For us runners, nutrition is very important, especially for those who are looking to loose weight. I was wondering if people generally know that when they read about Recommended Daily Intakes/Allowances of carbohydrates, proteins and fats, that the percentages given refer to the % of Kcal from each nutrient, rather than the % of a food's weight? So when we are told to have a diet with say 60% carbs, 25% fats and 15% proteins, looking at food labels is only of so much help.
It does seem confusing that food packaging has the weight in grammes of fat/CHO/protein and the total calorific value, but not the % of Kcal of each of these nutrients. To work this out would mean taking a calculator to the supermarket! Given that 1 gramme of fat leads to a digestible 9 kcal of energy compared to the 4 kcal in 1 gramme of carbohydrate or protien, it's easy to get confused... In fact I'm confusing myself now.........so I'll stop.
0 ·
Comments
At least the weasel phrases like "naturally good for you" and "90% fat free" are due to disappear!
When I'm in overall control of food labelling, a lot of products will be obliged to cover at least 35% of their outer packaging with a health warning - "This contains sh*t, it's not going to do you one bit of good, put it back on the shelf NOW" would be a start.
Big talk! And I can't even cure Kevin the Teenager of her Pot Noodle habit.
The trick is this... when you are in a supermarket ask the nearest supervisor/manager about the nutritional/health aspects of some of their food items, if they cannot give you a good answer the say..."never mind, I'll get it somewhere else". If enough people do this they will take notie.
Must admit, though, >>Velociraptor outs herself as a closet obsessive<< that I would love to know the precise nutritional composition of my favourite sweets - Werthers Originals - since I eat so many of them.
What really pees me off about food labelling, apart from the examples quoted above, is lines like "no added sugar". That means it has aspartame in it. Or "no artificial sweeteners or flavourings". That means it does have artificial preservatives. And so on.
Werthers Originals? Bleeuurgh! Jelly babies, now THERE'S something worth getting addicted to. High in glucose sugar, too, just the job for marathoning.
It doesnt sound as bad in their leaflet, clever marketing guys
Back to the original question, I honestly believe that with a fairly basic knowledge of the different food groups, and an idea of a balanced diet you don't need to bother about the % of fat etc never mind count calories. I do find the breakdown on labels helpful when comparing say the sugar content of breakfast cereals - my kids love to go and stay at their friends' houses where there they can have Coco pops and crunchy nut cornflakes for breakfast. Poor things.
But chicken nuggets are probably worse, and my children, even the fussy one, will gladly eat them in handfuls when they go out with friends or can talk their way round Daddy - or at home, for I don't object to a bit of fast food (the difference is that at home boiled carrots and broccoli are fast food too so it isn't just a plateful of grease and batter).
I struggle a fair bit at work with people who genuinely have no idea about healthy eating because they haven't grown up with it and aren't natural learners - people for whom "going on a diet" means stopping eating fattening potatoes and pasta and bread and bananas and snacking on a couple of nice healthy wodges of cheddar cheese spread with mayonnaise, or who just blot out any attempts to discuss the link between food and health with "I know...you're going to tell me to eat lettuce and tomatoes". And it's deeply, offensively racist to suggest that there are any fat or calories in good healthy traditional Asian or African Caribbean food like ghee and chevda and peshwari naan and "punch" (which is about equal proportions of stout, condensed milk, and 80 degrees proof rum that has been smuggled into the UK in aftershave bottles).
If healthy food is so good for you way don't our bodies crave it anymore?
we obviously have to suffer
But think of all the female bonding
Sorry,really disapprove of diets and all that, get it every day at work
mind you none of them exercise!!
Werthers Originals:
430 calories per 100g/ml
4.5 saturated fat per 100g/ml
As for feeding the youngsters, I'm fortunate in having one who's equally happy munching dried apricots as gristleburgers (he gets offered the former much more often than the latter). And I'm unfortunate in that his mother (the ex, thank God) is a dogmatic and evangelical vegan/macrobiotic/vitamin pill nutter. The ideal, as always, lies somewhere more or less equidistant from the two extremes.
This link gives an interesting take on the subject: http://www.orthorexia.com/home.htm.
Put briefly, orthorexia nervosa is an unhealthy obsession with supposedly healthy food.
And right now, I feel a chip butty coming on.
Anybody else see that survey a week or so back that showed that youngsters are less active than pensioners?
The "orthorexia nervosa" thing (I came across the concept a few years ago) is close to home because my practice partner has got it! He's aiming towards veganism, recently married to a recently-converted (but chronically mildly eating-disordered) vegan, and when lunch is provided he'll go without rather than eating anything that's not organic fruit and veg. Suits me - all the more for everyone else - but it's small bloody wonder that he doesn't have the energy to turn in a decent day's work. He seems to attract girls with funny eating habits, though, or else drives them to it. His last bidey-in was substantially overweight and intermittently bulimic.
Thanks for the Werthers stats, Beth. Now I'm going to have to work out how that translates into calories per sweet. Not that it will make any difference to the number I eat - the only thing that will do that is finding a new favourite.
Sometimes people need the motivation that Weightwatchers and slimming clubs give.
It seems that some people have no idea about healthy eating. I certainly had no idea growing up and at 16 lost weight by, stupidly, eating one meal a day for a year. I had no idea that it was wrong and would lead to poor eating habits. Fast weight loss but yo-yo weight afterwards because I didn't know how to maintain and stretch marks.
The calorie thing - yes, less calories than you expend is for losing weight, but not too many less and with the right amount of food groups and protein/carbs/fats. Eating 1,000 calories made up of chocolate or chips is not going to help lose weight effectively, is it?
See - I'm not saying you're wrong - it's just that some people don't understand these things (really they don't) and need guidance.
I think nutrition should be taught in schools. My Mum, bless her, had no idea either and ended up on all sorts of diets when she was younger. How could she advise me then? We take the bad habits from our parents as well as the good.
Beff
I also track my daily protein/carbs/fat/calories intake on www.fitday.com.
I'm not obssessive about it, but it does help to know what I'm putting inside me.
Beff