food directives

Impossible annodomini - as is not eating a whole box of pringles

How could anyone stop at half a packet of crisps?

That's what I meant, FlickertyB. I was talking about how boring it would be to simply eat what we are told constitutes a healthy diet.

The children this morning were told that they should have water in their packed lunch. I drink at least 2 litres of water a day but wouldn't it be boring to drink nothing else? There is nothing wrong with fruit juice, fizzy drinks, coffee, tea, hot chocolate or milk shakes if drunk in moderation.

I hate the way foods are demonised. We're omnivores. We need a little bit of everything. My mum started to avoid salt because the experts said salt was bad for you. She became ill and after a series of tests it turned out that she had reduced her salt levels to such an extent that she was damaging herself. The advice was eat half a packet of crisps a week.

Eating virtually only one thing – whether crisps or cauliflower – does not constitute a healthy diet and would be soul searingly boring. Variety is the key to healthy eating, plus not too much of any one thing and not too much in total.

Vampirequeen A healthy diet is not boring; you can eat any food you like including sweets, biscuits, cakes, fruit juice, lard, butter, burgers etc etc. It is not what you eat, but how much that matters.

It does matter what you eat as regards your health though FlicketyB.
I saw a programme, where a woman who was doing a busy manual job of being a hotel cleaner, ate virtually only crisps.
She had enough energy to do her job.
But she pointed out that her hair was in a bad way, her nails were too, and her skin etc.
She wasnt overweight though.

Only vegans eat only plants, 'most of your food plants' leaves plenty of space for as much protein as you need.

Vampirequeen A healthy diet is not boring; you can eat any food you like including sweets, biscuits, cakes, fruit juice, lard, butter, burgers etc etc. It is not what you eat, but how much that matters.

Hard to get enough protein from plants only though? Except quinoa. We need to renew old cells. Best to try to do it in as low fat a way as possible I think.

Yes, Jane, you're right of course. For thousands of people they certainly weren't the 'good' old days. And yes, we do owe a lot to scientific research; I think the problem today is the huge amount of information available - TV, magazines, newspapers, internet - which constantly bombard us with a bewildering array of 'do's and don'ts'. As Flickety says, the pleasure of food is being destroyed - and being replaced by stress and guilt!

Any advice and recommendations arising from scientific research can only ever be the latest findings, as research will always be ongoing, so it can never be the 'absolute truth' and we all acknowledge that that advice is likely to be changed as new research is undertaken. So I think we just need to keep a perspective - and yes, not overeating and eating more plants is very good advice!

There has never been any disputing of the fact that too much fat clogs the arteries. Which can lead to heart disease and strokes. I believe they first learned of this from the bodies of soldiers killed in the line of duty, and realised it was the high fat rations doing it.

We all know what constitutes a totally healthy diet....well according to current advice but it could change tomorrow but if we only ate that we'd be bored to death.

I think it was poverty, or at least near poverty, that caused a lot of children's diseases.

Sensible input from janeainsworth, with which I don't disagree.

But - I'm with Flickety B and others, I'm fed up with being given the absolute truth (eggs, butter for example) only to have that advice overturned within a few years.

Eat well, don't overeat and eat more plants than anything else - great advice

Ashtree there were a lot of deficiency diseases too 'in the old days'.
It was only in the 1930's that the link between vitamin D deficiency and rickets was established.
Many children suffered horribly from poor diets and we owe a lot to the scientists whose research led to improvements in diet and general health.

as soon as our forebears found boats there has been import and export , should we do without grapes because we can't grow them in our window boxes ? I doubt I could feed myself never mind OH by growing or foraging , local grown is an ideal to be aspired to but not attainable by most people

Well said Flickety, I completely agree! Our forebears didn't have to listen to all this nutritional advice and worry about what they should be eating. They didn't have to worry because their food was organically grown, in a time when the word 'organic' would have meant nothing to them. Moreover, it was all locally grown or raised, not flown God knows how many miles around the world in a semi frozen state and then passed off as 'fresh' on supermarket shelves. And, of necessity, they ate what was indigenous and in season - cucumbers only in the summer, pineapples only in tins! And everything 'cooked from scratch' - another saying they wouldn't have understood, because what other way could you produce a meal?

Hear! Hear! Flickety- been saying the same thing for ages. I take no notice of "the latest research" anymore because I know it will soon be superseded by later "findings".

What we need to remember is that it is in the interests of researchers to make new findings because that is how they get funding to carry on in their jobs.

The wisdom in the old saying "a little bit of what you fancy does you good" is one I espouse.

I have come to believe that the main cause of malnutrition, whether obesity, obsessive dieting, faddy eating, all the things nutritionists and doctors deplore is actually the doctors and nutritionists themselves.

Over the years we have been subject to panic after panic after panic, 'Fat is bad for you', or is it? 'Salt causes heart disease', or does it?
Now 'sugar is bad for you', no doubt to be followed in time by 'or is it'.

I am sick to death of the pleasures of eating and enjoying food being medicalised and destroyed by government nutritionists and doctors. Left to my self I would put a complete embargo on any doctor or nutritionist giving any view on what we eat for at least 5 years. Instead I would replace them with a campaign that sings in praise of the pleasures of eating; the enjoyment of taste and texture and variety, of eating foods as near to the original grown product as possible and, of course, cooking the raw ingredients for yourself. Instead of following recipes people would be encouraged to experiment, combine flavour and textures and make food a joyful experience.

I suspect that would do more for good nutrition than all the doctors and nutritionists in the world. Their job is to help those with special dietary needs: diabetics, those with coeliac disease etc, etc not to advise those of us without such problems

Eat well, not too much, most of it plants, forget the rest.

This is a link to The Truth about Sugar with Fiona Phillips, the first episode of a series about food. We are shown the proof that eating whole fruit is better nutritionally than drinking fruit juice. One glass of orange juice has far more than the juice of one orange, none of the fibre and all the sugar.

I watched it too, I think the dietician was pointing out that the girl had selected a huge box of pineapple chunks and a large apple and was suggesting one piece of fruit and some veg instead of another fruit which of course has much less sugars.
Well that was my understanding, as for fruit juice it does have a large amount of sugar in it and water or milk would be better but I agree a small glass wouldn't do much harm.

Ah, I've just reread your post Jinglbellsfrocks and realise you were talking about fruit juice, not fruit, being consumed with meals!

I thought fruit shouldn't be eaten with meals, but only ever on an empty stomach. I think this is to do with the different enzymes required to digest fruit and other foods - if fruit is eaten with other food it is likely to ferment in the stomach and could cause heartburn, acid reflux and so on. When eaten on its own the necessary enzymes that come into play will digest it fully and your body will get the maximum nutritional benefits.

No !!!!

That came out completely wrong! The whole fruit is lower GI and so energy is released more slowly.

I'm so glad they don't know about my younger GS who has been known to polish off a whole pack of strawberries in one sitting!
I get it about the fruit juice thing. The whole fruit is lower GI, so releases energy more quickly, but, so long as it's consumed with meals, I don't think a glass of juice will harm a kid. They burn it off so quickly.

Fruit juice has been withdrawn from GS school menu in favour of water or milk. Fruit juice is now considered to have too much sugar and too little fibre. They do get plenty of fresh fruit though which is great because GS will NOT eat a green vegetable but will eat plenty of fruit of all kinds.