Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

The change for life reduce sugar campaign is irritating me

162 replies

Hurr1cane · 19/01/2015 17:28

Fair enough change sugary cereals for less sugary ones like porridge, but it depends what type of porridge clearly.

Fair enough change chocolate bars for rice cakes... But again... It depends what type, some are full of salt and sugar.

But change cordial for sugar free cordial? Really? I make an effort to make sure I only buy cordial with sugar in and not asphartemine, horrible stuff that sends DS completely high. But to be honest I'd much rather replace with watered down fruit juice or even just water, the cordial is only used for a treat or when he's poorly and I need to get fluids down him, but I never ever use sugar free.

It just seems like pointless, vague, bad advice, and yes all children in DSs school were given the full packs.

I'm probably being unreasonable because of how badly DS reacts to that particular sweetner, but the pharmacist tells me that isn't a rare thing at all, and the sweetner is in all the calpol type medicines instead of sugar, which means DS is either poorly and having seizures, or completely high and giving himself seizures, so the advice for sugar free cordial really pissed me off.

I am being aren't I?

OP posts:
Quiero · 20/01/2015 14:57

Ah but there's no nice big backhanders forthcoming from the 'natural' food industry. There's no benefit to the Government or the big corporations if you drink water.

It's a fucking disgrace and you have to wonder if you can trust Government guidelines on anything if they are willing to put their corporate paymasters profits ahead of our health.

Of course it probably helps to have us all nice and obese as they can blame us for the failure of the NHS when they privatise it for their own financial gain.

Stratter5 · 20/01/2015 15:01

Ah, you're as sceptical as I am, Quiero

SunnyBaudelaire · 20/01/2015 15:03

"The English family they found had a table full of coloured boxes."
Well you said it, the family 'they found' - why not find a slim healthy English family who eat properly? they do exist after all! I suppose that would not have suited their agenda

ClaudetteWyms · 20/01/2015 15:04

I agree the "healthy" eating messages are all wrong. Sugar-free squash is not healthy by any standard. Haven't had anything home from DD's school yet thank goodness. We have full fat milk (DD's drink of choice) and butter at home. And sugar.

I went into DD's class last term and they had on the whiteboard "good" and "bad" foods for the class to learn. Under good was sausages Hmm and under bad was cake. Personally I would take a slice of home made cake over a supermarket bought sausage full of additives any time.

And just to confuse the kids even further - although cake is "bad", those who get 100% attendance for the year get to attend an annual "tea party" and stuff their face with...cake! No wonder people are confused, and their kids will grow up to be so.

CeliaLytton · 20/01/2015 15:15

YANBU. Gives me the rage too. And makes the NHS look very backwards as they can't keep up with research.

Hurr1cane · 20/01/2015 15:59

Wow it really isn't just me then. I think DSs school got the packs because it's a special school? We seem to get everything, although I'd argue it's even more important to keep children with complex health needs away from chemicals like that to be honest.

OP posts:
FindoGask · 20/01/2015 17:10

Full sugar, full fat in this house.

Regarding sugar especially, there are some very confused and confusing messages. I prefer the boring, but steadfast "everything in moderation" approach.

TattyDevine · 20/01/2015 17:36

This is one of those topics that always causes back and forth arguments, both that have some valid points.

Personally, I have never had any bad reaction to aspartame and neither have my children. Both my children were big babies prone to being "chunky" long before anything artificial was on the cards, and I was starting to get scrutinised by health care professionals who possibly assumed I was feeding them buckets of chips in their highchair.

For this reason I made the decision to use sugar free drinks where non water drinks were not used. So while my friends were giving apple juice, I was giving sugar free squash (very diluted), when they weren't having water for whatever reason.

Over the course of a few years, this added up to quite a significant reduction in their calorie intake without any major compromise to what they received in terms of nutrition. This, along with an otherwise healthy diet, would have contributed to them "growing into their weight" faster than if I hadn't.

I too find some sugar free or reduced sugar products useful in maintaining my weight, and in fact controlling my appetite. I dispute the fact that sugar free gives the same insulin response to sugar, as mentioned upthread - they simply do not have the same effect on blood sugar as backed up by evidence based research and peer reviewed studies.

Unless myself or my child reacts to one of these products, I will continue to use them, and unless the official advice in this country changes, I will continue to trust that they are safe. I don't buy into conspiracy theories though if anecdotally somebody has an issue then of course they should discontinue use. I know a person who gets sent loopy by tomatoes.

Having said all that, the fact that I have found them useful, as well as many others, makes me feel it is not at all unreasonable for Change 4 Life to suggest them as an option. Of course water is better, of course moderation is fine, however there are those out there who don't even know where to start, and it really is a perfectly fine place to start if your diet is packed with sugar.

An extreme example is a show I was watching the other night with a 32 stone young woman who was drinking at least 2 x 1.5 litre bottles of full sugar coke every day. That's 1260 calories a day she could save by switching to diet coke and in terms of calorie deficit would initially trigger a 2 pound a week weight loss, not taking into account her massive weight which would probably cause it to be more. Of course she should drink water, but would that be likely?

