nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Myths about Nutrition

FTA69

I was just browsing the NHS website and had a nose at their advice on nutrition and it got me thinking, how could a reputable health service advocate such complete and utter bullsh*t? For instance have a look at their advice about takeaways:

Fish and chips

There are lots of ways of making your trip to the chippy a healthier one. Have a portion of baked beans or mushy peas and bread with your fish and chips. Watch out for other foods that are high in fat, such as pies and sausages.

Why would adding bread and sugary beans to an already stodgy and calorific meal be helpful?

Thai curries, such as the popular green and red curries, contain coconut milk, which is high in saturated fat. If you choose a curry, try not to eat all the sauce. Have some steamed rice with your meal instead of egg fried rice.

Fair enough if you're counting calories, but personally I thought that coconut fat would be infinitely healthier than some of the trans-fat rubbish we find in food today?

Most of us should eat more starchy foods: try to include at least one starchy food with each main meal.

Really? Most people I know eat mounds of rice, bread and pasta and it doesn't do them many favours.

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/eight-tips-healthy-eating.aspx

Basically I'm curious as to whether there are vested interests in pushing this sort of thing nationally, and if so who are they?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Capt'n Midnight

Spunge wrote: »

In fariness those diets like paleo and atkins do require a lot of mental effort, and thats probably why people give up on them and then go back and binge.
People just need to count calories, read the macronutrient content of everthing they eat, and eat a proper balanced diet and dear god dont fall for any marketing on foods.

Love the concept of a paleo diet.

for a start a real paleo diet would require burning a lot of calories just collecting the food. It would also include regular starvation so straight away you should also be on a 5:2 diet. It would also include regular gluttony when there were windfalls. And a lot of exercise. In the paleolithic era they didn't carry many passengers.

myfriendtom

Liger vs Tigon wrote: »

No its not just about calories in versus calories out. Some calories aren't bioavailable. There is a huge amount of calories in petrol but you won't get fat drinking it.

You're right. You'd die before you ever got fat.

hatrickpatrick

myfriendtom wrote: »

Also the whole "eat 6 small meals a day to fire up your metabolism and lose weight". At the end of the day, it does just come down to calories in vs calories out.

To be fair this one works, and helped me lose about 90 lb in one summer.
Maybe the stuff about metabolism is pseudo science, but the crucial thing is that if you eat regularly in small portions you get far less hungry throughout the day and are therefore less likely to actually want a second helping each time. In other words, if you're restricting to 1500 calories (so 500 per meal with a traditional 3x a day setup) it's far easier to manage 5 meals of 300 than 3 of 500 cals without getting hunger pangs in between.

The idea that eating something, even just something tiny, will "trick" your body into thinking you're not hungry does seem to genuinely work.

Think about it for a second - when you get massively hungry (when your stomach is literally rumbling) you're very likely to binge eat and just wolf down massive portions within minutes without actually stopping to see whether you're full. Eating small portions regularly avoids this completely, you simply never get that urge to pig out.

Frank Lee Midere

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Love the concept of a paleo diet.

for a start a real paleo diet would require burning a lot of calories just collecting the food. It would also include regular starvation so straight away you should also be on a 5:2 diet. It would also include regular gluttony when there were windfalls. And a lot of exercise. In the paleolithic era they didn't carry many passengers.

I don't do paleo but do reduce carbs. It works because I don't eat bread, drink beer, eat cereals or rice or spuds etc. exercise is cycling to work - 30k. Easily keep it off and I might join a gym to harden up. Even if you don't believe the insulin resistance and diabetic cost of sugars - and you'd be mad not to - that's clearly reducing calories relative to normal carb eating. It's not Atkins - Atkins is ridiculous on fruit but in general it's got the idea: carbs are just sugar, broken down into glucose in our body. Bread is cake.

