Did you watch Panorama last night?

Doodledog

I think the activity side is probably more important than the food intake. I can't move around as much as before for health reasons, and I have piled on weight since it happened.

I remember eating a cooked breakfast, a lunch with pudding and an early evening meal (often with starter or pudding) as a child, and this was perfectly normal. We ran around more, and yes - we walked far more than people do now. I was a size 8-10 when I married at 22. I don't eat anywhere near as much now, but as I say, I get very little exercise, and I am nearer an 18.

200-300 calories is a large KitKat - would eating one of those a day really cause widespread obesity on its own?

I agree, exercise is an important component in keeping weight off.

Dog walking takes care of much more than exercise needed by energetic working dogs - keeps me slim as well (and genetics).

Yes, calories in and calories out need to match for one to not gain weight. An extra kitkat daily would add a pound nearly every 2 weeks. Almost 25 pounds a year. On a small woman, 25 lbs would be 20% - quite a gain.

You need to eat 3,500 calories per week less to lose 1lb. Therefore if you eat 3,500 calories more than your body needs you would put on 1lb.
Learnt that fact in 2018 from a nutritionist.

Whiff

You need to eat 3,500 calories per week less to lose 1lb. Therefore if you eat 3,500 calories more than your body needs you would put on 1lb.
Learnt that fact in 2018 from a nutritionist.

Exactly! So eating an extra 200-300 calories a day in the form of a Kitkat, glass of orange juice or even a bigger portion of cereal or potato might not seem a lot, but it really does add up.

Additives aren't fattening, but they make food cheaper, more appealing and more available.

Whiff

You need to eat 3,500 calories per week less to lose 1lb. Therefore if you eat 3,500 calories more than your body needs you would put on 1lb.
Learnt that fact in 2018 from a nutritionist.

Indeed.

Push away excess calories (particularly unhealthy junk) - lose weight.

It's not rocket science, it's basic nutrition.

growstuff I am reading van Tulliken's book on UPFs and he would argue that additives can cause weight gain.

Weight gain is far mre complex than calories balanced against energy use and it is now realised that the 3,500 calories equals Ilb weight loss a week is very approximate. Gentic variation(not genetic conditions) can affect the relationship between calorie consumption and calorie usage. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29093760/

I can remember hearing a programme on R4 talking to a scientist investigating this and how she was beginning to indentify genes that affected the efficiency with which the body used energy.

Yes, I know MOnica, but the fact is that if somebody is eating more than his/her body can metabolise, he/she will gain weight. Each person obviously has an individual "calorie budget" (for want of a better expression), but it's not difficult to monitor one's own weight. Adjusting intake is then difficult because there are psychological and societal issues involved, eg people eat when they're depressed; they also drink calorie-laden alcohol; it's easier to pop a ready meal in the microwave. Eating decisions are not always rational. Manufactured food is designed to taste good, so will appeal when people feel low.

I'm not disagreeing that eating a constant diet of UPFs is bad for the gut microbiome (about which we actually know very little), but the additives in food are not in themselves toxic or put on weight. Some, such as ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), which is added to bread, and xanthan gum and guar gum have nutritional benefits. The ones to beware of are those used as thickening agents in so-called low fat foods and in meat products with gravy, where there's more gravy than meat.

All I can say, is read the book, then you will understand what I am talking about.

It’s true about genetic variations making a difference.
How many times do we hear things like, She never puts on weight. She takes after her mum/dad. or I only have to look at a biscuit to put in weight, just like my mm/dad.^
Why do two children eating the same meals (e.g. in the days when there was no choice) and doing the same exercise, develop different body shapes?
But basically all that has been said about eating more calories than you can metabolise, whether the food is healthy or not, explains why people put on weight.

Mollygo

It’s true about genetic variations making a difference.
How many times do we hear things like, She never puts on weight. She takes after her mum/dad. or I only have to look at a biscuit to put in weight, just like my mm/dad.^
Why do two children eating the same meals (e.g. in the days when there was no choice) and doing the same exercise, develop different body shapes?
But basically all that has been said about eating more calories than you can metabolise, whether the food is healthy or not, explains why people put on weight.

Of course much of weight gain is down to genetics. I'm small, however, I do watch calories in and calories out, know precisely how many I can metabolise without any gain, considering 4 long daily dog walks. I know not to eat a biscuit after a starchy meal, I keep a mental count, eat no excess beyond my "daily allowance" which has become much less with age.

Sensible, really.

Interesting Tweet from Chris van Tulleken about ultra processed foods in response to a Guardian article.

I agree with him.

Did you read the article growstuff? The question I think is how much processing is necessary to prolong the life of food, which provided it is safe is okay, and how much is bulking agents which have no nutritional value, which is not okay.
I’ve just got hold of a copy of Chris van Tulleken’s book, and am looking forward to finding out exactly what he is saying.

Yes, I read it.

I agree with you that the issue is differentiating between what makes food safe and what has no nutritional value. I'm afraid I find the reaction to all UPF food is over-stated. It isn't all bad. Without it, modern urban populations couldn't be fed and women in particular would have less time to work or even spend time with their families.

A lot of the processing is 'needed' to ensure a consistent product. Every slice of a specific brand of bread must taste just like any other.

