Weight, health & body image

145791016

Comments

  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 3,004
    edited April 2023
    The big difference between the artisan (or whatever) pizza and Dominos is sure that when you put the dominos pizza in the box, the grease turns the bottom of the box transparent, whereas generally you don't find this (to the same extent) with higher quality pizzas.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,928
    yellowv2 said:

    rjsterry said:

    yellowv2 said:

    rjsterry said:

    yellowv2 said:

    yellowv2 said:

    The thing is Calories are not all the same.
    Calories obtained from natural food source will have a different effect than those obtained from artificial trans fats, which is why full fat yoghurt for example is more healthy than low or zero fat yoghurt. Similarly fast food calories are unhealthy compared to whole food calories.
    Trans fats will accumulate up to three times more visceral fat and have a different insulin response, which will have a different energy response and metabolise differently, the glucose is not disposed of as quickly.
    Which is why it's not as simple as calories in vs out.

    But for a given person, if they eat more / less of the "same" type of food as normal then with maintained exercise levels, they will lose / gain weight.

    The "athlete diet" is very different to the average diet. (More complex carbs, less fat and less processed in general.) My offspring are both at Uni and are a triathlete and a swimmer. They regularly dine with their non-athlete friends and then have to eat a "proper" meal afterwards to fuel up for training the next day.

    There's a saying amongst age group swimmers that they all have to learn the hard way that pizza is not a good pre-race meal!
    However if they eat a poor diet lots of fast food and high in trans fats then they will still be predisposed to type 2 diabetes and visceral fat. It would also depend on the pizza, a pizza made from artisan baked soughdough topped with quality meats/veggies is an entirely different proposition to one from Domino’s et al.
    You know the word artisan has absolutely no nutritional meaning, right?
    It has no nutritional meaning. I have used it to illustrate the difference between standard baked breads and artisan baked. An artisan soughdough should contain no yeast, or any other additives that most supermarket bread has and is therefore nutritionally different.
    Sorry, pet peeve of mine. Artisan is just marketing, the same as Farmhouse and Rustic. Bread is bread. There's a difference between white and wholemeal flours in terms of the amount of fibre. If you make your own you can control the amount of salt you add (our local bakery adds LOADS). The odd bits and bobs to make white sliced last longer are not going to make a noticeable difference to how many calories the bread contains. And yes, sourdough does have yeast in it. Otherwise it wouldn't rise. It might be naturally occurring yeast, but it's essentially the same thing as the stuff you get in a sachet. A microorganism that feeds off the sugars in the flour and produces a gas which makes the dough rise. Some people find sourdough easier to digest but it's not going to fundamentally change the calorie content.
    Ok so naturally occurring is the difference.
    The reason soughdough is easier to digest is because the natural fermentation process is lengthy ( which why quality soughdough is expensive), allows the gluten to break down and is digested more easily. Whilst the extra additives might not necessarily affect the calories (they may) but as I said at the beginning calories are not equal, ie the additives effect this, sugars etc. which are similar to the additives in the low fat products which I mentioned earlier are metabolised differently. They are not converted to glucose in the same way and can result in visceral fat.
    I've just checked and aside from vitamins and minerals, the only additives in Warburton's white sliced that you wouldn't also find in home made bread are calcium propionate, which stops it going mouldy (and therefore the likelihood of ingesting mould), and two thickeners (one of which is derived from a natural source), which help improve the bread's texture. They are nothing to do with low fat products.

    Ability/inability to digest gluten is not related to obesity.

    We are not going to solve the obesity or diabetes problem by insisting everyone switch to sourdough, delicious and helpful for people who struggle to digest gluten though that might be.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,928

    Artisanal 😀
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 41,117
    The best bread ‘science’ I ever heard was from an architect (sorry) I was working with. It was the first time I’d met him but he had apparently lost a lot of weight and was explaining it was mainly due to cutting out bread. He was going on about how if you get a slice of bread and mould it in your hands you get a big doughy ball which is what happens in your stomach when you eat it.

