Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think there is a poor understanding of a healthy diet?

604 replies

LivelyLemonQuoter · 12/04/2025 21:17

I think most people think they know what a healthy diet looks like, but in reality they do not. I see so many comments on MN that demonstrate this.

The most common one is that fruit should be limited because of its sugar content. This is very bad advice. Sugar in fruit has little impact on our blood sugar levels. And most people in the UK do not eat enough fruit.

The other is concern over eating any carbs. Wholemeal bread and pasta is fine, carbs in pastry and doughnuts is not great though.

And most people need to eat more nuts. Nuts are very good for you and should be part of your regular diet.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
24
pinkfloralcurtains · 16/04/2025 19:26

LazyDayInTheGarden · 16/04/2025 12:00

Yes. I also wonder why people who don't have diabetes or even prediabetes are testing their blood sugar after meals in the first place.

Becaiswnitnhekps to see what is vaulting sugar spikes.

I'm not diabetic and ove never measured my blood sugar but I know that I generally feel better if I keep my carb intake lower.

It's also good for people trying to lose weight. The more sugar spikes you have, the more insulin your body releases. That's a natural process, yes, but your body doesn't burn fat as efficiently when insulin is present.

Do you have any evidence for that?

This recent meta-analysis of 30 randomised control diets found little evidence that the glycemic index of food has any influence on weight loss or BMI.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34352885/

Perspective: Does Glycemic Index Matter for Weight Loss and Obesity Prevention? Examination of the Evidence on "Fast" Compared with "Slow" Carbs - PubMed

High-glycemic index (high-GI) foods (so-called fast carbs) have been hypothesized to promote fat storage and increase risk of obesity. To clarify whether dietary GI impacts body weight, we searched PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34352885/

PinkSparklyPussyCat · 16/04/2025 19:38

Semiramide · 16/04/2025 18:43

Personally I rarely eat conventional sandwiches as I try to limit refined carbs. Instead I mostly have substantial salads - incorporating quinoa, lentils, beans, chickpeas.

If I do feel like a sandwich, I use Lavash wraps or middle eastern flatbreads. Though I do occasionally have a nice baguette...

Edited

Unfortunately that wouldn't work with my stomach, lentils, beans and chickpeas don't agree with me and I've never tried quinoa.

You've now made me fancy a crusty white baguette!

LillyPJ · 16/04/2025 20:31

HelenWheels · 16/04/2025 17:24

how can supermarket bread be as bad as donuts?
this is ludicrous

Not ludicrous at all. Look at the ingredients before you make assumptions.

Needtosoundoffandbreathe · 16/04/2025 20:51

Hyperbole. Nothing wrong with fortifying with vitamins. The E number ingredients are emulsifiers and softeners in small quantities. None of this means the bread lacking in nutrition.

NattyTurtle59 · 16/04/2025 22:26

MibsXX · 16/04/2025 18:57

"Both are UPF - highly refined carbs containing emulsifiers and preservatives, and neither has any nutritional value."

Cheapsupermarket bread and cheap baked beans mostly kept us alive so far this year, so must have some nutritional value else we'd be.. erm..not here!

And we're not overweight, getting a little under tbh but hoping times will get better

Edited

There are always so many comfortably off people on these threads, telling us we should be buying niche (and often expensive) foods when in reality much cheaper foods will do the same thing. They live in their own little bubble, where the very idea that not everyone else is as well off as they are never occurs to them. Neither does the idea that not everyone has the time to waste researching every morsel they put in their mouth. I can't help but wonder how all the people I know in their 80s, 90s, and 100s managed to get to those ages eating perfectly normal food, and not obsessing about it.

I hope times get better for you very soon.

ASongbirdAndAnOldHat · 16/04/2025 22:38

I know in their 80s, 90s, and 100s managed to get to those ages eating perfectly normal food, and not obsessing about it.

The clue there is in the word normal.

UPFs are not normal.

I do agree with you about finances,

NattyTurtle59 · 17/04/2025 02:04

ASongbirdAndAnOldHat · 16/04/2025 22:38

I know in their 80s, 90s, and 100s managed to get to those ages eating perfectly normal food, and not obsessing about it.

The clue there is in the word normal.

UPFs are not normal.

I do agree with you about finances,

UPFs have been around for a while, and some elderly people do eat them. Once convenience foods arrived older people embraced them, but they do tend to eat them in moderation. What sort of bread do you think they eat?

Plus they didn't spend their lives checking their blood sugar levels, limiting carbs and working out the nutritional value of every morsel they put in their mouths. They ate plenty of meat, they ate pudding and cake, they enjoyed their food.

