# Is 5 a day good science?



## Zoof (6 Jul 2011)

Just made a visit to my Doctor, and he was most insistent that I must have “the 5 a day medicine”





I have always believed in a well balanced diet, protein, carb, plus some fat eaten with lots of vegetables.
Now I have heard about 5 a day, I think we all have but, I cant find out much about the science that underpins it. 
My doctor said that there were 5 main reasons but would not go into them.

I would to like to hear about the main science reasoning, behind this medical approach. 
Is this real science? 
Or some doctors fantasy: interfering in peoples lives?


----------



## amaferanga (6 Jul 2011)

I think it should be 7 a day or 9 a day or something, but the powers that be decided that that'd be too much healthy food for your average person so the settled on 5 a day. I don't believe there is any good science underpinning 5 a day.


----------



## Zoof (6 Jul 2011)

' timestamp= said:


> I think it should be 7 a day or 9 a day or something, but the powers that be decided that that'd be too much healthy food for your average person so the settled on 5 a day. I don't believe there is any good science underpinning 5 a day.



Hi amaferanga that’s my own first instinct.

What I need is info, to make a better assessment!


----------



## yello (6 Jul 2011)

I think, if one's going to be anal about it, it probably depends on the nature of the 5 (or 7 or 9 or whatever) too. 5 bananas is probably not what is meant. It's 'rule of thumb' advice probably based on the notion that some fruit/veg on a daily basis is better than none - which is probably pretty hard to argue with. I wouldn't be surprised if there is no science involved with the number at all. It being just a arbitrary value agreed upon by concerned parties for the purposes of a health campaign. No bad thing in truth, even if not spot-on science.

My wife was telling me a about a '6 a day' campaign that she remembers, relating to bread; 2 slices at breakfast, 2 at dinner, 2 at supper. Not sure you'd find too many people giving that advice today! It worries me sometimes does the advice that some nutritionists give out; it's based on what they learnt years ago.


----------



## siadwell (6 Jul 2011)

I've wondered myself about the science behind this (and specifically why potatoes don't count as one of the five a day!). 

Wikipedia has a succinct summary:

_5 A Day is the name of a number of programs in various countries, especially the United States and the United Kingdom, to encourage the consumption of at least five portions of fruit and vegetables each day, following requests by the World Health Organization to consume at least 400g of vegetables daily._

_The program received a lot of media attention in the United Kingdom due to the high and rising costs of fresh fruit and vegetables._

_In April 2010, the results of a major study involving 500,000 people in Europe suggested that five-a-day had little impact on reducing cancer.
_
Scanning the first few pages of the WHO report, it looks like:
Fruit and veg are good for you. People are eating processed foods instead of fruit and veg. Let's encourage everyone in the world to each more fruit and veg.


----------



## Zoof (6 Jul 2011)

yello said:


> I think, if one's going to be anal about it, it probably depends on the nature of the 5 (or 7 or 9 or whatever) too. 5 bananas is probably not what is meant. It's 'rule of thumb' advice probably based on the notion that some fruit/veg on a daily basis is better than none - which is probably pretty hard to argue with. I wouldn't be surprised if there is no science involved with the number at all. It being just a arbitrary value agreed upon by concerned parties for the purposes of a health campaign. No bad thing in truth, even if not spot-on science.
> 
> My wife was telling me a about a '6 a day' campaign that she remembers, relating to bread; 2 slices at breakfast, 2 at dinner, 2 at supper. Not sure you'd find too many people giving that advice today! It worries me sometimes does the advice that some nutritionists give out; it's based on what they learnt years ago.


Hi I totally agree with your persuasions on food.

But 5 a day is big Doctor movement: why?


----------



## theclaud (6 Jul 2011)

yello said:


> It worries me sometimes does the advice that some nutritionists give out.



Quite. It's wise to ignore all of it. Speaking of which, if I'd ever stopped putting salt in or on my food, I might start again following today's news...


