Friday Fury!!!

You knew it was coming! And I’m sure some of you won’t like it when I tell you who my fury is directed towards today...

Yes, Subway – Eat Fresh! It’s enough to make you go out right now and order a footlong sub isn’t it?! But surely you know by now that the Subway slogan doesn’t have a lot of substance.

I don’t know about you, but pre-packaged meats and vegetables don’t exactly scream “FRESH!” to me. Oh, but their bread is baked daily on premises. Sure, but who really knows what they put into it (HFCS anyone?!?)... Besides the fact that we now don’t eat bread, Subway is certainly not a choice that I would be considering for a healthy lunch.

Seriously, we deserve to be furious because a nifty marketing campaign has led us down the track to believing that eating Subway is a much ‘healthier’ option than Maccas (disclaimer: I am in no way claiming Maccas is healthy, just that Subway is not!)

I can hear you screaming at the computer screen right now. Believe me, I understand! I’ve been a Subway girl for as long as I can remember. Whenever a quick Friday night fast food meal was on the cards, Subway was always the first option. I believed the hype! Hey, that Jarrod guy in the USA lost heaps of weight just eating Subway, so it must be okay – right?! Wrong. I certainly didn’t lose any weight on a ‘subway diet’.

At least Maccas doesn’t try to ‘trick’ consumers into thinking their product is healthy! One look at the nutritional values of most subway sandwiches will have you gasping at the high sodium and sugar content. And don’t get me started on them using HFCS in their bread.

For argument’s sake, let’s examine my two regular choices at Maccas and Subway – a McChicken burger -vs- a Chicken Fillet sub.

McChicken

408 Calories

18.7g Fat (3g Saturated Fat)

698mg Sodium

3.1g Sugar

Chicken Fillet

385 Calories

15.1g Fat (6.2g Saturated Fat)

1050mg Sodium

5.8g Sugar

Fairly similar overall, but certainly not results that would make you think one option is a healthier choice! Lower in calories and fat (but not saturated fat) and higher in sodium and sugar (which PB argues makes you fatter than eating fat), the chicken fillet doesn’t really have much going for it. And, those values don’t allow for any sauce that I have on my sub, and with my usual BBQ sauce addition, I would be adding an extra 31.8 calories, 6.7g of sugar (seriously, a 20g serving of sauce has more sugar in it than the entire sub itself), and 152mg of sodium.  Further, if you also consider that I would occasionally buy a foot-long sub (the figures above are for a six-incher) then those nutritional values would be doubled! So next time you’re craving a McChicken and think you’ll do your body a favour by having a Chicken Fillet from Subway, maybe you’ll think twice.

Friday Fury!!!

I was furious when I read this article about the Corn Refiners Association applying to change the name of its extremely unsavoury product, high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). It’s another example of blatant disregard for the health of the human population and of the greed of the big companies who will stop at nothing to increase their profits.

HFCS is an absolutely terrible addition to any diet. As Mark says, “while there are slightly more terrible liquids out there – liter fluid for example – it’s really a shame that the ‘foods’ available to us are so commonly laced with HFCS.” The coincidence that the rise in obesity over the past 30 or so years parallels the addition of HFCS in many of our foods has not gone unnoticed by many in the health industry. Mark has a link to a graph which displays this beautifully:-

For some science on the dangers of HFCS, check out this Princeton study. And, as if concerns about obesity weren’t enough, further studies have linked consumption of HFCS to liver disease and decreased kidney function. If you have a spare hour and are still not convinced, you might also like to watch Dr Robert Lustig’s video, "Sugar: The Bitter Truth".

Seriously, this is one area where ALL health experts agree. But now, because the health industry, and consequently the general public, is waking up to the true dangers of consuming HFCS, the Corn Refiners Association is trying to get around that by simply changing the name of its product. They’re not changing the actual product, and it will therefore be just as bad for you as before, but I guess they’re hoping if it is instead called “Corn Sugar” consumers might be tricked into thinking it is just like normal sugar.

