Obesity

[neil_merseyside]

I go by the mantra that everything is fine in moderation - including moderation... And I do 'fess up to already having a large lump of Reblochon cheese in the fridge. It's starting to reach a very desirable degree of squishyness

Just follow the whiff of garlic due south east

To be fair though, I do eat pretty healthily, but sometimes a girl really does need a plate of comforting stodge.

Tartiflette I hope, the best combination of cheese, spuds, bacon (OK lardons), onion AND garlic, oh and cream that's known to man (sorry personkind)

 

[lazybloke]

You aren't comparing like with like. Yes, a smoothie or juice is not the same as fruit. A beef joint is not a burger. White flour is not wholegrain. This we know. But minced beef is minced beef, and the body can't tell the difference between my spag bol and one that came out of a factory to the same recipe. How can it? The unit operations, to use manufacturers ' speak, are identical, so you get the same result.

Yes, that's because I disagree that a ready meal is the same as a freshly cooked meal.
Ready meals are a mass produced item so basic economics will drive the use of cheaper processed ingredients of the lowest 'acceptable' quality.
Even if a fresh ingredient is sourced, it has to be processed to a predictable format to allow mechanisation of the production line, and to result in a product that always looks the same to the customer. This is impossible without processing.
Why use whole cuts of meat if reformed leftovers are cheaper to source?
Why use fresh milk if UHT is cheaper to buy and store, without any risk of going off?
Why transport heavy liquid ingredients if a dried or concentrated version is easier & cheaper to move?
The testers said the colour was too pale? Never mind, we'll throw in unnecessary colourings?
Flavour too bland? We'll throw in various extracts.

Ready meals = processed food.
The body reacts differently to processed food than it does to freshly cooked food.

There'll be a debate on how much of a difference there is, and its impact, but to deny a difference is ridiculous.

 

[battered]

Yes, that's because I disagree that a ready meal is the same as a freshly cooked meal.
Ready meals are a mass produced item so basic economics will drive the use of cheaper processed ingredients of the lowest 'acceptable' quality.
Even if a fresh ingredient is sourced, it has to be processed to a predictable format to allow mechanisation of the production line, and to result in a product that always looks the same to the customer. This is impossible without processing.
Why use whole cuts of meat if reformed leftovers are cheaper to source?
Why use fresh milk if UHT is cheaper to buy and store, without any risk of going off?
Why transport heavy liquid ingredients if a dried or concentrated version is easier & cheaper to move?
The testers said the colour was too pale? Never mind, we'll throw in unnecessary colourings?
Flavour too bland? We'll throw in various extracts.

Ready meals = processed food.
The body reacts differently to processed food than it does to freshly cooked food.

There'll be a debate on how much of a difference there is, and its impact, but to deny a difference is ridiculous.

There is not a drive to use the cheapest possible ingredients, other than an obvious commercial push to get the right ingredients at the best price you can from a reliable supplier. Once the spec is agreed, that's it. If a meat pie uses 90VL beef of whatever size and from whatever parts of the animal, that's it. I know this, it's written in the specifications. Compliance with these specifications is inspected by the retailers and regulatory bodies, like the TSO and EHO. If I could I'd invite you to the factories and show you. But you wouldn't come, because you want to remain sure in your belief that manufacured foods use "reformed leftovers". We don't, we use minced babies.

 

[battered]

You are aware, I hope, that the mere title 'nutritionist' means less than nothing and could be legitimately claimed by anyone in CycleChat, a teenage you-tuber out to make some money, someone who is a good cook with a genuine interest in and knowledge of healthy eating - or a weirdo one-food obsessive who thinks tapioca pudding is the final answer to all that ails us ..

Dieticians are the only nutrition professionals to be regulated by law, and governed by an ethical code. They have had an extensive scientific, professional and in-practice education, and must be registered with the HPCP in order to practice and to use the title Dietician.

