View previous topic | View next topic

Eating: Nutrition

Page 2 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

eggshaped
152888.  Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:57 am Reply with quote

I think diaorrea is the main problem for lactose-intolerant cats

 
MatC
154447.  Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:28 am Reply with quote

Flash wrote:
I wonder whether we ought to have a pop at the idea that foods can be categorised as either unequivocally 'good' or unequivocally 'bad'? Not sure I can see a good way to do it, mind.


The whole concept of “junk food” vanishes as soon as you try to define it.
You’ll have heard of the new rules preventing TV advertising “junk food” to children; this means any foods which are defined by the Food Standards Agency as HFSS (High in Fat, Salt or Sugar, or Known to Consort with Beelzebub the Unclean).

Immediately on publication of the guidelines, the food industry published a list of items banned under them, which included:

Marmite, Cheddar cheese, porridge, raisins, All-Bran, some types of honey, olive oil, Greek yoghurt, and tomato ketchup.

Chicken nuggets and diet colas were not on the list.

S: Lots on the google, including http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,,2006854,00.html
but my best sources are two press cuttings which are currently in amongst hundreds of others in a huge cardboard box on top of a cupboard ... I’ll fish them out if we decide to use this.

 
Flash
154455.  Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:42 am Reply with quote

Well, I love this line of enquiry, but how on Earth is porridge "high in fat, salt or sugar" unless you add fat, salt, or sugar to it?

 
MatC
154460.  Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:47 am Reply with quote

Flash wrote:
Well, I love this line of enquiry, but how on Earth is porridge "high in fat, salt or sugar" unless you add fat, salt, or sugar to it?


What do I look like, a nutritionist?

No idea. The others, I suppose, are fairly obvious - although, come to think of it, what's All-Bran got in it? The same evil substance as porridge, perhaps?

Best of all, I'd like to see a series of ads, pushing olive oil and all bran to kids. I don't often watch ads, but I'd stay in my chair for that lot.

 
MatC
154475.  Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:29 am Reply with quote

This is a better account of the argument: http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=186812007

“CRITICS of the new law claim many foods with health benefits will be blacked out from TV screens.
The FSA model assesses fat, sugar and salt content in 100g or 100mg servings, rather than a typical serving.
So foods served in small portions, such as bran flakes, butter, low-fat spreads, instant hot oat cereal, raisins and low- fat spreads are all likely to be caught by the new regulations.
But The Grocer said that the restrictions would encourage food manufacturers to develop products full of artificial sweeteners and other additives, which would fall outside the fat, salt and sugar cut-off levels but would also be low on nutrients.”

Presumably, “hot oat cereals” means Ready Brek type products, which makes more sense than unadulterated porridge.

 
MatC
155297.  Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:39 am Reply with quote

Flash wrote:
I wonder whether we ought to have a pop at the idea that foods can be categorised as either unequivocally 'good' or unequivocally 'bad'? Not sure I can see a good way to do it, mind.


Havering Council, in London, has banned tomato ketchup from school dinners, because it is “unhealthy.” (Daily Telegraph, 8 March 07).

However, elsewhere tomato ketchup is celebrated as a “healthy” wonderfood, better than fresh tomatoes at preventing cancer.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6844
miniurl

 
MatC
157031.  Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:00 am Reply with quote

Porlock Weir, a “tiny Somerset village,” made its living, in slave days, from the cured herrings trade; millions of such being required in the West Indies, where they were the staple diet for generations of slaves. And here’s why, apparently:

“Meat was a rarity for slaves in the Caribbean because owners decided it was bad for them. There was a common fear at the time that the poor and oppressed of any race would become rebellious if they had a meat-rich diet.”

That strikes me as remarkably similar to the situation today, where posh people believe in the existence of devilish “additives” in what they call “junk food” which, if fed to the children of the poor, turn them into semi-feral, ASBO’d hoodie-beasts, who - given half a chance - will rise up and wipe out the respectable classes, murdering them all in their beds. Far better for them to eat five portions of meek’n’mild per day instead.

 
MatC
157038.  Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:05 am Reply with quote

It'll have changed by now, I dare say, but did you know that in 1998 the British government’s recommended daily intake of fibre for every adult every day was the equivalent of “10 slices of wholemeal bread, or 18 bananas, or 14 bowls of brown rice, or four jacket potatoes”?

S: Daily Telegraph, 17 Mar 98.

 
DELETED
158020.  Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:48 pm Reply with quote

DELETED

 
MatC
158164.  Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:47 am Reply with quote

Related to the celery thing is the myth that you can't get fat eating ice cream because (being so cold) it uses up more calories than it gives you. Anyway, I've got some stuff on that, if wanted, and if we haven't already had it.

On the celery front: the problem with that story, it always seems to me, is that it only really works on the basis that calories are the only, rather than merely the main, point of food. Presumably, celery has other uses, such as roughage. And crunch, obviously.

 
DELETED
158165.  Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:49 am Reply with quote

DELETED

 
MatC
158169.  Wed Mar 21, 2007 5:55 am Reply with quote

Incidentally, I have something here that says eating spinach uses more iron than it gives.

 
Flash
158173.  Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:01 am Reply with quote

The other problem with that celery thing is that it counts the energy you'd be using whether you were eating celery or not - ie it doesn't support the statement that the act of eating celery is a net consumer of calories, as far as I can see.

 
MatC
158177.  Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:07 am Reply with quote

Yes, good point; presumably there is an "at rest" calorie-burning rate. "How many calories do I use when I'm on standby?"

 
DELETED
158185.  Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:23 am Reply with quote

DELETED

 

Page 2 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group