An Apple A Day?

I’ve just consumed an apple. I think it was a Braeburn, but it doesn’t really matter because it tasted of nothing – the fact I’d purchased it from a supermarket might have something to do with that. However, despite the lack of enjoyment I’d gotten from it (duly making a note to never buy apples from them again) at very least I’d ticked one of the ‘five-a-day’ boxes and got all those good things like micronutrients and antioxidants from it, right? Right?

The answer for Britons to that question appears to be ‘not as much as you think’. A recent-ish study shows that in some respects, the per-weight nutritional ratings for fruit and vegetables has declined markedly in the last eighty years. In some areas, up to half of it’s micronutrients have vanished from the produce my grandparents chewed through during the Second World War. Not that this is really ‘new’ news; this fall-off in nutritional ‘density’ has been noted in places such as the UK and USA since the first years of this century.

The reasons for this are rather simple to understand; in short, almost all modern varieties of produce are not produced with nutrition in mind. They are normally breeds chosen to grow as quickly as possible, to produce as attractive produce as possible and is normally harvested before they’re truly ripe so their shelf-life is longer. Now, some folks will claim that organic produce is immune to such things, but it’s not really true; for the majority of the damage is done in the genes of the plant being grown and it’s lack of time enjoying soil, water and sun than whether it uses a chemical pesticide or not.

Even more short; they’re crap because agribusiness have not considered nutritional levels as an aspect they needed to worry about. And before you complain about this comment, consider that for much of the time, they don’t even give a toss about actual taste so why the hell would they care about something you’d not even realise was missing? When was the last time you saw a variety of say, pears state they’re ‘superior levels of micronutrients’ than other types?

Which is the issue which led me to write this little post. When it comes down to nutrition, much of what we do is based on trust we have for others. When doing food diaries, I rely on the nutritional values provided – yet how are these generated? Do they test the source each time, or do they rely on pre-measured produce which might have been tested decades ago and so out of date?

Speaking of out of date, much of the problem is down to this. In previous decades, charities and governments alike generally worried about raw calorific deficits than nutritional ones (though with the occasional situation which was proven without a doubt, such as the old ‘milk for school children’ programmes). This is simply explained; the level of nutritional science was low, the most pressing issue was pictures of skeletal children and most importantly they assumed the calorific solution would solve the nutritional one too because it would put the sufferers on a decent diet.

Problem is, a ‘modern diet’ is not a decent one. Anyone who’s not a shill for the processed food industry knows the simple fact; that said industry is geared into getting us to shovel calorie-dense but nutritional-light foodstuffs into our gobs. Doctors and nutritionists alike are encountering more and more examples of what their 1940s predecessors would have considered impossible; people who are obese and malnourished. Even more importantly, many people (35% – 75%, depending on study and definition) fail to get their suggested ‘five a day’ already. Is that idea based on the nutritional ratings of products from decades ago? And if so, does this mean we should actually now be aiming at seven, eight or perhaps even ten a day? That is going to be painful for those who are severely feeling the pinch in their food-bills, and even more importantly begs the question how the fuck can you consume ‘ten a day’.

However, what alarms me is the simple fact that this information is not really known. I only heard of this report in passing, and almost nobody else in the professional media seemed to cover it. No visibility means no public outcry. And that means no industry change – for the current shower of clowns, cretins and con-artists masquerading as ‘the Government’ won’t do a damn thing about this issue either.

I don’t really have much of an idea what to do about this either; normally somebody would suggest ‘try to buy organic / from a farm store / market stall’ etc, but as I’ve explained above the lack of nutritional value is a combination of several factors, all of which are very difficult to avoid. The only one I can think of is that perhaps, just perhaps the more ‘heirloom’ varieties of fresh produce and sticking with seasonable offerings you might be able to get better micronutrient ratings.

That and start taking a multivitamin as routine. Or start an allotment. Though that’s hardly the most practical of suggestions, is it?

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions – though I do stand by said utterings.

‘Eating While Poor’: 2022 Challenge (Part 2)

The second half of my own personal ‘Eating While Poor’ challenge; where I try to see just how far a diet can be realistically squashed finance-wise before it stops fulfilling it’s nutritional needs. Why do it for another week? Simply put; I’ve not had enough attempts at different cheap meals to finally come to a conclusion regarding what could be viewed as a bare minimum for one person.

The rules of this challenge, plus the first week’s experiences can be viewed here; with no further ado I’ll continue the challenge…

Eighth Day

Half day. I’ve run out of my fibre bars, so it’s an apple instead. Another serving of cocoa porridge for breakfast, hoping it’ll prove to have enough staying power in the stomach while out to avoid consuming any expensive barred products. Also made a thermos of tea to take with me, along with my last pear.

Plan works, though it was somewhat a close call by the time I’d got home. Perhaps better to have a banana too next time. Another cream cheese sandwich as a late lunch; noting that I’m getting close to finishing the wholemeal loaf I’d bought a week ago and frozen. Daily foraging turns up some reduced salami and potatoes; dinner is an attempt at a ‘one-pot’ meal; beef mince, baked beans and onion affair, cooked on one ring – I’d bought said mince cheap and frozen a while earlier. Result; rather nice, in fact; but much of this was down to the use of condiments. Supper was the salami as a sandwich.

