To think some people on here make too many excuses for parents feeding their kids unhealthy food to the point they become overweight or even obese?

[Giselle374]

I know a lot people are in really difficult situations financially, and the country overall has become harder and harder due to COL.

But I feel uneasy with the way some posts on this seem to imply that being in a hard financial position means unhealthy food almost can't be avoided.

People usually choose to have children, and food is a basic thing. If you didn't wash your child, or clothe them as best as you could, would that be similarly excusable? Arguably food is more important than many other potential areas since cancer and other illnesses are a very real danger if kids are overweight or obese young.

My mother had financial difficulties when I was young: she was a single parent and on minimum wage, and she hated cooking, ate very badly before I was born. But she ensured her meals (porridge, fish, eggs, veg based mostly) were healthy even if they were plain. I was barely ever allowed sugary or processed food. That's one of the things I'm most grateful for.

I do understand families in a depressing situation with few things for the kids to enjoy use food as something enjoyable sometimes
..areas need more resources, green space, libraries etc .

This isn't to deny the challenges of feeding kids healthily. But I think some posts on here lean too far to taking responsibility from the parents,,and I don't think that's helpful.

I did not at any point diagnose anyone. A pp seems to be incredibly aggressive and angry calling me uneducated and often folk project when they have issues, I merely asked if they had a history of ED which in view of the topic is a reasonable question, EDs are nothing to be ashamed of.

You know it's ok to have different views and opinions yes? Do stop the insults about intelligence.

I'll repeat my views.

We have eaten crap for decades. Obesity now is out of control, not because of 'genes and hormones' whiche we've always had,but because of so called experts medicalising and enabling overeating.

It is in people's control, it is ok to be hungry sometimes and reducing portion size does indeed lead to weight loss. As proven with WLI!

Have you ever been overweight, or obese, out of interest?

Just you seem to have a lot of opinions on it, so I’d be keen to know if they’re from having lived experience of being an “overeater,” or just from a lifetime experience of judging other people’s “overeating”?

Of course I've overeaten for periods, who hasn't. That's how we learn isn't it <well how we should learn>. In my younger years we'd all drink too much eat pizzas and kebabs. Then you realise, you feel shit and you're needing bigger clothes so you adjust what you consume.

I'm ok with feeling hungry sometimes, I undertand portion control and whilst I could easily eat massive amounts every day I don't as I like to look after my health.

I've had a serious health issue, nothing that could have been fixed by lifestyle choices. So that of course makes me question those who choose to damage their health and their bodies.

Yes, there is hope. Good point that same thing was done with SM. Any scientist who does that is peverting their knowledge to harm humanity and should be ashamed of themselves.

UPFs are designed to be addictive though in a way earlier food wasn't.

Sugar IS added to a lot more stuff now though, it isn't comparable to a few decades ago.

Exactly. Of course genetics haven't changed but the environment has and that affects how genes express themselves.
I remember one study which took nursery children. They took samples of saliva where they could measure the level of some hormone that controls sateity. They all had the same lunch. Then they did an acitivity and they placed snacks around the room. They measured how much each child ate. They found a strong relationship between how much each child ate and the level of this hormone. Some children are just more interested in food than others. When food is more available and physical activity has gone down (something else which is genetically influenced as well as food intake) then some children will eat more than others due to genetics even if every other factor remains the same.

As you say, GLP-1s show just how biologically driven we are to eat.

the environment has changed, not genetics. It's nothing to do with experts. There's more food available and less physical activity (which has more impact on child obesity than on adult)

Tbh it was probably worse. Treacle pudding, arctic roll, biscuits, sweets, lemonade. We lived on sugar yet managed not to get 'addicted'.

People have to accept responsibility. It is perfectly possibly to eat cheaply and healthily without these alleged sugar addictions.

'Of course genetics haven't changed but the environment has and that affects how genes express themselves'

'Affects how genes express themselves'?

Yes, gene expression is altered by environmental factors. Gene expression means whether genes are activated or not to do a certain thing, they can be turned off or be activated to do something we don't want them to do by manipulating the environment they are operating in.

That's why what pregnant women consume whilst pregnant affects their babies; the hormonal levels in her blood, affected by what she eats, change the way her babies genes react to those hormones in their own bodies for the rest of their lives. It's why when a child is adopted, whether the birth mother is obese or not is far more relevant to the child's likelihood of future obesity than their adopted parents because what you eat is less than half of the picture, the way your body reacts to what you eat and the things it drives you to desire to consume are far more relevant. A baby grown in an obese body is born primed to become obese and less sensitive to insulin than a baby grown in a lean body. That child can be adopted and raised by lean people, eating the same food as them, and being heavier than them because of the epigenetic impact of having an obese birth mother.

