Do people really not know what to eat?

[WilderHawthorn]

Watching ‘what not to eat’, and the family they’ve found are just hopeless. Four small children all shovelled full of UPF junk, parents both obese, freely admit to eating crap constantly.

How adults choose to feed themselves is their choice, but to feed four small kids that much junk? It’s bordering on abuse. An apple/banana costs the same as a packet of crisps, jacket potato is one of the cheapest meals you can make, basic porridge oats and milk for breakfast, it’s not difficult to eat whole foods, so why rely on packaged things?

Freely admit I judge those who feed their children this way and truly despair over childhood obesity stats. I work full time, have 4 DC, DH works full time and I volunteer. I’m very time poor and partially disabled, I still feed my kids well and it doesn’t cost me a fortune. Taught myself to cook. There’s no excuse!

Smoking was absolutely a factor. Such an effective appetite suppressant as nicotine being taken so widely, it could hardly not have been. On amphetamines, there were 1.7 million prescriptions in the UK in 1969 and this was a reduction!

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/1971-04-08/debates/00e3e71b-79fb-466a-9c58-4c08ffb7566e/Amphetamines

It was something that trended downwards rather than stopped overnight, so clearly it was very much a thing in the early 70s.

None of which is to say we shouldn't try and do something about the worst shit the food industry get up to either, but the environment that kept people so much thinner then was clearly about much more than food.

I also think we may see kickbacks soon from those industries even without any greater regulation, due to the impact of increased WLI availability.

What about those that didnt smoke?

My parents didnt smoke into the 70s, my dad smoked up to the early 70s.

I cook from scratch with fresh ingredients, don’t eat between meals, do intermittent fasting (16:8) AND I smoke. I’m still fat!

The person who replied to this/ you replied to was saying that in the 70s/80s people didn’t eat UPFs and that learning to do that and continuing to do that now is why they weren’t overweight. My reply showed that 70s food socialisation clearly hadn’t worked for everyone. Do you not understand how to link a conversation together and instead rely on being patronising to make your points?

Well, they were a much smaller percentage of the population than now. We don't actually know what the 70s obesity rates would've been had only about 12% of adults smoked like now, as opposed to the not far off half it was in 1974 when records began (probs a bit higher in 1970 as male smoking rates started to drop in the 60s). And what we know about nicotine suggests those adults, as a cohort, would've been hungrier.

My kids (7 and nearly 5) eat UPFs, but in moderation. They like biscuits, but aren’t allowed more than one at a time. Ditto with packets of crisps. They like cereal, but we stick to Weetabix or Shredded Wheat. On holiday, they enjoy Coco Pops etc, as we don’t have them at home. I have replaced sweetened yoghurt with natural yoghurt and a bit of maple syrup, but if we are out and about and a sweetened yoghurt is what is on offer, they eat that. Grazing snacks at home are mostly fruit and or raw veg. I don’t demonise any food, as I believe in an ‘everything in moderation’ attitude. I am privileged and educated enough to be able to do this properly though. Not everyone is sadly.

You don’t have to answer this, but…. how fat?

There are many many factors contributing to obesity, not all of them related to food. Stress, sleep, obesogenic chemicals and life stage, to name but a few.

Nevertheless, food is far and away the biggest influence. I find it difficult to believe that many people could become morbidly obese unless they are consuming a lot of UPF’s, eating in an addictive way, or both. Whereas a BMI in the upper 20’s you can probably reach eating real food as you describe, if everything else happens to be stacked against you. And it’s probably not terribly unhealthy either.

Because those that do eat like that, are not overweight, the poster made that point themselves.

The food landscape and food culture has changed significantly. We do not eat like we did 50 years ago as a nation, statistically, that is the point.

I’m not morbidly obese. I’m 12 stone, and a good size 14. I was always a size 10 but since menopause I’ve ballooned and I just can’t shift it.

Life stages, then. And not morbidly obese - which kind of supports what I’m saying.

People have always come in a range of sizes. Menopause has always been associated with weight gain, to varying degrees. It makes us more insulin resistant, and that usually means weight gain. If you really want to shift it, you might need longer fasts than 16/8. And to tighten up on some of the things which contribute to insulin resistance, such as carb level, artificial sweeteners, milk, seed oils.

But I can understand that, since it’s a significant change from what you’ve been used to, it is unpleasant and you wish you could change it. Whereas I am very happy being a size 16 at 5’7”, because for most of my adult life I was somewhere between a 24 and 30.

I think that to change this at a population level is going to take government action. Basically replicating the measures which have been used to reduce smoking, and applying them to UPF’s, especially sugar. Until that happens (I’m not holding my breath), there is individual learning and action

Anti-smoking campaigns often centered on how disgusting the habit was, how selfish the people smoking were and how horrible it was for long-term health (not untrue tbf)

I can’t imagine this being tolerated wrt food.

and many children with SEND and other health reasons also didn't rely on smoking in the same way that they rely on UPFs.

