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 The diet advise she was given was imo a load of outdated crap that would probably cause her to gain weight (porridge with dried fruit for breakfast, sweetener in tea, jacket potato with beans for lunch, low fat meat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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.