Conclusions: Got between four and six, depending on your classification of tomato ketchup and baked beans as counting. Salami (or any form of preserved meat) is not a viable solution for meals – the salt and saturates are too high. At least not more than very occasionally. At 65p, the ‘main meal’ was not much more expensive than the porridge (though that was down to the bargain meat I used and cannot be relied on). In both costs and nutrition, there’s quite a good future for baked beans – even if you (like me) go with the ‘lower salt’ option.

Energy	2085 cal
Fat	47g
…which is saturates	18g
Carbohydrate	271g
…which is sugars	159g
Fibre	42g
Protein	135g
Salt	6.3g
Items Consumed	£3.08
Items Bought	£0.61
Items Disposed	£0.00

Ninth Day

Day off. Fibre cereal for breakfast, have some grilled mushrooms with egg and beans for lunch, mainly to use up the former. A nice change from the never-ending sandwich. Snacks; a bag of ‘nuts and seeds’ I’d got as an end-of line way back and a softbake which came from I’m not sure where. Picked up some cheese and some Heck Meat-Free Chipolatas going cheap, along with some bread rolls. Guess what I had for dinner; melted cheese rolls, with cucumber. It was tasty, though I knew this cost was going to be high…

Conclusions: Hard cheese is not a viable major component of diet – far too much saturated fat. Normally, I’d microwave the cheese and drain off the excess fat, but this time it didn’t work on the variety chosen (Wensleydale). Mushrooms are decent enough, though lacking in the calories make up for it for their fibre, protein and relative low cost. Two/three portions of fruit and veg, depending on your consideration of baked beans.

Energy	2061 cal
Fat	80g
…which is saturates	36g
Carbohydrate	199g
…which is sugars	77g
Fibre	41g
Protein	102g
Salt	4.4g
Items Consumed	£2.76
Items Bought	£1.25
Items Disposed	£0.00

Tenth Day

Breakfast was several of last night’s chipolatas in the other two rolls with some sauce and onion; spent the morning homeworking, snacking on frankly too many lentil cakes which I’d given up reviewing due to the fact there was nothing to review. Lunch was a few of said cakes, with some cream cheese. Afternoon was work; got through an apple, a couple of clementines and a cup of tea. Lucked out on the evening forage; a load of protein bars and shakes and some bakery croissants. Plus, got given a few pears too. Picked up some jam for said croissants; slightly shocked that the branded ones had now breached the £2 barrier. Also, another cucumber.

Dinner was one of those which shouldn’t have been; milk, jam and croissants. I paid for that by the simple fact it didn’t even really fill; ended up having one of the bars I’d purchased – a ‘LighterLife Bar’ – later on that evening.

Time to do another inventory/clearout of the fridge; disposed of a small grab-bag of old fruits and vegetables, a couple of old over-frozen bread, a jar of marmalade which came from the wrong year and a protein shake which had all generally speaking, been forgotten about.

Conclusions: Unsurprisingly, a load of croissants were not a wise choice; they were over 650 calories, over half my salt allowance and all my saturated even before anything was put with or on them. However, proof (if any was needed) why diets can fuck up; my constant hankering for ‘something a bit tasty‘ led me to paying 25p to scratch that itch. It’s the pies back on the Second Day all over again. Only two portions of fruit/veg today.

Energy	2582 cal
Fat	74g
…which is saturates	36g
Carbohydrate	379g
…which is sugars	133g
Fibre	34g
Protein	96g
Salt	9.3g
Items Consumed	£2.90
Items Bought	£8.40
Items Disposed	£2.75

Eleventh Day

Day off. Cocoa protein porridge for breakfast, clementines and a pear for snacking. Finished off the remaining Cauldron sausages for lunch, decided to combine this with cooking up a decent piece of chicken breast from the freezer for dinner.

Spent a bit of time online; read that baked beans do count as your ‘five-a-day’, but tomato ketchup didn’t. Also read a couple of articles on ‘how to save money off your food bill’ which told me nothing new. Went out to the discounter’s for peanuts and bananas, found at a supermarket on the way home a load of date bars and some milk going cheap. The former went into the cupboard for packed lunches, the latter mainly got frozen into cubes for later tea and coffee consumption; had to throw a little of it away, mind.

As another meal test, I had the earlier chicken, with some couscous and steamed green beans I’d found in the freezer earlier – the former done with just a kettle and the latter in the microwave (along with the chicken). It tasted good; though I do need a bit more practice cooking this method so I get the times lined up.

Conclusions: Peanuts or chicken; not both. Or perhaps the date-ball I ‘tried’. The higher ‘consumption cost’ today was down to the said chicken. The green beans were good and cheap, mind – I knew this before, but not how cheap until I worked it out now.

Energy	2368 cal
Fat	83g
…which is saturates	14g
Carbohydrate	242g
…which is sugars	158g
Fibre	41g
Protein	161g
Salt	5.4g
Items Consumed	£3.34
Items Bought	£2.83
Items Disposed	£0.05

Twelfth Day

Now, I had a nice description of this day and the next done, but the crappy word processor I’m using decided to both crash and fuck up the recovery save, so you’ll have to simply put up with the bare-bones account I’ve reconstructed from my notes.

