Coca-Cola and sugar

I'd support a campaign as well. I noticed the other day that when it was the school holidays the supermarket had special offers like 2 x Litre bottles of Coca Cola for £1 50. I wouldn't mind a sugar task but special offers could still make sugary drinks relatively cheap.

I think Even the PM has said a sugar tax would hit the less well off hardest. I am totally against it. Food police - wrong.

I don't think Crunchy Nut Cornflakes for breakfast will harm a child.

I think it's more likely to be high fat food that is making people fat. Things like Greggs sausage olls, pasties, chips, high fat mince. etc.

And the cheaper end sausages.

When they are made of more than 1/3 sugar? So a small helping has 2 spoonfuls of sugar? (and about 6 tsps of cornflour)
Many teenagers would probably go for more than a small helping - so could start the day with 4 or 6 tsps in their bowl .

www.tesco.com/groceries/product/details/?id=266749657

Growing teenagers would soon burn it off. And they would get the added vits and minerals. I was thinking more about little kids who are the usual consumers of that kind of stuff. Fine if you can get your child to eat Weetabix, but any reasonable brekker is better than none. (And there's always the milk that goes with it)

Bags Research is being done at Cardiff and Exeter into why some people overeat www.cardiff.ac.uk/news/view/55041-snacking-and-bmi

Alkthough I think it's up to individuals to try to maintain a healthy weight, I do think the supermarkets bear quite a lot of responsibility.

I went into Waitrose today and the first thing I saw was a large pyramid of tins of Quality Street, on special offer
They could just have easily showcased their special offers of fruit and veg.

It's easy enugh not to buy those huge tins of Quality Street. Trouble is, we always get given one . They are truly the work of the devil.

Jing it's the teenagers who won't burn it off because they're not particularly active who would the problem. Eating big portions of sugar laden Crunchy Nut Cornflakes for breakfast. who knows what at school and then after tea, playing on their X Box, etc, probably eating unhealthy snacks at the same time.

Breakfast cereals for children should be the sugar free versions like Weetabix, Ready Brek, porridge, that kind of thing which are good for keeping their blood sugars level too.

They are still growing at a rapid rate of knots. And I think most of them are pretty active.

Like I said - if you can get them to eat.....

My 14 year old DGS eats Weetabix. He has 3. And then piles the bowl sky- high with the dreaded Cheerios.

Skinny as a rake too. And got all his teeth.

When my children were at school they put a tooth in cola to see how long it took the enamel to rot.
Not Long!!

Was talking to Minibags on the way back from her volunteering for RDA this afternoon and she says having rules about stuff (tobacco, alcohol, sugar) just makes many teenagers even more determined to do the opposite of what they're told because it is seen as "badass" and badass is cool.

Re sugar and healthy eating, she said what I have been saying all along, that schools are telling kids that too much sugar is bad for them right through from year one. They all know perfectly well.

I still think part of the psychological problem could be that we simply haven't adapted to the easy availability (abundance even) of food. Up till very recently in human history most of us were like all other animals in having to work quite hard to get enough to eat so when there was plenty of food it didn't matter if we overate for a while because there would be lean times too that compensated. It'll be interesting to see if any research corroborates that.

jing sorry but I disagree about how active teenagers are in the UK. The 2015 report on physical activity shows this for children in England,

* Around one in ten boys and girls aged 2 to 4 years met the recommended levels of activity.
* A higher proportion of boys (21%) than girls (16%) reported meeting recommendations in the 5 to 15 years age group.
* Boys in the 8 to 10 age group had the highest proportion of active children (26%), while for girls it was found in the 5 to 7 age group (23%).
* Only 14% of boys in the age group 13-15 reported meeting recommendations, while for girls it was only 8%.

(The picture changes in the 16-24 age group for boys/men with 83% of men reported as meeting recommendations, while the figure is 57% of women).

That doesn't sound like teenagers are particularly active to me.

You know best Wilmaknickersfit.

Forgot to say the report is from the British Heart Foundation.

wilma here's an article about children's declining levels of fitness and why it is a bigger threat to children than obesity
theconversation.com/poor-fitness-is-a-bigger-threat-to-child-health-than-obesity-43653

Interesting read jane. It bothers me though that the author is part owner of a company FitMedia Fitness that offers the kind of services of the report concludes is urgently needed. That company provides services to the organisation Active Essex and the disclosure section of the article states he receives funding from Active Essex. To me receiving funding is different to being paid for services. Also, I can't find any information about the other organisation/company Provide Public Health given in the disclosure section. I know I am becoming cynical about the whole subject of health and fitness, but I am not happy to take the article at face value.

jing why do I get the feeling you really wanted to use a 'rolls eyes' smiley instead of the 'smile' one? I know I can be a pompous twonk at times.

wilma Gavin Sandercock is
Reader in Sports Science (Clinical Physiology) , at the University of Essex.
Most research at universities receives funding from commercial interests. I think it's a bit naive to imagine otherwise.
At least the authors of articles at the Conversation do clearly declare their interests.

www.provide.org.uk/modules/downloads/download.php?file_name=349

Provide Public Health appear to be a privatised version of the school health service and other services relating to young people. That's another issue of course.

I think the point is that both are important and are also interrelated. An overweight child is I suspect less likely to take part in physical activity for all sorts of reasons.
The problem with the exercise more / calories in / calories out theory is the implication that the quantity (of calories) is the important bit. It should be obvious that it is the quality of the food in nutritional terms that is important, but I don't think the focus on "calories" encorages that view. Taken to the absurd it would suggest that you could get all 2000 calories a day from fizzy drinks and as long as you exercised them off sgain it would be fine. Which clearly it wouldn't.
I still think that "you can't outrun a bad diet" is the important message here.

Agree with you mamie

I need to declare an interest too. DD has a business providing sports related activities to young children.