Sugarnspicenallthingsnaice · 17/04/2025 03:59

I've got rellies in their 80s and beyond who don't follow any the current advice, too.

I mean, they're alive... but they're all chronically ill and have been since late middle age, so it's been a fairly limited few decades for most of them.

I don't judge them or anyone else, but I'm aiming higher for myself. 'Healthspan, not lifespan', I heard recently and that resonates.

NattyTurtle59 · 17/04/2025 06:59

Sugarnspicenallthingsnaice · 17/04/2025 03:59

I've got rellies in their 80s and beyond who don't follow any the current advice, too.

I mean, they're alive... but they're all chronically ill and have been since late middle age, so it's been a fairly limited few decades for most of them.

I don't judge them or anyone else, but I'm aiming higher for myself. 'Healthspan, not lifespan', I heard recently and that resonates.

All my rellies of that age, and their similar friends, all keep pretty good health for their age, and they were certainly all fine in middle age. I know one woman who is 102 and is in great shape. My GF used to love fat, and if anyone was eating meat with fat on it they would pass it over to him to eat. I don't live in the UK however, and it's possible people here had a more healthy diet when younger, lots of meat and veg.

I would like to be as healthy as possible too, but I'm certainly not depriving myself of food I enjoy - that's not much of a life to me.

springbringshope · 17/04/2025 07:00

pinkfloralcurtains · 16/04/2025 19:26

Do you have any evidence for that?

This recent meta-analysis of 30 randomised control diets found little evidence that the glycemic index of food has any influence on weight loss or BMI.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34352885/

Edited

The link you shared includes this:
One notable exception is that low-GI diets with a dietary GI at least 20 units lower than the comparison diet resulted in greater weight loss in adults with normal glucose tolerance but not in adults with impaired glucose tolerance.

So low GI can be impactful for adults with normal glucose tolerance.
if the studies you present show GI is a factor that can impact some people then you can’t really assert that the study shows that GI doesn’t make a difference

pinkfloralcurtains · 17/04/2025 07:28

springbringshope · 17/04/2025 07:00

The link you shared includes this:
One notable exception is that low-GI diets with a dietary GI at least 20 units lower than the comparison diet resulted in greater weight loss in adults with normal glucose tolerance but not in adults with impaired glucose tolerance.

So low GI can be impactful for adults with normal glucose tolerance.
if the studies you present show GI is a factor that can impact some people then you can’t really assert that the study shows that GI doesn’t make a difference

The same study of 28 people also found that low GI had no impact on people with T2D or impaired glucose tolerance. So it doesn’t work uniformly and it requires further research.

It’s one study of 30 and as the researchers say, there’s scant evidence that GI has any impact on weight loss. Some of the studies found an association of participants having the highest GI diets and lowest BMIs.

LazyDayInTheGarden · 17/04/2025 07:41

There are so many 'little' issues with this that add up to the bigger picture.

The quality of food isn't what it used to be generally. Intensive farming practices have reduced the quality of a lot of food we eat. Eg fruit and veg grown out of season in polyntunnels isn't comparable nutritionally with that grown naturally and in season. I watched a documentary around 15+ years ago that showed the nutritional value of a chicken breast had reduced since the 50s - including more fat and less protein.

In the past, people ate less because of the cost but the quality of even the most basic natural food was higher.

Breakfast being the most important meal of the day was a marketing campaign by Kelloggs/cereal companies.

Carbs were added to everything, not because we needed that many carbs on our diet, but because it was a cheap and plentiful filler for a lot of foods. It increased profits for the food industry - it wasn't based on our health or nutritional requirements.

People see eating low carb (for example) as a fad diet but eating low fat as common sense. The role of sugar in poor health has been ignored until very recently (aside from dental health) because so much of the food industry and the NHS guidance was based upon a high carb low fat model and fat was demonised. This dietary advice has not changed for years even though there have been studies since that have challenged this.

Research has shown that people who consume more (healthy) fat consume fewer calories/food overall because fat tastes good and fills you up. People are less likely to snack if they consume more fat because their body is satisfied and, yes, blood sugar spikes and crashes don't occur so people dont feel hungry again half an hour later.

There has never been definitive research that concludes 'eating fat makes you fat' but it sounded reasonable so people ran with it. Sugar fucks up your metabolism which is why weightloss is often described as being hormonal - which people scoff at - but all of it is hormonal. What makes you feel hungry, full, satisfied, unsatisfied food wise - all hormones.