Graduates from courses which have been accredited by the Association for Nutrition (AfN) - a voluntary body - can have direct entry onto the Association's voluntary register and are then entitled to refer to themselves as Registered Nutritionists, who are considered qualified to provide information about food and healthy eating for the non-ill - a far narrower field than that covered by a dietician, but arguably just as important given that most of us are the non-ill, and that general 'healthy eating' is probably of more benefit to more people than the niceties of faecal donations or specialised dietary treatments for rare genetic diseases which affect the metabolism. However the fact that anyone can claim to be 'a nutritionist' can lead to ... problems ...

My friend has a BSc, a PhD, and a number of published papers on the subject. She chairs a committee of learned professionals on various aspects of nutrition, including obesity. I rather suspect that she knows what she's talking about. I don't think her use of the title "Dr" is made up.

 

[KnittyNorah]

My friend has a BSc, a PhD, and a number of published papers on the subject. She chairs a committee of learned professionals on various aspects of nutrition, including obesity. I rather suspect that she knows what she's talking about. I don't think her use of the title "Dr" is made up.

Then why refer to her as a 'nutritionist', which as I have already explained is a title with no meaning whatsoever? and where did I suggest that she is making anything up? Saying that someone is a nutritionist confers no status, level of authority or indication of competence at all; it fools some of the laymen much of the time (which is why it is used, of course) but it doesn't fool me. Fortunately you have confirmed what I hoped was true - that she is considerably more than a mere 'nutritionist' - and it is not correct to refer to her as such.

I would hope that none of the members of the learned committee which she chairs think of her as a weirdo charlatan out to make a personal profit from algal soup, chlorophyll enemas or whatever other bizzarro-style 'dietary supplement' is the current flavour of the month among most of the members of that unqualified bunch who choose to refer to themselves as 'nutritionists'. Does she refer to herself as a 'nutritionist' - or as a scientist?

 

[winjim]

Then why refer to her as a 'nutritionist', which as I have already explained is a title with no meaning whatsoever? and where did I suggest that she is making anything up? Saying that someone is a nutritionist confers no status, level of authority or indication of competence at all; it fools some of the laymen much of the time (which is why it is used, of course) but it doesn't fool me. Fortunately you have confirmed what I hoped was true - that she is considerably more than a mere 'nutritionist' - and it is not correct to refer to her as such.

I would hope that none of the members of the learned committee which she chairs think of her as a weirdo charlatan out to make a personal profit from algal soup, chlorophyll enemas or whatever other bizzarro-style 'dietary supplement' is the current flavour of the month among most of the members of that unqualified bunch who choose to refer to themselves as 'nutritionists'. Does she refer to herself as a 'nutritionist' - or as a scientist?

You know that not all nutritionists are charlatans, right? I'm a chemist, that's not a protected title so should I not refer to myself as such?

I kind of feel like a lot of this discussion should perhaps be in the conspiracy theory thread.

 

[Reynard]

Tartiflette I hope, the best combination of cheese, spuds, bacon (OK lardons), onion AND garlic, oh and cream that's known to man (sorry personkind)

Of course! Tartiflette is just such brilliant comfort food.

 

[Reynard]

There is not a drive to use the cheapest possible ingredients, other than an obvious commercial push to get the right ingredients at the best price you can from a reliable supplier. Once the spec is agreed, that's it. If a meat pie uses 90VL beef of whatever size and from whatever parts of the animal, that's it. I know this, it's written in the specifications. Compliance with these specifications is inspected by the retailers and regulatory bodies, like the TSO and EHO. If I could I'd invite you to the factories and show you. But you wouldn't come, because you want to remain sure in your belief that manufacured foods use "reformed leftovers". We don't, we use minced babies.

Ah, Product Design Specifications. I've written a fair few of them in my time, albeit for prototype automotive components. And at opposite ends of the spectrum - Ford vans and Formula 1 cars. Some stuff, invariably transits (!) over, whether it's a Transit Connect or a meat pie.

