Weight, health & body image
Comments
-
Is it just as simple as some people like the taste of food more than others? I knew of some who has a stroke lost their sense of taste and consequently went from obesity to normality.
Now, you can counteract this with will power, but that is very difficult to do in sustained manner with the up/downs in life.0 -
Having worked in inner city Hull for 30 years as a community mental health nurse. I would agree with Rick that this is a very complex issue. However when your life is pretty sh!t and there doesn’t seem to be light at the end of the tunnel, curry sauce and chips is often the only highlight of your day.0
-
It's clearly a public health issue and should be addressed as such rather than 'everyone just needs to eat better' statements - I mean obviously: how we achieve that at a population level is the only interesting question.
It would be interesting to know what links there are to obesity and economic deprivation. I suspect that obesity and other poorer health outcomes are more prevalent amongst people on lower incomes for the reasons touched upon in this thread; less access to fresh food, greater reliance on cheaper processed foods, less time to cook meals etc.
If so, the public health aspect then morphs into a wider social and economic inequality problem which I suspect is the case, and also far harder to address.
I recall Jay Rayner in an interview recently addressing the term 'food poverty' He, rightly IMO, said there isn't a food poverty issue, there is a poverty issue.
0 -
Re "excusing" try making any comment about a specific person (to their face, or by reference on social media) who is overweight relating to them needing to "shed a little timber" etc. You'll be accused of "fat-shaming" before you can blink and then you'll be hit with loads of reasons why it's not just a matter of willpower (and by inference, folk are overweight due to factors beyond their control). The overall result of which is that practical solutions are never discussed, because why do you need a practical solution to something that isn't your fault?rjsterry said:
I don't know where you get the idea of "excusing" from. It's not like people aren't bombarded with advertising telling them that they have to be thin to be successful in life. A certain amount of push back against that is a good thing.wallace_and_gromit said:
I'm not really addressing the psychological aspects. Just the physical aspects. Whilst over-eating and obesity etc. is doubtless a complex social problem, the current trend of excusing obesity as it is more prevalent amongst the poor and poor people can only afford to eat cr*p food because of the evil Tories doesn't help, evil though the Tories may be. (If malnutrition was the main issue then this would be a valid argument.)rick_chasey said:I really disagree with the oversimplification of the problem.
It's a bit like only looking at how people press the accelerator to examine why people speed. "it's because they're pressing the go pedal too hard" and therefore people who don't are the one's who don't speed, so just "don't press the go pedal too hard".
Clearly there is more to it than that.
Going back to your example with the chips and nuggets, I get why that might be the only feasible option for the parent to eat (though as others have observed, there may be better alternatives available for relatively little additional effort) but if parent is gaining weight whilst eating 8 nuggets and 200g (circa 1/5 of a full 1kg bag) of chips each night, it's really not that hard to redesign the cooking process to produce a serving of 7 nuggets and 160g chips (circa 1/6 of a full bag).
It's clearly a public health issue and should be addressed as such rather than 'everyone just needs to eat better' statements - I mean obviously: how we achieve that at a population level is the only interesting question.1 -
As per the healthy meals aspect mentioned above thread. I trained as a chef at catering college prior to Uni. There is no doubt that cooking meals from scratch is a huge help in healthy eating, you have complete control of what goes into a dish and most would be surprised at the levels of fat, salt, sugar in a single portion ready meal, as opposed to a freshly prepared meal (which will have very little in most savoury dishes).
The major obstacles to this for many are the cost of fresh ingredients, time to cook, and the confidence/know how to devise a varied rotation of fresh meals each week (recipes are good but often too complex and require too many ingredients). If you have basic cookery skills and know how to combine things to make up a dish it is a massive help.
The trend for 20min meals is unrealistic IME. I am a competent cook with decent levels of knife and prep skills and even for me to make an averagely complex meal for 4 from scratch would be at least 90mins with prep and cooking time taken into account. For someone with more basic skills, you would add an hour on to that.0 -
20 minutes is a push but with no experience, just following a recipe, most of my daily meals are 25-45 minutes in total although they usually take a few minutes longer than the recipe claims. I guess it comes down to what you would class as averagely complex. My aim is to have meals that are tasty, reasonably healthy (some recipes are higher in fat / calories than others and I wouldn't have them every day) and quick to make. They're generally 10-12 ingredients plus seasoning I would guess.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:As per the healthy meals aspect mentioned above thread. I trained as a chef at catering college prior to Uni. There is no doubt that cooking meals from scratch is a huge help in healthy eating, you have complete control of what goes into a dish and most would be surprised at the levels of fat, salt, sugar in a single portion ready meal, as opposed to a freshly prepared meal (which will have very little in most savoury dishes).