UPFs aren't the devils work in that many of us will have grown up eating them without too much ill effect but mainly in lower quantities than are available/consumed now. But because UPFs contain things that aren't really food that our bodies haven't been designed to eat, our bodies don't really know what to do with them and they impact on the normal hormonal functions of recognising hunger and satiety. I know (because I've done it) that I can eat a huge amount of crap and my stomach will be rumbling an hour later. Given what I've just consumed, I shouldn't be hungry - yet I am. I shouldn't have been able to consume that amount in the first place!

People will often post on here talking about wanting to lose weight or eat more healthily. They're doing all the 'right' things - very low fat, high carbs, lots of whole grains, lots of fruit but they can't lose weight. People suggest it's still too many calories - weightloss is all calories in vs calories out! But it's not. It's not the calories that are the issue per se. It's the type of food that is eaten and the effect it has on the body. We are not simple machines. But dietary advice assumes we are.

That's why some people track their blood glucose levels despite not being diabetic because they've understood that spikes in their blood sugar causes issues for them.

People complain that they're always hungry and that there is always food noise - that's generally carb intake. I couldn't eat any less, I have a big bowl of pasta for tea and I'm STARVING by breakfast. i think about food constantly. They assume that, if they replaced the big bowl of pasta they'd be even hungrier but maybe it's the big bowl of pasta that is causing the intense hunger.

I've said before on here that I low carb. I don't do keto because it's too strict for me but I keep my carb intake to below 50g a day in the main. I know that sometimes it goes over. But I don't track or keep a count of everything. I've lost over a stone and a half since January.

I do it because I've tried various things over the years. I could very easily become obese and over been close a couple of times. My calorie intake over this weightloss has been around 1500 a day and I'm a lazy bastard so I'm not in a deficit. I just don't eat UPFs and I've cut down on carbs. But I actually consume more food than when my BMI was 29.

On the days when my carb intake has been higher, I wake up with a growling stomach and hunger pangs. I feel light headed. I'm often bloated. It's unpleasant. But on the days where my carb intake has been very low, I don't experience any of that.

I don't trust a lot of the 'healthy diet' advice because I wonder who it serves best. And I really don't believe that it's us. What I'd really like to see is some proper independent and independently funded research because, as we can all see, there is a lot of conflicting and contradictory advice. I'd like a real understanding of what our bodies actually need (for health) and for the food available and cost to reflect this.

ASongbirdAndAnOldHat · 17/04/2025 07:43

NattyTurtle59 · 17/04/2025 02:04

UPFs have been around for a while, and some elderly people do eat them. Once convenience foods arrived older people embraced them, but they do tend to eat them in moderation. What sort of bread do you think they eat?

Plus they didn't spend their lives checking their blood sugar levels, limiting carbs and working out the nutritional value of every morsel they put in their mouths. They ate plenty of meat, they ate pudding and cake, they enjoyed their food.

Edited

But they haven't been eating them from birth, UPFs didn't really become prevalent until the 90's by which time they were middle aged.

You are also too simplistic, Slimming World started in the 60's, the 70's and 80's were rife with diets and calorie counting. The papers and magazines were full of diet advice just as they are today.

FeelingLessTired · 17/04/2025 07:45

wombat15 · 15/04/2025 12:06

Yes. I also wonder why people who don't have diabetes or even prediabetes are testing their blood sugar after meals in the first place.

Yes- but a number of us on this thread (me included) have NOT said we are testing our blood sugar. We know it is spiking because of the physical reactions. I get shaky, nauseous and very faint. So again- I simply cannot and do not ever eat grapes which are for me the worst offender.

And once aggain- people are individual and some of us can say with a fair amount of confidence what happens when we eat certain foods.

wombat15 · 17/04/2025 09:20

FeelingLessTired · 17/04/2025 07:45

Yes- but a number of us on this thread (me included) have NOT said we are testing our blood sugar. We know it is spiking because of the physical reactions. I get shaky, nauseous and very faint. So again- I simply cannot and do not ever eat grapes which are for me the worst offender.

And once aggain- people are individual and some of us can say with a fair amount of confidence what happens when we eat certain foods.

How do you know you physical reactions are due to sugar spiking though? If you are actually getting shaking and nauseated after eating a grapes for example, how do you know you are not allergic to it?

Have you had your lipid profiles checked as well as HbA1c recently? It always strikes me on threads like that the people insisting that their low carb, high saturated fat diets are healthier have usually been overweight in the past even if they are not at this moment in time and this could mean they have a higher risk of heart disease as well as diabetes.

FeelingLessTired · 17/04/2025 09:26

Yes i have had those things checked, because I have extreme reactions not just to grapes (that was my example) but to other things as well- combined with a strong history of diabetes in the family, and two auto immune diseases and a kidney disease I have full blood work every 6 months. So yes, I DO know what my body does and how it reacts. I am not talking out my arse, I promise you.

wombat15 · 17/04/2025 09:43

We are talking about a healthy for for the general population. Kidney disease will have an impact on how your body deals with food.