    He was getting lots of ‘ooh, that makes sense’ type reactions from people who should have been able to understand that’s not how a digestive system works. I couldn’t hold my tongue so asked if toast was OK as if you try to mould that in your hands it just crumbles. He didn’t seem impressed.
  • yellowv2
    yellowv2 Posts: 282
    rjsterry said:

    yellowv2 said:

    rjsterry said:

    yellowv2 said:

    rjsterry said:

    yellowv2 said:

    yellowv2 said:

    The thing is Calories are not all the same.
    Calories obtained from natural food source will have a different effect than those obtained from artificial trans fats, which is why full fat yoghurt for example is more healthy than low or zero fat yoghurt. Similarly fast food calories are unhealthy compared to whole food calories.
    Trans fats will accumulate up to three times more visceral fat and have a different insulin response, which will have a different energy response and metabolise differently, the glucose is not disposed of as quickly.
    Which is why it's not as simple as calories in vs out.

    But for a given person, if they eat more / less of the "same" type of food as normal then with maintained exercise levels, they will lose / gain weight.

    The "athlete diet" is very different to the average diet. (More complex carbs, less fat and less processed in general.) My offspring are both at Uni and are a triathlete and a swimmer. They regularly dine with their non-athlete friends and then have to eat a "proper" meal afterwards to fuel up for training the next day.

    There's a saying amongst age group swimmers that they all have to learn the hard way that pizza is not a good pre-race meal!
    However if they eat a poor diet lots of fast food and high in trans fats then they will still be predisposed to type 2 diabetes and visceral fat. It would also depend on the pizza, a pizza made from artisan baked soughdough topped with quality meats/veggies is an entirely different proposition to one from Domino’s et al.
    You know the word artisan has absolutely no nutritional meaning, right?
    It has no nutritional meaning. I have used it to illustrate the difference between standard baked breads and artisan baked. An artisan soughdough should contain no yeast, or any other additives that most supermarket bread has and is therefore nutritionally different.
    Sorry, pet peeve of mine. Artisan is just marketing, the same as Farmhouse and Rustic. Bread is bread. There's a difference between white and wholemeal flours in terms of the amount of fibre. If you make your own you can control the amount of salt you add (our local bakery adds LOADS). The odd bits and bobs to make white sliced last longer are not going to make a noticeable difference to how many calories the bread contains. And yes, sourdough does have yeast in it. Otherwise it wouldn't rise. It might be naturally occurring yeast, but it's essentially the same thing as the stuff you get in a sachet. A microorganism that feeds off the sugars in the flour and produces a gas which makes the dough rise. Some people find sourdough easier to digest but it's not going to fundamentally change the calorie content.
    Ok so naturally occurring is the difference.
    The reason soughdough is easier to digest is because the natural fermentation process is lengthy ( which why quality soughdough is expensive), allows the gluten to break down and is digested more easily. Whilst the extra additives might not necessarily affect the calories (they may) but as I said at the beginning calories are not equal, ie the additives effect this, sugars etc. which are similar to the additives in the low fat products which I mentioned earlier are metabolised differently. They are not converted to glucose in the same way and can result in visceral fat.
    I've just checked and aside from vitamins and minerals, the only additives in Warburton's white sliced that you wouldn't also find in home made bread are calcium propionate, which stops it going mouldy (and therefore the likelihood of ingesting mould), and two thickeners (one of which is derived from a natural source), which help improve the bread's texture. They are nothing to do with low fat products.

    Ability/inability to digest gluten is not related to obesity.

