Processed food - what to do??

[Parker]

I suppose some people just have bad eating habits. Cant all blame the supermarkets and take away shops for what people choose to eat.

I agree. As an adult from lightest to heaviest, I put on around 40 kg. But I didn't sue coles for selling the food that made me fat or the food manufacturers for making the food that made me fat. At the end of the day, it's still a choice. I chose to eat too much and got fat.

And nobody made all those people smoke, but they advertised it and encouraged it, where's the warning label on cadburys?

[human909]

Its like the confectionary free checkout line, it was a cute idea and it's sweet to do that for people, but when you realise that checkouts normally come in two's... and only one is confectionary free, its just taking the mickey isn't it.

I never even noticed there are confectionery free check out lines, probably because I don't even look at whats there, if I did want confectionery then I've already bought it from the confectionery isle. A no it is not taking the mickey. If you find walking through the confectionery checkout lane excessively temping the YOU have a problem. (I'm not being critical, just blunt. I also have problems, just not on this issue.)

When the food industry employs scientists to discover why you eat and what makes your brain want more we know that it's not a level playing field. Coke notices when a heavy user stops purchasing their product, yes they actually notice this.

You are kidding here aren't you? Does coke have tracking chips in every bottle?

Food companies wouldn't have made changes to their product lines if they didn't see changes in the way you shopped, they see everything about the consumer and safeway and coles are the first to pass on that information.

Yep marketing exists.

Some people do have bad eating habits, but it isn't helped by product placement, for example, Easter starts on Boxing day every year, the first thing they do is fill the clip strips near your register with little bags of easter eggs and you might see the little red lindt eggs be placed on a register, thats the first stage, then gradually you'll see that some gold bunnies will appear and you'll go, oh that's nice, it's easter soon. How is someone who has trouble with their eating supposed to improve with this sort of placement?

Not buy any?

It is nice that people say, oh just have it in moderation, it's really nice, thanks, when you say that you actually make me feel bad for not being able to do that and when I say I gave up processed foods most people say, "you should eat some of everything." I call your bluff, tell me what is so great about high fructose corn syrup? Tell me what's so friggen nutritious about bread or pasta? What exactly does that give me that I can't get from fruit, vegetables, meat and dairy? Why are you so insistent that I eat these food which we know aren't highly nutritious?

Nobody is being insistent that you eat anything. Bread and pasta are both excellent sources of carbohydrates. I need them in my diet so I eat them. It sounds like you need them less so maybe you should eat them less. Thats fine we can both make our own choices.

Oh yeah, because you're insecure about the food choices that YOU make.

Are you ten years old? Food choices is not something I would ever think to be insecure about. You seem to be hung up on food and blaming others. It sounds like the problem is yours, stop blaming others.

And nobody made all those people smoke, but they advertised it and encouraged it, where's the warning label on cadburys?

Are you asking now to be guilted even more for eating chocolate? Chocolate is not physically, at least not in the normal sense. Sure food can be psychologically addictive but so can computer games, running and TV. Should we be putting warnings on them too? I eat as much ice cream, chocolate, confectionery as I want. That is to say I particularly eat or want much.

The problem your are describing is psychological. Recognise that and stop blaming others.

[human909]

Just to reiterate. The above reply while blunt is not meant to be mean or unhelpful. I believe recognising the problem and its causes is an important step in addressing it. Blaming others for your own problem does not lead to solutions.

As stated earlier, I myself have problems that continue to afflict me. Depression can make even the easiest task seem like a monstrous one. It can destroy careers, relationships and lives. Addressing depression and addressing an eating compulsion (which can often be associated with depression) don't start by blaming society.

[anttismo]

I recognise most of what Parker said is likely true - food is designed to be as addictive as the person selling can make it, and I guess most marketers of almost any product would want that. And I can see it is a big problem for some people. Personally I abstain from alcohol because I'm an alcoholic, so I'm somewhat familiar with addiction. As much as it would be easy to advise people to control themselves, I am really at a loss to explain why alcohol was able to basically completely control me and almost ruin me, nor can I expalin why I have been able to go dry. But by the grace of God or yada yada...

I guess the main reason for starting the thread was to ask what should we do about it? Should the goverment be controlling what people eat and drink? I'm guessing most people would say no, but it's interesting to hear what others think could or should be done.

[lobstermash]

I heard chocolate rations are being increased from 20 to 25 grams (1984 reference).