----------



## JohnHenry (6 Jul 2011)

* Five reasons to get five portions *

Fruit and vegetables taste delicious and there's so much variety to choose from.
They're a good source of vitamins and minerals, including folate, vitamin C and potassium.
They're an excellent source of dietary fibre, which helps maintain a healthy gut and prevent constipation and other digestion problems. A diet high in fibre can also reduce your risk of bowel cancer.
They can help reduce the risk of heart disease, stroke and some cancers.
Fruit and vegetables contribute to a healthy and balanced diet.
It's the World Health Organisation who came up with this and the science is, at best, a bit sketchy but - the theory goes - that it is better to fill up on fruit juice, fruit and veg than with the other sh*t that is available. Why fight it - you know it makes sense and doctor always knows best, right?


----------



## threebikesmcginty (6 Jul 2011)

theclaud said:


> Speaking of which, if I'd ever stopped putting salt in or on my food, I might start again following today's news...



I'll carrying on putting salt on my food but not feeling quite so guilty - looking forward to good news on the healthy butter front now!


----------



## Zoof (6 Jul 2011)

siadwell said:


> I've wondered myself about the science behind this (and specifically why potatoes don't count as one of the five a day!).
> 
> Wikipedia has a succinct summary:
> 
> ...


Thanks siadwell I don't eat much processed foods 
I eat lots veg to keep my blood sugar level 
It's being order too sticks in my craw


----------



## Dan B (6 Jul 2011)

Do fruit pastilles count toward the total?

And wine is made from grapes, right?


----------



## JohnHenry (6 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> Do fruit pastilles count toward the total?
> 
> And wine is made from grapes, right?



Yup and beer from hops.


----------



## al-fresco (6 Jul 2011)

JohnHenry said:


> Yup and beer from hops.



Those of us who are serious about our fruit intake drink cider.


----------



## Zoof (6 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> Do fruit pastilles count toward the total?
> 
> And wine is made from grapes, right?



ar' a sugar man now that should be b****


----------



## Davidc (6 Jul 2011)

I once read that 5 a day comes from a Californian fruit juice advert.

There's no science behind the alcohol limits either from what I've read - It was said they were plucked from nowhere by a civil servant who thought they sounded about right.

I refuse to take any notice of 5 a day, I've never seen any reason why some civil servant should tell me I should eat less fruit - I'll carry on regardless as I always have at around 10 portions a day.

(A dietician did say to me that I was the first person she'd ever told they should eat less fruit)


----------



## philipbh (6 Jul 2011)

Fruitcake?


----------



## theclaud (6 Jul 2011)

threebikesmcginty said:


> I'll carrying on putting salt on my food but not feeling quite so guilty - looking forward to good news on the healthy butter front now!



Kiss goodbye to the guilt, 3BM. Butter is fine. You heard it here first!


----------



## theclaud (6 Jul 2011)

philipbh said:


> Fruitcake?



There's really no need to say such nasty things about 3BM.


----------



## Davidc (6 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> Do fruit pastilles count toward the total?
> 
> And wine is made from grapes, right?



then there are a few other fruits and vegetables to make up the five:

deadly nightshade berries
laburnum seeds
hemlock leaves

the list goes on and on


----------



## Rob3rt (6 Jul 2011)

Depends what you mean by good science! 

If you consider psychology to be a scientific subject, then yes its good science!


----------



## Zoof (6 Jul 2011)

Yes what my Doctor says is perfectly reasonable, and is common-sense.

That's the point I'm trapped, I feel I'm in the middle of a con game!

I eat lots of vegetables, but not all different.

I need to get my teeth into the science behind it, to be able to fight my way out.


----------



## Rob3rt (6 Jul 2011)

Why dont you just focus on meeting your dietary requirements rather than worrying about how many different vegetables you are actually consuming?

I personally do not see the point in worrying about it.


----------



## Zoof (6 Jul 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> Depends what you mean by good science!
> 
> If you consider psychology to be a scientific subject, then yes its good science!



Yes I must agree with that; I would be mad not too


----------



## Zoof (6 Jul 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> I personally do not see the point in worrying about it.



I'm not worrying about it!
I want to go to war, need ammunition 
get the pic'' !


