This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/23/obesity-advice-recipe-for-confusion-eat-less
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| All this obesity advice is a recipe for confusion. Just eat smaller portions | |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| If you’re not confused, you’ve not been paying attention. | If you’re not confused, you’ve not been paying attention. |
| The National Obesity Forum (NOF), one authoritative-sounding body, has issued a report which argues that telling people to eat low-fat foods to combat obesity is a mistake which has had “disastrous health consequences”. Public Health England, another authoritative-sounding body, has responded furiously, calling the report “a risk to the nation’s health”, “irresponsible”, and potentially deadly. During a tense discussion on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, the NOF’s Dr Aseem Malhotra alleged that the government’s obesity adviser, Prof Susan Jebb, had previously done work funded by Coca-Cola; separately, Prof Simon Capewell of the Faculty of Public Health, another authoritative-sounding body, warned that it was not clear who funded the NOF report. | The National Obesity Forum (NOF), one authoritative-sounding body, has issued a report which argues that telling people to eat low-fat foods to combat obesity is a mistake which has had “disastrous health consequences”. Public Health England, another authoritative-sounding body, has responded furiously, calling the report “a risk to the nation’s health”, “irresponsible”, and potentially deadly. During a tense discussion on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme this morning, the NOF’s Dr Aseem Malhotra alleged that the government’s obesity adviser, Prof Susan Jebb, had previously done work funded by Coca-Cola; separately, Prof Simon Capewell of the Faculty of Public Health, another authoritative-sounding body, warned that it was not clear who funded the NOF report. |
| Whatever the precise constituents of our diet, one fact is indisputable: we are eating a lot more food than we used to | Whatever the precise constituents of our diet, one fact is indisputable: we are eating a lot more food than we used to |
| To the layperson, these competing claims are more or less impossible to adjudicate. And it is not all that helpful, really, when deciding what to have for breakfast. Hang on while I contemplate this over a doughnut. I think it’s one of my five a day, it has cinnamon in it. | To the layperson, these competing claims are more or less impossible to adjudicate. And it is not all that helpful, really, when deciding what to have for breakfast. Hang on while I contemplate this over a doughnut. I think it’s one of my five a day, it has cinnamon in it. |
| But if the protagonists in this ill-tempered debate can agree on anything, it ought to be this: the fact that we are having it at all is a complete disaster. Because it is not, at root, a debate about the optimum diet for good health: no one is so optimistic as to think that bodies like the NOF and PHE can get us all to eat perfectly. Rather it is about communication. What simple, uncontroversial messages can be given to the public that will stand as reliable rules of thumb for everyone when they’re at the supermarket? | But if the protagonists in this ill-tempered debate can agree on anything, it ought to be this: the fact that we are having it at all is a complete disaster. Because it is not, at root, a debate about the optimum diet for good health: no one is so optimistic as to think that bodies like the NOF and PHE can get us all to eat perfectly. Rather it is about communication. What simple, uncontroversial messages can be given to the public that will stand as reliable rules of thumb for everyone when they’re at the supermarket? |
| That’s why five-a-day, a more or less arbitrary guideline that’s interpreted quite differently in different countries, has stuck. It’s easy to remember, and people might at least do something to follow it, even if they’re hazy about the detail. This is a distressingly unambitious approach, but it is at least realistic. Already most of us fall short: try saying “actually it’s seven-or-more-a-day and fruit juice doesn’t really count and to be honest it should mostly be vegetables and none of it really matters if you’re also eating loads of sweets and chips” and see how many more of us give up altogether. | That’s why five-a-day, a more or less arbitrary guideline that’s interpreted quite differently in different countries, has stuck. It’s easy to remember, and people might at least do something to follow it, even if they’re hazy about the detail. This is a distressingly unambitious approach, but it is at least realistic. Already most of us fall short: try saying “actually it’s seven-or-more-a-day and fruit juice doesn’t really count and to be honest it should mostly be vegetables and none of it really matters if you’re also eating loads of sweets and chips” and see how many more of us give up altogether. |
| As with vegetables, so it is with sugar and fat. The NOF is right that there are good fats, and that the sugar that’s so often found in low-fat food is a major factor in obesity; the PHE is right that a message that reads “eat fat to get slim” may not be the most useful thing for most people to hear when they’re deciding between a cheeseburger and a salad. Or, I mean, I think so. But in light of this row I genuinely don’t know any more. In the face of such confusion, it feels as if we’re a long way from the useful clarity of the five-a-day message. And meanwhile the obesity crisis is only getting worse. | As with vegetables, so it is with sugar and fat. The NOF is right that there are good fats, and that the sugar that’s so often found in low-fat food is a major factor in obesity; the PHE is right that a message that reads “eat fat to get slim” may not be the most useful thing for most people to hear when they’re deciding between a cheeseburger and a salad. Or, I mean, I think so. But in light of this row I genuinely don’t know any more. In the face of such confusion, it feels as if we’re a long way from the useful clarity of the five-a-day message. And meanwhile the obesity crisis is only getting worse. |
| The debate about what constitutes a healthy diet is bound to run and run, but until it’s settled, it might be useful for the participants to put their heads together and settle on a simple message that everyone desperately trying to make sense of their bickering could rely on. | The debate about what constitutes a healthy diet is bound to run and run, but until it’s settled, it might be useful for the participants to put their heads together and settle on a simple message that everyone desperately trying to make sense of their bickering could rely on. |
| Here’s one suggestion. Whatever the precise constituents of our diet, one fact is indisputable: we are eating a lot more food than we used to. There is abundant evidence that portions and plates are bigger, that what we now call a medium we used to call a large, and that we have lost the ability to sensibly gauge our own hunger. The relationship between these observations and obesity does not seem difficult to tease out. So here’s a useful conclusion: EAT LESS. It is simple enough to follow. It does not rely on any analysis of the relative shortcomings of sugar and fat. And, crucially, you can say it in two words. Can everyone please stop arguing now? | Here’s one suggestion. Whatever the precise constituents of our diet, one fact is indisputable: we are eating a lot more food than we used to. There is abundant evidence that portions and plates are bigger, that what we now call a medium we used to call a large, and that we have lost the ability to sensibly gauge our own hunger. The relationship between these observations and obesity does not seem difficult to tease out. So here’s a useful conclusion: EAT LESS. It is simple enough to follow. It does not rely on any analysis of the relative shortcomings of sugar and fat. And, crucially, you can say it in two words. Can everyone please stop arguing now? |