Healthy Eating

[Stokey Sue]

I quite understand why those who have trained in the field may mock - and with good reason.

Surely the point is that there has been an almost total failure over a long period to effectively rein in the cheap foods which are nutritionally poor (and which may, or may not be produced by multinationals with money and cronies) and to educate on what is good, and why, simply and clearly and to make sure it is accessible. I'm sure most of us would be glad that a child had access to beans on toast for a meal even if not perfect, rather than Haribos.

You sum up the problem for me Earthmaiden but not in the way you intend; how do you know that these cheap foods are not nutritious and should be reined in? Most of the basis for this comes from the bandwagon, from articles like Andrew Anthony’s. I really don’t think many people would feed a child Hatibo in place of beans on toast - but if they feed them a ready made cottage pie rather than a homemade one, is that really terrible?

You can’t state things simply and clearly unless you have rock solid basic facts, and for that you need proper science, not a bunch of prejudices spread by self-publicists like NOVA. The pseudo science is grabbing the funding as well as the non-specialist press, so we really may not get the right research to get clear data and establish the issues. We don’t have nearly enough quality research.

Gunter Kuhnle, Professor of Nutrition and Food Science, University of Reading, whom I admire (he is scientifically rigorous but sometimes very funny) tweeted this morning

Is "Ultra-processed food" going to be the "antioxidant" of our time? A great term - especially for marketing - but physiologically wrong and damaging research for decades to come.

which I think demonstrates how some relevant scientists are concerned

BM - the blooper that leapt out at me was a statement that people born after 1992 were more likely than those born earlier to develop cancer before the age of 50. As most of them aren’t 40 yet, this is a fine example of crystal ball statistics.

[Earthmaiden]

You are absolutely right of course.

Can it really be that there are no proven rock solid facts regarding (for instance) fibre in the diet, the effects of trans fats and more than certain amounts of sugar and salt etc? Nothing would surprise me.

[Stokey Sue]

Yes, there are plenty of facts about specific elements of nutrition - fibre for example, protein requirements

Salt and sugar, a certain amount of cold hard fact but a lot of it has been hi-jacked by single interest pressure groups, and it’s very difficult to assess as it’s probably lifetime habits, or at least very long term intakes that count; really hard to measure when your research subjects are out in the wild eating Wetherspoons curry yesterday, coffee and cup cakes today, homemade salad tomorrow. There are long term studies of course - Framingham, American Nurses, UK Biobank etc, which have enough subjects to be useful but - the catch they really take a lifetime, but there’s data coming out

But the term UPF has been around for less than five years, so really - not a lot of exploration.

Going back to fibre - the NHS recommend 30g per day to avoid bowel problems, which seems like quite a lot to me, and of course you ideally want a variety fibre types - but if you need one way of getting it is a high fibre breakfast cereal such as Sultana Bran, Fruit n Fibre etc or a wholemeal bread, such as Warburtons 100% whole wheat or a “health food” granola. All of which might be a good idea for some people, it all of which are UPF

[Badger's Mate]

A lot of recommendations come from studies where the data ‘tentatively suggest’ certain things, but the nature of the evidence is sufficiently fuzzy that concrete conclusions are not reasonable. For example, there is evidence that eating plenty of fruit and veg improves outcomes for cardiovascular health, gut cancers and type 2 diabetes. The evidence is better for some conditions than others, but it led the WHO to recommend a daily intake of at least 400g fruit and veg in addition to the staple. Makes sense, all very reasonable, based on years of studies, all manner of cultures and diets. Different foods contain different nutrients and in order to get the vitamins, minerals and other micronutrients necessary for good health, it’s logical to eat a variety. So, a varied diet containing plenty of fruit and veg seems a good way to help long-term health outcomes for certain conditions. There is some evidence to back this up.

However, that’s not a snappy slogan. There is no evidence that 5 portions of 80 g is better than any other way of consuming plants, no evidence that a 40g portion (or 20g of a 100g portion) ‘doesn’t count’ in some way. People get drawn into silly debates about what does and doesn’t contribute to your five a day, when the whole concept is a silly over complication of a straightforward recommendation.

[Stokey Sue]

Returning to the fray - Professor Gunter Kuhnle, Professor of Nutrition and Food Science at Reading University has made a Twitter thread explaining why UPF shouldn't be taken too seriously as a concept. You don't need a Twitter account to read it

https://twitter.com/ggkuhnle/status/163 ... 73024?s=20

PS despite his hippo avatar, he's quite slim!

[Suffs]

I could’ve written this myself …
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-styl ... 01192.html

[mistakened]

I agree, apart from anything else the only additive in butter is salt and you can easily avoid that

[Earthmaiden]

I started having only butter once substitutes were proven not to be so great after all and on recommendation of the blood sugar nurse. I didn't eat an undue amount but a year later my cholesterol had gone to a level that the nurse didn't like. It had been ok before . I didn't like butter or cream much until I was over 50 but do now .

[KeenCook]

Yes, absolutely, Moira, and Suffs. And unsalted butter is so easily available now - I remember years and years ago you had to search it out if you needed it for a special recipe.

Btw, have we had a discussion about the ZOE food plan anywhere? My friend who came to supper last night has signed up for it and we had some fun checking the barcodes in my cupboards for her particular yesses and no-nos!

I can't see me signing up to it; interesting as it would be, I think I'd almost rather not know what was better for me to avoid, and just stick to the "everything in moderation" maxim! Apart from things, of course, that obviously make you ill or you cannot tolerate that you've discovered over the years.
For instance, she "shouldn't" have more than 4 apples a week, unless she has them with almond or peanut butter - I would really, really hate having to cut down on my consumption of apples and I don't particularly like them with the often recommended peanut butter.