This day’s lunch comprised me trying out doing a jacket potato in the microwave; it wasn’t completely successful, but enough that it suggests it’s a viable method of cooking for this. I also didn’t appreciate that it was in fact possible to jazz it up somewhat using just a few condiments.

Shopping for this day was some cheap carrots, grapes and kiwi fruits; the latter two hopefully to counteract my constant hankering for sugar. Dinner was egg and baked beans on toast. This proved to be somewhat better nutritionally than I – and I suspect others – would believe.

Conclusions: Once again, baked beans come through with their good fibre rating and decent protein at an affordable cost. The low consumption cost for today is explainable due to two things; the lack of meat and the relative lack of fruit (two portions). Peanuts also helped here.

Energy	2072 cal
Fat	78g
…which is saturates	12g
Carbohydrate	238g
…which is sugars	98g
Fibre	51g
Protein	90g
Salt	4.6g
Items Consumed	£1.84
Items Bought	£1.53
Items Disposed	£0.00

Thirteenth Day

Another bare-bones review. A day at work, so the usual barred affairs, fruit and some peanuts (instead of my normal peanut bar). Was hugely hungry by the time I’d finished; popped in to a supermarket on the way home and picked up some very cheap Polish cheese which I had with some economy pasta I’d mainly bought to see if the gripes about it being disgusting were warranted (they aren’t that bad, in conclusion). However I did end up producing a cheap, but tasteless meal. Oh, and I had way too much of it, calorie wise. Oh, I also picked up some more peanuts and milk; noticing that the latter’s price had gone up by 8.5% since last week. And that the noodles I’d had last week risen by similar. (That’s nothing; today I noted another discounter’s noodles had risen by 14%).

Anything else? Oh, kinda screwed up doing pasta in the microwave. Think it cost as much energy as if I’d done it conventionally. Later reading suggests that I should have boiled the kettle and then have let the pasta ‘stew’ in the pot for some time.

Conclusions: That cheap pasta had more protein in it than I thought; though I still think in this case was a false economy – at least my usual pasta tastes of something, meaning that slathers of sauce are unnecessary. Could a person live like this? Yes. But only if they had to. It’s pretty grim and your resolve would buckle quick. Three to four portions today; depending on your classification of the dates in one of my bars.

Energy	2709 cal
Fat	93g
…which is saturates	22g
Carbohydrate	387g
…which is sugars	148g
Fibre	35g
Protein	90g
Salt	2.9g
Items Consumed	£1.82
Items Bought	£2.46
Items Disposed	£0.05

Fourteenth Day

Thank god this is nearly over; if nothing else, doing all this is a time-burglar extraordinaire. Today was one of those days which you seem to mainly graze; I got the calories in but don’t really remember eating that much (mainly due to the fact much of it came from date-balls, peanuts or the cheap protein shake I’d bought and has proven to be… interesting).

Went for my usual forage; discovered a couple of cheap cooked chicken pies. Said pies became my dinner – I wanted to see if nutritionally they were much better than the scotch pie I’d had before and proved to be terrible. (For the record, they were with some boiled carrots which I did semi-successfully using the ‘kettle method’ outlined the day before).

Well, my answer to this is; I do not know. All the packet had was the calorie listing, which proved to be as fucking useless as I predicted a few days before. I went online, thinking ‘well at least it will be there’ (which I have done successfully with a few other products, like the scotch pies). But nothing. Went to the supermarkets own website. Tells me ‘it is available on request’, if I email them for it.

This I refuse to do. Firstly, this was on a Saturday and I’d vowed this post would be done by Sunday, so the chances of a reply in time were slim. But more importantly; why the hell should I have to chase this up? These pies are a regular product of the supermarket’s ‘deli’. Even if the details were (for whatever reason) not listed on the packet you could have easily have put it on your website. But no. Pray tell me, why is this? Laziness? Or are you hiding just how nutritionally shit your products are? This also happened with the ‘chorizo chicken’ right at the start of this experiment.

*takes a breath*

Anything else? Oh, I picked up a half-kilo of close-dated protein powder at half my usual price, which along with the cheese I bought (for later marrying with potatoes) bumps up my daily spend, though also got some slightly cheaper apples too. On acceptance that this was the end of the experiment, did one last clear-out of the fridge (just like I did a clearout before the experiment). Only casualty was a few mushrooms.

Conclusions: The stats for this day are guestimated (well, more guestimated than usual); I’ve had to approximate the chicken pies. As you can see, I just missed the salt and saturates limit; I shall point out that my consumption that day had been unusually ‘good’ before that – hit the five-a-day today.