The major obstacles to this for many are the cost of fresh ingredients, time to cook, and the confidence/know how to devise a varied rotation of fresh meals each week (recipes are good but often too complex and require too many ingredients). If you have basic cookery skills and know how to combine things to make up a dish it is a massive help.
The trend for 20min meals is unrealistic IME. I am a competent cook with decent levels of knife and prep skills and even for me to make an averagely complex meal for 4 from scratch would be at least 90mins with prep and cooking time taken into account. For someone with more basic skills, you would add an hour on to that.1 -
The levels of fat, salt and sugar are literally written on ready meals. They are not when someone cooks "from scratch".MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:As per the healthy meals aspect mentioned above thread. I trained as a chef at catering college prior to Uni. There is no doubt that cooking meals from scratch is a huge help in healthy eating, you have complete control of what goes into a dish and most would be surprised at the levels of fat, salt, sugar in a single portion ready meal, as opposed to a freshly prepared meal (which will have very little in most savoury dishes).
The major obstacles to this for many are the cost of fresh ingredients, time to cook, and the confidence/know how to devise a varied rotation of fresh meals each week (recipes are good but often too complex and require too many ingredients). If you have basic cookery skills and know how to combine things to make up a dish it is a massive help.
The trend for 20min meals is unrealistic IME. I am a competent cook with decent levels of knife and prep skills and even for me to make an averagely complex meal for 4 from scratch would be at least 90mins with prep and cooking time taken into account. For someone with more basic skills, you would add an hour on to that.
The terms "from scratch" and processed are amongst the most annoying used on this subject. Did you mill the flour? Did you milk the cow and pasteurise it? Did you use ready made pasta? etc.0 -
I'm the Head Chef at Chateau W&G and enjoy it for therapeutic reasons. I wouldn't say I have any great skill but have learnt a few tricks over three decades whilst in post. A key thing I've learnt is that the complexity of the recipe and the process is often unrelated to how enjoyable the end result is. Some things take forever to cook having taken forever to source ingredients and are nothing special, whereas others can be thrown together out of stuff you normally have in the house relatively quickly and soon become firm favourites.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:As per the healthy meals aspect mentioned above thread. I trained as a chef at catering college prior to Uni. There is no doubt that cooking meals from scratch is a huge help in healthy eating, you have complete control of what goes into a dish and most would be surprised at the levels of fat, salt, sugar in a single portion ready meal, as opposed to a freshly prepared meal (which will have very little in most savoury dishes).
The major obstacles to this for many are the cost of fresh ingredients, time to cook, and the confidence/know how to devise a varied rotation of fresh meals each week (recipes are good but often too complex and require too many ingredients). If you have basic cookery skills and know how to combine things to make up a dish it is a massive help.
The trend for 20min meals is unrealistic IME. I am a competent cook with decent levels of knife and prep skills and even for me to make an averagely complex meal for 4 from scratch would be at least 90mins with prep and cooking time taken into account. For someone with more basic skills, you would add an hour on to that.
I have a range of "go to" meals that can all be cooked from scratch including unloading the dishwasher from lunch, clearing the table from where everyone has dumped their bags since lunch, setting the table and cleaning up the kitchen as much as possible, in around an hour. Planning is essential e.g. pre-heating the oven, making sure the essential pan is clean ahead of time rather than it being in the sink needing to be washed etc.
I've used various cookbooks, some better than others. Much as I think he's a pretentious **** with strange ideas about naming his children, Jamie Oliver's books are generally the most practical. Gary Rhodes' books were good though often very complicated. Delia's often gave the impression of having been written whilst on drugs, with no testing of a published method, but with some absolute gems if you experimented enough.