    We are not going to solve the obesity or diabetes problem by insisting everyone switch to sourdough, delicious and helpful for people who struggle to digest gluten though that might be.
    Look I know we are not going to solve the obesity problem by eating the best soughdough bread, it was a response to an earlier post suggesting pizza was unhealthy. You are not necessarily correct regarding diabetes as you will find soughdough baked correctly can assist with diabetes.
    Incidentally the flours used in commercial baking are not the best either but you’ll probably disagree with that as well, however these aren’t just my opinions so I’ll leave it there.
    Check out Tim Spector and his work with ZOE.
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 7,211
    edited April 2023
    yellowv2 said:

    rjsterry said:

    yellowv2 said:

    rjsterry said:

    yellowv2 said:

    rjsterry said:

    yellowv2 said:

    yellowv2 said:

    The thing is Calories are not all the same.
    Calories obtained from natural food source will have a different effect than those obtained from artificial trans fats, which is why full fat yoghurt for example is more healthy than low or zero fat yoghurt. Similarly fast food calories are unhealthy compared to whole food calories.
    Trans fats will accumulate up to three times more visceral fat and have a different insulin response, which will have a different energy response and metabolise differently, the glucose is not disposed of as quickly.
    Which is why it's not as simple as calories in vs out.

    But for a given person, if they eat more / less of the "same" type of food as normal then with maintained exercise levels, they will lose / gain weight.

    The "athlete diet" is very different to the average diet. (More complex carbs, less fat and less processed in general.) My offspring are both at Uni and are a triathlete and a swimmer. They regularly dine with their non-athlete friends and then have to eat a "proper" meal afterwards to fuel up for training the next day.

    There's a saying amongst age group swimmers that they all have to learn the hard way that pizza is not a good pre-race meal!
    However if they eat a poor diet lots of fast food and high in trans fats then they will still be predisposed to type 2 diabetes and visceral fat. It would also depend on the pizza, a pizza made from artisan baked soughdough topped with quality meats/veggies is an entirely different proposition to one from Domino’s et al.
    You know the word artisan has absolutely no nutritional meaning, right?
    It has no nutritional meaning. I have used it to illustrate the difference between standard baked breads and artisan baked. An artisan soughdough should contain no yeast, or any other additives that most supermarket bread has and is therefore nutritionally different.
    Sorry, pet peeve of mine. Artisan is just marketing, the same as Farmhouse and Rustic. Bread is bread. There's a difference between white and wholemeal flours in terms of the amount of fibre. If you make your own you can control the amount of salt you add (our local bakery adds LOADS). The odd bits and bobs to make white sliced last longer are not going to make a noticeable difference to how many calories the bread contains. And yes, sourdough does have yeast in it. Otherwise it wouldn't rise. It might be naturally occurring yeast, but it's essentially the same thing as the stuff you get in a sachet. A microorganism that feeds off the sugars in the flour and produces a gas which makes the dough rise. Some people find sourdough easier to digest but it's not going to fundamentally change the calorie content.
    Ok so naturally occurring is the difference.
    The reason soughdough is easier to digest is because the natural fermentation process is lengthy ( which why quality soughdough is expensive), allows the gluten to break down and is digested more easily. Whilst the extra additives might not necessarily affect the calories (they may) but as I said at the beginning calories are not equal, ie the additives effect this, sugars etc. which are similar to the additives in the low fat products which I mentioned earlier are metabolised differently. They are not converted to glucose in the same way and can result in visceral fat.
    I've just checked and aside from vitamins and minerals, the only additives in Warburton's white sliced that you wouldn't also find in home made bread are calcium propionate, which stops it going mouldy (and therefore the likelihood of ingesting mould), and two thickeners (one of which is derived from a natural source), which help improve the bread's texture. They are nothing to do with low fat products.

    Ability/inability to digest gluten is not related to obesity.

    We are not going to solve the obesity or diabetes problem by insisting everyone switch to sourdough, delicious and helpful for people who struggle to digest gluten though that might be.
    Look I know we are not going to solve the obesity problem by eating the best soughdough bread, it was a response to an earlier post suggesting pizza was unhealthy. You are not necessarily correct regarding diabetes as you will find soughdough baked correctly can assist with diabetes.
    Incidentally the flours used in commercial baking are not the best either but you’ll probably disagree with that as well, however these aren’t just my opinions so I’ll leave it there.
    Check out Tim Spector and his work with ZOE.
    I think that's his own personal business to be honest, but yes, strenuous physical activity burns a lot of calories.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,928
    yellowv2 said:

    rjsterry said:

    yellowv2 said:

    rjsterry said:

    yellowv2 said:

    rjsterry said:

    yellowv2 said:

    yellowv2 said:

