To wonder why governments,WHO and scientists are allowed to be bullied by big food companies-The Men Who Made Us Fat?

[Rockpool]

Following on from the program last night and the thread in Telly Addicts I just don't get why they're allowed to get away with it.

As somebody said last night it's the tobacco industry all over again,haven't we learnt from that?

You know the answer. Hell, I know the answer and I didn't even watch the programme! It's BAT all over again, it's the same as the pharma industries. To coin a phrase, "power is measured by the pound or the fist".

But it was shocking even though it's costing us £££££ and crippling the NHS quite influential people(members of WHO,gov ministers,scientists)are just bullied into keeping quiet and doing nothing.

I don't get why.

Because the 'healthy eating' guidance is coincidentally the cheapest way to feel the masses?

The ££££ it's costing the NHS is probably nothing compared to the ££££ that the economy benefits from having these industries on side.

I thought it was very interesting to hear about the study which concluded that children today are as physically active as they were in the past and that the problem isn't laziness and lack of exercise, but the kind of food (and portion sizes) we are eating. This report was ignored by the government, because it didn't suit they were not interested in the facts, but seemingly wanted only reports which supported the pov, they wanted to promote (ie, it's our own fault entirely that we are getting fatter).

It's easier for the government to blame us for the increasing obesity problem, than to make food manufacturers stop pumping their food full of salt/sugar/chemicals which make us fat and unhealthy and to stop advertisers from aiming all their crap at children.

Not just money..jobs, infrastructure, political donations, power, farming...actually have always been amazed at the attack on tobacco, as the costs to NHS (according to one set of figures I cant find any more) were exceeded by benefits to exchequer in taxes, unclaimed pensions etc from those dieing early. Some hope for us all then.

The governments target seems to be reducing alcohol consumption. The thing is, alcohol is for adults - I am more worried about the things that are advertised to children.

Alcohol consumption, specifically binge drinking is definitely a big target isn't it? I tend to find that alcohol is self limiting and contains a lot less junk than the majority of foods nowadays

@karmabeliever. That sounds like quite a claim (I mean the "children are as physically active" one). Can you give me a link to the study ? Thanks.

I'm looking for the study as well but there's a report here

Kirsty it was on the program,you can still watch it.Think they showed the research being carried out.I've heard it elsewhere too.

I grew up in the 70s(which was the time just before the obesity epidemic began),if anything I think my kids do more exercise than I did to be frank. They certainly run around and play the same.My kids seem to do masses more PE at school which was a v relaxed affair back then,they also do more clubs than 70s kids ie they're swimming and doing after school stuff(netball,athletics,football).In the 70s you didn't have all these clubs.

The program basically says it's the fat they carry that causes kids to be less active not the other way round.

@Rockpool. The thing is, I want to see the paper. I want to know what the research protocol was, how they measured the activity level of children 30 years ago, how they estimated the confidence interval, how many children were in the study.

Having now looked at the abstract, it appears to say nothing at all about the physical activity of children in the past. So we don't have any data on that. The paper is interesting but has a small cohort and appears to concentrate on the evolution of fatness rather than absolute values. It certainly can't be taken as the "last word" on the subject, rather an interesting starting point.

The other point I'd make is that after-school clubs are great for the fitness of the students who go there, but a lot of students don't. Whereas back in the days when all children walked to school everyone walked to school. I'd be prepared to believe that the average amount of physical activity might not have changed that much, but the standard deviation is a lot larger - and hence, the number of children getting very little exercise is larger.

Kirsty I agree with wanting to see the paper itself. I've been so fed up with reports and extracts of papers that make wild claims and when you actually get to see the study there's some great big glaring factor that's never explained or addressed.

The recent swedish study being a case in point. Plenty of hot wind about how bad low carb diets are but no reportage at all about the massive increase in alcohol consumption. Or the fact that people were not actually reducing carb content in the diet that much, just eating different foods. Or the fact that it was all self reported and therefore alcohol and snack food consumption was likely to be much higher than the study suggests.

It makes a joke of the headlines - just give us the data

Interestingly, an earlier paper by the same team concluded that although more exercise didn't make students less fat, they did become healthier.

Everyone might have walked to school, but the school was 5 minutes away.

They have knocked down three primary schools in my area, since my childhood (1970's) and replaced it with one. The walk to the bus stop is further away.

There are now more parks in my area than there was when i was growing up.

Whilst I agree that Big Food is as bad as Big Pharma and I have an inherant distrust of Big Corporation (and Big Government) anyway, people themselves do have to take some responsibility for the obesity problem in the UK. Nobody forces anyone to eat too much sugar, salt or carbs or have a really terrible diet. The information on how to feed oneself healthily and cheaply is all there for the taking in every doctors surgery and library in the land.

But Callisto, the advice in dr's surgeries is not unproblematic.
the only thing probably everyone agrees on is that vegetables are useful components within a diet. Everything else is up for grabs.
I personally think a low fat diet can encourage some people to put on a lot of weight and low fat is the orthodoxy

Callisto did you see the program,it kind of debunked the whole healthy eating is a choice thing.

I actually went to school by bus as a kid,my kids walk.Walking,travelling by car/bus is down to where you live.Kids lived all over the place as they do now.

I also thought it was interesting to see what portion sizes should be. I think we have lost a lot of knowledge regarding what constitutes an appropriate size of snack/meal. The soda from the 1950's (adult size), looked tiny in comparison to what you'd get at the cinema now. Fizzy drinks are the work of the devil except slimline tonic for my gin , they are just empty calories that you forget to count as 'food', when adding up daily consumption.

Also, I didn't know that eating a supersize lunch doesn't mean that you eat less in the evening to make up for it. People still eat the same amount in their evening meal. Perhaps when supersizing first began, companies didn't know this or didn't anticipate how our eating habits would be changed, but they do know now and it would be responsible to not carry on regardless.

That said, I do think people have to take personal responsibility - everyone knows that Maccy D is not a healthy option, even if they do put lettuce in the bun

Karmer but look at the McD ticker across the top of the page,the one with a tractor going across a green field. Clearly McD are now trying to put the message across that a McD is a healthy option thus lulling people into a false sense of security.

The big 'double gulp' fizzy drink with 50 teaspoons of sugar in it. Mindblowing!

No sorry, I didn't see the programme, but I am dubious in the extreme that healthy eating is not a choice. If you eat unprocessed food in reasonable amounts and in a reasonable balance to each other, I can't see how it can be unhealthy.

You need to see the program.

I'm going to have to catch this on iplayer, I've not heard of his programme before, sounds vey interesting.

Callisto sorry not sure I worded myself correctly below in both posts.Basically Peretti shows how since the 70s we've been manipulated by the food industry.Both shows already shown have covered a lot and I'm not sure I could do either justice.Not being glib when I said watch the show.

No probs. Shouldn't have barged in and commented on something I haven't seen.

I shall try and find time to watch - it sounds v interesting.