Capt'n Midnight

According to Horizon most of us will naturally eat enough as our bodies regulate input.

except for sugar + fat , especially in 50:50 mixes

you couldn't eat much sugar on it's own
you couldn't eat much cream on it's own

mix them together to get ice cream and it's a lot more tempting.

myfriendtom

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

...
The idea that eating something, even just something tiny, will "trick" your body into thinking you're not hungry does seem to genuinely work.

Think about it for a second - when you get massively hungry (when your stomach is literally rumbling) you're very likely to binge eat and just wolf down massive portions within minutes without actually stopping to see whether you're full. Eating small portions regularly avoids this completely, you simply never get that urge to pig out.

That's fair enough, and fair play on the weight loss, big achievement!
I'm just saying that IMO the scientific thinking behind it is a myth.
I've seen intermittent fasting working out really well for some people, and that can involve eating 3 big meals in an 8 hour ago and fasting for the next 16 hours.

It does come down to whatever works for you; once you're maintaining a calorie deficit you will lose weight.

hedgehog2

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I'm fed up with (pun intended) people telling me that I can't eat bread spuds pasta rice legumes etc etc. Things which people have been eating for thousands of years. If all these things are supposed to be poisoning us how come life expectancy in Ireland is 10 years more now than it was in 1960?

Every one of the fad diets like Atkins depend on reducing carbs to a ridiculous degree.

Let me give you an example in the early 1900's the avg western diet had less than 15lbs of sugar in it.Today we consume up to 600lbs of sugar in our diet,the food industry just has to label a product as food but its usually laced with additives and chemicals which did not exist thousands of yrs ago.
Our bread is different our corn and our wheat from thousands of yrs ago and not to the benefit of our health.
So we cannot compare diet with even the 1960's and now as they were not exposed to the volume of crap on ourshelves.
Also the reason we are living longer is medical advancement but often times its living for the sake of living without quality and most often than not diet is what caused this very said illness.

Peter Tork

FTA69 wrote: »

I thought that coconut fat would be infinitely healthier than some of the trans-fat rubbish we find in food today?

Sure is. Especially if consumed raw and cold pressed.

Great moisturiser too.

hatrickpatrick

myfriendtom wrote: »

That's fair enough, and fair play on the weight loss, big achievement!
I'm just saying that IMO the scientific thinking behind it is a myth.
I've seen intermittent fasting working out really well for some people, and that can involve eating 3 big meals in an 8 hour ago and fasting for the next 16 hours.

It does come down to whatever works for you; once you're maintaining a calorie deficit you will lose weight.

Oh I agree, I'm simply saying that the spreading meals out method will work just as well with the same number of calories, but will be a lot less unpleasant than the 16 hour fast. Maybe some people don't find that so horrific though

Cantstandsya

I am not in peak physical condition (although I am not overweight by any measure) so maybe typing this makes me a hypocrite but I have read various books on this issue (China Study for the anti-fat brigade to Robert Lustig and Atkins for the anti-carbers)... I think the cause of obesity etc is definitely sugar and in particular sugar drinks and alcohol (just a different type of sugar drink).

I do think the most insidious myth though is the one propagated by the sellers of garbage food. It's not specifically about nutrition but it is related. The idea that exercise alone can help one lose weight. This is high order bull****. Exercise is vital to a healthy life and is necessary to maintain a healthy weight but anyone thinking they can eat whatever crap they want and exercise the effects away is living on planet idiot... When it comes to weight loss I would put the ratio of importance of diet to exercise at about 9:1

Anyone

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

According to Horizon most of us will naturally eat enough as our bodies regulate input.

except for sugar + fat , especially in 50:50 mixes

you couldn't eat much sugar on it's own
you couldn't eat much cream on it's own

mix them together to get ice cream and it's a lot more tempting.

