To be shocked at the level of obesity of British children?

1980s. We did not have much money growing up at all, which for us meant these things were rare treats.

Ironically our diet was far better than most kids today. Our meals were simple, but very wholesome.

About pulses- I've absolutely loved them my whole life, make lentil soup as a go-to to soothe an upset stomach, can eat an entire tin of chickpeas for lunch, etc. When I'm on holiday I miss them and eat extra when I get back to make up for lost pulse-eating time.

HOWEVER even I can't live on freaking pulses alone, plus a few carrot sticks (only 10 cents!) and rice from a 10 kilo bag, it's just not feasible

the pop thing is interesting. We had Corona pop maybe once a week for Sunday dinner. a one litre bottle and it was for all 4 of us with some left over (mum had a second glass when washing up)

When are you talking about? I was born in 1974 and we always had crisps in the house. So did my grandmother who was born in 1910 so I assume she grew up without crisps.

@TheKeatingFive they were treat foods for us too. In my family fizzy drinks were for things like visiting relatives and also only after 3pm for some reason. Chocolate for holidays, crisps yes other kids' birthdays or at home occasionally for a Sunday barbeque.

A better question is WHY they have become everyday foods for many. I wonder if the price has come down.

I'm so ancient, I recall being excited about Pop and my Grandmas.( once a year)
Crisps, never. Food not made in the home, very very rarely. Eating out, once a year possibly? A piece of birthday cake, a massive treat.
Coffee, none available.
Seems strange now. I'm overweight.

So true. And when people say “You can make a delicious chickpea curry for 4 people for 72p” I think we have varying definitions of “delicious”. I force lentils and pulses down because they’re healthy, but hand on heart I never enjoy them. They’re a cheap, nutritious filler but not what I’d call ‘nice’. Luckily I’m fortunate enough to be able to afford to get my kicks elsewhere, but if food was my only pleasure in life I could definitely see that my diet would be less healthy than it is now.

I remember crisps at children's parties. Definitely not something that was available all the time.

One very basic point, regularity of consumption.

We had Coke once in a blue moon in my house as a child. Special occasions only.

Another factor that's changed over time is children spending time with non-resident parents playing at "Disney Dad" or grandparents with the means to indulge grandchildren that wasn't so avaliable in previous generations. This can add challenge to parents attempting to regulate their childrens' health if they're regularly undermined by excessive treats.

Contact time can also affect ability to commit to sporting activities too.

It's another piece of the jigsaw of social change. Not a huge one but does affect many families.

@Parker231 you've cracked it, obesity crisis solved

An interesting question is coke, chocolate and fried potatoes have been around for easily a century- what's changed that we've all become fat in the past 40 years?

When I was a kid, a couple of chocolate digestives would have been considered a treat. Not that they're perfect either, but they're a lot less loaded with calories and junk than standard treats nowadays.

But parents don’t need to include fizzy drinks, crisps and chocolate bars in their weekly shop. Instead have them as an occasional treat for special occasions.

The drive to eat is not just driven by hunger, it is also caused by appetite which is affected by other homeostasis processes such as energy levels. I teach this stuff for a living, I promise you if it was so easy to simply eat the right amount at all times there would not be a billion dollar diet industry, and food companies wouldn't bother spending billions on advertising and packaging. And I never said smaller portions were restrictive eating?

its not the norm here. There are very few obviously overweight children at my child’s school.

Because it's quick and easy and I suspect if it wasn't UPF it would be something else.

This comes back to a lack of food culture. In other cultures, your homemade chicken soup could be your comfort and treats could be homemade also, or just simpler and less full of rubbish.

We should try to address this idea that share bags of crisps / sweets are there to make you feel better.

But why do we see the crappy UPF as comfort and treats? Many people have been programmed into thinking this.

Most people really want their comfort and treats when life is hard. It's a bit like asking why the poorest people spend money on their hair or nails or fags and booze, it's because when your life feels shit you feel the need for these boosts more than ever.

I don't think this is fundamentally about cost or time. It is more than possible to make cheap, wholesome food that is quick to prepare.

It's about education, mental energy, having a proper food culture and being helped to make better choices while shopping.

@TrustPenguins So you're conflating three things here... cost, taste, and time.

£50 a week is more than enough for most things. Someone got upset with me on another post (lol), because I essentially made a Huel-like meal that fed someone for a whole year for less than £300, completely fortified!

You are really saying that people eat unhealthily because they're a) lazy/don't have the time to make something, and/or b) addicted to crap.

Couscous and chick peas (with a vitamin pill and a few cod liver oil capsules = £20 for 300 each) is pretty much your whole daily requirement done in 5 minutes. Throw in some peanut butter if you need more fats and you're covered. So cheap and quick.

I don't buy this 'rich people can afford to eat healthier' line... they have access to the same junk everyone else does, it's more of a choice not to eat it. The only real difference is that they can eat ten chicken breasts a day and not gain weight (high protein low carb), and 'poorer' people have to have a lower protein diet and will fill up on carbs. It's more about self control than cost.

Yes, agree with this. UPF was not part of my culture- I was raised veggie for one- and while we had the occasional margarita pizza it just did not enter my home.There were plenty of treats but all home made.

It can also be a lot of ignorance around good food too- not being able to cook, not knowing about nutrition. I know families where the parents themselves were raised on junk food and takeaways and they really have no idea how to cook properly. They've never seen it done. The whole idea of cooking healthy, nutritious meals from scratch is alien to them. Also they are so used to processed foods and junk foods that they imagine more healthy foods are disgusting. They think to lose weight they have to exist on salads (or rabbit food as they call it). They don't understand how delicious good foods can be.
I'm not saying this is the case for everyone who's poor and overweight (of course not!) but I've seen quite a few families like this.

TrustPenguins · Today 11:42
We all know it is more expensive to eat healthier foods than not. There is a massive correlation between wealth and health (particularly obesity) - ie. the more affluent, the less likely to be obese.

I think there's an undeniable correlation, but I think it's not just to do with being able to afford lovely fresh fruit and organic veg.

This comment will probably get deleted but I speak from experience, and if we can't be honest on this thread, then what's the point?

People struggling at the bottom of society's pyramid may have complex issues, all linked: low self-esteem, lack of ability to defer gratification, depressing surroundings (and neighbours) which/who stifle aspiration, and situations which mean they are reluctant to behave differently, dress or eat differently from their neighbours*

*Deferring gratification (in the form of saying no to children when necessary, or resisting eating certain foods for eg) has been linked to high-achievement and success in life. It's the self-discipline and imagination to understand that by denying yourself something right now (playing on the X box instead of revising for an exam, or eating a calorific snack, say, you'll gain an advantage later.)

**Lack of aspiration: when I was teaching, and when I lived next to neighbours in social housing, I was struck by their reaction to anyone who 'put their head above the parapet' in terms of clothes, keeping their gardens nice, disciplining their children etc. These people were criticised because they 'think they're better than us' etc. I found it eye-opening and very depressing. It's hard to have aspirations when you know it will provoke hostility from your neighbours, and you have no chance of escaping those miserable people.

So delete me!! 🤐

Dare I say then (and run away quickly) that causation is turned upside down here? maybe it's lack of drive/effort which leads to no cooking, poor diet and obesity AND being poor? and not vice versa?
As repeatedly said here, cooking healthy food is cheaper than buying ready made crap, but it does require effort.