Like with anything, practice is essential, as is the willingness to accept a few disasters along the way. It is 25 years ago since I inadvertently decorated the kitchen with black bean soup discovering the hard way that a saucer help over the top of the blender was no substitute for the correct lid, which had been broken. Our friends still remind me of this every time they see me. You'd think they be bored of the story now, but apparently not.
The biggest problem I've faced is that as a household, we do industrial quantities of exercise, so everything has to be based round rice or pasta (a ten mile run off potatoes the evening before is not to be recommended) with regular post-9pm meal times after the kids' swimming sessions a close second.
1 -
The levels of fat, salt and sugar are literally written on ready meals. They are not when someone cooks "from scratch".
That wasn't the point I was making. The point was that you have no control over what is in a ready meal and they are likely to be far higher in salt/fat/sugar as a result. The only choice you have is whether you eat it or not.
I think most people understand that cooking a meal 'from scratch' has an implication that you are using ingredients. Those ingredients are chosen by you and the amount you use is controlled by you. I think most people will understand that a tomato, milk, pasta etc has a certain nutritional value and those combined into a dish will give you an overall nutritional value.
If you make a homemade tomato sauce, make some meatballs with ground beef and combine it with pasta you are able to do so with less fat, salt etc. than a ready meal of meatballs and pasta in tomato sauce. There are also no additives or preservatives in a homemade version.
Essentially most ready meals can be replicated by a decent home cook using fresh produce in a healthier version, and more cheaply in most cases.5 -
I presume no one read the article I posted upthread about fat and the dodgy science that 40 years of bad advice was based on?0
-
I'd read it some time ago. In summary, fat was concluded as being so evil that it had to be eradicated from food where possible, with the unfortunate side effect that sugar, in increasingly refined and otherwise sub-optimal formats was used instead, with the end result that food contained no fewer calories in "low fat" form but is far worse for you in sugar-related ways.TheBigBean said:I presume no one read the article I posted upthread about fat and the dodgy science that 40 years of bad advice was based on?
0 -
It's more time expensive however. The time spend decided what to buy, buying it, then cooking it and then washing it all up.MidlandsGrimpeur2 said:<
Essentially most ready meals can be replicated by a decent home cook using fresh produce in a healthier version, and more cheaply in most cases.
Me and my family eat home cooked meals every day but let's not pretend it is more convenient. Quite the opposite. It is a faff and certainly if my wife also worked full time it would not really be practical, given the hours we would both work.0 -
Yes, and the original research deliberated excluded France which had a high fat diet, but low incidence of heart disease which was at odds with the desired result. Then everyone in the industry forced out anyone who questioned it.wallace_and_gromit said:
I'd read it some time ago. In summary, fat was concluded as being so evil that it had to be eradicated from food where possible, with the unfortunate side effect that sugar, in increasingly refined and otherwise sub-optimal formats was used instead, with the end result that food contained no fewer calories in "low fat" form but is far worse for you in sugar-related ways.TheBigBean said:I presume no one read the article I posted upthread about fat and the dodgy science that 40 years of bad advice was based on?
I mentioned it, because there is yet another post about how healthy cooking involves reducing the fat.0 -
I thought that fat was off the naughty step now and that carbs were the new devil incarnate?TheBigBean said:I presume no one read the article I posted upthread about fat and the dodgy science that 40 years of bad advice was based on?
The food industry however still seems to be peddling low fat nonsense0 -
That's correct.Munsford0 said:
I thought that fat was off the naughty step now and that carbs were the new devil incarnate?TheBigBean said:I presume no one read the article I posted upthread about fat and the dodgy science that 40 years of bad advice was based on?
The food industry however still seems to be peddling low fat nonsense0 -
I think it depends on the type of fat. Naturally occurring stuff is broadly "OK", though being calorie dense, you can soon rack up a lot of calories in a cheese sandwich. It's the processed stuff which is bad, I think.Munsford0 said:
I thought that fat was off the naughty step now and that carbs were the new devil incarnate?TheBigBean said:I presume no one read the article I posted upthread about fat and the dodgy science that 40 years of bad advice was based on?
I use 5% fat mince rather than 12% fat mince and add cheese to my meatballs to keep things in balance.
Simple carbs like sugar are generally bad unless there's a strong case to the contrary. Sugars in fruit are probably OK as they occur naturally and we have evolved to eat them. Smoothies may be bad as they change the way these natural sugars are metabolised. Refined sugar is is definitely just bad.
