” by conventional guidelines for diabetes/prediabetes. If a study has people measure their blood sugar only at 2 hours, you’re likely to miss the peak glycemic response in many people. Moreover, different people peak at different times, so without a million finger pricks or CGM, the results aren’t going to be very meaningful.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,518 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Time for the "nanny state" to target everybody who robs that term from the British tabloids in the 1980s and applies it to Ireland.

    There's a reason rightwing Tory rags owned by ultrarich, tax-dodging oligarchs love to push the concept of a "nanny state" that "interferes" in their riding us all senseless. Jesus.

    I look forward to the day when the marginal rate of tax paid by these oligarchs is the 50%-60% it is for heaps of us in the "squeezed middle". Long past time that the state - which supplies the educated workforce, roads, utility infrastructure and everything else for their businesses to thrive - interfered with that.


    And, yes, when even All Bran has c. 25% sugar, you know breakfast cereals with the exception of porridge are really bad for you.


    Seems like you have a bowl of vitriol every morning?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    seamus wrote: »
    Humanity needs to drastically change everything about its food production model for the good the species and the planet.

    If taking steps to make those changes is "nanny state", then so be it. People on their own will not make changes for the good of everyone. They have to be corralled into doing so.

    Maybe depends on what your diet is like? I eat very little processed food which is maybe where dangers lie. grow what food I can. never takeaways etc.

    nearing 80 so a different view maybe?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,089 ✭✭✭✭Macy0161


    lbc2019 wrote: »
    Eating some breakfast cereals now - you might as well eat a bowl of sugar!
    Not really. Cornflakes and Rice Crispies, for example, 3% (half a teaspoon per 30g) sugar. People put way more sugar (in the form of honey/ maple syrup or just sugar) on a bowl of porridge.

    Nothing proven with artificial sweetners either. Food and diet has to be the worst thing for psuedo and unproven science taken as fact (as quoted above), with some people almost religious in their beliefs despite what science has, and hasn't, proven.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,017 ✭✭✭McCrack


    gozunda wrote: »
    The bizarre thing though was in the 1970s nearly everyone added sugar to the breakfast cereal, their tea, ate sweets and biscuits made with real sugar and were generally skinnier than people today!

    :confused:

    Don't forget sugar sandwiches too

    Amazing


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,548 ✭✭✭BrokenArrows


    I have no problem with this.

    Patents are feeding their kids sugar filled cereals every day.

    I ate these as a kid but it was once or twice a week. Other days it was porridge or wheetabix or bran.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,291 ✭✭✭lbc2019


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    Not really. Cornflakes and Rice Crispies, for example, 3% (half a teaspoon per 30g) sugar. People put way more sugar (in the form of honey/ maple syrup or just sugar) on a bowl of porridge.

    Nothing proven with artificial sweetners either. Food and diet has to be the worst thing for psuedo and unproven science taken as fact, with some people almost religious in their beliefs despite what science has and hasn't proven.

    Im talking about the highly sugary cereals. Still the 2nd ingredient in corn flakes is sugar!


  • Moderators, Music Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,740 Mod ✭✭✭✭Boom_Bap


    Nothing will stop me eating my Frosties. They're....


    7YYuD8n.png?1


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,291 ✭✭✭lbc2019


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    Not really. Cornflakes and Rice Crispies, for example, 3% (half a teaspoon per 30g) sugar. People put way more sugar (in the form of honey/ maple syrup or just sugar) on a bowl of porridge.

    Nothing proven with artificial sweetners either. Food and diet has to be the worst thing for psuedo and unproven science taken as fact, with some people almost religious in their beliefs despite what science has and hasn't proven.

    For calorie and sugar count- artificial sweeteners are better in that regard


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,746 ✭✭✭Flippyfloppy


    gozunda wrote: »
    The bizarre thing though was in the 1970s nearly everyone added sugar to the breakfast cereal, their tea, ate sweets and biscuits made with real sugar and were generally skinnier than people today!

    :confused:

    That’d be the overconsumption of meat :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,992 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Bet they weren't sat on their arses for 8 hours a day.

    Not all of us by any means. Shovelled couple tons of gravel recently and got some incredulous comments. Plenty people still have physical jobs. Imo I still don't eat the amount like the parents generation did. It's the type of foods we are eating us the biggest problem. Soya for example is stuffed into everything as a cheap filler especially in bread. It's other main use is to fatten cattle. Go figure


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    Macy0161 wrote: »
    Not really. Cornflakes and Rice Crispies, for example, 3% (half a teaspoon per 30g) sugar. People put way more sugar (in the form of honey/ maple syrup or just sugar) on a bowl of porridge.

    Nothing proven with artificial sweetners either. Food and diet has to be the worst thing for psuedo and unproven science taken as fact, with some people almost religious in their beliefs despite what science has and hasn't proven.


    Post of the day awarded!

    I used to trade at craft fairs alongside a seaweed seller. One day a stallholder gave me a waffle piled high with cream, strawberries, nutellas etc. Sch treats are rare in my life and I was just opening my eager watering mouth when this voice shouted, "FAT AND SUGAR! " as if I had robbed the Crown Jewels..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,266 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    gozunda wrote: »
    Not all of us by any means. Shovelled two tons of gravel recently and got some incredulous comments. Plenty people still have physical jobs. Imo I still don't eat the amount like the parents generation did.

    Good for you buddy...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Graces7 wrote: »
    Maybe depends on what your diet is like? I eat very little processed food which is maybe where dangers lie. grow what food I can. never takeaways etc.
    nearing 80 so a different view maybe?
    Then in reality any measures to improve the way we produce food, won't affect you.

    You're the exception rather than the rule. The majority of food produced and consumed globally is heavily processed and a full third of it goes in the bin without being consumed.
    gctest50 wrote: »
    Non- diabetic woman wore a continuous blood glucose monitor for a few days :
    There's something of begging the question in there though (as well as subjectivity) - it assumes that having a stable blood sugar is the ideal state. And that eating carbs causes reactive hypoglycaemia. When in reality the graphs show the human body doing what it is supposed to do. Insulin response evolved for a reason and if it ordinarily caused hypoglycaemia, then it would never have gotten past the genetic filter.

    The assertion that one will need fat or protein with those carbs in order to prevent snacking, is purely subjective and anecdotal. She felt like she needed to eat something, and believes that prevented her from becoming hypoglycaemic.

    It's more likely that the sudden break from her routine of a fat/protein breakfast, made her crave those foods after a couple of hours because that's what she's used to eating.

    We tend to assume that a stable graph is inherently a better state than one with spikes. But it's just data. All we can ascertain from the graphs is that her pancreas is functioning normally, just as it has evolved to do over the last 500 million years.


Advertisement
Advertisement