Fat, sugar and salt - do you agree?

Bags you ask to be directed to a site which mentioned a 'reduction by half of the incidence of CHD'

My PS said 'deaths not just reduced but halved. Repeat deaths halved.

I'll find the report and paste it for you and others.

Thank you for putting diet in context re CHD jane . Although I think there is a lot of food marketing that implies that foods have health benefits when they do not. It is very hard to regulate this grey area because they know just how far they can go before they break the law. (which is quite strict on claiming health benefits) My favourite example is probably "multigrain cereal", which could just mean a mixture of refined wheat, rice, cornflour etc. So parents actually think they are making a healthy choice when they are not.

Good post, jane.

Had a look at various sites on google last night, aka (NHS, BHF, etc) and none of them mentioned a reduction by half of the incidence of CHD. Could you maybe point me to the place where you found that info? Don't hurry on my behalf as I'm away this weekend but others may wish to see the source too. Thanks in advance.

How on earth did you make that assumption Jane? I could probably list all the probably causes of heart disease with having to resort to google.

Aka You seem to be implying that diet is the main factor in CHD, but it is not so simple.

There is controvery about the role of dietary fat in CHD

and the WHO says this:
"The most important behavioural risk factors of heart disease and stroke are unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, tobacco use and harmful use of alcohol. Behavioural risk factors are responsible for about 80% of coronary heart disease and cerebrovascular disease " www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs317/en/

Heredity is another risk factor, and some scientists believe that infection has a role too. content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1124505
"It is also being recognized that the traditional risk factors, such as smoking, dyslipidemia, hypertension and diabetes mellitus, do not explain the presence of coronary atherosclerosis in a large proportion of patients. We believe that in certain genetically susceptible people, infection with very common organisms, such as Chlamydia pneumoniae or cytomegalovirus, may lead to a localized infection and a chronic inflammatory reaction."
There is also some evidence of a link (not a causal relationship) between periodontal(gum) disease and coronary heart disease.
www.adajournal.com/content/137/suppl_2/14S.full

I think the point is that when there are so many factors involved in a complex condition, it is not appropriate to increase regulation, which always increases costs which are then passed on to the consumer, and which may have very little beneficial effect, if any.

Doubtless Bags that is one reason, plus the decrease in cigarette smoking, etc. but it also appears the incidence of heart disease has dropped too, even in Scotland.

PS deaths not just 'reduced' but actually halved

Deaths from heart disease may have been reduced (because of better medication and ways to keep people alive) but I'm not sure the incidence of heart disease has been reduced.

Years go people were indeed eating a lot of fat in their diet and coronary heart disease (CHD) deaths were double what they are today. This is before wholesale consumption of corn syrups, trans fats, etc.
In 1961, there were around 166,000 deaths from CHD in Great Britain by 2009 this had halved to around 80,000 deaths, according to the British Heart Foundation.

Yes, there are always individuals who smoke 40 a day or consume junk and live to 100, but that's the exception to the rule.

gangy5 Sorry but I don't agree that this is the way to go.
The food industry is already regulated and I don't see what else food manufacturers can do besides put labels on their products. These days most of them show clearly by the red/amber/green system whether sooemthing is good opr harmful. I'm not sure whatr changes you would make?

People have to take some responsibility for what they eat.

I don't think fats are harmful except for trans fats.

Ready meals can be a godsend and aren't harming people, unless perhaps they eat them every day, but their lack of knowledge about nutrition and how to cook nutritious food possibly does.

I agree with Mollie that learning how to cook properly is the way to go.

I am puzzled about all these warnings about what we should or should not be consuming and agree with Mollie that ready foods could be the problem.

Years ago people seemed to eat a lot of fat in their diet and added salt fairly liberally to the food they cooked. An aunt of DH always took plenty of salt and sugar with her food and drank a pint of Jersey milk every day. She lived to nearly 100. My own parents and MIL lived well into their 80s consuming salt and fat, plus sugar.
There is more to it than a simple demonisation of certain foods; it is when raw foods are converted into more complex structures, eg corn syrup, margarines etc, which I believe is causing a problem.

I agree that there is too much of all those things in ready meals and manufactured food gangy5 but your petition (admirable as it is) is NOT the only way. Teach people to cook from scratch using fresh food is another option. It's cheaper in the long run too... opening a tin and slamming it into the microwave or opening a packet and throwing it in the oven isn't the answer. Cook the way people did before all this convenience food made us fat and lazy is the real way forward.