I only saw the last 15 mins or so of that programme, was interesting though, the whole 50/50 mix and how the rats brains had no off switch.

dxhound2005

hedgehog2 wrote: »

Let me give you an example in the early 1900's the avg western diet had less than 15lbs of sugar in it.Today we consume up to 600lbs of sugar in our diet,the food industry just has to label a product as food but its usually laced with additives and chemicals which did not exist thousands of yrs ago.
Our bread is different our corn and our wheat from thousands of yrs ago and not to the benefit of our health.
So we cannot compare diet with even the 1960's and now as they were not exposed to the volume of crap on ourshelves.
Also the reason we are living longer is medical advancement but often times its living for the sake of living without quality and most often than not diet is what caused this very said illness.

Sweeping statements. Our corn and wheat is different. Medical advancement (not any other factor?) is the reason for increased life expectancy. Diseases of old age are most often caused by diet. We could fill many pages here discussing those. Just you saying things doesn't make them correct.

Additives and chemicals can only be included in foodstuffs in modern countries under scientific guidance. One of the reasons science gives for longer life expectancy is safer food in modern times.

magma69

Spinach turns you into a cartoon character from the 60's. Snopes debunked it recently.

laugh

Anyone wrote: »

I only saw the last 15 mins or so of that programme, was interesting though, the whole 50/50 mix and how the rats brains had no off switch.

Those rats love them some cheesecake!

Peter Tork

Cantstandsya wrote: »

I think the cause of obesity etc is definitely sugar and in particular sugar drinks and alcohol (just a different type of sugar drink).

Doesn't help for sure but, imo, the real cause of obesity is down to man's addiction to consuming foods that contain fat and carbs at the same time. It's these foods which are the crack cocaine of the food world. Nobody would sit down and eat a bag of sugar on it's own and nor would someone sit down and eat a pound of butter.

It's foods that combine both fat and carbs (like Chips, Pizza, Burgers, Biscuits, Breakfast Rolls, Sausage in Batter, Bacon Sambos, Chocolate, Donuts etc etc) which are predominantly responsible for people gaining weight. The body doesn't deal too great with high blood sugar when fat is also consumed and the opiate effect really is close to a hit of craic. MRI scans have shown that nothing lights up the pleasure centres of the brain as much as that particular dietary cocktail.

A little of the above in moderation is cool of course, life's too short not too, and the avoidance of refined grains, sugars and poor fats is also pretty good practice, but in general, it's the foods which contain this deadly combination of high fat and high sugar which is not only responsible for obesity, but also for a whole host of disease states too in my opinion.

Wibbs

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Love the concept of a paleo diet.

for a start a real paleo diet would require burning a lot of calories just collecting the food. It would also include regular starvation so straight away you should also be on a 5:2 diet. It would also include regular gluttony when there were windfalls. And a lot of exercise. In the paleolithic era they didn't carry many passengers.

Plus most of the foods involved in the paleo diet simply didn't exist before farming came along. No paleolithic human ate salad, or broccoli or pretty much any above ground veg you can find in Tesco. The bulk of veggies tended to be root veggies. Many of them high in starches even in the wild form. Their meat was as free range as you can get and they ate more of the animal and ate more types of animals depending on season. If near coastal regions the sea was their supermarket. They also ate grains, even before farming. Neandertals, supposed poster boys for atkins, collected and cooked wild grains to make biscuits of some kind(or a porridge) 80,000 years ago. Sugar consumption was low though. Very. Seasonal honey was about it. Fat consumption tended to be high. However an average paleolithic hunter gatherer's lifestyle would make a crossfit session look easy. They had bone densities like top end athletes and big muscle attachments, so that fat would have been burned off, rather than settle in the blood and make it's way to a beer belly. If they had had modern medicine to stave off some infections and injuries, they would have lived much healthier lives than the average person today. Never mind that their stress levels went up and down. No constant stress like many of us have. They were more about the moment and when that moment passed so did the stress reaction to it.

Cantstandsya

Peter Tork wrote: »

Doesn't help for sure but, imo, the cause of obesity is down to man's addiction to consuming foods that contain fat and carbs at the same time. These foods are the crack cocaine of the food world. Nobody would sit down and eat a bag of sugar on it's own and nor would someone sit down and eat a pound of butter.