    The thing is Calories are not all the same.
    Calories obtained from natural food source will have a different effect than those obtained from artificial trans fats, which is why full fat yoghurt for example is more healthy than low or zero fat yoghurt. Similarly fast food calories are unhealthy compared to whole food calories.
    Trans fats will accumulate up to three times more visceral fat and have a different insulin response, which will have a different energy response and metabolise differently, the glucose is not disposed of as quickly.
    Which is why it's not as simple as calories in vs out.

    But for a given person, if they eat more / less of the "same" type of food as normal then with maintained exercise levels, they will lose / gain weight.

    The "athlete diet" is very different to the average diet. (More complex carbs, less fat and less processed in general.) My offspring are both at Uni and are a triathlete and a swimmer. They regularly dine with their non-athlete friends and then have to eat a "proper" meal afterwards to fuel up for training the next day.

    There's a saying amongst age group swimmers that they all have to learn the hard way that pizza is not a good pre-race meal!
    However if they eat a poor diet lots of fast food and high in trans fats then they will still be predisposed to type 2 diabetes and visceral fat. It would also depend on the pizza, a pizza made from artisan baked soughdough topped with quality meats/veggies is an entirely different proposition to one from Domino’s et al.
    You know the word artisan has absolutely no nutritional meaning, right?
    It has no nutritional meaning. I have used it to illustrate the difference between standard baked breads and artisan baked. An artisan soughdough should contain no yeast, or any other additives that most supermarket bread has and is therefore nutritionally different.
    Sorry, pet peeve of mine. Artisan is just marketing, the same as Farmhouse and Rustic. Bread is bread. There's a difference between white and wholemeal flours in terms of the amount of fibre. If you make your own you can control the amount of salt you add (our local bakery adds LOADS). The odd bits and bobs to make white sliced last longer are not going to make a noticeable difference to how many calories the bread contains. And yes, sourdough does have yeast in it. Otherwise it wouldn't rise. It might be naturally occurring yeast, but it's essentially the same thing as the stuff you get in a sachet. A microorganism that feeds off the sugars in the flour and produces a gas which makes the dough rise. Some people find sourdough easier to digest but it's not going to fundamentally change the calorie content.
    Ok so naturally occurring is the difference.
    The reason soughdough is easier to digest is because the natural fermentation process is lengthy ( which why quality soughdough is expensive), allows the gluten to break down and is digested more easily. Whilst the extra additives might not necessarily affect the calories (they may) but as I said at the beginning calories are not equal, ie the additives effect this, sugars etc. which are similar to the additives in the low fat products which I mentioned earlier are metabolised differently. They are not converted to glucose in the same way and can result in visceral fat.
    I've just checked and aside from vitamins and minerals, the only additives in Warburton's white sliced that you wouldn't also find in home made bread are calcium propionate, which stops it going mouldy (and therefore the likelihood of ingesting mould), and two thickeners (one of which is derived from a natural source), which help improve the bread's texture. They are nothing to do with low fat products.

    Ability/inability to digest gluten is not related to obesity.

    We are not going to solve the obesity or diabetes problem by insisting everyone switch to sourdough, delicious and helpful for people who struggle to digest gluten though that might be.
    Look I know we are not going to solve the obesity problem by eating the best soughdough bread, it was a response to an earlier post suggesting pizza was unhealthy. You are not necessarily correct regarding diabetes as you will find soughdough baked correctly can assist with diabetes.
    Incidentally the flours used in commercial baking are not the best either but you’ll probably disagree with that as well, however these aren’t just my opinions so I’ll leave it there.
    Check out Tim Spector and his work with ZOE.
    Just to be clear, I'm not dismissing that the quality of what people eat isn't important as well as the quantity. Especially when sugar and fat are added to low quality food to make it more appetising. But if you eat too much home made sourdough - because it is delicious - you will still get fat.

