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 The diet advise she was given was imo a load of outdated crap that would probably cause her to gain weight (porridge with dried fruit for breakfast, sweetener in tea, jacket potato with beans for lunch, low fat meat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?

I get what you are saying op.

I don't the think the healthy eating guideline they give in doctors and schools is any good. And yes it seems odd to tax 'bad food' when it's seems the science is changing.

However there are certain foods that most people can agree are bad for you like crisps etc.

I doubt a tax would work. Especially since you see so many stories saying healthy food is expensive and unhealthy food cheaper (I don't agree with this either). In cases where over eating is an emotional/addiction/coping mechanism the tax won't matter. People still smoke even though it's very expensive. I quit smoking a 2 years ago. Before I was ready to quit, I always found the money to smoke. The price going up annoyed me but didn't stop me.

Low carbing is pseudo science crap!

A healthy diet incorporates all the nutrient groups in moderation. Carbs don't only provide energy but also protein vitamins and minerals and allow nutrients from other sources to be absorbed too.

It's portion sizes. I'm overweight myself currently losing and my portion sizing estimates are shit I need to weigh stuff.

The only foods I would class as definitely unhealthy are crisps, chocolate and sweets. Even puddings (in moderation and as a treat) contain nutrition.

Were you with your mother at this appointment? Sounds like an OK diet to me providing she varies it and controls portion size. Could do with some more veggies in there but I suspect the gp (given Ltd appointment times) was just giving a rough idea of healthy foods to have as meals as opposed to what your DM is currently eating.

My mum has had to change her diet as it was affecting her health too. It's been interesting discussing with her what she thinks is healthy/an OK portion size to what is ACTUALLY healthy and an OK portion size. Fwiw my dad (a healthy weight) has been telling her for decades that her portion sizes are out of whack and prior to this it lead to food waste as he just couldn't eat what she thought he ought to be portion wise and that was even though he worked a manual job and she a sedentary one! (Old family argument, suspect this has been why my sis and I now struggle with our weight/portions)

Carbs should be the base of the meal equal to veg in proportion, then healthy protein (meat, fish,quorn, beans whatever).

Porridge lowers cholesterol, is low gi (funnily enough in keeping with your Dr friend), and is very filling. Dried fruit (a small handful) would add flavour and provide iron as well as vits and minerals.

A baked potato and beans with a salad (could DM have omitted mention of this so she doesn't 'have' to eat it?) Would provide energy, protein plus vits minerals at a busy time of day.

A meat and 2 veg meal (veg doesn't have to be potatoes therefore only 2 carb portions in the day actually) again perfectly healthy.

Fruit to snack on (again I wonder if veg was mentioned but omitted?)

I'd maybe add a homemade veg soup for an extra bump of nutrition and to fill someone not used to smaller portions.

Also agree sweetener not ideal. But that's another debate.

Absolutely NOT guaranteed to make her gain weight, in fact what's her normal eating pattern?

Sorry didn't answer the question. I think taxing really unhealthy foods like crisps etc would be good. They should really be treats/luxuries but everuhting else is

A fine in moderation
B has nutritional benefit

Eg if it was based on fat content cheese would be taxed but its a great source of calcium and fat soluble vitamins

Sorry bacon but I don't want to go into too many more details about my DM as I didn't really mean for this thread to be about her, it was just to illustrate some of the advise that is being given (it wasn't a GP though nor a short appointment). She has no reason to omit mentioning salad, she likes veg. The type of food recommended was similar to what she eats now though (although she snacks more on fruit and nuts and occasional cakes/ pastries), portion control wasn't mentioned in specifics.

I hope you understand that I won't go into any more details as I think I've already said too much about someone else's medical details.

I haven't said that I think John Briffa (although I find some of the studies he's highlighted compelling) has all the answers either or that we should omit all carbs. I used him as an easy example of a doctor who doesn't agree with low fat, high carb, but there are plenty of others.

My own opinions on a 'good' diet are largely irrelevant too, instead I'm just highlighting the lack of a unified medical opinion and I think without that passing on tax to the consumer (which I believe will have little to no effect) is wrong and serves no purpose other than to generate revenue.

Plus I never said that following the Dr's advise would guarantee her putting on weight. I said that IMO it would probably lead to weight gain (in the long term). I might be totally wrong.

Naturally, a junk-food tax would target a distinct subset of foods including crisps, soda, biscuits, and the like. The foods that are grouped around the till at corner shops, if you like.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Yes Prelude its EXACTLY the same

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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