Can someone explain the difference between low-fat, low calorie and low GI and tell me what on earth I should be eating!

[Chepstowmonkey]

Following on from some of your excellent comments to the thread about reducing the calorie count of food I just wanted to ask you what I should be keeping an eye when planning meals/buying food?

Since watching that programme on BBC 1 'the men who made us fat' I have been trying to find out what I should be eating and I have got totally confused!

I don't buy processed foods and I use some lower fat products - e.g. Creme fraiche instead of cream but mostly we just eat normal food. I know I eat too many carbs and I like the idea that some of you suggested to serve up 1/2 veg, 1/4 carbs and 1/4 meat but is that enough. Do I need to understand the difference between these low GI foods, low fat foods, low calorie foods as they all seem to be totally different?

I wouldn't get too caught up in this tbh. If you eat mostly "normal food" and do the 1/2 veg etc. you'll be getting a good diet. I am doing this ATM and am losing about a lb a week, and am eating loads

I understand the difference as:

"Low fat" is usually used for processed foods, and they can be high in sugar/salt etc. - most fat is not bad for you, so low fat does not mean better/healthier

"Low calorie" again usually used in processed foods, and IME usually means low flavour as well - and just because it's low in calories doesn't mean it's nutritious (e.g. a packet of quavers is low calorie compared to other crisps!)

"Low GI" means the energy it gives you is used slowly by the body (e.g. an apple), rather than quickly (e.g. sugar) giving you a crash afterwards.

Hope this helps a bit.

Hmm... Wouldn't say that 'low fat' means processed - for instance an apple is low fat, and not at all processed.

The GI thing helps a lot because it tells you how your body will use things - low GI is good as it means it takes your body longer to break it down so gives energy over a longer period - this means that you don't feel as hungry as soon, but also avoids the sugar spikes.

Things that are interesting with this are, for instance, that frosties are actually lower GI than normal cornflakes as the process that makes the corn into flakes makes it very easy for the body to break it down so the sugar spike is more immediate than it is for the sugar on the coating of the frosties!. Similarly, rice pops are low calorie, but high GI. Generally speaking, less processed foods are lower GI - eg wholemeal rather than white, porridge oats are good. Then you can substitute things - eg squash or sweat potato instead of a baked potato.

Don't know if that helps at all?

You are correct mistlethrush, thank you. I was more thinking of foods which would have a label on them proudly proclaiming "low fat" in the supermarket.

I'd agree with Mrs McN that if you're following the 1/2 veg, 1/4 carbs, 1/4 protein rule you're standing in good stead.

Wrt the 'low' diets...

Low cal - ignore. There is so much low cal food that has no nutritional value whatsoever.

Low GI - can get confusing as per cereal example above, though it is good to be eating lower GI foods as this avoids your liver being overloaded with sugar, insulin spiking, etc.
Basically, cut out/reduce sugar and refined carbs wherever possible. No sugary drinks, as mistle says swap white bread/flour/rice for brown, seriously limit things like cakes and biscuits.

Low fat - Again, ignore if it's processed because they'll have filled it up with sugar to compensate for lack of flavour from reducing fat. Remember that the body needs fat (whereas it does not need sugar) but try to eat 'good fats' if you can - avocados, oily fish, etc.

Sorry, x-post. My low fat comment is also about things branded as being low fat.

"Do I need to understand the difference between these low GI foods, low fat foods, low calorie foods as they all seem to be totally different?"

I'm going to recommend the opening line of an excellent little book by Michael Pollan called 'In Defence of Food'.... "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants".

He goes on to define what 'food' is... as opposed to the highly manufactured 'edible food-like substances' that fill so many of the supermarket aisles. 'Mostly plants' speaks for itself - vegetables, fruit, grains & pulses. 'Not too much' varies from person to person.

Cogito, that's funny, I was just going to mention Pollan on the other (low cal) thread as things like artificial sweeteners and 'low fat' butters were being recommended.

I really like his way of distinguishing what is masquerading as food from the real thing. Can't remember all of them but the one about 'things with more than five ingredients or ingredients you can't pronounce' being probably a food-like substance struck me as a particularly good rule of thumb. I also liked the warning to stay away from any food making a health claim :)

Thank you all so much - that has really sorted it for me. In fact it seems so simple that I feel silly I didn't know it already.

It just goes to show how much we are influenced by advertisements and media hype about foods and diets instead of using our own common sense. (Obviously when I said 'we' I mostly meant me....!)

Yes! There's also the one about not eating anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognise as food - though I'm sure my GGM wouldn't recognise half of my spice cupboard...
He has made me a bit precious about what I eat though. Now anything processed - like, for example, most non bakery bread - just tastes artificial and bland.

You should get the book Chepstowmonkey. I think you can pick it up second-hand on Amazon for a penny. There's a nice example in the book of how 'nutritionism' (the black art of painting some nutrients bad and others good) skews perception.

?A few years ago, Rozin presented a group of Americans with the following scenario: ?Assume you are alone on a desert island for one year and you can have water and one other food. Pick the food that you think would be best for your health.?
?The choices were corn, alfalfa sprouts, hot dogs, spinach, peaches, bananas, and milk chocolate. The most popular choice was bananas (42%), followed by spinach (27%), corn (12%), alfalfa sprouts (7%), peaches (5%), hot dogs (4%), and milk chocolate (3%). Only 7 percent of the participants chose one of the two foods that would in fact best support survival: hot dogs and milk chocolate.?

I like that first quite Cog, thanks.

CogitoErgoSometimes a somewhat unfair choice though as they are the only ones that have a complete protein, so it's trivially obvious that they're best even before you have other nutrients of interest (Chips would be another good one to add to the list).

Doesn't change the general point of course though, people have a very poor understanding and advertising is often very,very misleading on what the actual benefits are of any particular claim.

I don't think it was at all obvious to the respondents, that's the point. Hot-dogs and chocolate would sustain life best technically because they contain a combination of fat, protein and carbohydrate and yet most of the respondents regard them as 'bad' or 'unhealthy'. For the same kind of reasons you get problems like 'Middle Class Malnutrition'... where parents with the best intentions end up causing children health problems by exluding 'bad' foods from the diet.