----------



## yello (6 Jul 2011)

Zoof said:


> I need to get my teeth into the science behind it, to be able to fight my way out.



I think you'll find that if you read the science, that it too is divided. Let google be your friend... or fiend, as the case may be.

Don't fight anyone over it, just make up your own mind and go your own way. Let how you feel (both mentally and physically) be your guide. If necessary, smile at the doc and say 'yes sir no sir'.


----------



## Zoof (6 Jul 2011)

yello said:


> If necessary, smile at the doc and say 'yes sir no sir'.


Nobody like that on C C; we are all individualists remember.

_That may make a good last post on P&L _


----------



## Andrew_P (6 Jul 2011)

Something I never understood about the "rules"

Only one Fruit juice can be counted in to the 5 a day.

2 or more of any single item in one day should only be counted as one.
Why Potatoes do not count.


----------



## Rob3rt (6 Jul 2011)

LOCO said:


> Something I never understood about the "rules"
> 
> Only one Fruit juice can be counted in to the 5 a day.
> 
> ...



The rule of 5 different fruit and veg is because different veg contain different vitamins and mineral, at least in different concentrations so by eating 5 different veg you are more likely getting a better balance of nutrients over say 3 carrots, 1 apple and 1 orange.

Potatoes have little nutritional value other than carbs, they are starch heavy. They dont contrain the mineral and vitamins that other vegetables do.


----------



## longers (6 Jul 2011)

Half a tin of baked beans counts as one portion apparently. A full tin doesn't make two.


----------



## lulubel (6 Jul 2011)

I don't think there's any science behind choosing the number 5. As has already been said, it's probably more about choosing a number that's a realistic target for people who are used to a diet of fast food and wouldn't know a vegetable or a piece of fruit if it jumped up and bit them.

The science behind eating fruit and veg is that they contain a load of important vitamins, as well as dietary fibre, which is all good for us. If you don't get enough of the right kind of vitamins, you get ill (sailors used to get scurvy). If you don't get enough fibre in your diet, you suffer from constipation. The World Cancer Research Fund has done a study that suggests a link between high fibre diets and a decreased risk of bowel cancer. In extreme cases, very slow bowel movements can cause such a huge blockage in the body that it puts massive pressure on internal organs such as the heart and lungs.

Eating 5 bananas a day would be better than eating no fruit and veg at all, but eating a variety of different fruit and veg means you are giving your body a better chance of getting all the vitamins it needs. Eating 10 a day is probably better than 5, but there will come a point when the benefits of increasing your fruit and veg intake will be subject to the law of diminishing returns. I'm not aware of any studies that have tried to determine what would be optimum.


----------



## Banjo (6 Jul 2011)

Dont know if any truth in it but i have been told by a health nurse to eat as many different colour fruits and veg as possible to benefit from a greater variety of minerals etc,

PS I must have missed the news about salt is now good for you again ? Anyone have a link.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (6 Jul 2011)

theclaud said:


> Kiss goodbye to the guilt, 3BM. Butter is fine. You heard it here first!



No actual guilt regarding butter tc, in fact it's Jersey full-fat in today's MCS - and when I say fat!


----------



## threebikesmcginty (6 Jul 2011)

Banjo said:


> PS I must have missed the news about salt is now good for you again ? Anyone have a link.



Sod the link, just whack as much as you can on your deep-fried chips before they decide it's bad again!


----------



## yello (6 Jul 2011)

Banjo said:


> eat as many different colour fruits and veg as possible to benefit from a greater variety of minerals etc



Again, a decent enough rule of thumb. 

That said, my 2 faves are probably kiwi and avocado, both green but pretty different nutritionally!


----------



## siadwell (6 Jul 2011)

Rob3rt said:


> Potatoes have little nutritional value other than carbs, they are starch heavy. They dont contrain the mineral and vitamins that other vegetables do.