Change 4 Life campaigns annoy me anyway for much less reasonable reasons than anything the OP has mentioned, and I can't quite put my finger on why. so OP YANBU, but I thought I'd share my views of sugar free from the perspective of someone who has no issue with them and why I haven't followed the increasingly popular aspartame-hating club.

CrohnicallyCold · 20/01/2015 18:11

Haven't got time to read the full thread so sorry if this has already been suggested.

But at 9, can't your DS have a reduced dose of adult paracetamol? If he can't swallow tablets, you can buy soluble ones over the counter. When I was a child, there was Disprol (soluble paracetamol in child doses), not sure if they still make that. But anyway, it doesn't have to be a choice between ill child or hyper child.

Pipbin · 20/01/2015 18:32

I hate it too.

I hate the way it doesn't encourage children to eat less but to eat worse crap than they were before. No way should they be drinking diet drinks.

But what I hate the most is the advert. I get almost violent at the bit where they pour the drink out and it's just sugar lumps because of the uuuuurgh noise one of the children makes.
I'm cross just thinking about it!

Hurr1cane · 20/01/2015 19:01

Apparently not yet chronicallycold. He has lots of complex health problems so I have to go with what the hospitals say Sad

OP posts:
Hurr1cane · 20/01/2015 19:02

It goes on weight rather than age I think and he's so skinny. He eats like a horse but he is very active and also his body doesn't keep anything in for any length of time

OP posts:
tobysmum77 · 20/01/2015 20:57

i think that the posts in this thread are based on anything but evidence. Sugar rots teeth, is addictive, causes obesity, diabetes and cancer. artificial sweeteners yes are not a bath enhancing supplement and may be negative in comparison to water. But the main evidence against them is internet induced hysteria. clearly I'm wrong. But where is the evidence that artificial sweeteners are worse than sugar?

tobysmum77 · 20/01/2015 21:00

health enhancing Hmm

Hurr1cane · 20/01/2015 21:03

Evidence? I see it as soon as DS has any and then proceeds to get so high that he has a seizure. Sugar? My teeth aren't rotten, neither are DSs, we eat it in moderation and brush our teeth though.

OP posts:
Hurr1cane · 20/01/2015 21:06

Oh, we also aren't obese and don't have diabetes.

OP posts:
tobysmum77 · 20/01/2015 21:07

You can't base it on one family, I mean proper scientific evidence that it is worse than sugar.

Sallystyle · 20/01/2015 21:07

There is no evidence that sweetness cause cancer or anything of the kind.

Evidence that it doesn't agree with some people? sure. Tomatoes don't agree with my daughter, but they are not harmful for the majority of people.

There is enough links out there to prove they are safe, but people read a few things on the internet and brought into the whole thing.

Yeah, rats got cancer when they digested over the recommended amount. For humans, we need to drink over 16 cans a day to get near the recommended amount.

Thank god someone else can see it for the hysteria that it is.

Sure, nothing is a good for you as water. But it does not cause cancer. It is not evil, even if it doesn't suit some people.

Sallystyle · 20/01/2015 21:09

All the link that have ever been posted are not backed up by any reputable science.

I am shocked that so many people ran with the hysteria.

Anything fake is not great, but it is not this huge killer either.

Sallystyle · 20/01/2015 21:10

I drink tons of pepsi max

I have not had a filling. That is mostly down to genetic and luck I believe.

I also eat a lot of sugar.

eurochick · 20/01/2015 21:58

I'm with the majority. Moderating sugar consumption is good, but replacing it with artificial sweeteners is not the way to go.

Hurr1cane · 21/01/2015 09:28

No ones said it caused cancer at all. Also no one has said its evil. Everyone has said it isn't healthy, which it isn't, and shouldn't be in a health campaign aimed at children

OP posts:
BeCool · 21/01/2015 10:11

U2 you are free to feed artificial sweeteners to your kids.
I'm free not to.

I just don't want the govt pushing it on me and my children as a healthy alternative when they actually know fuck all about the long term effects of consuming it, especially by children.

ghostyslovesheep · 21/01/2015 10:31

I'm with you U2 - a lot of hoodoo nonsense around aspartame

HiImBarryScott · 21/01/2015 10:56

Artificial sweeteners taste revolting. It's full sugar & full fat in this house too.

My kids have fruit juice with breakfast & water or milk the rest of the time. But at school they are offered flavoured milk and squash with sweeteners as if they are healthy options. Pisses me right off especially as DS2's eczema is badly affected by sweeteners.

I let them have sweets and a can of fizz between them as a treat on Saturdays & it's a struggle to find something that does not have sweeteners. Coke & San Pellegrino lemonade are about the only thing that Tesco sells without bloody sweeteners.

Yes sugar is bad for you, but I think it's a better idea to have a campaign to cut the intake of sweetened food in general (whether sugar or sweeteners) instead of replacing one with the other.

Swipe left for the next trending thread