Britain's big diet! More confusion?

[first14808]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43201586

The portion sizes of some of Britain's most popular foods are to be cut, with health officials telling the public it is time "to get on a diet".

Public Health England is targeting pizzas, ready meals, processed meat and takeaways, in a new obesity drive.

The government agency has also urged the food industry to start using healthier ingredients and encourage the public to opt for lower calorie foods.

It is all part of a drive to cut calorie consumption by 20% by 2024.

The target will apply to 13 different food groups, responsible for a fifth of the calorie intake of children.

This could be fun. The 13 food groups cover a pretty broad range, and obviously exclude some high calorie/carb foods like fruit.. Because obviously that would conflict with the "5 a day" advice. One of the 'groups' struck me as a bit odd, namely 'specialty breads such as ciabatta with olives'. Seems an odd one to single out, at least compared to stodgy sliced white bread.

It also has new advice for calorie intake:-

The agency is also launching a campaign encouraging adults to consume 400 calories at breakfast and 600 each at lunch and dinner.

So 1600 calories a day? Because it then goes on to say:-

A four-year-old should consume no more than 1,300, while for males aged 17 and 18 it is about 3,000, but overweight and obese children are consuming up to 500 calories more than that.

So 20% less for male guideline would be 2400 calories a day, not 1600. Unless they're allowing another 800 calories for snacks? But more diet confusion, and it'll be interesting to see how industry responds. My bet is reducing product size by 20% as the new, healthier option, but keeping the same price. Shrinkflation.. That hidden inflationary factor.

 

[dbr10]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43201586


This could be fun. The 13 food groups cover a pretty broad range, and obviously exclude some high calorie/carb foods like fruit.. Because obviously that would conflict with the "5 a day" advice. One of the 'groups' struck me as a bit odd, namely 'specialty breads such as ciabatta with olives'. Seems an odd one to single out, at least compared to stodgy sliced white bread.

It also has new advice for calorie intake:-



So 1600 calories a day? Because it then goes on to say:-



So 20% less for male guideline would be 2400 calories a day, not 1600. Unless they're allowing another 800 calories for snacks? But more diet confusion, and it'll be interesting to see how industry responds. My bet is reducing product size by 20% as the new, healthier option, but keeping the same price. Shrinkflation.. That hidden inflationary factor.

I'm sure you're right. An excuse to cut sizes in order to increase profits. This was discussed on R4 Today this morning with someone from PHE and a representative of the Food Industry both being interviewed. Big mistake to let anyone from the Food Industry anywhere near dietary guidelines.

 

[rmz80]

A four-year-old should consume no more than 1,300, while for males aged 17 and 18 it is about 3,000, but overweight and obese children are consuming up to 500 calories more than that.

I think the 3000 calories for males aged 17 and 18 must mean 3000 calories for a 17 year old sharing a pizza with an 18 year old.

 

[MikeTurin]

This could be fun. The 13 food groups cover a pretty broad range, and obviously exclude some high calorie/carb foods like fruit.. Because obviously that would conflict with the "5 a day" advice.

'Cause they aren't high calories. 100g of tangerines are 53 cals
100g of bananas are 89 cals
100g of grapes are 70 cals
Most caloric fruit is the avocato that goes on 170 cals for 100g

In fruts there are sugars, but they are bonded with fibers so they are highly satiating.

 

[Bluetit1802]

My bet is reducing product size by 20% as the new, healthier option, but keeping the same price. Shrinkflation.. That hidden inflationary factor.

and not forgetting some folk will just buy 2 of them.

 

[Deleted Account]

and not forgetting some folk will just buy 2 of them.

Reminds me of a colleague who needed to lose some weight so was eating Weight Watchers meals for lunch every day.
When I say "meals" I mean she was eating two Weight Watchers meals for lunch every day.
She didn't lose weight for about 9 months: she was pregnant!

 

[lucylocket61]

nothing wrong with eating the whole edible fruit if you are not T2, or even if you are if you count the carbs and check the portion size.

but taxes, taxes and more taxes? I guarantee, as the Oracle of the Welsh Borders, that shrinkflation will happen.

 

[Diakat]

They assume the missing caps go on snacks and drink. Susan Jebb said that it might be better to eat more per meal and skip the snacks.

 

[Bluetit1802]

Susan Jebb said that it might be better to eat more per meal and skip the snacks.

Sensible lady. I believe it is snacking that is the downfall of the majority rather than individual main meals.

 

[Guzzler]

Compounding/continuing confusion. No wonder people just switch off when it comes to dietary advice.

 

[JohnEGreen]

1600 calories a day that would mean roughly doubling my daily calorie intake no way I'd put loads of weight back on.