Certainly, for the mass market, you *are* working to produce something at a particular price point, and you can't deny that it *does* affect the choices that you make in terms of ingredients and quantities. Although given you're churning out thousands of pies a day, you have a buying power that the home cook doesn't have. I'll buy a 1.5kg bag of flour, you'll buy a whole truck at a time, that sort of thing.

But given that everyone in the supply chain from farm to fork needs to make a profit (otherwise, what's the point of being in the business), you can't deny that it does tend to raise questions. And uncomfortable questions at that.

 

[battered]

Then why refer to her as a 'nutritionist', which as I have already explained is a title with no meaning whatsoever? and where did I suggest that she is making anything up? Saying that someone is a nutritionist confers no status, level of authority or indication of competence at all; it fools some of the laymen much of the time (which is why it is used, of course) but it doesn't fool me. Fortunately you have confirmed what I hoped was true - that she is considerably more than a mere 'nutritionist' - and it is not correct to refer to her as such.

I would hope that none of the members of the learned committee which she chairs think of her as a weirdo charlatan out to make a personal profit from algal soup, chlorophyll enemas or whatever other bizzarro-style 'dietary supplement' is the current flavour of the month among most of the members of that unqualified bunch who choose to refer to themselves as 'nutritionists'. Does she refer to herself as a 'nutritionist' - or as a scientist?

She calls herself a nutritionist. That's her job, that's what it says on her degree certificate(s).

 

[battered]

Ah, Product Design Specifications. I've written a fair few of them in my time, albeit for prototype automotive components. And at opposite ends of the spectrum - Ford vans and Formula 1 cars. Some stuff, invariably transits (!) over, whether it's a Transit Connect or a meat pie.

Certainly, for the mass market, you *are* working to produce something at a particular price point, and you can't deny that it *does* affect the choices that you make in terms of ingredients and quantities. Although given you're churning out thousands of pies a day, you have a buying power that the home cook doesn't have. I'll buy a 1.5kg bag of flour, you'll buy a whole truck at a time, that sort of thing.

But given that everyone in the supply chain from farm to fork needs to make a profit (otherwise, what's the point of being in the business), you can't deny that it does tend to raise questions. And uncomfortable questions at that.

Indeed, product design specs. Manufacturing operations are the same the world over. The unit operations may change but it's still just making stuff to a standard and getting it out of the door. With regard to the drive to reduce cost, of course it's a pressure. You have the same in engineering manufacture. What's to stop you using cheap steel, what's to stop you using incorrectly machined mechanical parts, what's to stop you using thinner paint? Or course, everyone in vehicle manufacture buys cheap knock off parts and Russian steel that's rusty on arrival, like the (urban myth) Alfasud, don't they? Course they do, anything to make a buck.

 

[KnittyNorah]

You know that not all nutritionists are charlatans, right? I'm a chemist, that's not a protected title so should I not refer to myself as such?

The entire point is that when a title is not a protected one, anyone can refer to themselves or others as a 'whateverist'. There is no way of telling - without further information - whether they are a charlatan, or a reputable professional with appropriate qualifications and ethical standards.

The issue of the charlatans was sufficiently great that the non-charlatan nutritionists - who were not HCPC-registered dieticians with clinical responsibilities but who had nevertheless a high standard of nutritional knowledge and education - did not wish to be associated with the apparently-ever-increasing numbers of 'nutritionists', Who can blame them? when such characters as Gillian McKeith et al were, and still are, peddling their lies to the gullible, the hopeful and the despairing and spouting erroneous, even dangerous 'advice' on medical conditions.

A voluntary professional body has been in existence for quite some time to provide consistency of standards, recognition and accreditation of educational institutions and courses, and standards of professional ethics; this body is recognised by the NHS, major companies and so on. If someone states they are a registered nutritionist, or uses the letters ANutr or RNutr you can check the validity of their claim on the Association for Nutrition. The Association appears to prefer to use the terms ' Professional in Nutrition' and 'Registered Nutritionist' to the simpler term.

I have a knee-jerk reaction to people who call themselves 'nutritionists' without any further evidence of actual qualification as I have had experience of having to pick up some of the damage done to other people who have, in all good faith, paid money they could ill-afford to a so-called 'nutritionist' ...