Energy	2515 cal
Fat	75g
…which is saturates	21g
Carbohydrate	286g
…which is sugars	132g
Fibre	39g
Protein	95g
Salt	6.2g
Items Consumed	£1.83
Items Bought	£6.19
Items Disposed	£0.15

Final Thoughts

So, once again we have the total consumption cost of;

Condiments	£2.75
Coffee / Tea	£2.19
Milk	£1.83
Barred Products	£1.76
Meat	£1.64
Fruits	£1.57
Cheese	£1.10
Starchy Staples	£1.01
Vegetables	£0.95
Peanuts	£0.83
Fake Meat	£0.76
Protein Powder	£0.64
Baked Beans	£0.60
Egg	£0.60
Sugar	£0.50
Premade Products	£0.45
Cereals	£0.47
Bread	£0.35
Total:	£20.00

Again, this is not strictly accurate, due to the fact that ‘condiments’ is a large grab-bag of low-consumption items but nevertheless, do need occasional replacement (I defend this spend on the basis the boring dishes would have been inedible without them and thus, their removal would be a false economy). However, I also disposed of £3 of food too – almost all being deteriorated old fruit and vegetables. I ‘spent’ in cash terms £23.47, so in total my ‘kitchen reserves’ are 47p ahead. (You may wonder why I’ve done this; it’s to ensure I am not massaging the figures by running down pre-bought reserves which are not counted in the totals).

Much of the ‘loss’ has been from the fruit department; it’s true that I’ve eaten less this week than last and thus, didn’t hit the mandated ‘5 a day’ thing (why is it that?). But not as much as you’d think; I was relatively lucky in my ‘foraging’. The result is predictable; while I’ve managed to squeeze my bill down to £2.86 a day, it’s at the cost of insufficient greenery. I’ve also managed to increase my average daily calorific intake by 90; which points to a very simple issue which I’ve started to highlight statistically – that the cheapest diet of all is generally the nutritionally shit one.

What else did I learn? Well, that meat – and meat replacements – were expensive. In fact, I only had three portions of meat in the second week if you discount what meat was within the pies. What’s more, I wouldn’t have been able to afford them at all if not ‘bargains’. That frankly throws a spanner into many traditional British meal plan; the ‘meat, starchy carb and veg’ combis. More concerning is that it slices off one of the main sources of protein.

But other sources often cost too. Cheese, milk, eggs, nuts; all come in with relatively high costs per kilo. That even with all the cost-savings my protein budget was again about 30%; and partly why I resorted to using protein powder to fortify otherwise protein-poor dishes.

This being one of the key lessons from this experiment; that nutrient density was more important than mere cheapness – which was one of the reasons I never brought anything like crisps. In fact, I lost a kilo during the experiment; now, I could stand to lose a kilo or ten but it ultimately means this diet was unsustainable long-term (even more so if I’d avoided the ‘gorge moments’).

Limitations?

With hindsight, this experiment was not designed as well as I’d intended. The most glaring issue was the simple fact that a lot of the items I bought were reduced-cost and so not representative – I am not one who shall peddle the ‘I could do it, so can you!’ line. That naturally, reduces the value of my whole experiment.

This also damages one of the key ‘food economy’ advice given; to make meal plans and stick to them when buying items. But that does not really work when much of what is for dinner is down to the lucky dip of the bargain bin. Shopping lists are similarly limited in value. My solution to this is simple; to have ‘reverse shopping lists’ i.e. listing what you already have in the kitchen rather than what you don’t. The logic here is simple; that if you know what you’ve got on-hand already, you can instantly start coming up with ways to fit in those bargain eggs, cheese or peaches in. Shopping frequently helped this; it meant that when it came to perishables, I usually didn’t have much on-hand to waste.

Another issue is the fact that despite my diligence, not all my costs have been calculated. I take both a generic multivitamin and an omega-3 supplement; the latter vital as I consume nil fish or seafood. The price; about 70p a week which shall be needed to be found.

Then there’s my water. I use a filter, due to the fact I live in one of the most limescaley parts of the land. No, it really does help me to actually drink the stuff, and to make food/drinks taste nicer – not just a bourgeois affection. But still, that’s another 75p a week.

Lastly, there’s the issue of electrical costs. I did try to keep them down, but I didn’t do it scientifically and so I’m sure I made some mistakes there. Perhaps one day I’ll work it out properly, but that’s not today.

Full Circle

But back to the original question; what is the realistically minimum level of cash a person needs to spend weekly for a nutritionally balanced diet? After my little experiment I shall say as of April 2022 that number is £25 a week. Yes, I know you did it on almost half this but you know what? Bet you couldn’t stick to it for three months. What’s more, your meals are mainly fucking laborious and at least you’re cooking for two so seems more a worth use of time. Also, that was three years ago now. Lastly, I could get it down to £20 if needs be so there’s not so much between us – I provided the extra £5 as a little bit of a margin to cater to personal preferences and the occasional substitution (I’d budget another £5 a week if packed lunches are required).

Though there are similarities between us both; near-vegetarian diets that are generally dull, limited and time-consuming. If having to draw up a shopping list, I’d select a lot of wholemeal bread, full-fat milk, peanuts, rolled oats, baked beans and eggs. Then I’d supplement with chickpeas, tomato puree, mushrooms, onions and a couple of types of fruit and veg. I generally avoided potato, pasta and rice because of their high cooking times; perhaps if I’d owned the suitable items for the microwave I’d used them more.

