Fat defiance

Problem is I loathe yoghourt so making it is a non starter. I have been buying plain and adding fruit but DH is being finicky over the fruit he will eat in yoghourt. We have plums, apples, rhubarb, blackberries and gooseberries in the fridge, all grown in the garden or picked wild but he has decided only strawberries and raspberries will do

My solution to the sugary yoghourts is to buy or make natural yoghourt and add my own fruit. Much nicer too. Zero fat yoghourt is horrid - watery and tasteless.

Agreed Flickety.
I don't buy pots of fruit yoghurt any more.
I buy unsweetened Greek yoghurt and add my own stewed fruit so I know exactly how much added sugar there is - and it's a lot less than the amount in branded fruit yogurts!

I had heard the 34 teaspoon intake before. If we remember the average is just that, about half the population are consuming less and half are consuming more, the sugar consumption of some people is truly enormous. One of the problems recognised as resulting from the reduction of fats is their replacement in food by sugar and refined carbohydrates the excessive consumption of which seems to be far more dangerous to health than saturated fat.

DH has mild diabetes and enjoys eating fruit yoghourts. After reading the labels on the pots, I realised that most fruit yoghourts contain between 15 - 20% sugar. I contacted Waitrose to ask whether there were any brands with higher fat levels and less sugar and the answer was 'No'

I think the 'apparatchik' was possibly the Director of Public Health England Flickety
I think this reduction in saturated fats in processed foods initiative sends out a completely wrong message.
Quite apart from the question of whether saturated fat is actually bad for you or not, it implies that it's ok to eat cakes and biscuits provided they contain government-approved fats.
The truth is that because of the sugar content they will never be good for you. I was amazed to hear the cardiologist say that the average daily sugar intake is 34 teaspoons

Nevertheless there was some government apparatchik on the radio today banging on about reaching agreement with food manufacturers to reduce the quantity of fat in their products. While she was rabbiting on I was spreading butter on my toast - lavishly.

Thought of you when I heard it on the news, bags!

The saturated fat demonisation was turned on its head long ago. It's good that some more people are listening at last.

I was amused by the Cardiologists views on cholestorol and statins. I feel I'm beginning to realise the value of my grandfather's advice, which was 'all things in moderation, and a little bit of what you fancy does you good'.

Didn't see him but he was well reported in the papers. His thesis has been being discussed in the media for sometime.

As I commented on another thread, the problem with all medical life style advice is what you are told to do one year or risk terrible medical consequences a few years later you are told is either ineffectual, incorrect, or dangerous.

Did anyone see the Cardeologist on the BBC this morning. He has turned the whole Saturated fat debate on its head.

janeainsworth I agree only some people have side affects to statins but there is also research that shows that for some groups, women with no history of heart problems or high blood pressure are one, the therapeutic value of statins is not proven and may be deleterious. It is because my cholesterol was only slightly raised and I fell into that group that made me decide not to take statins.

More recently a friend who had liver problems for a six or seven years before it was discovered that the problems were being caused by her statins has been diagnosed with liver cancer. Caught early because she still has to have regular monitoring for liver problems.

Now I am statistician enough to know that an anecdotal sample of one proves absolutely nothing, but I am human enough to admit that when this happens to someone close to you, you become irrationally cautious about the class of drugs that may be involved.

As for your last paragraph I couldn't agree more. I am currently being chased to have the free NHS check, even though I have an annual medical check for a minor medical problem that covers everything in the NHS check except the life style questionnaire - and I am sure that could just be given to me to complete when I have my annual check.

Why do you think they are terrible things Petra?
There are some side effects which some people experience. That is the case with nearly every prescription-only medicine.
If I had raised cholesterol which didn't come down with lifestyle changes, I would certainly take them. If a particular one didn't suit me, I would ask my GP to prescribe a different one.

What I do think is terrible, is blanket prescribing based on statistical evidence, and doctors being given targets by the Government to get a certain percentage of their older patients on them.
I think that doctors should treat patients, depending on their own individual risk factors, and not populations.

How refreshing to read some sense about Statins. Mine was over 9 some years ago. I told the Doctor I would go on a low fat diet for 6 months to see what happened. Only came down a little. I think they are terrible things and we will see the consequences of these in years to come.

GP prescribed statins when I had a highish cholesterol reading. With urging I accepted one months supply, Didn't bother to take them and never went back for more. She has not said anything about it since.

I have regular annual checks because my kidney function is a bit on the low side and the nurse has never said anything to me about it either so I am not worrying. DH has statins prescribed and high blood pressure but every statin he has had prescribed has made him feel ill so he doesn't take them, again his GP has said nothing.

Yes, I know. Sorry. Getting people confused again!

I meant the bit about proagri or what ever it is called. Not statins.

Having looked through this thread, I saw a newspaper headline a week or two ago that said how statins had saved so many lives. I wouldn't take them though. Prefer to keep to a low fat diet (through the week. Let up a bit at weekends)

Oh dear, how stupid do some folk think we are?

I have both of them, I think if it was genuine they would of replied, I know I would

I'm not reporting this one.

Not again

Message deleted by Gransnet for breaking our forum guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

cholesterol levels are a darned nuisance. I never worried about it before I knew mine was high! I refuse to take statins though, - heard to many scary stories about statins. But I try to be careful what I eat, fat-wise.

Two years ago mine was 6.3, tested about six months later and it was 6.8 although I had radically changed my diet. GP was unconcerned because the ratio between good and bad had improved and triglyceride levels were normal.