    Fundamentally, people are over-eating and from a public health perspective we need to address why people are doing that first. There's also a lot of food snobbery dressed up as concern for nutrition and I don't think that's helpful for people attempting to tackle obesity either.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    But are they over eating or under exercising?

    Is the actual problem sedentary lifestyles which is a relatively recent phenomenon whereas our eating habits are ingrained over hundreds or even thousands of years.

    The two things are clearly mis-aligned but maybe tackling the eating is the wrong solution as we’re hardwired to eat until full.

    However, I agree completely that getting people to exercise enough is not going to happen. But, our bodies haven’t evolved to be sedentary and it is a very recent phenomenon that we can be sedentary (outside of the wealthy classes).

    Suddenly, solutions like gastric bands don’t seem so ridiculous.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 18,270
    I asked two friends of mine, of a similar age, if their parents ever snacked between meals, and the considered response was that the fruit bowl served that purpose. Though, to be fair, mine did enjoy a couple of biscuits with elevenses too.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,038
    morstar said:

    But are they over eating or under exercising?

    Is the actual problem sedentary lifestyles which is a relatively recent phenomenon whereas our eating habits are ingrained over hundreds or even thousands of years.

    ....

    I'd say it is both bad extremes happening simultaneously.
    While we become more sedentary we eat less healthy food. (Generally speaking).
    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.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 73,201
    I think you vastly over estimate how healthy historical diets were.

  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 18,270

    I think you vastly over estimate how healthy historical diets were.


    I think for the average person they were just meagre, wartime rations and habits and all that. Veg tended to local, cheap and plentiful (spuds at 3p/lb), meat fatty (unless you were well-off). Ready meals weren't really a thing, though Bird's Eye pies and fish fingers were.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,038

    I think you vastly over estimate how healthy historical diets were.

    Okay. The introduction and over consumption of junk food. Crisps, fizzy drinks etc.
    Better?
    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.
  • wakemalcolm
    wakemalcolm Posts: 698
    Agree about historical diets not being as healthy. A recent trip to my octogenarian parents left me shocked at how beige their diet is. They eat less ultraprocessed food than most though.

    I think we forget how much smaller servings (and plates) were back then and also how much more food cost as a proportion of family income. Gluttony had as much of a financial impact as a health one. Fat people were often referred to as looking 'prosperous'.
    ================================
    Cake is just weakness entering the body
  • wakemalcolm
    wakemalcolm Posts: 698
    yellowv2 said:


    Check out Tim Spector and his work with ZOE.

    Strangely I've just finished listening to his conversation with Rangan Chatterjee. The main takeaway I got is that he believes when it comes to refining diet or increasing exercise to achieve weight loss there's no 'one size fits all' and it depends on how each individual responds.

    Said some pretty interesting things about salt and bananas too.
    ================================
    Cake is just weakness entering the body
  • yellowv2 said:

    rjsterry said:

    yellowv2 said:

    rjsterry said:

    yellowv2 said:

    rjsterry said:

    yellowv2 said:

    yellowv2 said:

    The thing is Calories are not all the same.
    Calories obtained from natural food source will have a different effect than those obtained from artificial trans fats, which is why full fat yoghurt for example is more healthy than low or zero fat yoghurt. Similarly fast food calories are unhealthy compared to whole food calories.
    Trans fats will accumulate up to three times more visceral fat and have a different insulin response, which will have a different energy response and metabolise differently, the glucose is not disposed of as quickly.
    Which is why it's not as simple as calories in vs out.

    But for a given person, if they eat more / less of the "same" type of food as normal then with maintained exercise levels, they will lose / gain weight.

    The "athlete diet" is very different to the average diet. (More complex carbs, less fat and less processed in general.) My offspring are both at Uni and are a triathlete and a swimmer. They regularly dine with their non-athlete friends and then have to eat a "proper" meal afterwards to fuel up for training the next day.