Reading CT's book, one of the things I noticed is how many of the products we see in supermarkets, all with different brand names on them are actually all owned by the same dozen or less huge food conglomerates: Nestle, Unilever, Kraft and others whose names I did not recognise - and the question that occurred to me is: Why?

Just why do these companies have to circle the world snapping up successful food companies in every country, until they dominate and dictate food patterns world wide and can ignore government restrictions of manipulate and circumvent them?

I do not believe in the economies of scale in food manufacture. I think national companies can be as good and as efficient as one that is a subsidiary of an international company.

The key to the problem of UPFs lies several layers back from the food factories and supermarkets.

I actually think it goes back to political funding. Companies, public or private should not be allowed to fund political parties, and an individual's donations, in any form should be limited to £25,000 per year. This would include financing interns, funding special interest groups and other ways money filters in sideways. Food organisations should have limited lobbying rights. Other limitations would include the publication of any evidence, papers etc submitted to ministries and Quangos making decisions on food matters.

I should think the very last bit is problematic, if one doesn't want governmental interference in their kitchen.

"Britain's health is a national scandal, not just because of the state of the NHS, but because the government refuses to take action on our diets."

I'll take care of my diet. Thank you anyway.

What concerns me Norah, is that government action on food safety, in the widest definition, is influenced by who funds the political parties, whether cash in their party pots, or influencing and being appointed on advisory bodies.

Back in the 19th century, governent saw it as being in the countries interests to legislate against the adulteration of food, water in milk, sand in sugar, chalk in flour.

I think we are in another age of food adulteration. where the basics of nutrition, the crops that come from the field are so processed and denatured before they get into the food system that the food is as adulterated as it was in the past, just more subtly and legally and most people have no idea just how adulterated the food they buy in a supermarket is.

M0nica

What concerns me Norah, is that government action on food safety, in the widest definition, is influenced by who funds the political parties, whether cash in their party pots, or influencing and being appointed on advisory bodies.

Back in the 19th century, governent saw it as being in the countries interests to legislate against the adulteration of food, water in milk, sand in sugar, chalk in flour.

I think we are in another age of food adulteration. where the basics of nutrition, the crops that come from the field are so processed and denatured before they get into the food system that the food is as adulterated as it was in the past, just more subtly and legally and most people have no idea just how adulterated the food they buy in a supermarket is.

I think we have to trust what is listed in the ingredients though don’t we Monica? It’s an absolute pain, but I’ve started checking the list of the ingredients before I put things in my trolley at the supermarket now, and I see more and more people doing the same - which makes for more ditherers standing just where you want to be, but once you know what is better to buy it does get easier.

M0nica

What concerns me Norah, is that government action on food safety, in the widest definition, is influenced by who funds the political parties, whether cash in their party pots, or influencing and being appointed on advisory bodies.

Back in the 19th century, governent saw it as being in the countries interests to legislate against the adulteration of food, water in milk, sand in sugar, chalk in flour.

I think we are in another age of food adulteration. where the basics of nutrition, the crops that come from the field are so processed and denatured before they get into the food system that the food is as adulterated as it was in the past, just more subtly and legally and most people have no idea just how adulterated the food they buy in a supermarket is.

I can easily read labels.

Tomatoes in a tin may have salt. If I must use other than fresh tomatoes, I purchase BPA free tins, salt free. Quite easy to discern.

I've no idea to what foods don't have adequate labels.

Do they actually know what those ingredients are?

Do they check fat, sugar and sodium contents, which are the real killers? Do they even know what they are - or have they been frightened by reading long words for additives they don't understand?

I'm copying the rest of Chris van Tulleken's Tweet:

"Supermarket bread, baby food, special medical food, most breakfast cereals…a ban would really compromise the staples that make up most of what we eat.
Bans never go well - they infringe rights and freedoms. Real food needs to be just as affordable and available.
This means that tackling poverty is the first and most urgent priority.
Then marketing restrictions on UPF and changes to institutional food (prisons, hospitals, schools etc).
Then appropriate labelling of UPF products - this needs some nuance and care.
Finally cautious taxes on certain products might be possible and could help fund price changes in good food."

PamelaJ1

It didn’t tell me much that I didn’t already know but Tim Spectre is one of my favourite experts. I’m always surprised when people aren’t aware of the effects of a bad diet. Perhaps there is too much information out there and confusion sets in?

It was scary, though, to see how quickly the body starts to suffer from UPF diet.
I do eat UPF but only very occasionally, I am the person who is holding you up in the supermarket whilst I read the list of ingredients!
I do see that it can be very difficult for some families to afford healthy food but there appears to be many who can but don’t.

PamelaJ1 OP I do eat UPF but only very occasionally, I am the person who is holding you up in the supermarket whilst I read the list of ingredients!
I do see that it can be very difficult for some families to afford healthy food but there appears to be many who can but don’t.

Perhaps not bothering "can but don't" is crux to the matter. I assume most can read labels and discern what is junk - perhaps bother!

Those Vanwhatstheirname Doctor brothers are everywhere at the moment. TV, Radio, books, newspaper columns etc. they must be making shedloads of money.

Primrose53

Those Vanwhatstheirname Doctor brothers are everywhere at the moment. TV, Radio, books, newspaper columns etc. they must be making shedloads of money.

Indeed, good gig for them.