The government should not control what people eat and drink. Governments should try to implement measures to get people eating healthier food to the extent that the people they serve call for. Effective public policy is driven by the constituents, not the government. For example, the general public was concerned about the impact of CFCs on the Ozone Layer, so governments regulated to (all but) ban CFCs. Over the last couple of decades, society has been concerned about skin cancer from sun exposure. Education programs were implemented in schools and now we're seeing skin cancer rates declining in Australians under 45 being reported in recent studies.

So the question is, do 'the people' want their junk food intake regulated? I doubt it. Should we outsource nutritional education to the government? I think most people would be more than agreeable to kids being taught about healthy eating in schools. I know this is occurring in my kids' school, and sometimes my kids turn down treats like fizzy drinks or cordial in favour of water, or choose to eat vegetable they don't like because they want the 'good stuff' in them. I emphasise the sometimes, but it's often enough that I'm reasonably confident that they have been suitably brainwashed *ahem* taught about food to know what's good and bad. Now when it comes to being sunsmart, they pretty much won't go in sunshine without a hat and sunscreen...

[Parker]

I recognise most of what Parker said is likely true - food is designed to be as addictive as the person selling can make it, and I guess most marketers of almost any product would want that. And I can see it is a big problem for some people. Personally I abstain from alcohol because I'm an alcoholic, so I'm somewhat familiar with addiction. As much as it would be easy to advise people to control themselves, I am really at a loss to explain why alcohol was able to basically completely control me and almost ruin me, nor can I expalin why I have been able to go dry. But by the grace of God or yada yada...

I guess the main reason for starting the thread was to ask what should we do about it? Should the goverment be controlling what people eat and drink? I'm guessing most people would say no, but it's interesting to hear what others think could or should be done.

What can we do about it? Not much, make the choice to eat food that isn't as processed, say you'll have one day or two days a week where the food you buy isn't packed in a box or you know what all the ingredients are because it's natural and there's nothing added.

We can't go back to what it was, before the onslaught of mass production as we have too many people to feed, the important thing is that people are more informed than they were before and they're helping to pass information to friends or family. That we have chocies to purchase our goods from a supermarket, a farmers market, a small grocer, or even a co-operative, that we can choose if our food is sustainable, caged, ethically farmed etc.

[human909]

What can we do about it? Not much, make the choice to eat food that isn't as processed, say you'll have one day or two days a week where the food you buy isn't packed in a box or you know what all the ingredients are because it's natural and there's nothing added.

We can't go back to what it was, before the onslaught of mass production as we have too many people to feed, the important thing is that people are more informed than they were before and they're helping to pass information to friends or family. That we have chocies to purchase our goods from a supermarket, a farmers market, a small grocer, or even a co-operative, that we can choose if our food is sustainable, caged, ethically farmed etc.

Why is there a need to "do" anything about it. We have got more choice than we ever have had before.

[Parker]

Its like the confectionary free checkout line, it was a cute idea and it's sweet to do that for people, but when you realise that checkouts normally come in two's... and only one is confectionary free, its just taking the mickey isn't it.

I never even noticed there are confectionery free check out lines, probably because I don't even look at whats there, if I did want confectionery then I've already bought it from the confectionery isle. A no it is not taking the mickey. If you find walking through the confectionery checkout lane excessively temping the YOU have a problem. (I'm not being critical, just blunt. I also have problems, just not on this issue.)

When the food industry employs scientists to discover why you eat and what makes your brain want more we know that it's not a level playing field. Coke notices when a heavy user stops purchasing their product, yes they actually notice this.

You are kidding here aren't you? Does coke have tracking chips in every bottle?

Re: Confectionary free checkouts

Confectionary free checkout lines were oirginally establish to deal with the growing resentment from families when supermarket shopping, parents wanted the choice of going to a checkout that had no confectionary on it, the problem being that the children could see it anyway because it wasn't far enough apart.

Re: Coke

My point below, website reference is here

"In Coke’s headquarters in Atlanta, the biggest consumers were referred to as “heavy users.” “The other model we use was called ‘drinks and drinkers,’ ” Dunn said. “How many drinkers do I have? And how many drinks do they drink? If you lost one of those heavy users, if somebody just decided to stop drinking Coke, how many drinkers would you have to get, at low velocity, to make up for that heavy user? The answer is a lot. It’s more efficient to get my existing users to drink more.”

[Parker]

What can we do about it? Not much, make the choice to eat food that isn't as processed, say you'll have one day or two days a week where the food you buy isn't packed in a box or you know what all the ingredients are because it's natural and there's nothing added.