 

[KnittyNorah]

She calls herself a nutritionist. That's her job, that's what it says on her degree certificate(s).

Of course she is more than entitled to attempt, by using the term, to claim it back for those who are professionals in nutrition.
I wish her luck - she is probably not working in circles where the term 'nutritionist' without the qualifier 'registered' has the same connotations of disrepute as it has come to have to some of us.

 

[battered]

Of course she is more than entitled to attempt, by using the term, to claim it back for those who are professionals in nutrition.
I wish her luck - she is probably not working in circles where the term 'nutritionist' without the qualifier 'registered' has the same connotations of disrepute as it has come to have to some of us.

Just the World Health Organisation.

 

[winjim]

The entire point is that when a title is not a protected one, anyone can refer to themselves or others as a 'whateverist'. There is no way of telling - without further information - whether they are a charlatan, or a reputable professional with appropriate qualifications and ethical standards.

The issue of the charlatans was sufficiently great that the non-charlatan nutritionists - who were not HCPC-registered dieticians with clinical responsibilities but who had nevertheless a high standard of nutritional knowledge and education - did not wish to be associated with the apparently-ever-increasing numbers of 'nutritionists', Who can blame them? when such characters as Gillian McKeith et al were, and still are, peddling their lies to the gullible, the hopeful and the despairing and spouting erroneous, even dangerous 'advice' on medical conditions.

A voluntary professional body has been in existence for quite some time to provide consistency of standards, recognition and accreditation of educational institutions and courses, and standards of professional ethics; this body is recognised by the NHS, major companies and so on. If someone states they are a registered nutritionist, or uses the letters ANutr or RNutr you can check the validity of their claim on the Association for Nutrition. The Association appears to prefer to use the terms ' Professional in Nutrition' and 'Registered Nutritionist' to the simpler term.

I have a knee-jerk reaction to people who call themselves 'nutritionists' without any further evidence of actual qualification as I have had experience of having to pick up some of the damage done to other people who have, in all good faith, paid money they could ill-afford to a so-called 'nutritionist' ...

I get your point but I think we kind of know the difference between a nutritionist and a 'nutritionist'. I'm sure our friend in the food industry is aware of the controversy. Do you take the same position regarding other job titles?

 

[Reynard]

Indeed, product design specs. Manufacturing operations are the same the world over. The unit operations may change but it's still just making stuff to a standard and getting it out of the door. With regard to the drive to reduce cost, of course it's a pressure. You have the same in engineering manufacture. What's to stop you using cheap steel, what's to stop you using incorrectly machined mechanical parts, what's to stop you using thinner paint? Or course, everyone in vehicle manufacture buys cheap knock off parts and Russian steel that's rusty on arrival, like the (urban myth) Alfasud, don't they? Course they do, anything to make a buck.

Which makes me wonder how on earth the supermarkets can, for instance, sell a jar of marmalade for 27p*... Bearing in mind they also sell jars that retail for over £3.

And the ingredients (and proportion thereof) in those bear very little resemblance to what I turn out at home and have won first prizes for at agricultural and produce shows i.e. I don't use fruit juice, nor do I add citric acid or pectin. And I use 20% less sugar. (Yes, I did look at the labels out of curiosity.)

Using a lot less sugar doesn't affect the keeping quality in the slightest. Yesterday I cracked open a jar of lime marmalade I made back in 2014 and it's absolutely banging. Mind, I do put the lids on my jars when they're very hot, so you get a good vacuum seal on them.

*unless it's a loss-leader

P.S. I know what I make isn't commercially viable purely from an ingredients standpoint - I've discussed this ad infinitum with a friend who used to do something similar to you for Tiptree. She also says people prefer it much sweeter. I find commercial preserves ridiculously sweet to the point of being inedible. All you taste is the sugar. But then sugar is a heck of a lot cheaper than fruit.

Funny that, because I'm always being told that my marmalade is far nicer than what the shops sell.