Which is perhaps the main point; the ownership of the kit to do this stuff. That’s more an ask than you’d think. 10% of British homes don’t have a freezer. 5% don’t have a cooker (like I didn’t for the experiment). Scarily, around 3.5% don’t have a refrigerator. The kitchen might be short of basic kit like sharp knives, ironware and heatproof receptacles. Then there’s a deficiency in ‘knowledge’; a pile of chickpeas or oats doesn’t automatically suggest meals to folks who don’t really know much scratch cookery.

I find it interesting that my £25 a week is so much more than all but one of the figures I gave from my original ‘Eating When Poor‘ post. It testifies to two things; not just the significantly higher than reported inflation in perhaps the last decade (though it’s possible my figure is more accurate than any of my examples). but also the simple fact that when you are this poor, no, the healthy option does cost more. And invariably, almost any ‘saving’ cash-wise comes at a price; either more time, more cooking and/or more fuel cost.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my Essays series.

Counting Calories?

So, it’s finally here. After twelve years of varying threats from ministers and similar, British restaurants (including takeaways) as of today shall be legally required to provide the calorific listing for their products sold, to be printed on their menus. Unless it’s booze. Or if the restaurant in question employs less than 250 people (I assume the former is to exclude the ‘wet side’ of the pub trade and the latter to avoid saddling small restaurants with the admin costs).

The goal is a laudable one; another salvo in the war against obesity. However, will this thing actually work?

Concept is as follows. You go to patronise an eatery, skim through the menu. ‘Hmm… that beef dumplings look tasty… holy shit, 950 calories! Hmm, perhaps I’ll go with the chicken noodles at 700…’. And voila; you’re a little less fatter.

The restaurant trade completely hates this idea. With good reason; it reveals *why* their food is delicious and why we can’t replicate it at home – it’s so heavy on the calories, caused by ingredients such as cream, butter, sugar and so on. They no more desire to admit this than a Instagram influencer would desire to admit to all the filters and digital hocus-pocus applied to their photos before releasing them.

Yet it matters little in the long-run. Surveys from the USA (who brought this in a few years back) show that these public calorie counts have had little to no effect on consumer behaviour. I shall hazard that the reasons for this is threefold; a lot of folks don’t know what it means, more don’t care and the ones who do already have their own mitigations in place – I know that things like nuts, cheese and so on are very ‘calorie dense’ and that quite often the thick sauce on the salad can make it flip from ‘good’ to ‘bad’.

That’s a problem; if it did threaten to change consumer habits, it might prod the restaurants into y’know, reducing portion sizes, trying to make the dishes a bit less nutritionally shit and so on. However, all the signs are that generally speaking, they’re not overly concerned. Apart from all the ones who aren’t; which is all the independent concerns or small chains.

What’s more, the level of information is even worse than the crappy nutritional ‘traffic lights’. Even now, I shall not know unless the restaurant offers the information of their own free will how good a dish is in regards to actual nutritional makeup – for example, the level of salt and saturated fats. No, all I have is a calorie number. Calories are not automatically bad either; if we had no calories, we’d all die.

The eating disorder folks have come out against it, saying it will make ones already obsessed with calories even worse, which is a fair point (though on the flip side, it might some feel a bit more confident in eating out because ‘I know how much it is now’). But in this, I argue is the worst of both worlds; enough info to make some more anxious, but not enough to be genuinely useful to others. Pain and no gain.

So… why have the government bothered? I mean, the whole thing is rather toothless, the regulations are full of holes (many, perhaps a majority of them shall be exempt) and it’s going to be down to cash-strapped local councils to enforce – I think paying £50 a pop to do calorie counts is going to be pretty low on their list of priorities (I mean, how shall they decide to test? Consumers saying they think a Big Mac is too heavy or something?). It’s not completely useless – I mean, a few shall be jolted into perhaps a bit of action on realising their usual dish was over 1,200 calories or something – but no way useful enough to justify the aggravation it’ll cause. I don’t think the industry is innocent when it comes down to the acres of flab in the country, but in this I can get why they’re pissed at the government for this.

My theory is simple – it’s simply a bit of ‘nutrition theatre’. It’s not supposed to actually do anything – with the exception to allow the callous libertarian end of the Right to shake their fists at the obese for ‘lack of willpower’. The calorie counts, like the nutritional traffic lights are simply there to deny the cover of ignorance as a defence for the acres of excess flab – not really help you lose it.

What’s more, it’s a classic political wheeze; an action which is done to be seen ‘doing something about the problem’ while knowing full well it’s total effect on the problem shall be near zero. Something the industry has pointed out; that their contribution to our total calorific intake is pretty small.

Okay, it’s not completely useless a policy. But not far off it.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.

The Future Is Flexitarian

In their ability to prove my point that Extinction Rebellion are extremists, a vegan offshoot called ‘Animal Rebellion’ seemingly tried to stop deliveries of foodstuffs to McDonalds by blocking their distribution depots, starting back last Saturday. Cue the attacks by the usual suspects; the timid ‘never rock the boat’ types, the angry ‘it’s my right to eat lots of bacon!’ brigade and the tut-tutting of those who while don’t object to the change, they don’t want it to inconvenience them (which basically defeats the purpose of the protest).

Why McDonalds got this ire is somewhat obvious; they’ve tried of late to green-up their reputations, including starting a ‘McPlant’ range this year. Plus, it’s McD’s – the symbol of much of what is wrong with our modern world. Animal Rebellion, after all are lineal descendants (at least in spirit) of the protagonists in the ‘McLibel’ trial of the 1990s.