It's foods that combine both fat and carbs, like Chips, Pizza, Burgers, Biscuits, Breakfast Rolls, Sausage in Batter, Bacon Sambos, Chocolate, Donuts etc etc. The body doesn't deal too great with high blood sugar when fat is also consumed either and so the opiate effect really is close a hit of craic.

Little of the above in moderation is cool, and avoiding refined grains, sugars and poor fats also, but in general, it's the foods which contain this deadly combination of high fat and high sugar which is only responsible of obesity, but a whole host of disease states also.

I have to disagree with you... While it's purely subjective I can only say that I eat a more than ample amount of fat on a daily basis but no sugar whatsoever. I am well within the range of normal weight and happily fit into the same jeans I wore when I was 18 (purchased too many years ago to want to mention).

While I may well agree that it is the combo that is particularly harmful for whatever metabolic Pandora's Box it opens I think eating fat alone will leave you in no bad condition but as soon as you add sugar, even without fat, you are screwed.

Cantstandsya

Also, to add, I am no Puritan. I eat my supply of sugar but I am sure to regulate it and I try to save it for Sunday down the pub and take my sugar in pint or short form.

myfriendtom

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Oh I agree, I'm simply saying that the spreading meals out method will work just as well with the same number of calories, but will be a lot less unpleasant than the 16 hour fast. Maybe some people don't find that so horrific though

That's it in a nutshell! Different strokes for different folks; if it works for you, go for it!

safetyboy

I'm mining foodcoin at the moment! looking for investors as my belly is loaded at the moment!

Cantstandsya

myfriendtom wrote: »

That's it in a nutshell! Different strokes for different folks; if it works for you, go for it!

I find a giant breakfast and a small dinner (no snacks) works best for me.

The notion that many small meals keep the metabolic fire burning is bunk. Simply eat enough calories (of the right sort) and you'll be fine.

Dravokivich

Fat consumption, doesnt add fat to your body. The fat in your body is caused by an excess of calories that were unused.

hedgehog2

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Sweeping statements. Our corn and wheat is different. Medical advancement (not any other factor?) is the reason for increased life expectancy. Diseases of old age are most often caused by diet. We could fill many pages here discussing those. Just you saying things doesn't make them correct.

Additives and chemicals can only be included in foodstuffs in modern countries under scientific guidance. One of the reasons science gives for longer life expectancy is safer food in modern times.

You keep on believing what they tell ya then lol

Spunge

safetyboy wrote: »

I'm mining foodcoin at the moment! looking for investors as my belly is loaded at the moment!

press F5 on the altcoin forum all day, i thought i was back there for a sec

dxhound2005

hedgehog2 wrote: »

You keep on believing what they tell ya then lol

Just had nice ham and cheese sandwich. Still alive.

Arthur Beesley

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Beans and bread got me through college and I'm healthy as a trout.

Hopefully not a brown trout...

Peter Tork

Cantstandsya wrote: »

.. as soon as you add sugar, even without fat, you are screwed.

Yes, I agree, if you consume sugar you are, but not Carbs, which is what I was talking about.

As I said, I am against eating grains (particular refined grains) and sugar and the only carbs that really remain are fruits and potatoes, and not sure why you would think you would be 'screwed' if you consumed either of those (assuming you didn't deep fry the potatoes or drown them in butter).

[Deleted User]

Cantstandsya wrote: »

I can only say that I eat a more than ample amount of fat on a daily basis but no sugar whatsoever.

Do you not eat fruit and veg?

Spunge

Peter Tork wrote: »

Yes, but not carbs, which is what I was talking about.

As I said, I am against eating grains (particular refined grains) and sugar and the only carbs that really remain are fruits and potatoes, and not sure why you would think you would be 'screwed' if you consumed either of those (assuming you didn't deep fry the potatoes or drown them in butter).

but fruit is sugar :eek:

Cantstandsya

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you not eat fruit and veg?

The pedant police have been unleashed. I have no doubt whatsoever that you understand precisely what I meant when I said I eat no sugar.