Not according to the International Year of the Potato (2008 if you blinked and missed it) website:

_Potatoes are rich in several micronutrients, especially vitamin C - eaten with its skin, a single mediumsized potato of 150 g provides nearly half the daily adult requirement (100 mg). The potato is a moderate source of iron, and its high vitamin C content promotes iron absorption. It is a good source of vitamins B1, B3 and B6 and minerals such as potassium, phosphorus and magnesium, and contains folate, pantothenic acid and riboflavin. Potatoes also contain dietary antioxidants, which may play a part in preventing diseases related to ageing, and dietary fibre, which benefits health. 
_
The reason that potatoes are excluded probably has to do with the impact the cooking method has on the nutritional content. Thinly slicing them and deep frying in oil tends to make them less virtuous than boiling them in their skins.


----------



## Rob3rt (6 Jul 2011)

Enlightening post! ^^


----------



## lulubel (6 Jul 2011)

siadwell said:


> The reason that potatoes are excluded probably has to do with the impact the cooking method has on the nutritional content. Thinly slicing them and deep frying in oil tends to make them less virtuous than boiling them in their skins.



Also, they are relatively calorie dense (compared to most other veg), so they might have been excluded for that reason. Encouraging an increasingly obese population to eat something calorie dense is probably seen as a bad idea.


----------



## yello (6 Jul 2011)

lulubel said:


> Also, they are relatively calorie dense (compared to most other veg), so they might have been excluded for that reason.



That's my take on it too. I personally avoid potatoes. Especially when they are thrown at me by farmers. Butchers, no, that's fair play, but not farmers.


----------



## Davidc (6 Jul 2011)

The salt thing - this was in my news feeds today.

As I have clinaically low blood pressure I'm not too bothered. Don't like the taste of salt anyway, and most processed and pre-prepared foods taste disgusting, in part because they're far too salty. Why for example is salt added to supermarket* "pressed whole tomato juice" so that it tastes like seawater? I'll just go on making my own in the liquidiser!

*Sainsburys and Morrisons versions, don't know about the rest.


----------



## Dan B (6 Jul 2011)

lulubel said:


> Eating 5 bananas a day would be better than eating no fruit and veg at all, but eating a variety of different fruit and veg means you are giving your body a better chance of getting all the vitamins it needs.



Would it not be better to actually tell people what these nutrients are, how much of them one needs, and in what foods they can be found, than to let them play a guessing game where the more different stuff they eat the greater the "chance" of them covering all the requirements? I mean, yes, "five a day" is a much more marketable message, but if the underlying reasoning was explained _somewhere_ it would give the whole exercise much more credibility.


----------



## ClichéGuevara (6 Jul 2011)

I'm guessing that the FIVE bit comes from the theory that 400g of fruit/veg is appropriate for daily intake and a portion is 80g. In the same way others measure carbs and/or protein.

Then again, this article says it was just a marketing ploy. Clickety click


----------



## Mad at urage (6 Jul 2011)

Marketing ploy? Quite possibly. How often are five different (commonly available) fruits actually in season together? How many are solely available as imports? Patently there is an element of greasing the wheels of capitalism here!


----------



## theclaud (6 Jul 2011)

Spuds are great. Especially jacket spuds with salty crispy skins and a big dollop of butter. Perfect food for cyclists, and pretty sensible for just about anyone else. If nutritionists tell us that we shouldn't eat them, or that they don't count as vegetables, they shouldn't be surprised when we conclude, rightly, that they haven't the faintest idea what they are talking about. The skins thing is a bit of a red herring, though. It's true that the skins are dense in various nutrients, but the skin is such a tiny proportion of the potato that it isn't that big a deal. There are times when it's a terrible mistake not to peel a potato, as those leathery things that often get passed of as "new" in bad pubs and restaurants attests.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (6 Jul 2011)

theclaud said:


> Especially jacket spuds with salty crispy skins and a big dollop of butter.



That's my favourite spud recipe.


----------



## lulubel (6 Jul 2011)

Dan B said:


> Would it not be better to actually tell people what these nutrients are, how much of them one needs, and in what foods they can be found, than to let them play a guessing game where the more different stuff they eat the greater the "chance" of them covering all the requirements?



It would be better, except that people in general are usually much happier to be told what to do than asked to take in a lot of information and then make a decision based on it. Those of us who actually take the time to consider our bodies' nutritional needs and eat appropriately are very much in the minority.