Complex carbs are more problematic I think. If you do a lot of exercise they are OK as they come in, get converted to glycogen and stored in the liver and muscles until your run / ride the next day during which they are metabolised away. If you don't exercise much then I think there is a problem around blood sugar spikes.
0 -
How about moderation: must there always be a war?Munsford0 said:
I thought that fat was off the naughty step now and that carbs were the new devil incarnate?
The food industry however still seems to be peddling low fat nonsense
================================
Cake is just weakness entering the body0 -
Isn't the issue with commercially produced "low fat food" the sugar added instead rather than the low fat aspect per se? We do need fat in our diets, but I don't think even a diet rich in "low fat food" out of a factory is likely to undershoot our requirements.Munsford0 said:
I thought that fat was off the naughty step now and that carbs were the new devil incarnate?TheBigBean said:I presume no one read the article I posted upthread about fat and the dodgy science that 40 years of bad advice was based on?
The food industry however still seems to be peddling low fat nonsense0 -
Ummmmm...Historically yes.wakemalcolm said:
How about moderation: must there always be a war?Munsford0 said:
I thought that fat was off the naughty step now and that carbs were the new devil incarnate?
The food industry however still seems to be peddling low fat nonsense1 -
AI matter forms will just be pure efficency, unless they like the wobbly look.0
-
Most I’ve read mention reducing fat and sugar. I thought it had been common knowledge for years that there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ sources of fat (and sugar for that matter) with trans fats being the worst, saturated being not great and unsaturated having potential health benefits. In one of my first chemistry lessons nearly 40 years ago we covered the difference between saturated and unsaturated fats and why the one was less healthy.TheBigBean said:
Yes, and the original research deliberated excluded France which had a high fat diet, but low incidence of heart disease which was at odds with the desired result. Then everyone in the industry forced out anyone who questioned it.wallace_and_gromit said:
I'd read it some time ago. In summary, fat was concluded as being so evil that it had to be eradicated from food where possible, with the unfortunate side effect that sugar, in increasingly refined and otherwise sub-optimal formats was used instead, with the end result that food contained no fewer calories in "low fat" form but is far worse for you in sugar-related ways.TheBigBean said:I presume no one read the article I posted upthread about fat and the dodgy science that 40 years of bad advice was based on?
I mentioned it, because there is yet another post about how healthy cooking involves reducing the fat.
Likewise, fruit and to a lesser extent veg are sources of sugar but are still very much part of a healthy diet (my pet hate is people saying they’ve cut sugar out of their diet).
However, when discussing obesity the overall calories come into play and fat has over double the amount of calories per gram than either carbohydrates or protein.
If I’m really making an effort to eat healthily I try to balance my diet so that the calories come from 20-30% fat, 30% protein and 40-50% carbs. If exercising a lot I’ll usually be at the higher carb level.
That is all based on reading up on things though and I agree basic messaging isn’t great. I assume it is due to feeling the need to dumb down like the 5 a day thing.0 -
I read your linked article years ago but just re-read it for old times sake. Sobering stuff. Depressing to see how slowly the supertanker of perceived dietary wisdom turns. So much outdated / plain wrong advice still out there.TheBigBean said:
That's correct.Munsford0 said:
I thought that fat was off the naughty step now and that carbs were the new devil incarnate?TheBigBean said:I presume no one read the article I posted upthread about fat and the dodgy science that 40 years of bad advice was based on?
The food industry however still seems to be peddling low fat nonsense0 -
The point is that there is nothing wrong with saturated fats and that you have been misled for years. Fat is more calorie dense, but is also more satiating which is important in terms of overeating.Pross said:
Most I’ve read mention reducing fat and sugar. I thought it had been common knowledge for years that there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ sources of fat (and sugar for that matter) with trans fats being the worst, saturated being not great and unsaturated having potential health benefits. In one of my first chemistry lessons nearly 40 years ago we covered the difference between saturated and unsaturated fats and why the one was less healthy.TheBigBean said:
Yes, and the original research deliberated excluded France which had a high fat diet, but low incidence of heart disease which was at odds with the desired result. Then everyone in the industry forced out anyone who questioned it.wallace_and_gromit said:
I'd read it some time ago. In summary, fat was concluded as being so evil that it had to be eradicated from food where possible, with the unfortunate side effect that sugar, in increasingly refined and otherwise sub-optimal formats was used instead, with the end result that food contained no fewer calories in "low fat" form but is far worse for you in sugar-related ways.TheBigBean said:I presume no one read the article I posted upthread about fat and the dodgy science that 40 years of bad advice was based on?