Don’t get me wrong, you know by now that sugar consumption should be kept to a bare minimum. But if you want some of the sweet stuff, and fruit won’t satisfy your cravings, honey or maple syrup should be your first choices. And only in small doses. My go-to is 85% dark chocolate and a square is all I need!

If anything, this development should make us all aware. Not just of the risks of consuming HFCS, but of the lengths that all major food companies will go to in the name of profit margins. They simply do not care about our health. The $$$$ are their driving motivation. I encourage you to make informed choices and to not fall for their propaganda!

Friday Fury!!!

I wasn't going to do a post today as I've been flat out travelling and doing job interviews... But I couldn't help share my story as it fits perfectly with Friday Fury sentiment! It will be a short, but to the point post :-)
I was sitting next to a 'large' man on my flight home this afternoon. When I say 'large' I looked like a stick figure next to him, so you get the idea ;-p He was friendly enough, though had no idea his BO was so offensive (I was thankful at this moment for an exit row seat!)... My issue came when they served our afternoon snack.
I was offered a cookie, which I turned down, and an apple, which I accepted. My neighbour declined the food but asked for a "Coke Zero"...
He then said to me "Trying to be healthy hey?" I'm guessing he was trying to get a rise out of me, but I wasn't in the mood so I just smiled and nodded.
"You know that the apple probably has as much sugar as the cookie don't you?" he sniggered as he sipped on his drink of pure poison!
SAY WHAT?!?!
I was actually stunned. Lost for words... Well no, actually, I wasn't lost for words... There were plenty of things I would have liked to say, but I just didn't have the headspace for it! Did this man actually believe he was taking the healthy option by choosing a coke zero over an apple?!?
Yes, yes he did.
I just mumbled something about the apple having beneficial vitamins and minerals in it, but I think he was too distracted, basking in the glow of thinking he had just given me a lesson in eating!
I could now pull so much information and find studies to show the benefits of eating an apple. I could also find lots of scary facts about the additives they make Coke Zero out of. But I'm hoping that since you're reading this blog, you're educated enough to know that if faced with the decision of an apple or a cookie, you understand that the apple is the MUCH healthier option. After all, it is REAL food, the cookie is not. Out of those 3 options though, even worse than the cookie is the Coke Zero!
So, as Peter Griffin would say...
"And that's what really grinds my gears"
Have a good evening!

Friday Fury!!!

I hope that today’s Friday Fury will give you food for thought, as it did me when I first starting learning about it. I was astounded because I couldn’t believe how the world has been led down the wrong path for all these years, and how one man’s ‘scientific’ studies could change the entire mindset about the world’s nutrition!
I am talking, of course, about Ancel Keys. Don’t know who he is? He was regarded as the “father of dietary science”. His work has had a major influence on the world’s eating regime since the 1950s. I first became aware of Ancel Keys when reading Gary Taubes book "Good Calories Bad Calories". Taubes is a science writer/journalist who examines every scientific study objectively and debunks many of the myths surrounding current day nutritional recommendations. If you’re up for the challenge (it’s quite heavy and scientific) it is the most amazing read!
I’m going to go off tangent for a moment before I discuss the work of Mr Keys, so bear with me. I’m sure most of you remember doing science experiments at school. I was by no means an A+ student, but there were certain basic elements that stuck with me. One was to do with hypothesising. You wrote a hypothesis that could be tested and then set out to prove or disprove it. Generally, you didn’t go in with a pre-conceived idea of what you wanted the results to be, or there was a risk that your results could be biased and become skewed. I certainly wouldn’t have been given very good marks if I had tipped the results one way or the other. And for his “Seven Countries Study”, Ancel Keys gets an F from me!
Keys set out to track the fat consumption and heart disease levels of various countries throughout the world. His hypothesis was that fat consumption causes heart disease. His results were ‘conclusive’. Seven countries saw their levels of heart disease increase in correspondence with their levels of fat intake. Here’s the original evidence that Keys presented:-