We can't go back to what it was, before the onslaught of mass production as we have too many people to feed, the important thing is that people are more informed than they were before and they're helping to pass information to friends or family. That we have chocies to purchase our goods from a supermarket, a farmers market, a small grocer, or even a co-operative, that we can choose if our food is sustainable, caged, ethically farmed etc.

Why is there a need to "do" anything about it. We have got more choice than we ever have had before.

There isn't, same reason as there was really no need to do anything about Japanese Whaling.

[human909]

"In Coke’s headquarters in Atlanta, the biggest consumers were referred to as “heavy users.” “The other model we use was called ‘drinks and drinkers,’ ” Dunn said. “How many drinkers do I have? And how many drinks do they drink? If you lost one of those heavy users, if somebody just decided to stop drinking Coke, how many drinkers would you have to get, at low velocity, to make up for that heavy user? The answer is a lot. It’s more efficient to get my existing users to drink more.”

There is a difference between modelling the impact of changes in drinking habits of their consumers and noticing "when a heavy user stops purchasing their product, yes they actually notice this".

There isn't, same reason as there was really no need to do anything about Japanese Whaling.

I'm a little baffled at this connection.

Personally I don't believe there is a problem having a choice of food available. You seem be expecting the government to take action when really the answer lies in the individuals.

[Parker]

"In Coke’s headquarters in Atlanta, the biggest consumers were referred to as “heavy users.” “The other model we use was called ‘drinks and drinkers,’ ” Dunn said. “How many drinkers do I have? And how many drinks do they drink? If you lost one of those heavy users, if somebody just decided to stop drinking Coke, how many drinkers would you have to get, at low velocity, to make up for that heavy user? The answer is a lot. It’s more efficient to get my existing users to drink more.”

There is a difference between modelling the impact of changes in drinking habits of their consumers and noticing "when a heavy user stops purchasing their product, yes they actually notice this".

There isn't, same reason as there was really no need to do anything about Japanese Whaling.

I'm a little baffled at this connection.

Personally I don't believe there is a problem having a choice of food available. You seem be expecting the government to take action when really the answer lies in the individuals.

I'm not sure how you could be confused by this?

[Ron]

You can eat fatty processed foods if you want, but you've got to offset it somehow. That's what I do - and why I eat pretty much what I want to eat and I'm still quite lean.

That's a meaningless statement. I bet eating what you want doesn't mean eating a pack of tim tams every night or a 2L tub of ice cream every night.

I knock off a family block of chocolate most nights (only time I don't is if we don't have it in the house), I'm doing very similar K's to b-goaf but with half as much elevation again (currently around 51,000mts YTD). 51, 165cm and 64kg.
Ron

[Stepr]

While this may not be a popular thing to say - the rising obesity rate is a good indicator of how people can't eat the right things by choice. Having said that, big business looking after their own profits and governments who collect tax have a lot to answer for.

All you need to do if you are interested in this subject is t look into what good 'old professor yudkin had to say about sugar and how he lost out to the low fat brigade back inthe 1970s - look up the book "pure white and deadly"

[ldrcycles]

While this may not be a popular thing to say - the rising obesity rate is a good indicator of how people can't eat the right things by choice.

I disagree, I think lack of physical activity is a far bigger factor. Food really hasn't changed that much, lifestyles on the other hand have.

[Dragster1]

While this may not be a popular thing to say - the rising obesity rate is a good indicator of how people can't eat the right things by choice.

I disagree, I think lack of physical activity is a far bigger factor. Food really hasn't changed that much, lifestyles on the other hand have.

Good point I can remember as a kid going on day long rides and hordes of kids riding past my house on a weekend. Now days they just compare game boys

[trailgumby]

Where the market is shown to produce dysfuctional results, it is within the purvue of government to intervene.

For sure, I dont want them dictating what I can and can't do, but I see nothing wrong and a huge amount right in making sure all the externalities are priced in so that the buyer/consumer pays something much closer to the true cost to the community. Examples: tobacco excise, fuel excise.

Heavily processed foods, highly calorie dense foods should have a higher taxation level attached.

[human909]

I disagree, I think lack of physical activity is a far bigger factor. Food really hasn't changed that much, lifestyles on the other hand have.

Its believe it is both. There are plenty of labourers that are 'active' and still overweight. Food is not a whole lot different from alcohol, gambling or other things one can have in excess. For many it is simply another vice that needs to be approached sensibly.

Good habits and self control will go a long way. I'm fortunate that on both regarding metabolism and eating compulsion I'm fine. In fact about a year ago I tried "dieting", not because I was overweight but simply as a personal experiment for seeing if I could do it. From that experience, my genetics and my love for outdoor sports I can't imagine weight being EVER a problem for me.