Anyway, Animal’s Rebellion’s demand – full vegan McDonalds by 2025 – is not going to be met and even the most hardcore activist knows this. Instead, they’re doing this to draw attention to the situation; the problem of the ecological damage caused by mass meat production. This I cannot, will not deny – it’s true and to argue otherwise is either a shill, an idiot or someone cultivating wilful ignorance so they don’t have to do anything.

However, I do reject Animal Rebellion’s position that a planet of vegans is the solution.

The Argument Against?

Or ‘why I am not vegan’. My objections can be generally broken down into three categories; roughly ‘health’, ‘ethical’ and ‘pragmatic’. (For clarification, I use ‘vegan’ to signify merely ‘folks who follow a vegan diet’ and not the more vocal ones who treat it as an all-encompassing ideology / lifestyle.)

#1: Health. There is health issues with a vegan diet. Look, that’s why you have to introduce artificial supplements otherwise you’ll end up with severe malnutrition. I find the argument that you’d be ‘healthier’ to not consume the things which stop malnutrition frankly, somewhere between ‘odd’ and ‘utterly batshit’ on my ‘WTF?’ scale.

But are vegans ‘healthier’? On the whole, and in the West, I’d hazard a guess ‘yes’. But does correlation mean causation? I suspect that other factors are more in-play here than anything else. Plus, the ‘modern, Western’ diet is so fucked up that ‘going vegan’ would be a move in the right direction on health grounds. At least usually.

#2: Ethical. Unless you’re the most blinkered, ‘anything for the animals’ one-cause vegan, said diet will end up in a snarl of contradictions, pitfalls and uncomfortable truths. The above supplements won’t please those pushing the ‘only natural is good’ crap, there’s a debate about whether organic crops are vegan (chances are, no), there’s serious questions regarding the mass importation of vegan-fad foods from poor nations and on a non-food front for a moment, a debate whether the vegan-friendly clothing materials are in fact worse than the animal products it’s replacing in regards to ecological footprints and so on.

As to any vegan reading this and feeling the blood rising within, I’ll point this out; what I am saying is true. It would be a level of rank hypocrisy to deny this but then demand ‘carnivores’ accept say abattoirs. It’s simply not that easy; neither the problem or the solution – and wishing it so doesn’t make it real. In fact, makes the proponents look either stupid or disingenuous.

#3: Pragmatism. Basically put, ‘going vegan’ won’t work for me right now. Complain all you wish about ‘animal industries are being subsidised’ and all that, but unfortunately when cash is tight and I’m looking to prepare nutritionally balanced meals, sometimes the offending product(s) are the only real option. In fact, if I’d been vegan during the coronavirus pandemic and the resulting personal wallet-stress, I would be severely malnourished by now.

Vegan diets are also generally limiting in other ways. Often, restaurants will only provide one option, which means you’re buggered if you don’t like it. The suitable pre-packaged salads and so on seem to end up throwing in sweetcorn as a matter of course, which I can’t stand. As I’m coming to appreciate with the reviews I’m doing of meat substitutes, some of them can be nutritionally iffy. You become basically unable to dine at other’s homes, unless they’re also vegan. And lastly but not least; most vegan food-to-go; from sandwiches to snack pots either suck on taste and/or health grounds.

Stopped Clock…

No, I am not vegetarian either; though a vegetarian diet has much less objections on the three above points, perhaps enough to allow me to do it successfully. I refuse to ‘take this step’ because vegans are right on the argument that the demand for dairy and egg causes animals to be born and raised. To take their bodies’ products but deny their flesh is logically incompatible. That in fact, it could be argued that vegetarianism is only viable on the basis there’s some ‘carnists’ about to eat the dead things you refuse to.

Another Way?

It’s one which I had started to practice long before knowing it was ‘a thing’, with a name, proponents and alleged inventors. I’d mainly selected it on health grounds, following the suggestions any half-decent diet advice given to ‘an Anglo’; less meat and cheese (esp. red meats and ultra-processed), less refined carbohydrates and sugars while slashing back on the sodium. Instead, more vegetables, fibrous objects and nuts, ideally with a minimum of processing and/or additives. To be honest, the fact it also cut down on carbon emissions was a strictly secondary consideration and ‘animal rights’ trailing a very distant third.

Then I began to actually teach myself about nutrition, did a food diary and all that jazz. Fell a little on the ‘fitness protein wagon’, which meant I began to consume more sources which weren’t meat-based. Much of the above basically forced me to improve my cooking skills; for to cook without meat does require some changes. Went more with the ‘less quantity, more quality’ mantra in regards to flesh, introducing alternatives here and there.

I’d become flexitarian without knowing it, like (as of 2019) some 14% of the UK population. Which is double the amount of vegans and vegetarians combined.

Natural Diet?

There’s reason to suspect that if the human body is ‘naturally inclined’ to any general diet, it is the flexitarian one; primarily fruit and vegetables, with limited animal products and starchy carbohydrate (Kinda like the hallowed ‘Mediterranean Diet’, save the fish). What’s more, it’s flexible (hint’s in the name) – allowing it to adapt to your current situation, dietary needs and personal preferences – easily fitting around allergies, religious requirements or the simple fact you’re in a location where every option for dinner is meat-based.