    There's a saying amongst age group swimmers that they all have to learn the hard way that pizza is not a good pre-race meal!
    However if they eat a poor diet lots of fast food and high in trans fats then they will still be predisposed to type 2 diabetes and visceral fat. It would also depend on the pizza, a pizza made from artisan baked soughdough topped with quality meats/veggies is an entirely different proposition to one from Domino’s et al.
    You know the word artisan has absolutely no nutritional meaning, right?
    It has no nutritional meaning. I have used it to illustrate the difference between standard baked breads and artisan baked. An artisan soughdough should contain no yeast, or any other additives that most supermarket bread has and is therefore nutritionally different.
    Sorry, pet peeve of mine. Artisan is just marketing, the same as Farmhouse and Rustic. Bread is bread. There's a difference between white and wholemeal flours in terms of the amount of fibre. If you make your own you can control the amount of salt you add (our local bakery adds LOADS). The odd bits and bobs to make white sliced last longer are not going to make a noticeable difference to how many calories the bread contains. And yes, sourdough does have yeast in it. Otherwise it wouldn't rise. It might be naturally occurring yeast, but it's essentially the same thing as the stuff you get in a sachet. A microorganism that feeds off the sugars in the flour and produces a gas which makes the dough rise. Some people find sourdough easier to digest but it's not going to fundamentally change the calorie content.
    Ok so naturally occurring is the difference.
    The reason soughdough is easier to digest is because the natural fermentation process is lengthy ( which why quality soughdough is expensive), allows the gluten to break down and is digested more easily. Whilst the extra additives might not necessarily affect the calories (they may) but as I said at the beginning calories are not equal, ie the additives effect this, sugars etc. which are similar to the additives in the low fat products which I mentioned earlier are metabolised differently. They are not converted to glucose in the same way and can result in visceral fat.
    I've just checked and aside from vitamins and minerals, the only additives in Warburton's white sliced that you wouldn't also find in home made bread are calcium propionate, which stops it going mouldy (and therefore the likelihood of ingesting mould), and two thickeners (one of which is derived from a natural source), which help improve the bread's texture. They are nothing to do with low fat products.

    Ability/inability to digest gluten is not related to obesity.

    We are not going to solve the obesity or diabetes problem by insisting everyone switch to sourdough, delicious and helpful for people who struggle to digest gluten though that might be.
    Look I know we are not going to solve the obesity problem by eating the best soughdough bread, it was a response to an earlier post suggesting pizza was unhealthy. You are not necessarily correct regarding diabetes as you will find soughdough baked correctly can assist with diabetes.
    Incidentally the flours used in commercial baking are not the best either but you’ll probably disagree with that as well, however these aren’t just my opinions so I’ll leave it there.
    Check out Tim Spector and his work with ZOE.
    Re pizzas, my earlier comment about them was their unsuitably as a pre-race meal in the swim world. You need some quality complex carbs for tea before racing (pasta and rice are obviously the “go to” options) and pizza based don’t tend to provide them. Anything overly fatty and red meat are best avoided too as they make it harder to get to sleep.

    So chicken risotto is where it’s at.

    Pizzas can be ok health-wise though it’s way to have too much cheese. I assume commercial mass produced pizzas have loads of sugar in the base too.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 73,201

    Agree about historical diets not being as healthy. A recent trip to my octogenarian parents left me shocked at how beige their diet is. They eat less ultraprocessed food than most though.

    I think we forget how much smaller servings (and plates) were back then and also how much more food cost as a proportion of family income. Gluttony had as much of a financial impact as a health one. Fat people were often referred to as looking 'prosperous'.

    I think this is probably right.

    Portion size has definitely changed and food is a lot cheaper now.

  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,038
    Meanwhile as the cost of living crisis bites...
    "Frozen chicken, ready meals, pizzas and chips are the most popular items."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64421268
    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.
  • pblakeney said:

    Meanwhile as the cost of living crisis bites...
    "Frozen chicken, ready meals, pizzas and chips are the most popular items."

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64421268

    At least we can be thankful that it’s not pizza’s that are proving popular.

  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,928
    Just leaving this here for the 'everyone used to eat more healthily' crowd.