(I'm no means trying to brag here. We all have our demons.)

[human909]

Ah Economics!

Where the market is shown to produce dysfuctional results, it is within the purvue of government to intervene.

I agree. Where there is a clear market failure. The market failure here is far from clear.

For sure, I dont want them dictating what I can and can't do, but I see nothing wrong and a huge amount right in making sure all the externalities are priced in so that the buyer/consumer pays something much closer to the true cost to the community. Examples: tobacco excise, fuel excise.

Fuel excise can be clearly justified from two clear angles, through paying for the "public good" (the roads) and paying for the negative externality.

Tobacco excise is a sin tax. Which is less defensible from an economic point of view. Though the damage is much more clear and evident from tobacco than from 'bad' food.

Heavily processed foods, highly calorie dense foods should have a higher taxation level attached.

To decide what is covered here and what isn't would be a nightmare. Olive oil (an other oils) is about as calorie dense as you can get, should this be taxed? Flour is pretty high up there too in a calories/gram. Ice cream is far less calorie dense than most "good" dry foods. Food is cheap, I don't believe a tax on "bad" food would have any effect unless it was massive. And if it was massive then it unfairly harms those without issue.

Take alcohol for example, despite having the one of the worlds highest alcohol excise, there is little evidence that it reduces consumption in this country.

[sankari]

You can complain all you like about the evils of the food industry, but at the end of the day, big corporations aren't going to become less evil any time soon. Two viable solutions are nanny state regulations and personal responsibility. No prizes for guessing which one I prefer.

[PapaJohn]

It always come down to the consumer. There have always, in my life, been energy rich junk foods. BUT the packaging and marketing of food is now much more sophisticated, and in line with dietary trends. Yogurt 1% fat, but feel the weight in it, that's sugar. Draw the attention to how they are helping you deal with one issue and introduce another.

Apart from the more sedentary lives that people live, the food industry has a lot to answer for. Prepared food is now stylish, oh so convenient, tasty, made of the finest ingredients. We eat for a greater number of reasons: to be social, to have a new culinary experience, because it is mealtime (hey, we have time for a meal - have it now), and then there are the comfort foot/eat because of boredom, eat this, it's the perfect accompaniment for this drink. There are whole food industries geared towards fulfilling every variation of why we might put some food stuff mouths for reasons other than you need to eat to live. We are now a "live to eat" culture and the food industry wants it to stay that way. I've lived the transformation at 62.

I once had a very physical out-of-doors job, in cold conditions. I couldn't eat enough. I would eat as much as I could hold, at every opportunity and weighed 55 kg. Food was a necessary expense, that I would have done without, if I could have. That work went away. The exercise became bicycle commuting and gardening. Not on the same scale. I was decades at 65kg. Foodyism becomes a factor. Middle age brings a certain metabolic change. Weight goes up to over 70 kg. Counting kilometres now, how many a week? Alcoholic drinks, goes with the food doesn't it? Now we have some food habits. Dips and spreads and breads; don't forget the dukka and nice olive oil. Slow cooked Winter fare? This is food for the previous life, all washed down with lots of heavy boutique beer or red wine.

It's all personal choices, I'm afraid, but we get plenty of help these days in making the choice. I don't think the big issue is whether it is processed or not. We can now afford to eat way more than we need, so we do. Healthy food choices are affordable.

Ride big kays - eat what you want. vs Ride no kays, spend the life indoors, life is a continuum of non-stop denial. This isn't the main reason why I ride a bicycle, but it could be.

[g-boaf]

You can eat fatty processed foods if you want, but you've got to offset it somehow. That's what I do - and why I eat pretty much what I want to eat and I'm still quite lean.

That's a meaningless statement. I bet eating what you want doesn't mean eating a pack of tim tams every night or a 2L tub of ice cream every night.

I knock off a family block of chocolate most nights (only time I don't is if we don't have it in the house), I'm doing very similar K's to b-goaf but with half as much elevation again (currently around 51,000mts YTD). 51, 165cm and 64kg.
Ron

Nice going with that kind of elevation!

I'm a bit similar to you in that if there is some chocolate around, I'm going to finish it off rather quickly. But I work it off fairly fast. I hover around 59-61kg these days at 174cm height. I just have to make sure during the winter that I keep the work rate going and don't slack off.