For those of us who do want to know more than just the general advice, there's the internet.


----------



## Wednesday (6 Jul 2011)

Mad@urage said:


> Marketing ploy? Quite possibly. How often are five different (commonly available) fruits actually in season together? How many are solely available as imports? Patently there is an element of greasing the wheels of capitalism here!



It's fruit and veg, not just fruit. You should be going for more veg than fruit, really.


----------



## yello (6 Jul 2011)

Wednesday said:


> You should be going for more veg than fruit, really.



Indeed. I was reading some interesting stuff about fructose recently.


----------



## Zoof (6 Jul 2011)

Just for a moment thought it was save to eat chips,





then my hopes were dashed at the last second
but on a run a do prefer a baked spud, because chips are to heavy!
So far it seems that you all have the same information as I
That's unusual as someone always pops up with a link.
Will go on Google and do some fishing, 
If I find some information I will post the link for you dissemination


----------



## Zoof (6 Jul 2011)

yello said:


> Indeed. I was reading some interesting stuff about fructose recently.



Hi yello can you post the link because stuff about fructose is of great interest, to me too.


----------



## yello (6 Jul 2011)

http://www.drbriffa....l-than-glucose/

and from http://thatpaleoguy.blogspot.com



> While fructose is processed, conversion of glucose to glycogen (glycogenesis) in the liver is blocked. The reduction in glucose metabolism, in turn, causes insulin levels to rise so that glucose is taken up in alternative sites, such as muscle tissue. Such high insulin levels leads to compensatory insulin resistance in muscle tissue. This mechanism may explain how fructose has little acute effect on serum glucose levels, but importantly, impairs glycaemic control after long-term exposure to high doses.



The above blog cites http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20360797

Re 5-a-day, note also this blog post from the same blog! It quotes the Daily Mail but, hey, what they hell!


----------



## Zoof (6 Jul 2011)

yello said:


> http://www.drbriffa....l-than-glucose/
> 
> and from http://thatpaleoguy.blogspot.com
> 
> ...



thanks yello just what the Doc ordered, I just need time to read it.

But try this to be going on with
http://www.newscient...a-day-wont.html

Just found this
I have been thinking along these lines for some time.

importantly, staying healthy relies on more than just eating five fruits and vegetables a day.
If the rest of what people eat is a mish-mash of fat and sugar-laden junk food, then no amount of fruit and
veg can clean up the mess. 
It's also worth noting that *there's increasing evidence that fat and sugar have a toxic effect on the body* that, ironically,
our own fat protects us from for as long as possible. 

I think you can add salt in too.

Turn out your pockets, lets get rid of the gels lads.




" let them eat Bread" Zoof


----------



## Davidc (6 Jul 2011)

Being healthy, or as healthy as you can be with your individual body, comes from a combination of lifestyle factors not just how much of a particular type of food you eat.

No amount of fruit and veg is likely to compensate for having no exercise and/ or being morbidly obese. A diet consisting entirely of fruit and veg, with no potatoes, grain or nuts (which we're told don't count) should kill anyone fairly quickly.

Eating a reasonable amount of fruit and veg as part of a balanced diet is probably a good idea, although traditional Innuit cuisine (fish mainly) didn't include any and they were healthy.

Health education needs to be far more than just a trite, simple slogan about one thing.

I happen to like fruit and vegetables a lot. I also like fsh a lot. Both are said to be healthy. Some people don't like fish and prefer to have only small amounts of vegetation in their food. Some of them are a lot healthier than I am. Doesn't prove anything.


----------



## albion (6 Jul 2011)

Recently it's been pretty much confirmed that the traditional fatty western diet both causes and maintains diabetes type 2.Of course if we all ate non processed food McDonalds, KFC and maybe even Tesco and Asda would go bust.


----------



## slowmotion (6 Jul 2011)

Why can't we just take vitamin and mineral pills?


----------



## yello (6 Jul 2011)

albion said:


> Recently it's been pretty much confirmed that the traditional fatty western diet both causes and maintains diabetes type 2.