    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 41,117
    edited April 2023

    Agree about historical diets not being as healthy. A recent trip to my octogenarian parents left me shocked at how beige their diet is. They eat less ultraprocessed food than most though.

    I think we forget how much smaller servings (and plates) were back then and also how much more food cost as a proportion of family income. Gluttony had as much of a financial impact as a health one. Fat people were often referred to as looking 'prosperous'.

    I think this is probably right.

    Portion size has definitely changed and food is a lot cheaper now.

    I reckon that’s the elephant in the room despite recent food inflation. It has also become too convenient.

    My annoyance is that people often say eating healthily is more expensive whereas I think the reality is it requires more work in making the meal and those people have become too accustomed to fat, salt and sugar so don’t like healthy food (or won’t even try it).
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 73,201
    I don’t think there’s such a thing as “too convenient” food.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 41,117

    I don’t think there’s such a thing as “too convenient” food.

    We’ll have to disagree, if food is really easy to obtain there’s no incentive to conserve and only eat when needed. To take it to an extreme, if there are lots of biscuits in the house I’ll have a handful with a coffee (they’re my major problem). However, if we’ve run out I’m far less likely to eat any even though it is a 100m walk to the shop.

    If someone is going to deliver a takeaway to your door you are probably more likely to eat one than if you have travel 10 minutes to get one.
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 26,038
    Pross said:



    If someone is going to deliver a takeaway to your door you are probably more likely to eat one than if you have travel 10 minutes to get one.

    I always go and collect rather than wait for the food to have toured the area before arriving at my door. Usually makes the difference between 20 minutes and and hour.
    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.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 41,117
    edited April 2023
    I’m certainly in a minority though and I’ve never claimed to eat healthily. I quite often take the dogs out around midnight and get asked for directions by someone delivering takeaways. I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have gone out to get those takeaways. In the my early twenties I would pick an Indian up on the way home from a pub but would never have gone out at that time for one, now in that situation I would be pressing buttons on an app and waiting for the food to come to me.
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    Pross said:

    I’m certainly in a minority though and I’ve never claimed to eat healthily. I quite often take the dogs out around midnight and get asked for directions by someone delivering takeaways. I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t have gone out to get those takeaways. In the my early twenties I would pick an Indian up on the way home from a pub but would never have gone out at that time for one, now in that situation I would be pressing buttons on an app and waiting for the food to come to me.

    If you buy your rural retreat you will certainly cut down on takeaways.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 41,117
    I’ll be eating mushrooms from the woods cooked on an open fire (or starving!).
  • webboo
    webboo Posts: 6,087
    I live in village that has 3 market towns within an 8 mile radius. Try getting a takeaway delivered is a bit of lottery the ones that say they do. If they bother to turn up it’s usually about an hour later they say.
    Fortunately there is now a take way pizza place in the next village 2 miles away.
  • Munsford0
    Munsford0 Posts: 622
    rjsterry said:


    Artisanal 😀

    Artis what?
  • Munsford0
    Munsford0 Posts: 622
    I'm getting on a bit. I can remember in my secondary school days out of a year group of maybe 90 kids, maybe three were slightly overweight. I ate 3 meals a day which apart from breakfast cereal were all freshly prepared from simple ingredients, and I drank only tea or water. Snacks / confectionery / fizzy drinks were an occasional treat. Most of my mates were the same, and we were all skinny. I don't remember having money to spend on extra food, and in any case the opportunities weren't there. Even when I went to uni I remember we shopped in the market, and cooked a meal between us most nights. Eating out was again a rare treat, and money was quite tight.

    Leap forward 40 years and it's a completely different world. Food is ubiquitous and (relatively) cheap. TV advertising has normalised the act of blobbing on the sofa while online gambling and ordering industrial quantities of generally unhealthy fast food via an app on your phone. Even if you do manage to waddle away from the house, most high streets are awash with fast food retailers so it's hard to avoid temptation if you're so inclined. Wall-E is turning out to be a documentary...