 

[Daibell]

I'm sure you're right. An excuse to cut sizes in order to increase profits. This was discussed on R4 Today this morning with someone from PHE and a representative of the Food Industry both being interviewed. Big mistake to let anyone from the Food Industry anywhere near dietary guidelines.

But they strongly influenced the Eat Well Guide that PHE support - interesting

 

[Daibell]

What's this obsession with calories? It's largely irrelevant and based on bad science. The body metabolises food in different ways so measuring total calorie input has little meaning by itself. So what will the food industry do? As fats have twice the calories of carbs they will remove fat and add carbs. As many of us know, fat doesn't make you fat but carbs do. The end result will be continued obesity - thanks PHE for continuing the Eat Well Guide saga.

 

[lucylocket61]

What's this obsession with calories?

well, for some of us, calorie as well as carb restriction is necessary.

 

[jcbman]

1600 calories a day that would mean roughly doubling my daily calorie intake no way I'd put loads of weight back on.

megga low calorie mate.

You on the Newcastle diet for life?

Respect, but as many say on here, aren't you into some sort of metabolism shut down?

Don't crack on for low calorie forever.
I did it, then went back to 'normal' eating.

Even the low carb malarkey seems a better thing?
Sign up to the diet this site is selling.

 

[StitchWitch]

What's this obsession with calories? It's largely irrelevant and based on bad science. The body metabolises food in different ways so measuring total calorie input has little meaning by itself. So what will the food industry do? As fats have twice the calories of carbs they will remove fat and add carbs. As many of us know, fat doesn't make you fat but carbs do. The end result will be continued obesity - thanks PHE for continuing the Eat Well Guide saga.

I totally agree! Research has pointed a finger at the ‘eatwell’ plate being responsible for the rise in obesity. There is no ‘one size fits all’ strategy in diet and there are a lot of social factors such as full time working parents having little time to cook healthy foods, lack of real food education in schools, kids sent to school with money in their pockets that gets spent on sweets at the corner shop and all the while confusing messages of what is or isn’t bad for you! No food is bad for you in moderation. I rarely eat ‘5 a day’ and strangely enough, I have not succumbed to the bugs and such floating around work and that is having T2 and no flu jab this year! We need to do some good old fashioned home economics classes at school for all and include budgeting, saving and, when older, CV writing, interview skills an mortgage applications as well as healthy meal planning and cooking. Not everything in real life is academic, we need practical everyday skills too.

 

[jcbman]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43201586


This could be fun. The 13 food groups cover a pretty broad range, and obviously exclude some high calorie/carb foods like fruit.. Because obviously that would conflict with the "5 a day" advice. One of the 'groups' struck me as a bit odd, namely 'specialty breads such as ciabatta with olives'. Seems an odd one to single out, at least compared to stodgy sliced white bread.

It also has new advice for calorie intake:-



So 1600 calories a day? Because it then goes on to say:-



So 20% less for male guideline would be 2400 calories a day, not 1600. Unless they're allowing another 800 calories for snacks? But more diet confusion, and it'll be interesting to see how industry responds. My bet is reducing product size by 20% as the new, healthier option, but keeping the same price. Shrinkflation.. That hidden inflationary factor.

Ha.

my lunch was a massive ciabatta, cos it was cheap lol.

But designer bread is trendy, and is healthy lol

 

[first14808]

What's this obsession with calories? It's largely irrelevant and based on bad science. The body metabolises food in different ways so measuring total calorie input has little meaning by itself. So what will the food industry do? As fats have twice the calories of carbs they will remove fat and add carbs. As many of us know, fat doesn't make you fat but carbs do. The end result will be continued obesity - thanks PHE for continuing the Eat Well Guide saga.

That's what I've been wondering. So picking on another category, "meat products, such as pies, pastries, sausages and burgers". Figure on a quality sausage or burger, it should be largely meat with maybe some rusk/onion/seasoning. Ok, so some might shrink by 20% or more during cooking as they lose fat/water.. But for quality foods, it'll be easier to hit the 20% target by turning a quarter pounder into a fith-burger. I suspect you're right about how they'll achieve their targets though, and if carb content increases, it's going to be a huge waste of money and people's health compared to advising carb reduction.

 

[jcbman]

That's what I've been wondering. So picking on another category, "meat products, such as pies, pastries, sausages and burgers". Figure on a quality sausage or burger, it should be largely meat with maybe some rusk/onion/seasoning. Ok, so some might shrink by 20% or more during cooking as they lose fat/water.. But for quality foods, it'll be easier to hit the 20% target by turning a quarter pounder into a fith-burger. I suspect you're right about how they'll achieve their targets though, and if carb content increases, it's going to be a huge waste of money and people's health compared to advising carb reduction.

pies, pastries, sausages and burgers
Food of the gods lol

 

[lowcarbboy]

pies, pastries, sausages and burgers
Food of the gods lol

Bad food for anyone?