Yes Ive said this many times, smoking shaming is ok. Food shaming is not ok

Drug shaming is ok.

And to raise a point above about artificial sweetners, I can get on a soap box about this all day long. I think they are toxic and have done a lot of damage to our palate and our chemical functioning

I was thinking more of the advertising bans, plain packaging, cigs out of sight, taxation increasing the price etc. So make UPF’s less visible and more expensive.

Plus, NHS stop-smoking services. I would like to see weight management services focus on the real food message, with practical suggestions on how to make that a reality for people who are potentially time poor and on a budget.

I think the point is that smoking has an immediate effect on the people around you, in a way that simply isn't the case for foodstuffs. Even the smelliest thing a person might eat is nowhere near as significant for the people around them as passive smoking. So it's not possible to replicate those campaigns for something that doesn't impact on others in the same way. Also my guess is that as the numbers on WLI continue to increase, obesity rates will start to fall as they have in the US, and in a few years we'll feel we've broken the back of the problem. Unfortunately full population access is likely to take even longer.

Also agree with @Kirbert2 there's more awareness now of how many ND people are very reliant on UPFs. There were no doubt people like that in the 70s, but their safe foods would've probably been much more tinned food. Stuff that's often processed, like spam, but doesn't tend to be thought about in the same way.

Totally agree

Also in terms of packaging, the equivalent of that smokers lung on the packet of fags is a massive enlgarged fatty liver or heart on the packet of multi pack crisps. Or big swollen overhanging belly.

Tinned food is not comparable to UPFs

And we ate more simply, so the safe goods could well be egg on toast, sausage and mash, boiled spuds, bland cabbage and a gammon steak.

People turn their noses up at tht sort of food these days.

@Binus do you believe that the mass rollout of WLI’s is the right solution to the obesity epidemic?

I’ve no doubt they are a life saver for many. I also believe that moving away from UPF’s towards real food, combined with an end to snacking (for adults) would be equally effective for many, without the side effects or the cost.

I believe this based on my own experience and that of others I know. The challenge is how to stick with the new eating regime. Some people can do it just by deciding to make the change. Most of us need more than that.

Yes. Long term WLI usage is the only thing currently proven to work at making obese people lose weight and keep it off. We know that everything else that's been tried has failed on a population level, and that simply saying people should stop snacking does bugger all to make it happen, because that's not how humans work.

And as there has never been a time when we combined everyone having enough to eat, a low UPF environment and low smoking rates, people who think curbing UPF would reduce obesity are at best, guessing. I don't think it's logical the way some people assume there must be a way for humans to live in abundance and not get obese because of making good choices.

I'm for taking some action anyway, as there are good health reasons why it would be better for people to have better access to higher quality food. But that needs to happen alongside increased WLI availability. It's also not only relevant to obese people, one can be slim and not getting proper nutrition.

@soupyspoon my point was simply that something like spam was the 70s equivalent of the oft quoted chicken nuggets and similar when it comes to food that's 'safe' because you know it'll taste the same every time. It isn't a comment on whether the foods themselves are comparable.

I love spam by the way

@Binus given the recent reports about weight regain when people stop using WLI’s, there is a lot to be said for a both-and approach.

Well no, WLIs probably not working if you don't take them doesn't make traditional methods any less of a known failure. Nor does it mean that telling adults to stop snacking will result in behavioural change. The evidence we have is that continued WLI usage is much better at reversing obesity than either temporary usage or diets.

But as I said, there are reasons to try and improve our food culture anyway. Diet and nutrition aren't just about obesity prevention and management. We can do both.

@soupyspoon I really don't haha.

I think there will be nutritional benefits in the longer term from wli. Having taken them for 18 months and been on several of the different wli threads you can see the long term impact. People are focussing on fitness and exercise, building muscle to help them maintain. People are thinking about protein and fibre and how to eat for health and long term benefits. I don’t think that’s isolated to people on mumsnet, I see it across social media.

There is a lot of hand clapping when people regain weight if they come off and joy about studies that show poor long term outcomes. Those studies are often on older glp medications, don’t have any non- study data and don’t consider maintenance. They are extrapolating small numbers.

The other side of that coin is that the emerging science is pointing towards some SEN, particularly ADHD/behavioural along with poor mental health, being caused or at least exacerbated by UPFs and poor nutrition.

The timelines for the explosion of both are pretty close.

It's true, I've not seen many people who've quoted the headline results of the BMJ review also state that most of the studies looked at were older generation WLIs. Or that they had to model a lot of the data. And it's not like the reviewers weren't open about that. It doesn't surprise me that medication works best when you take it, but it's been notable that people are talking up the headline whilst clearly not having read it. They also said provision of dietary and exercise support didn't make any difference but that doesn't seem to have been noticed!