I think I also read recently that diabetes is on the increase. Suggests our diets are getting worse.


----------



## Lisa21 (6 Jul 2011)

Davidc said:


> A diet consisting entirely of fruit and veg, with no potatoes, grain or nuts (which we're told don't count) should kill anyone fairly quickly.



I should probably be dead then  

So far this year my diet has consisted of fresh fruit, and steamed vegetables, with some chicken or fish. not for any reason except that it is all I seem to fancy eating at the moment.

oh, and an entire tub of ben&jerrys choc fudge brownie icecream last Sunday


----------



## Zoof (7 Jul 2011)

Lisa21 said:


> I should probably be dead then
> 
> So far this year my diet has consisted of fresh fruit, and steamed vegetables, with some chicken or fish. not for any reason except that it is all I seem to fancy eating at the moment.
> 
> oh, and an entire tub of ben&jerrys choc fudge brownie icecream last Sunday


Wicked


----------



## Zoof (7 Jul 2011)

slowmotion said:


> Why can't we just take vitamin and mineral pills?



Hi good morning nice question I suspect, but don't know!

Hold on to the keyboard we may get enlightened.


----------



## Zoof (7 Jul 2011)

albion said:


> Recently it's been pretty much confirmed that the traditional fatty western diet both causes and maintains diabetes type 2.



Hi albion good morning




* It's the sugar salt & fat plus high levels of carb combination, I suspect.*

*If you ride over 1500 miles a year, you should be fine; burn it off.
*


----------



## Zoof (7 Jul 2011)

Davidc said:


> Being healthy, or as healthy as you can be with your individual body, comes from a combination of lifestyle factors not just how much of a particular type of food you eat.
> 
> No amount of fruit and veg is likely to compensate for having no exercise and/ or being morbidly obese. A diet consisting entirely of fruit and veg, with no potatoes, grain or nuts (which we're told don't count) should kill anyone fairly quickly.
> 
> ...



*morning Davidc
*



_Innuit_
_cuisine (fish mainly) with no vegetables _
that's right no heart disease; we still have a lot to learn, this is why I don't like food fad's


----------



## albion (7 Jul 2011)

Zoof said:


> *If you ride over 1500 miles a year, you should be fine; burn it off.*


Its having a fatty liver that seems to prevent insulin production.

Maybe next time the scientists can study whether any bonks burn it off.


----------



## yello (7 Jul 2011)

Zoof said:


> _Innuit_
> _cuisine (fish mainly) with no vegetables _
> that's right no heart disease; we still have a lot to learn, this is why I don't like food fad's



And probably quite a fatty diet too, as I recall. A high protein and fat diet.

That normally cues someone to say 'yeh but, when did an Inuit last win the TdF' as if that's proof positive that it's a crap diet!


----------



## Zoof (7 Jul 2011)

yello said:


> And probably quite a fatty diet too, as I recall. A high protein and fat diet.
> 
> That normally cues someone to say 'yeh but, when did an Inuit last win the TdF' as if that's proof positive that it's a crap diet!



Hi yello got *cycle flue*; so not functioning at my best.

Good point But the Mogols too have the same type of diet, and they conquered the world. 

Just kidding!!!! *
*


----------



## Zoof (7 Jul 2011)

albion said:


> Its having a fatty liver that seems to prevent insulin production.
> Maybe next time the scientists can study whether any bonks burn it off.



Hi albion I'm not having a scientist on my bike





And on CC I think most people have the thinnest, leanest, fittest, livers of all.
It's insulin resistance, which is the bogey 

now watching the tour Zoof 

It's Mark again


----------



## Adasta (7 Jul 2011)

I've read that it's really somewhere more along the lines of: 5 portions of veg a day and 2 portions of fruit.

I imagine what was available to prehistoric man was something along those lines (i.e. lots of leafy plants; some fruit in the summer; meat as an when).


----------



## yello (7 Jul 2011)

Adasta said:


> I imagine what was available to prehistoric man was something along those lines (i.e. lots of leafy plants; some fruit in the summer; meat as an when).



Indeed it probably was. 

