To think that we need a consensus on healthy food before we can have a 'fat tax'?

[whitershadeofpale]

This is partly inspired by watching Jamie Oliver's programme tonight and also the fact that I've recently read Dr John Briffa's 'Escape The Diet Trap'.

I'll hold my hands up to having been overweight all of my adult life and at one stage having been obese, I'm now comfortably losing weight and feel very healthy (better skin, hair and nails than ever before). I've read so much and tried different things over the years but I honestly feel that there is no consensus as to what constitutes a healthy diet.

My mum recently went to the doctor and was told she has a high bmi, borderline cholesterol and raised blood pressure. The diet advise she was given was imo a load of outdated crap that would probably cause her to gain weight (porridge with dried fruit for breakfast, sweetener in tea, jacket potato with beans for lunch, low fat meat and 2 veg type dinner/stir fry/pasta, snack on fruit).

No one can deny that we have a problem with obesity in this country but the solution I've heard most often is to put a tax on 'unhealthy food' passing on the punishment to the consumer. Now we all need to take personal responsibility and some foods are obviously bad for us such as crisps, milk chocolate and fizzy drinks, but there are so many things that are a grey area such as salted nuts, fatty meats, cheese, cream-many doctors or experts would say we should't eat these, yet others say they are fine. If the 'experts' can't agree then how are the public expected to make correct choices? And if we don't have the correct information then how is it ethical to charge people extra for what there's no consensus on?

[Annabel7]

There are some foods/drinks that are obviously rubbish though. Diabetes is a huge problem in Mexico and their consumption of fizzy drinks was through the roof. They've now taxed them and consumption has dropped - www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/18/mexican-soda-tax-cuts-sales-first-year.

So there is some evidence that taxing works. I personally think it's a good idea for the obvious nasties. Something needs to be done with the rise in obesity and diabetes. It will crush the nhs if we don't do something. Ideally those taxes would be put into something positive - education or reducing price of veg. Governments also need to stop cow-towing to big food companies whose motivations are purely financial.

[redstrawberry10]

but there are foods in a grey area. if you go simply by calories, pure juice is quite high in sugar.

[stripytees]

I don't think there's any confusion about junky snacky foods - crisps, sweets and chocolates (apart from over 70% dark chocolate in small quantities), biscuits, donuts and cakes, fizzy drinks. Those are all very high in calories and very poor nutritionally.

A lot of people eat reasonably healthy meals but also consume a huge amount of extra calories from snacks. I don't know how much adding a tax i.e. making these foods more expensive would help though. There's such a big snacking culture in this country and these foods are so widely available for example at train stations. Just yesterday I watched someone (who was clearly obese) stuffing their face with a bag of crisps just before 8am while waiting for a London commuter train... it made me feel a bit sick just thinking about it.

[Marynary]

I think that the diet she was given was reasonable, based on current evidence. Obviously there are healthier diets but they need to be realistic. I don't agree at all that the diet would make her put on weight (as long as portion sizes are correct) and it would lower her cholesterol and blood pressure which is the aim.

[TattyDevine]

I don't personally advocate no-carb diets. But adequate carbohydrate diets. And what is adequate for you depends on what you want to achieve (weight loss, weight gain, or weight maintenance) and how much exercise you are doing. But in doing this it is useful to recognise the role and action of carbohydrates in the body.

[Lurkedforever1]

The side effect of what tatty says is that with carbs being easier to break down, they are the bodies first port of call for energy. Therefore if you actually have a healthy lifestyle, i.e you exercise, they are absolutely the best form of energy.
Our muscle is protein too. So if you were to set out to do any reasonable physical activity, if you don't have sufficient energy supply from carbs, your body finds it just as easy to break down your own source of protein, i.e your own lean muscle. Which in turn is easier to break down than your actual fat. Hence why low carbing works as a weight loss measure. Unfortunately most people doing it don't stick to carbs low enough to match activity, they go lower as it gets better results on a set of scales. When actually they are getting flabbier because they are losing more muscle and less fat than if they ate a suitable amount of carbs. Hence why athletes or during the rationing era, the relatively high carb diet doesn't result in being fat. Unlike all the pro low carbers I know, who either don't exercise to any level I'd even call it that, or who range from thin but disproportionately untoned, to extremely wobbly.
If you don't want to plough through all the scientific research on carbs vs fat, the best laymens basic explanation I've heard was a programme with those twin doctors in, where one did no carbs and one did no fat, probably on i player somewhere if anyone cares to look.