I mentioned it, because there is yet another post about how healthy cooking involves reducing the fat.
Likewise, fruit and to a lesser extent veg are sources of sugar but are still very much part of a healthy diet (my pet hate is people saying they’ve cut sugar out of their diet).
However, when discussing obesity the overall calories come into play and fat has over double the amount of calories per gram than either carbohydrates or protein.
If I’m really making an effort to eat healthily I try to balance my diet so that the calories come from 20-30% fat, 30% protein and 40-50% carbs. If exercising a lot I’ll usually be at the higher carb level.
That is all based on reading up on things though and I agree basic messaging isn’t great. I assume it is due to feeling the need to dumb down like the 5 a day thing.1 -
Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars or 200g of milk chocolate
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk
Which is easiest?0 -
I would say it isn't as conclusive as that and, once again, simplistic messaging on food probably isn't helpful https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796TheBigBean said:
The point is that there is nothing wrong with saturated fats and that you have been misled for years. Fat is more calorie dense, but is also more satiating which is important in terms of overeating.Pross said:
Most I’ve read mention reducing fat and sugar. I thought it had been common knowledge for years that there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ sources of fat (and sugar for that matter) with trans fats being the worst, saturated being not great and unsaturated having potential health benefits. In one of my first chemistry lessons nearly 40 years ago we covered the difference between saturated and unsaturated fats and why the one was less healthy.TheBigBean said:
Yes, and the original research deliberated excluded France which had a high fat diet, but low incidence of heart disease which was at odds with the desired result. Then everyone in the industry forced out anyone who questioned it.wallace_and_gromit said:
I'd read it some time ago. In summary, fat was concluded as being so evil that it had to be eradicated from food where possible, with the unfortunate side effect that sugar, in increasingly refined and otherwise sub-optimal formats was used instead, with the end result that food contained no fewer calories in "low fat" form but is far worse for you in sugar-related ways.TheBigBean said:I presume no one read the article I posted upthread about fat and the dodgy science that 40 years of bad advice was based on?
I mentioned it, because there is yet another post about how healthy cooking involves reducing the fat.
Likewise, fruit and to a lesser extent veg are sources of sugar but are still very much part of a healthy diet (my pet hate is people saying they’ve cut sugar out of their diet).
However, when discussing obesity the overall calories come into play and fat has over double the amount of calories per gram than either carbohydrates or protein.
If I’m really making an effort to eat healthily I try to balance my diet so that the calories come from 20-30% fat, 30% protein and 40-50% carbs. If exercising a lot I’ll usually be at the higher carb level.
That is all based on reading up on things though and I agree basic messaging isn’t great. I assume it is due to feeling the need to dumb down like the 5 a day thing.0 -
None of the above as I don't have any of them. 😉TheBigBean said:Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk
Which is easiest?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The article I posted is very long, but it is a worthwhile read. Going back on 40 years of advice is not going to happen without a fight.Pross said:
I would say it isn't as conclusive as that and, once again, simplistic messaging on food probably isn't helpful https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796TheBigBean said:
The point is that there is nothing wrong with saturated fats and that you have been misled for years. Fat is more calorie dense, but is also more satiating which is important in terms of overeating.Pross said:
Most I’ve read mention reducing fat and sugar. I thought it had been common knowledge for years that there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ sources of fat (and sugar for that matter) with trans fats being the worst, saturated being not great and unsaturated having potential health benefits. In one of my first chemistry lessons nearly 40 years ago we covered the difference between saturated and unsaturated fats and why the one was less healthy.TheBigBean said:
Yes, and the original research deliberated excluded France which had a high fat diet, but low incidence of heart disease which was at odds with the desired result. Then everyone in the industry forced out anyone who questioned it.wallace_and_gromit said:
I'd read it some time ago. In summary, fat was concluded as being so evil that it had to be eradicated from food where possible, with the unfortunate side effect that sugar, in increasingly refined and otherwise sub-optimal formats was used instead, with the end result that food contained no fewer calories in "low fat" form but is far worse for you in sugar-related ways.TheBigBean said:I presume no one read the article I posted upthread about fat and the dodgy science that 40 years of bad advice was based on?
