"This" © The Observer 2003 is what I found recently about the "obesity problem". It certainly makes for interesting reading.
It sort of brings into context my earlier post about energy density of food, but it also brings into focus the limited campaign to ban advertising "AT" children. Like in parts of Scandanavia. Something that I'm in full agreement for.
It might actually reduce that modern phenomena of "Pester Power", in a world where rightly or wrongly, parents have lost the ability to use the word "No".
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
So, I haven't really had time to post anything else for a couple of months, mainly because my work for one of the UK's "Milk nazi's" has changed from being a so called "day shift" (that started at about 1.30 in the morning - so much for the phrase "day shift") to a night shift that starts at 8pm, also because of where I am actually delivering the milk, I've had to do some major "route learning" connected to "London's over night lorry ban" (which is another of my "soap box" subjects).
Now as it happens, previously during my working hours, I used to listen to virgin radio, but because I am working during a show called "Virgin Confessions", I have had to start searching round the airwaves for something else. The confessions show is about various "people problems", and while some may enjoy listening to other peoples problems, sexual foibles, hang up's, etc etc, I feel that I have enough of my own problems too worry/think about, hence I found, that the other day there was a programme on BBC's radio 4 about food, and the latest "thinking" as to why we, both as a nation, and internationally, are becoming the planet's "fat fuckers".
This applies mainly to the UK and US (though also the majority of western Europe as well).
It was about "energy density" of food. The person doing the explaining, was some apparently well qualified dietician, and she explained that as a species, the human being is quite well suited to surviving on small quantities of meat, with vegetables and unrefined carbohydrate.
The principal (if I understood it correctly) being that we all have a natural, in built, idea of what our individual portion size should be. Which, when considering that if we are eating the types of food that the human species is adapted to, should be enough for healthy living. I.E. low to medium calorie stuff, that if we are still hungry after eating a "normal" portion, you could in fact, eat some more, without affecting you from a health point of view. In other words, food with low energy density.
Whereas, with fast food products, the manufacturers have used lots of shit, which more often than not, is cheap to use (for example, fat and sugar), and either add's bulk, and sometimes flavour (which might be considered by some to be a fair comment), but in fact has a high energy density. So that correlates that if you have a "normal" portion of fast food, with that high energy density, and then for whatever reason, you still feel hungry, then when you have some more to make up for the hunger, you are actually eating a considerable amount more "energy".
We are all aware that this extra energy, if not burned up by the body, is laid down as fat. The manufacturers go out of their way, to improve/increase the ways in which they can sell us "food" that is cheap for them to make, but has the highest possible "mark up".
In the radio programme, the dietician woman, used the analogy of people having access to a very large pan of "stew". They eat their normal portion, then if they are still hungry, they will automatically serve themselves another portion of the same size.
Because of this in built idea that we have of a "normal" portion, then in fact we should be varying the portion size, i.e. low energy dense foods, then eat what you want, whereas if the food has high energy density, then only eat a small portion, as a larger portion includes so much more energy, then the body has to work considerably harder to burn off the additional energy that has been consumed (and given today's sedantry lifestyles, doesn't happen).
Someone said to me the other day, that as a trolley of milk weighs just under a quarter of a tonne, then I wouldn't have to go to the gym so often. All I could think of at the time was that if the stupid cunt was a member of the real world, he might just end up working like me, in the region of 50 to 55 hours a week (that's without the fact that I am always working unsocial hours) - it would be nice to have the time (not to mention the money) to attend a gym once a fucking week.
OK, that's it for now. Hopefully I have managed to explain the concept of "energy density" in food so as to make it understandable. I'll review it later, if it's OK, I'll leave it, otherwise I'll re-edit for your enjoyment/derision/whatever.
Now as it happens, previously during my working hours, I used to listen to virgin radio, but because I am working during a show called "Virgin Confessions", I have had to start searching round the airwaves for something else. The confessions show is about various "people problems", and while some may enjoy listening to other peoples problems, sexual foibles, hang up's, etc etc, I feel that I have enough of my own problems too worry/think about, hence I found, that the other day there was a programme on BBC's radio 4 about food, and the latest "thinking" as to why we, both as a nation, and internationally, are becoming the planet's "fat fuckers".
This applies mainly to the UK and US (though also the majority of western Europe as well).
It was about "energy density" of food. The person doing the explaining, was some apparently well qualified dietician, and she explained that as a species, the human being is quite well suited to surviving on small quantities of meat, with vegetables and unrefined carbohydrate.
The principal (if I understood it correctly) being that we all have a natural, in built, idea of what our individual portion size should be. Which, when considering that if we are eating the types of food that the human species is adapted to, should be enough for healthy living. I.E. low to medium calorie stuff, that if we are still hungry after eating a "normal" portion, you could in fact, eat some more, without affecting you from a health point of view. In other words, food with low energy density.
Whereas, with fast food products, the manufacturers have used lots of shit, which more often than not, is cheap to use (for example, fat and sugar), and either add's bulk, and sometimes flavour (which might be considered by some to be a fair comment), but in fact has a high energy density. So that correlates that if you have a "normal" portion of fast food, with that high energy density, and then for whatever reason, you still feel hungry, then when you have some more to make up for the hunger, you are actually eating a considerable amount more "energy".
We are all aware that this extra energy, if not burned up by the body, is laid down as fat. The manufacturers go out of their way, to improve/increase the ways in which they can sell us "food" that is cheap for them to make, but has the highest possible "mark up".
In the radio programme, the dietician woman, used the analogy of people having access to a very large pan of "stew". They eat their normal portion, then if they are still hungry, they will automatically serve themselves another portion of the same size.
Because of this in built idea that we have of a "normal" portion, then in fact we should be varying the portion size, i.e. low energy dense foods, then eat what you want, whereas if the food has high energy density, then only eat a small portion, as a larger portion includes so much more energy, then the body has to work considerably harder to burn off the additional energy that has been consumed (and given today's sedantry lifestyles, doesn't happen).
Someone said to me the other day, that as a trolley of milk weighs just under a quarter of a tonne, then I wouldn't have to go to the gym so often. All I could think of at the time was that if the stupid cunt was a member of the real world, he might just end up working like me, in the region of 50 to 55 hours a week (that's without the fact that I am always working unsocial hours) - it would be nice to have the time (not to mention the money) to attend a gym once a fucking week.
OK, that's it for now. Hopefully I have managed to explain the concept of "energy density" in food so as to make it understandable. I'll review it later, if it's OK, I'll leave it, otherwise I'll re-edit for your enjoyment/derision/whatever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)