It’s also relatively easy to keep; allowing you to swap out meat where it’s easy, keeping it when it’s difficult. Affordable too – nailing the two major complaints about a ‘true vegan’ diet; that some of their stand-ins are both cripplingly expensive and frankly awful. There’s less nutritional worries also; most Westerners eat too much meat as it is, so say halving your intake won’t really put you at risk of deficiencies (usually).

Lastly, it’s very flexibility means the definition of ‘low meat’ is yours. One person may see it as one meat dish a week, while others may see it as only once a day, or less amounts of it each day. There’s no way in hell that I – reared in a world of ‘real men eat meat’ and ‘a proper meal has meat in it’ – would have gone vegetarian (let alone vegan) without crumbling within days.

But that’s the one point that is missed; mainly by vegans and vegetarians themselves. That it’s not the dietary equivalent of ‘questioning’ or ‘experimenting’. Nor is it some kind of ‘halfway house’ or refuge for ‘the weak-willed’ / ‘greedy’, like so many think bisexuality is. Okay, it’s possible you may end up vegan or vegetarian via this, but that’s simply normal development.

* * *

In a way, I see veganism in the same position as solar power or hydrogen-fuelled vehicles; something which while laudable in aim is unfortunately still too undeveloped a technology to come and ‘save the world’ – at least for now. With the advances in both nutritional knowledge and ability to produce synthetic alternatives which pass all the tests, perhaps a ‘world of vegans’ that Animal Rebellion desire may come true in my lifetime.

But we do not live in a world of perhaps. The problems facing us as a species are simply too complex for glib ‘veganism will solve it all’ handwave answers and hope technology will somehow come and make it all fine. In fact, such lazy thought can be counter-productive, encouraging the agribusiness of the world and millions of consumers to merely switch to unsustainable vegan industrial farming built on exploitation.

Something I suspect the more thoughtful Animal Rebellion folk will hardly consider ‘better’. That is, unless they don’t give a toss about anything save the lives of farmed animals.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my Essays series. For a more detailed introduction to a ‘Flexitarian Diet’ see this Healthline article.

Let’s Waste Money On: BCAA Supplements?

If you’ve not had these babies pushed at you by fitness stores, magazines, social media and influencers, well I wonder where the hell you’ve been for at least the last five years or so. But to put it bluntly; do you even really know what they are, what they do and where they come from? This isn’t as stupid a question as it first appears; after all, the scent of money has the depressing tendency to deaden the nerves and overrule little things such as facts. And supplements are one hell of a business – and the primary purpose of business is to make money.

First off, what they are. In a nutshell; BCAA’s are ‘branched chain amino acids’ – three chemicals (leucine, isoleucine and valine) which are required for body function. We can’t make these within our bodies (which is why they’re called ‘essential’), so they must be consumed – normally, through our diet. Or the pills or powder, if the companies have their way.

These chemicals are important because they’re critical regarding muscle growth / maintenance and delaying fatigue. This a scientifically proven fact. Therefore – the supplement industry argues – more BCAAs equal more lifts, miles run, larger muscles etc. Result; rats and bros shovelling down the stuff by the spoonful (and I’ll confess, I’ve done this myself in the past.)

But… it doesn’t work that way. It normally doesn’t, y’know.

The easiest way to understand this is to visualise the human body as a machine, one which has a general ‘tolerance range’ and a point somewhere within it which could be called ‘peak efficiency’. Ergo, it can have far too much of something as well as too little. Often, this over-consumption can be harmful – excess calories leads to fat, which if unchecked will lead to obesity and so on.

Biggest issue is that it seems that there doesn’t seem to be a scientific consensus on where this ‘sweet spot’ is (convenient, for the supplement industry!). The best reliable source I could find – Healthline – seems to guestimate it’s around 90mg per lb / 200mg per kilo of body weight; meaning a person of twelve stone (168lb / 76kg) should be consuming about 15 grams a day. Every day; not just on workout days; see it as akin to adding a touch of oil to a machine daily, not dumping a whole bottle on it every now and then. For like the oil, excess BCAAs will simply ‘drip onto the floor’, or in this case, simply get converted to energy (and possibly, then to fat if not immediately required). And this is stupid, as you’re paying for nothing – for there is no scientific evidence to show that ‘spot consumption’ of the stuff in any way improves performance.

The last question is the most critical; where do we get this seemingly magical stuff? That’s easy; you already are. For BCAAs are present in the vast majority of protein sources – both natural and artificial. While different protein sources have differing protein / BCAA ratios, there seems to be a decent guestimate ratio of 6:1 – that every six grams of protein provides one of BCAAs. Therefore, our twelve-stone example above will need to consume 90 grams of protein a day to get in the required 15 grams of BCAAs too. Speaking from experience, this could be met by a pint of milk, two eggs, a hundred grams of chicken, another hundred of lean beef and a half-tin of chickpeas. Not that difficult – and when you consider the possibilities of high-protein snacks and perhaps powders too, the message is clear;

You do not need to supplement your BCAAs if you are already getting ‘sufficient’ protein (though accept that consuming 75 – 115 grams of daily protein will be considered ‘excessive’ by most normal folks). To consume BCAAs on top of this is simply a waste of money.

