Coca-Cola and sugar

Trouble with saying low-fat is bullshit is that people might be inclined to go overboard the other way. I still firmly believe that some fats are bad for us. "Low carb" is fine, so long as some carb is included, but the low carb diet does usually include "high fat". (No matter how they change thread headings on Gransnet)

It is now thought, though I haven't looked closely at the claims, that sugar can be addictive. If this is the case it does make it harder for anyone who might have become addicted to it. There is no blame in that statement, just an acceptance of what is (or might be; not sure how solid scientifically the sugar as addictive claims are yet). But I think the same suggestions that various people have put forward up thread still apply. I accept that it's not easy to overcome any addiction, and it's not easy to change habits, but it can be done. Good luck to anyone who's trying.

Wilma from what you say, you've never eaten healthily as an adult and you don't enjoy cooking, so I think you have two choices if you want to lose weight - either stick with your current diet but you must simply eat less of it; or you embark on something like low-carb or calorie-counting with a mission to making it part of your daily life.

I'm speaking with sympathy here as I'm also a life-long dieter! Usually around 10 stone but have been a stone or two either way and I really do gain weight very easily.

The low-carb thread is very helpful just to see what other people are doing and to get ideas - most posters there including me do enjoy cooking but don't let that put you off - you'd be among those who understand the difficulties and temptations!

Agreed. The low fat mantra (aka bullshit) was pushed by carbohydrate (cereal) producers. I ignored it too. I let my taste buds do the telling: e.g. butter just tastes better than all those low fat substitutes, therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it is better. Likewise cream, etc etc.

Don't disagree Bags, but I think the "low-fat" advice has caused a lot of problems. We always ignored it on instinct, but it has caused an increase in consumption of hidden sugars for many.

off

I'll bugger of now

So, for instance, everything in a baker's shop will be high in sugar relative to, say, everything in a butcher's or greengrocer's shop.

That simple.

One can cut down on sugar without reading a word, and one can cut down on calories by always putting less on one's plate, and sticking with that, than one would really like.

It IS that simple.

IMO (for those who haven't worked out yet that I'm speaking my own opinion).

I think that everyone on this forum knows which foods are high in sugars or simple carbohydrate, which are high in protein, which are high in fats, and which are high in useful vitamins and minerals.

And I bet they all know that without looking at a single food packet from a supermarket shelf.

We look at food packets for detailed information, not the basics.

I'm not saying I know what the answer is for unsuccessful dieters, by the way, only that everyone I know who has spent a great deal of effort dieting is still dieting n years' later (where n is a large positive integer) because dieting hasn't worked. Conversely people I know who just eat less than they did before (and often less than they think they need) have lost weight. So I'm just speaking from experience.

And when I say it's not difficult to work out how much sugar (or simple carbohydrate) one's eating, it's because that's what I think. If it's not helpful, that's too bad, but I'm allowed to say what i think is the plain truth based on what I see as readily available food information.

I don't enjoy cooking either but I do care what I eat. So I cook.

Anyone who has been dieting all their life and is still overweight needs, I respectfully suggest, to change something because what they have been doing isn't working. That's not difficult to work out either. Saying it's down to personal resposibility is helpful because it's the truth. Nobody else can make one lose weight.

Wilma have you looked at the low-carb support threads on Mumsnet and on here? I realise that the thread on here has been criticised in the past for being "high-falutin'" but the support is there.
Happy to start a new thread if it helps people who are just starting on this way of eating? Or somebody else start one?

We do only eat fresh food we prepare or have frozen ourselves and don't find that difficult. I admit to enjoying cooking though and so does DH. I use tinned tomatoes (without added sugar), jars of beans like haricots with no sugar and condiments like mustard and horseradish, but pretty much everything else is home-made. It takes as long or as little time to cook as you want it to, but we both managed to work full-time in demanding jobs and cook every night and it has only got easier in retirement.
We eat natural fats and I don't worry about salt, I know how much I am using.
I am not trying to sound smug, but I think preparing and cooking your own food comes into the "no such thing as time, only priorities" category.
Once I had the right information about avoiding sugar, bread, rice, pasta and potatoes and eating moderate amounts of good fats, weight loss was not difficult.
I do not expect schools to take responsibility for teaching cooking, adults (with support where needed) need to learn for themselves. I would have thought our generation is well placed to help and to lead by example. We didn't grow up on heavily processed food full of dubious ingredients created in laboratories purely to make a profit, did we?
There is a massive amount of confusion and ignorance around about diet, partly created by the food and diet industries "experts" and other bodies. I don't agree with Bags that it is easy to fight your way through that. There needs to be a clear and consistent message that is informed by untainted research.

Wilma; I was glad to read that you don't enjoy cooking...I thought it was just me .

Surely the traffic light system is easy to understand - red amber or green, and the first ingredient on the list is the one there is most of. So if sugar is first and has a red light against it, it has a lot of sugar - enough to make you stop and think.