A weak point in the paleo diet (and I'm not saying you're advocating it Adasta) is life expectancy and illness. The cave man was probably a bit of a sickly being, constantly with the sh*ts from some infection or other and didn't live much past 20 odd. Some of that was obviously due to factors other than diet, we don't tend to die of broken legs these days for instance, but you see the point. 

The paleo diet does have a rose tinted image of our health back then (and I say that having an intuitive leaning towards it). There's no doubt in my mind that it's true to say that we evolved having a very much different diet to the diet we have today, but that doesn't mean that the diet of today is necessarily bad nor that we won't equally evolve alongside it. In a couple of million years, maybe the ideal diet will be coke and burgers!

Joking aside, I do think there is a lot to learn from considering our prehistoric diet.


----------



## Zoof (8 Jul 2011)

Good morning CC
Chimpanzees are still in the wild, and can make a good dinner out of a coconut husk.
But if you gave them burgers, you would be a popular member of the group.
It would end up with them being Kings of the nursing home, and not of the jungle.



Honest I’ve not got an axe to grind, I take the view that on CC I am amongst top athletes.
Who no a thing or two about nutrition.

It's just that I like to analyse the science behind a theory. *
*
*So my Conclusions on the OP are**
I* have looked for, but cant find out much about the science that underpins 5 a day.
And as the enlightened on CC have come up with the same result,
I concluded that it is almost none existent.

This is the rumour that I have heard about 5 a day.
It's down to a back-room civil-service cell, told by the Government
“to find out why them in the north-west are going about on sticks at 50;
and those on the south cost are still playing bowls and working at 70. 
They concluded: 
The two areas are not ethnically diverse.
The environment is very similar.
The difference then must be lifestyle.
Because in the south they eat more fruit & vegetables & exercise regular. 

So the word went out to the heath minister, get the unhealthy buggers in the north
exercising & eating more fruit & veg.
This was manner from heaven for the food industry, with sweaty palms being rubbed.


----------



## Adasta (8 Jul 2011)

yello said:


> I'm not saying you're advocating it Adasta



And you would be foolish if you did so, for I am an advocate of the Chocolate Digestives diet.


----------



## Zoof (9 Jul 2011)

Adasta said:


> for I am an advocate of the *Chocolate Digestives diet*.



If you play for Manu and you are under 20% fat they will leave you alone.
But if your game goes off; and you go above 20% they send in the dieticians to your home.
Now just sit back and imagine, if you were in that position what the wife would say!




Now if CC were to introduce such a scheme: and somebody immediately 
springs to mind who wouldst like to run it. 
It could be the stuff of your worst nightmare!!!!!!!




*
*

*
*
*
*

*
*

*Having done my duty: this morning I put the toast in the microwave to melt the butter yum yum. *


----------



## yello (9 Jul 2011)

As high as 20% fat! That's a relief! I'm around 21 to 22% and don't consider myself athletic in the slightest. In fact, I consider myself to be carrying way too much fat. Some of these pro-cyclists have single digit percentages.


----------



## Lisa21 (9 Jul 2011)

Adasta said:


> And you would be foolish if you did so, for I am an advocate of the Chocolate Digestives diet.



Mmmm, me too. And on healthy days I switch to the chocolate cheesecake diet.


----------



## Zoof (10 Jul 2011)

yello said:


> As high as 20% fat! That's a relief! I'm around 21 to 22% and don't consider myself athletic in the slightest. In fact, I consider myself to be carrying way too much fat. Some of these pro-cyclists have single digit percentages.



Hi yello Footballs different it's athletic art, sometimes you need weight, 
to move somebody politely of the ball. If your games good they just leave you alone!

Yes Brad was 6%, before he got home to the fridge: but I don’t consider him a cyclist, a top athlete yes. 
And to that, you can add in Boardman too, they were/are just athletes, that happen to ride a bike.
What they lack is* the will to win.* 

Now Mark, yes he is a real bike rider, perhaps it's because he's from the Isle of Man.
Shielded from the mainland's Health and Safety wimp culture. 





PS I really miss Marco _Pantani_


----------