[Stokey Sue]

Yes, absolutely, Moira, and Suffs. And unsalted butter is so easily available now - I remember years and years ago you had to search it out if you needed it for a special recipe.

Btw, have we had a discussion about the ZOE food plan anywhere? My friend who came to supper last night has signed up for it and we had some fun checking the barcodes in my cupboards for her particular yesses and no-nos!

I can't see me signing up to it; interesting as it would be, I think I'd almost rather not know what was better for me to avoid, and just stick to the "everything in moderation" maxim! Apart from things, of course, that obviously make you ill or you cannot tolerate that you've discovered over the years.
For instance, she "shouldn't" have more than 4 apples a week, unless she has them with almond or peanut butter - I would really, really hate having to cut down on my consumption of apples and I don't particularly like them with the often recommended peanut butter.

Sorry - what? Apples only with nut butter? Do you get put on the naughty step if you omit the nut butter or just crunch the nuts separately?

Jumping Jehoshaphat, have they run out of normal ways being idiots?

I really, seriously, don’t believe anyone knows enough about human nutrition to specify diet to this level of detail. Yes, in laboratory tests absorption of certain nutrients or the balance of gut bacteria might be improved by eating apples this way, but that’s really not a sufficient reason to incorporate it in a dietary recommendation.

This is the ZOË Diets page, good luck to anyone trying to destroy an older person’s joy in life by putting them on the keto diet.
https://joinzoe.com/learn/category/nutrition/diets

Real clinical nutritionists are taking to Twitter to applaud Jason Manford for getting a McDonalds milkshake into his Nana when she was in hospital not eating.
https://twitter.com/leicnut/status/1638 ... nZIuvqenrQ

[Smitch]

Dietitian is the HCPC regulated protected title. Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist

[Pepper Pig]

By the end of the week I wouldn't remember how many apples I'd had. What a load of bullshit.

[Stokey Sue]

Dietitian is the HCPC regulated protected title. Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist

A nutritionist yes

A clinical nutritionist is a medical doctor, usually from a gastroenterology background

The clinical nutritionist I am quoting is an NHS consultant

Meet Dr Stewart
https://www.leicestershospitals.nhs.uk/ ... -the-team/

[Badger's Mate]

Most hospital dietitians I have noticed look like they could do with a good dinner.

[KeenCook]

By the end of the week I wouldn't remember how many apples I'd had. What a load of bullshit.

Ha, me too, pp.

I think one of the problems is that there seems be no way of accessing proper nutritional guidance unless you go private - at least, if there is, I'd love to find out about it.

When OH was told he was pre-diabetic he was given extreme advice by whoever it was he was referred to that actually contributed to him being very ill.

I would appreciate the opportunity to consult with a professional on my how to optimise my personal nutritional intake.

[Smitch]

Dietitian is the HCPC regulated protected title. Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist

A nutritionist yes

A clinical nutritionist is a medical doctor, usually from a gastroenterology background

The clinical nutritionist I am quoting is an NHS consultant

Meet Dr Stewart
https://www.leicestershospitals.nhs.uk/ ... -the-team/

A clinical nutritionist is not a protected title or job role and to quote the British Dietetic Association “anyone can call themselves a clinical nutritionist”

The doctor in question calls himself a “clinical lead for adult nutrition”

[Stokey Sue]

No the hospital calls him that in one piece of text, badly proof-read

A clinical nutritionist is how Dr Stewart usually describes himself. It probably is unfortunate that overlaps with the meaningless woo title

I really don’t see that it matters whether it’s an NHS protected title or not unless a word here or there lessens his qualifications to make judgments, which it doesn’t. I don’t work in the NHS and I don’t necessarily keep up with their terminology. I just used the term I’ve been used to for the last 4 or 5 years.

The only point I wanted to make was that someone who really knows their onions is happy with the milkshake, and even less impressed by ZOË and Nova and all the rest of the vanity projects than I am. That’s all.

[Smitch]

My point was merely that people calling themselves nutritionists often (but not always) have few qualifications and peddle all sorts of nonsense. If someone wanted dietary support or advice, they could see this thread and think they’re the correct person to speak to, when actually they should be seeing a registered dietician. These things do matter

[Rainbow]

I think one of the problems is that there seems be no way of accessing proper nutritional guidance unless you go private - at least, if there is, I'd love to find out about it.

When OH was told he was pre-diabetic he was given extreme advice by whoever it was he was referred to that actually contributed to him being very ill.

I would appreciate the opportunity to consult with a professional on my how to optimise my personal nutritional intake.

A few weeks ago when I saw my GP to get my annual blood test results, she said she'd give me a 'Care Plan' - referrals to a Dietician and also to a physiotherapist. This is because I have low bone density and am very reluctant to have Prolia injections every 6 months. Not sure the benefits are worth the possible side effects!
Of course this is in Australia, but do you have a similar scheme? On a Care Plan the appointments are covered by Medicare (our version of NHS) although the Physio. may still charge me a small 'gap fee'!

Does anyone have any experience or helpful advice about Prolia injections and the side affects?? (The medication is actually "Denosumab')

[Badger's Mate]

Surely the risk with a comprehensive State-funded health care system is that budgets might be tight, they are almost obliged to do everything, everywhere, all at once and the quart doesn’t fit into the pint pot. Some people who need treatment don’t get treated or have a very long wait.

Privately, health is business, so the risk is that everything is medicalised and thereby monetised. Normal health comes with a multitude of tests, warnings that you are nearly not quite unhealthy and something to buy just in case. Some people are ‘being treated’ when they might not need to be. Plus of course, those who can’t or won’t afford it don’t get treated.