Sorry, what's your issue with the concept of gene expression and how that interacts with the environment (epigenetics)? Its basic biology.

She doesn't think it's real. We've covered this already.

She doesn't think biology is real? 😳
I did A level biology more than 30 years ago and we learnt this stuff.

No, this is completely different. These foods are obviously sugar laden, you eat them for something sweet and avoid them when you want a break from sugar.

Modern food manufacturing puts sugar in everything, it is hidden in foods that don't appear sugary or sweet as it used as a preservative, and to increase appetite to make you buy more food. All savoury food, that you eat because you're not in the mood for something sweet also contains sugar now, you just don't know it's there because you can't taste it. So you eat processed meat - sugar, bread - sugar, soup - sugar. The problem is that your body never gets a break from the sugar so your pancreas never gets a rest. In the past, you would eat a huge amount of sugar in pudding then your body would get a break from sugar whilst you ate savoury foods because there wasn't any hidden sugar in them, now there is.

Read back the last few pages, this poster thinks nothing has changed in the past 30 years other than people being greedy and genes have nothing to do with why people "gorge themselves"

Yes I saw. But to question the most basic concept.of gene expression?? The most fundamental biological process?? I didnt expect that!

It doesnt matter if 'hidden' or not. We control what we eat. We didn't get addicted years ago, we don't <or shouldn't blame it on 'addiction'> now.

It is far easier to eat healthily nowadays, far more choice and availability of cheap fruit and veg for starters.

You seem so very desperate for take away responsibility for bad choices which doesn't help anyone. Food is all labelled, there is no excuse.

Food is all labelled, there is no excuse.

I said exactly this when the baby food scandal came out last year, there were many threads where mums were shocked that it actually wasn't healthy to wean babies on three pouches of processed paste full of sugar a day with no whole foods added in. They couldn't believe it wasn't healthy because there were pictures of vegetables on the packets and it was marketed as healthy homemade meals for babies from Ellas kitchen.

When it was pointed out that one pouch contained twice the recommended daily amount of sugar for a baby and this was clearly displayed on the packet people got really defensive saying "but it's marketed as healthy" "it says no added sugar" etc. And this is what the thread is actually about, children being raised on awful food setting them up for a poor future.

A large percentage of the population cannot understand the information on food packets and how it relates to them and their needs. If something is marketed as healthy, they believe it. Like the dieters who gained weight on the weight watcher and slimming world UPF yoghurts and ready meals. The government has a responsibility to protect themselves people from corporations who are harming them to make money. And more crucially the government needs to protect children from parents who aren't intelligent enough to understand how to feed them well because they are not old enough to make their own choices and by the time they are they will already be on the back foot. The NHS gives all this advice for free but parents clearly don't actually understand it. It is worth noting that the average comprehension ability of an adult in the UK is that if an 11 year old child. Many people simply aren't capable of understanding the information given to them and they should be protected.

Why don't you care about protecting people from exploitation? Why don't you care about protecting children?

Do you understand the concept of gene expression and epigenetics?

YANBU - ‘back in the day’ there was usually only one or two fat wains in your class at school, now there are far more. The snacking culture has a lot to answer for, kids these days have snacks three or four times a day, they can’t walk home from school without a mini pack up to see them through the 20 minute drive home. But I believe it’s not what they’re being fed but the volume. One of the threads I remember most on here once was one saying that a family of four (2 adults and 2 children under 10) needed 16 sausages, 2 tins of beans and a whole box (12) of potato waffles) for one evening meal.

The availability of fruit and veg has largely remained constant.

What has changed is the availability of fast and processed food. The high street is becoming little more than one fried food and cake, sorry "coffee", shop after another.

This is compounded with our increasingly sedentary lifestyles, and you have the perfect breeding ground for fat people.

It absolutely hasn't remained constant. Fruit was not widely available all year round when we were kids.

Yes I agree cafes etc and 24/7 shopping all add to people over consuming. Their choice obviously. The idea that sugar is all sneakily hidden and people have no idea what they're overeating is crazy. They know, they just think they have a medical condition and cant help it as demonstrated by some folk on this thread.

It's a chat forum we aren't doing ALevel biology. There's maybe a forum for fans of epigenetics?