[Prelude]

yy Tatty. If only the adverts would show the glamorous people a couple of hours down the line

[LovelyFriend]

There is really only one thing the body can do with carbohydrates after it has extracted the micronutrients (vitamins) from them - burn them, or store them. If you don't burn them - you store them. As glycogen or fat.

Everything Tatty says is spot on.

Also if you are eating refined carbs (white bread/flour/rice/pasta etc) then most if not all of the micro nutrients have been stripped out in the processing. Wheat bran (for example) contains the healthy fats, vitamins and minerals, however it perishes more quickly and is therefore removed from the wheat grain to produce white flour. Wholegrain carbs don't have as long a shelf life as the processed refined white wheat that has had all the fats and vitamins removed.

So refined carbs, white bread etc, are really just bulk nutrients and offer very little in the way of vitamins, fats, fiber etc.

White carbs are seen as so "normal" in society. But they have been developed with shelf life in mind rather that nutrition or health.

You need to read the ingredients carefully too - much so called brown or granary or wholegrain bread will be made with a large % of refined white flour.

[TattyDevine]

There are so many wine cues aren't there. Watching TV is bad, never mind the advertising, there are so many people enjoying a glass of wine on TV! And it always looks so nice, with a lovely polished shiny brand new glass with no fingerprints or dishwasher burn. And the person drinking it doesn't have a wine spare-tyre round their midrift to remind you that you should probably at least wait till the weekend (or perhaps till 7pm)

[Prelude]

It did used to be easier to avoid the wine aisle in supermarkets but it's also at the entrance and all over the shop now, just like cake.

[BiscuitMillionaire]

A 'healthy' diet is not the same as a diet aimed at losing weight.

[Prelude]

I've given up smoking, drinking alcohol and eating crap which caused me to gain weight whether it was the food itself or simply too much of it. Smoking, admittedly was easiest because although it is a hard habit to break and a tough addiction, you don't need to physically smoke. Plus it isn't bloody advertised and talked about everywhere like alcohol.

We have wine and cake emotions down there.

[TattyDevine]

Low carb isn't pseudo science. There are some easily measurable, provable differences between protein and carbs. All documented extensively, NHS website entries on diabetes so not woo sources. You decide whether they would potentially make a difference if you were trying to lose weight:

Things that are the same:

Carbs provide just over 4 calories per gram
Proteins provide just over 4 calories per gram

Things that are different:

Proteins take the most energy to digest (20-30% of the calories they provide)

Carbs take less energy to digest (5-10% of the calories they provide)

Proteins do not impact blood sugar in the same way that carbohydrates do.

Proteins are broken down into pieces (called amino acids) that are then used to build new proteins with specific functions, such as catalyzing chemical reactions, facilitating communication between different cells, or transporting biological molecules from here to there. When there is a shortage of fats or carbohydrates, proteins can also yield energy.

There is really only one thing the body can do with carbohydrates after it has extracted the micronutrients (vitamins) from them - burn them, or store them. If you don't burn them - you store them. As glycogen or fat.

[LovelyFriend]

Yes Prelude its EXACTLY the same

[Prelude]

I've never really understood the argument that it's harder to lose weight than for an alcoholic to stop drinking alcohol because people still need to eat something. Alcoholics still need to take in fluids. It's exactly the same in that it's what you choose to put in your mouth, surely?

[WorktoLive]

The meal plan in the OP would work perfectly well on Slimming World, perhaps with the addition of some salad with the baked potato. Note the absence of sugar and processed food.

but she could even add a small daily treat (choc, crisps, glass of wine) and stay on plan.

[PoppyFleur]

Generally, the more a food is processed, the more unhealthy it becomes, surely we all know this?

Everything in moderation is a wise statement. However it does surprise me how little some people understand about moderation and portion control. Also, how little movement some people do in an average day. If a fat tax is put in place then I would like to see the money used to fund pedometers and teaching people to use My Fitness Pal, useful tools to help people get their diet and fitness on track.

[LovelyFriend]

I was recently told by the Doctor my cholesterol was high. I was advised to reduced meat, fats, cheese, eggs etc in my diet to reduce my cholesterol levels.

After doing my own research it seems that this is a very old fashioned view promoted by drug companies as well as the NHS/govt and the best way to reduced cholesterol is to reduce the sugar in your diet. Reducing meat/eggs etc has very little impact on cholesterol levels.