[London Boy]

Processed food is like a drug and the big company know it. The fill it up with salt and sugar to get you hooked. Its the massive amounts of fats in most processed foods thats the problem

I'm not sure that's true.
Decades ago, it seems that the scientific establishment had to decide whether it was fat or sugar that did the damage, and they chose fat. The view today is that they chose wrong.
Fat, per se, is not harmful. Energy dense, sure, but not harmful. Evidently there is no relationship between the amount of animal fat ingested and the amount of cholesterol in the blood. Margarine is less healthy than butter, thanks to the hydrogenated (trans) fats it contains. Sugar raises insulin levels, and it is that which persuades our bodies to lay down stores of fat.
Sugar is apparently addictive, with both psychological and physical effects. So you're right there, the food industry clearly exploits that just like big tobacco used to do. It seems reasonable to blame the food industry, as much as fat individuals themselves, for their problems.
And so on.
So really, it is sugar that should be taxed, rather than fat. And taxing energy dense foods does not make sense, since protein is energy dense, but is also an appetite suppressant, and necessary for maintaining physical integrity.
Oh, and an hour of hard riding will burn off around 600 net calories, about the same amount as in 5 Anzac biscuits. So exercise is really not the answer to gluttony.
What do the coaches and sports physicians say? Something along the lines of 'eat for weight, exercise for performance'..?

[anttismo]

....Oh, and an hour of hard riding will burn off around 600 net calories, about the same amount as in 5 Anzac biscuits. So exercise is really not the answer to gluttony...

Depends how hard you ride and how big and heavy you are. For me, I can go over 1000 Cal/hr on shorter rides, and even 800 is manageable for moderate length (3~4 hrs). So while burning 2000~3000 Cal every day on the bike is not a complete free pass, it certainly allows me to eat like absolute machine most of the time

[Xplora]

Food companies are not evil. They maximise profits, and adding fat, sugar or salt improves flavour to many things. They want to sell so they add the stuff. Boohoo. Do people sook about Campagnolo making prettier parts than Shimano? Does it have to be ugly to prevent appeal?

Lets not muck around. Some food isn't good for you. Some food is good for you. Some food is much worse for some than others. The Government cannot control the decisions made by the public. If they did, things would get baaad. It always does because of unintended consequences. Low fat labelling is meaningless, if you can't handle full fat milk then drink water. Eat dry toast for breakfast and black coffee without sugar. Here is hell for some people, and we haven't finished breakfast yet.

This discussion reflects compact vs standard to me. If the right deal comes up, I will go standard crank. I am not powerful, not overly fast, and my climbing could use some work. The compact suits me better but I need to improve some aspects of my riding which a standard would help with. God help us if Shimano gave up the standard size. Thank God they merged the BCD for standard, compact and CX cranks.

Food is a choice. There is plenty of opportunity in Oz to learn and improve yourself. I won't say it is easy. I can't make things easy. It's not something I can control. But the information to control your destiny is there. Just like the cranks, you don't get thin without effort.

[simonn]

What do the coaches and sports physicians say? Something along the lines of 'eat for weight, exercise for performance'..?

(and PTs).

This X 1,000,000.

I knock off a family block of chocolate most nights (only time I don't is if we don't have it in the house), I'm doing very similar K's to b-goaf but with half as much elevation again (currently around 51,000mts YTD). 51, 165cm and 64kg.

I'm a bit similar to you in that if there is some chocolate around, I'm going to finish it off rather quickly.

What's your body fat like? I found that even when I was exercising a lot (~13,000km/year + gym, yoga, pilates etc) and eating almost anything I wanted, my body fat was still too high.

Food is a choice (as is alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, couch potatoing etc) but... I would estimate that ~90% of the foodstuffs that you can buy at the average supermarket have too much salt, bad fats and/or sugar then that choice is somewhat limited. And, that's before you get to how much socializing revolves around eating and drinking bad stuff.

If we accept the regulation of alcohol and cigarettes, then I do not see to much of an issue in regulating bad food - trans fats, added sugar, salt etc. By regulation I mean perhaps even just coming up with a legal definition of "healthy" and regulating the use of "health properties" in the marketing of clearly unhealthy foods e.g. chocolate and "antioxidants!!!" - I am not a lawyer or dietician so do not have an exact idea of how this would be done, but clearly, if you are adding sugar, salt and/or transfats then, nope, you cannot use the word "healthy" in the marketing, maybe you should actually have an enforced label (like cigarettes) stating "This product contains salt/sugar/transfats/whatever in excess of what is considered healthy". Labels on fruit juice like "Consuming more than 150ml in one sitting is bad for your health" etc etc. If they were taxed it would make healthier options comparatively cheaper and as a result more available, hopefully. Yes, this would not be fool proof, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.