Jacarandill · 17/04/2025 09:59

wombat15 · 16/04/2025 19:14

The question was why are you testing your blood sugar? Presumably you don't eat oats and as you have a healthy diet why do you think you have "vaulting sugar spikes".

I’ve never tested my blood sugar. Like @FeelingLessTired I can feel the physical effects.

Until about 12 years ago I ate what people might call a ‘normal’ diet of half carbs, quarter protein, quarter veg etc. I would regularly have porridge and orange juice for breakfast. I was always hungry, often felt shaky and light-headed mid-morning, always worried about where my next meal was coming from because I would feel so unwell when I got hungry.

Then I cut right down on carbs and upped the protein and veg. Not really high in saturated fat as I eat lots of fish and nuts and don’t gorge on cream and bacon, but low carb and high protein/fat.

I was like a different woman. No longer shaky and hungry between meals, no more horrible sugar crashes, better mood, no longer anxious about being starving hungry between meals.

So no, you don’t need a blood sugar monitor to work out that certain foods give you sugar spikes.

Jacarandill · 17/04/2025 10:01

wombat15 · 16/04/2025 18:50

No but 90% are or have been.

So of the 10%, I know two?

wombat15 · 17/04/2025 10:33

FeelingLessTired · 17/04/2025 09:26

Yes i have had those things checked, because I have extreme reactions not just to grapes (that was my example) but to other things as well- combined with a strong history of diabetes in the family, and two auto immune diseases and a kidney disease I have full blood work every 6 months. So yes, I DO know what my body does and how it reacts. I am not talking out my arse, I promise you.

We are talking about a healthy for for the general population. Kidney disease will have an impact on how your body deals with food.

wombat15 · 17/04/2025 10:35

Jacarandill · 17/04/2025 10:01

So of the 10%, I know two?

For the 10% who have never been overweight or obese the type 2 diabetes is probably nothing to do with their diet or lifestyle.

FeelingLessTired · 17/04/2025 10:36

The point is that the OP is making sweeping claims about diet and several people are pointing out that the sweeping claims are too general and giving examples. MY real point is that several posters have explained that they know about how their bodies react and other posters have just out of hand dismissed this as being nonsense. Which is - dunno- offensive is too strong a word- more irritating.

LazyDayInTheGarden · 17/04/2025 10:42

wombat15 · 17/04/2025 09:20

How do you know you physical reactions are due to sugar spiking though? If you are actually getting shaking and nauseated after eating a grapes for example, how do you know you are not allergic to it?

Have you had your lipid profiles checked as well as HbA1c recently? It always strikes me on threads like that the people insisting that their low carb, high saturated fat diets are healthier have usually been overweight in the past even if they are not at this moment in time and this could mean they have a higher risk of heart disease as well as diabetes.

Edited

Sugar/glucose also causes heart disease and raised cholesterol.

Sugar is, in fact, worse for your health in this respect. All carbs are converted into sugar in the body. So, whilst it might be less calorie wise gram for gram, carbs are not better for you than fat.

People who low carb might be eating more in the way of animal fats as part of their meal but are not eating cake, chocolate, biscuits, crisps, pastries, pizzas, ready meals, or any UPFs etc which are all worse for you than eating pork belly once a week.

wombat15 · 17/04/2025 10:43

FeelingLessTired · 17/04/2025 10:36

The point is that the OP is making sweeping claims about diet and several people are pointing out that the sweeping claims are too general and giving examples. MY real point is that several posters have explained that they know about how their bodies react and other posters have just out of hand dismissed this as being nonsense. Which is - dunno- offensive is too strong a word- more irritating.

OP is talking about non diabetic healthy people though.

wombat15 · 17/04/2025 10:48

LazyDayInTheGarden · 17/04/2025 10:42

Sugar/glucose also causes heart disease and raised cholesterol.

Sugar is, in fact, worse for your health in this respect. All carbs are converted into sugar in the body. So, whilst it might be less calorie wise gram for gram, carbs are not better for you than fat.

People who low carb might be eating more in the way of animal fats as part of their meal but are not eating cake, chocolate, biscuits, crisps, pastries, pizzas, ready meals, or any UPFs etc which are all worse for you than eating pork belly once a week.

It's not one or the other though. It is possible to not eat cake, chocolate, biscuits, crisps, pastries, pizzas, ready meals AND pork belly, cream etc.

Swipe left for the next trending thread