I imagine after following the doctors advice, peoples cholesterol levels won't improve at all and they will then be prescribed medication to reduce/control cholesterol. Big win for the drug company which seems to be the major force in dictating NHS policy re cholesterol.

Its a mine field of manipulation, bad advice and many vested interests by multi-nationals.

There is much evidence to suggest rates of heart disease rocketed when govts worldwide advised people to swap butter of margarine. Now Greg Wallace is on the BBC (last night) pushing margarine on us again as a more healthy choice (with the help of Unilever).

I can't imagine there will ever be a consensus on what is a healthy diet.

Whatever the food villain of the day is seen to be, one consistent through much of the advice though the ages is to eat a variety of unprocessed food cooked in a healthy way. And yet the supermarkets are full of high sugar/salt/fat processed foods and the improved versions of school dinners fed to our children are still pretty poor and don't follow these basic guidelines.

Unless we take personal responsibility we're fucked.

[Theycallmemellowjello]

Also I can't imagine how the meal plan in the op could cause someone to gain weight? (Unless you put loads of cream and golden syrup on the porridge like I am always tempted into doing.) That seems like a perfectly normal day's food to me - I eat something like that every day, I'm in the middle of the healthy range of bmi for my height.

[Theycallmemellowjello]

I don't see the problem with taxing junk food - sweets, chocolate, crisps, ready meals loaded with sugar etc - heavily. There's really no debate about whether loads of sugar is bad for you or not, and I think that changing pricing would be a good tool to encourage people to make better decisions about food. A 'fat tax' is not going to be about taxing potatoes or cream.

[howabout]

I eat full fat and full sugar everything. I eat sugary breakfast cereal, crisps, chocolate and sweets. I also eat 3 "balanced" meals a day with fat, carbs and protein and the odd piece of fruit and slice of cake. I am not and have never been overweight. My DC eat the same diet as me and none of them is overweight or have any fillings.

I do not think food taxes will help and I agree there is no consensus. I do not want to be forced to consume artificial sweeteners and fat substitutes.

Food habits and portion control are the issues as I see them.

Jamie Oliver gets on my nerves.

[Lurkedforever1]

Right so if taxing crisps, cake and chocolate more is going to be of any use, does that mean overweight people are all so from just eating too many of the above? Because I'd argue that isn't the case.
I regularly hear the reason its hard to change bad eating habits, is because unlike alcohol, drugs, smoking etc eating isn't something you can stop doing entirely. If however we work on the basis the main problem is cake/sweets/ crisps, then that debunks every theory I've heard on over eating. Because surely then the solution is easy, overweight people are simply told to cut out dessert and snacks, which in my mind causes nothing like the will power/ mindset problems I regularly hear are the reason people can't just stop eating too much.
Even if it's only £5 extra a week it costs me to buy our healthy, reasonable amount of crap, why should I pay it? That's a few days out over a year. Or go without, so my dd starts thinking sweets/cake/ choc are in the league of smoked salmon, and something to be indulged and gorged on when you can afford it. While wealthier kids continue to eat them in whatever quantities they wish.
I'm already paying more because of obesity. Vanity sizing and the fact in many shops the tall range (and the petite I guess) has been reduced for market demand for big sizes, results in off the peg cheap clothing already being a rarity for both dd and I. So I object to yet another direct hit to my actual budget, for someone else's weight, when it won't even prevent it. Prop the nhs maybe, but there are a range of better ways to do that, prevention being the most obvious.

[ShadowLine]

I think a pp has already pointed out that some foods (included crisps, confectionery, fruit juice) are taxed by VAT at 20%. Although cake is VAT free.

So I would have thought that there's scope for relatively easily increasing taxes on those foods already subject to VAT without getting into questions about whether high fat foods like cheese or butter should be taxed extra.

[Mistigri]

It sounds not dissimilar to the diet that I have been eating all my life. I've weighed roughly the same since I was 12 and I'm now 50! But I don't eat big portions and I've never dieted.

While there are diets that everyone would agree are healthy (high sugar foods, heavily processed foods), all the evidence suggests that there are many ways of eating a "good diet" and that humans are adapted to thrive on a wide range of diets.

I don't think it would be difficult to target a number of "worst offender" foods like sugary drinks and cereals. Whether a tax is the right approach I don't know.

[AngelicaDelight]

"Carbs should be the base of the meal equal to veg in proportion"

If I ate that I would balloon to the size of a house. I think everyone is different. If I reduce my carbs, I lose weight. If I eat them with every meal, I put it on.