I agree with Bags that it is not difficult to work out how much sugar/calories/carbohydrate we consume.

Changing how we think of food, and how we change our behaviour is another matter.

thatbags you keep saying things like it's not difficult and quite frankly it is not helpful. If it was as easy as reading about it, millions of people would not have a weight problem.

I know the difference between healthy and unhealthy food because I have dieted all my adult life, but I am still overweight. Yes, it's because I eat too much of the wrong food and when I go to a slimming class, I can lose weight for a while. But I never get to a healthy weight. I can go to a slimming class and try again, but quite frankly I am not sure if I want to repeat behaviour that was not successful numerous times in the past. So I'm trying to find a different way of moving to a way of eating healthily that I can live with and I know I am not alone, so that's why I have shared my thoughts on here. Preparing healthy meals will be a challenge for me because I don't enjoy cooking, but it is a challenge I'm willing to try.

Please stop saying it is not difficult. Maybe for you it is not difficult, but it is for me and millions of others. There is more to a healthy diet than reading food labels.

It doesn't matter what the government wants. We are capable of deciding for ourselves what is good food. There is masses of easily available nutritional information about the food we buy. Read it, even if it's only on food packets. If, in a list of ingredients, sugar is the first one, that is what there is most of in the thing you're buying. Choose something with a lower sugar content if you want to cut down your sugar intake or even do without that sugary thing.

It's not difficult.

Yes, wilma - it's all very well being told to look at packets etc but in reality the information doesn't make sense or conflicts with some other message. And sugar is just the latest culprit in a long line of "bad" foods. First there was saturated fat, then salt, now sugar. Foods that are marketed low in fat (such as "healthy" yogurts) are loaded with sugar to make them more palatable. Cheese, which is relatively unprocessed contains huge quantities of fat and salt. Fruit, another unprocessed food branded as a "goodie" is now no longer so great in the eyes of many due to its high sugar content, albeit in the form of naturally-occurring fructose.
Even nuts have come under scrutiny due to their being high in fat.

It's hardly any wonder people are confused.

I think the confusion all stems from when the agricultural industry in the USA found a use for the waste products of growing corn. That's where corn syrup came from and when sugar started to be added to processed food on a major scale. 30/40 years ago before this obesity crisis existed, we ate very little processed food. This changed gradually and as we started eating more processed food, we started eating more sugar because it was an ingredient of processed food - all kinds, savoury too.

It's easy to see how much sugar we add to tea and coffee, but unless you eat only fresh food you prepare yourself, you will probably be eating more sugar than you realise. There are so many kinds of sugar, so that doesn't help. Plus the myth that natural sweeteners are better doesn't help because sugar is sugar.

The way I look at weight loss just now is I need to eat less carbohydrate/sugar than I need so my body starts using up my fat stores to create energy for my body.

What I struggle with is how I move from lots of hidden sugar in my diet to a healthy diet which doesn't make me miserable. As an adult I have rarely eaten a healthy diet and now I am struggling to find a way through the maze of advice, much of which conflicts and is outdated.

I think a reasonable starting point might be, "eat real food and avoid adding sugar".
If you want to lose weight or lower your blood sugar through a low-carb diet then you will need to look at other food, but there is a wealth of advice out there. It isn't difficult to find.
I don't think the Government has come up with any advice yet, has it?

granny to be fair, I think there IS a difference between stuff that's marketed as "healthy" like agave and the processed white stuff -something to do with the way in which it metabolises. It's still sugar, though, along with the substances with -ose on the end such as fructose, sucrose, glucose, dextrose etc. Trouble is, we, the consumer, have very little idea as to how to separate the added stuff out from the naturally-occurring stuff. And sugar in some form is pretty much everywhere and not easily avoided, with the best will in the world. So what does the Government mean when it lectures us on "cutting out sugar?". Does it mean cutting out added sugar? Cutting out tomato soup and beans, which have added sugar? Cutting out alcohol, which is sugar in yet another form? Cutting out fruit, which has fructose? Cutting out milk, containing lactose? Cutting out bread and spuds, containing carbs that turn to sugar? What exactly does the Govt want us to do? Does anyone know? Does the Govt itself know?

Well, I for one haven't a clue and I doubt many others do either.

I don't think you can use the example of Jeremy Vine in Strictly as proving that exercise is just as, if not more than, important in losing weight. The people on Strictly are doing what amounts to a very intensive exercise programme - I doubt that the majority of people would have the time or inclination to embark on this. I don't believe a few brisk walks, an exercise class or a bit of jogging would equal what the Strictly contestants are going through.

Yikes! I was given a bottle of Agave Nectar at my exercise class as a free sample of a healthy alternative and have been sprinkling that sh*te everywhere! Even in my little grandson's muffins a couple of weekends ago. Double yikes. I shouldn't be so darn gullible.