 From looking at the above graph, it is quite obvious that his hypothesis can be reasonably confirmed. But here is where the issue lies. Keys omitted some important information from his original study. Although named the “Seven Countries Study”, Keys actually had data from twenty two countries! Why then, you ask, isn’t the information for all twenty two countries shown in his evidence? Because that information blasts his hypothesis to pieces! Take a look at the graph which plots the results of ALL countries (courtesy of Hyperlipid):-

 

A bit different isn’t it?!? No respectable scientist could reasonably infer from these results that his hypothesis was completely confirmed. Sure, there might be a slight correlation, but there is certainly not enough evidence to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Peter at Hyperlipid has also added in another couple of dots to his graph to plot some countries with traditionally high fat diets (the Masai, the Inuit, the Rendile and the Tokelau), countries that Keys conveniently ignored in his study:-

You could possibly still argue that Keys was onto something. But remember, this study was done in the 1950s and since that time we have seen obesity and related diseases go through the roof. We have been religiously following the no/low fat diet and people are getting sicker. More people are dying from heart disease. I don’t need a study to tell me that it is obviously not working. If you need some further convincing, watch Fathead's exaplanation.
The further issue with a study like this is that when specifically testing one element of the diet, every other element is ignored. Another reason for the Fail mark! A basic understanding of a scientific experiment is that you need to control the other variables. Therefore, every country needed to be eating exactly the same amounts of protein and carbohydrates, basically exactly the same diet, apart from the fat intake. That was the only way to really confirm the hypothesis, otherwise there’s just too many variables!
Notice that all of the countries included in Keys “Seven Countries Study” are highly developed, Western nations. How do we know what other factors could have contributed to high heart disease rates? I would hazard a guess that you could produce the same, if not more convincing results, measuring the sugar/refined/processed grains consumption of these countries. It's always amazing how statistics can be twisted to produce whatever result is desired by the author.
And so, the final piece of the puzzle that Keys drew out of this study was that it is saturated fat that is the bad guy. Bring on the Times Magazine front cover, and adulation the world over, and Keys becoming the “it” man. Saturated fat was off the menu. The low-fat, high carbohydrate diet craze was here to stay!
Apologies for the highly scientific post! I’ve tried to make it as easy to understand as possible. I’m just hoping that people can start to question why they eat a low fat diet. Is it because you truly understand the science behind it? Is it simply because you relate to the notion “fat will make you fat”? Or is it because you’ve had it rammed down your throat since birth? I’ve been there! I’ve knowingly consumed countless tubs of low-fat yoghurt, faithfully poured no-fat milk on my morning cereal, and meticulously cut off every piece of visible fat from a piece of meat. But as you know, it didn't work for me! The challenge, therefore, has been to refocus my thinking. To accept that conventional wisdom is wrong. To not feel guilty when I hoe into that beautiful chicken breast with the skin on... And I encourage you to do the same!
Further reading:- Mark talks about saturated fat, and fats in general.


ps – please keep in mind that you need to consider your other dietary choices as well. I have done amazingly well on a higher healthy fats diet because I’ve have abolished my sugar intake and kept my carb intake to fruits and vegetables only. If you simply start eating high fat food but don’t change any other areas of your diet, you will get fat and sick.

Friday Fury!!!