I mentioned it, because there is yet another post about how healthy cooking involves reducing the fat.
Likewise, fruit and to a lesser extent veg are sources of sugar but are still very much part of a healthy diet (my pet hate is people saying they’ve cut sugar out of their diet).
However, when discussing obesity the overall calories come into play and fat has over double the amount of calories per gram than either carbohydrates or protein.
If I’m really making an effort to eat healthily I try to balance my diet so that the calories come from 20-30% fat, 30% protein and 40-50% carbs. If exercising a lot I’ll usually be at the higher carb level.
That is all based on reading up on things though and I agree basic messaging isn’t great. I assume it is due to feeling the need to dumb down like the 5 a day thing.
0 -
It's harder to put pasta, rice etc. in context, but the point stands for those as well. It's much easier to eat a bucket load of calories by eating carbs than it is by eating fat.pblakeney said:
None of the above as I don't have any of them. 😉TheBigBean said:Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk
Which is easiest?
0 -
1000 calories of rice is 740g. 1048g of pasta?TheBigBean said:
It's harder to put pasta, rice etc. in context, but the point stands for those as well. It's much easier to eat a bucket load of calories by eating carbs than it is by eating fat.pblakeney said:
None of the above as I don't have any of them. 😉TheBigBean said:Ways to eat 1,000 calories:
- eat a tube of pringles
- eat four Mars bars
- eat 15 eggs
- drink 1.5l of full fat milk
Which is easiest?
4 Mars bars would be easier.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I know, I've looked at it but that study is also very comprehensive and with no obvious affiliation that might create bias as far as I can see. It's a problem in the world of health and nutrition, there always seems to be a study that say 'x' is bad for you followed by another saying 'actually 'x' is good for you' (alcohol, caffeine etc.). That report is basically saying it's not conclusive but on balance saturated fats may lead to an increased risk of heart disease and that further studies are needed.TheBigBean said:
The article I posted is very long, but it is a worthwhile read. Going back on 40 years of advice is not going to happen without a fight.Pross said:
I would say it isn't as conclusive as that and, once again, simplistic messaging on food probably isn't helpful https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796TheBigBean said:
The point is that there is nothing wrong with saturated fats and that you have been misled for years. Fat is more calorie dense, but is also more satiating which is important in terms of overeating.Pross said:
Most I’ve read mention reducing fat and sugar. I thought it had been common knowledge for years that there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ sources of fat (and sugar for that matter) with trans fats being the worst, saturated being not great and unsaturated having potential health benefits. In one of my first chemistry lessons nearly 40 years ago we covered the difference between saturated and unsaturated fats and why the one was less healthy.TheBigBean said:
Yes, and the original research deliberated excluded France which had a high fat diet, but low incidence of heart disease which was at odds with the desired result. Then everyone in the industry forced out anyone who questioned it.wallace_and_gromit said:
I'd read it some time ago. In summary, fat was concluded as being so evil that it had to be eradicated from food where possible, with the unfortunate side effect that sugar, in increasingly refined and otherwise sub-optimal formats was used instead, with the end result that food contained no fewer calories in "low fat" form but is far worse for you in sugar-related ways.TheBigBean said:I presume no one read the article I posted upthread about fat and the dodgy science that 40 years of bad advice was based on?
I mentioned it, because there is yet another post about how healthy cooking involves reducing the fat.
Likewise, fruit and to a lesser extent veg are sources of sugar but are still very much part of a healthy diet (my pet hate is people saying they’ve cut sugar out of their diet).
However, when discussing obesity the overall calories come into play and fat has over double the amount of calories per gram than either carbohydrates or protein.
If I’m really making an effort to eat healthily I try to balance my diet so that the calories come from 20-30% fat, 30% protein and 40-50% carbs. If exercising a lot I’ll usually be at the higher carb level.
That is all based on reading up on things though and I agree basic messaging isn’t great. I assume it is due to feeling the need to dumb down like the 5 a day thing.
0