Today’s fury is directed towards the fast food industry. Not surprising I’m sure. But it still needs to be said...
How on earth are chains like Maccas, KFC, Hungry Jacks, and, dare I say it, Subway, allowed to get away with it? With the epidemic that is obesity, heart disease, and diabetes sweeping the world, why are we still faced with these issues?
Now I understand that no one is crazy enough to think that eating this type of food is healthy for them. But here’s the catch. “We” are mature, educated adults who can make those decisions for ourselves. I have to ask however, what about our children? In a world where diabetes is now diagnosed in kids as young as 12, where obesity leads to the main causes of death across developed nations, and where, if we continue on this path of self-destruction, this will be the first generation of children born today that have a shorter life-expectancy than their parents, how are we still allowing these fast food giants to entice our children with “Happy Meals” and toys???
So yes, I’m furious. When I see children as young as four years of age being fed this sort of food, I weep for our future. These children don’t have a choice. They don’t have the understanding that the food that you put into your mouth can have a profound effect on your body (granted, some adults seem to miss this point too, but surely they can take personal responsibility for their actions).
I see three levels of blame here.
Firstly, the parents, who, for whatever reason, are regularly hitting up the drive through for their family meals. I was so fortunate growing up that my parents rarely fed me fast food. If we did have Maccas it was on a special occasion such as a birthday. They acknowledged that putting such poor quality food into our bodies was not healthy for us. And we were better for it. Maybe we didn’t always thank them for it at the time, but now as grown adults, we realise how lucky we were to have parents who made an effort for the benefit of our health. Many other children in this day and age are not so lucky.
I often hear the argument that people don’t have enough time or money to cook real food for their family. What a load of bull! If you can’t feed a family of four for under $20 (which is the cost of the Maccas ‘family meals’ currently advertised, then there is seriously something wrong)... The time factor? Come on! Once you factor in the time it takes to drive to the fast food joint, order your meal and pay, and either drive home to eat or find a spot within the restaurant, you could have enjoyed a beautiful home cooked stir fry!
Next, let’s consider the fast food joints themselves. Anyone who has any understanding of child development and psychology knows that if you associate something ‘fun’ with an activity, in this case, eating food, children will become conditioned to associate that feeling with the experience. The problem is that these “happy meals” and the toys that go with them are accompanied by cr@ppy food. Cr@ppy Meals! What child isn’t going to want a meal that comes with the latest Ben 10 action figure! They aren’t mature enough to understand the dangers of continually eating this food over a life time.
The pressure that advertising places on parents, pushing a subliminal message that they are a ‘bad’ parent if they don’t allow their children a regular trip to the local fast food place, is immense. It is understandable how parents get sucked in. And when more parents get sucked in, it becomes a vicious cycle, where children pit their own mums and dads against other ‘better’ parents. “Timmy gets to have a cheeseburger, so why can’t I?” No one wants to feel that they are disappointing their kids, and so they cave to the peer pressure situation. Problem is, while they think they are doing their precious children a favour in the short term, in the long run, they are leading them towards a path of obesity, poor health, and large doctors bills.
Finally, what blame do we place at the feet of the government and food industry regulators who allow this travesty to continue? Why aren’t all fast food restaurants banned from tailoring any advertising at children? Why are they allowed any advertising at all? We’ve made a big step forward in our acknowledgement of the dangers of smoking in the last few years, and I congratulate the government on regulating this industry. The question needs to be asked why isn’t the same emphasis placed on warning people of the dangers of eating fast food?! Considering that obesity-related diseases kill more people each year than smoking-related diseases, isn’t it about time that our government stands up and takes notice?
Certainly the first step would be banning any advertising which encourages children to see McDonalds, KFC, or Hungry Jacks as a fun and happy place to eat food. Happy Meals are dangerous. I don’t believe any child under 12 years of age should even step foot in a fast food restaurant (acknowledging that when children hit the teenage years they are given a bit more responsibility for their choices). Our children should know what a potato looks like when it is not in deep-fried chip form, should enjoy peeling a banana for themselves, and should be learning some basic cooking skills which will set them up for life. Children need to understand that food that comes from a drive-through window is not real food!
Maybe I sound a bit harsh here, but it really saddens me that the health of our children is being sabotaged before they even have a chance to enjoy their lives... Hopefully this post has given you some food for thought and you might re-consider that next cheeseburger :-p

ps - this post today is dedicated to my amazingly fantastic parents who set all of their four children up for life with an understanding of healthy eating and exercise habits - love you mum & dad!