Now, as with everything, there’s exceptions. Soya, for example appears to be rather BCAA-poor, which means those with restrictive diets may find getting in enough BCAAs an issue. There’s some evidence to show that they’re good for stimulating appetite; so it may help folks who are rather ‘off’ food in general. But these exceptions are the distinct minority. That for most, if you need more BCAAs, simply find a way to consume more ‘BCAA-rich’ protein, such as eggs, milk and their products.

That ultimately, the talk about BCAA supplements are simply another ‘overfitted’ niche product, being pushed for the purposes to commodify This Thing Of Ours even more than it already is. It’s been noted that the majority of instructors and nutritionists who do say more consumption is vital are the ones which unsurprisingly are connected – somehow – with supplement companies. Hmm, do you think one may be related to the other?

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions – though I do feel I’ve ‘done my homework’ on this subject. Part of my ‘Frugality’ series.

Pointless Nutritional Traffic Lights?

Six years ago, the UK Government introduced the ‘traffic light system’ for food and drink. The idea was a simple one; to provide an at-a-glance nutritional info in an easy-to-read manner on the label of the packet or whatever. However, I’ve come to believe that they are at best, of limited use and deeply flawed, at worst utterly pointless and actually counter-productive. My view rests on the following points…

#1: It’s not mandatory. I find it absolutely ridiculous that as the UK becomes ever fatter, unfit and sick it’s not demanded by law that all UK manufacturers had to put the label on every one of their products (save a few exceptions). This means the worst ‘offenders’ can simply decline to put one on the packet. I’ve noticed a few makers have accepted the traffic lights but without the colours, allowing it to simply say ‘Low’, ‘Medium’ and ‘High’ instead.

If you’re going to introduce a dumb system, you might as well as go the whole hog and do it everywhere.

#2: You can cheat the system. Got some yummy pudding which comes in all on the reds? Simple – simply tweak the portion size! At last; got it into the ‘orange’ areas. Who cares nobody eats just one spoon of pudding. Or one of those ‘grab-bags’ of crisps, which according to the packet is say ‘six portions’, but we know in reality it’s at best three.

This is the reason we don’t buy petrol in gills, carpet by the archine or measure our weight in fractions of tonnes. Using such numbers are almost useless for they’re meaningless.

#3: It doesn’t take into account other nutritional elements. Vitamins, minerals, fibre and protein – all missing from the lights. Just today I’ve seen a pressed fruit bar come in as ‘bad’ due to ‘sugar’ (the natural sugars in fruit, that is) while a block of processed carbohydrate come in as ‘good’ for it relies on palm oil and maltitol so it can cheat the test. But pray tell, which one do should you really eat?

Can you be malnourished while using the traffic light system ‘correctly’? The answer is a clear yes – for it’s only steering you away from a small set of criteria of ‘bad things’. I can’t hold much faith in a system which tells me that amongst other things, apples, olive oil and peanuts are ‘bad’ and should generally be avoided.

#4: It’s based on dated science and shaky assumptions. There’s two here; one that all fat is bad. It isn’t; it’s the saturates and particularly the trans-fats which need to be watched. As I’ve said repeatedly before, the ‘fat is bad’ brigade lost it’s scientific fight by the damn 80’s – why on earth is it still being peddled?

The other part is the point of sugar being included at all. Why on earth is this here? Please, tell me, for I simply don’t get this. Is it the assumption that fat people simply sit around eating cake or something?

#5: It uses the ‘Guideline Daily Amount’ (GDA) for calculations. Now, the GDA itself isn’t insane or anything, but it’s a very ‘one size fits nobody well’ affair. For example, the GDA calorie level is 2,000 – which is about ‘average’ for a somewhat-active adult woman, but would be right in ‘weight loss’ territory for any adult male who’s not bedridden. Nor does it measure well when applied to active people, children, the elderly and so on.

The problem is that like, for example economic statistics (GDP etc) the GDA can be of use if you understand both it and how to relate it to your own situation. Problem is, the traffic lights are a simplification of a simplification, and so loses much of their utility.

#6: They can send the wrong messages. Simply put, if folks are told that a certain product is ‘good’ for you, there’s a good chance they’ll eat more – of it, or of other products. People aren’t obese because they all eat ‘red things’, but because they eat too much calorie-wise. It’s quite possible to still vastly over-eat while ‘being good’ and sticking to the greens.

#7: It’s just nutritional theatre. A way of looking like we’re ‘doing something’ without actually doing something, allowing us to then punt the blame back to the overweight individual – look, we’ve did this traffic light thing and you’re still fat! While I’m all in favour of taking individual responsibility about stuff, it only works when it’s assisted by others – with more than a stupid, tokenistic and barely-functional ‘traffic light system’.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.

How Improving Fitness Changes You

Did someone say ‘hundred and fiftieth blog post’? They did? Cool, vague excuse for a navel-gazing mini-ramble then.

It’s been now some thirty months since my first vow to improve my fitness was taken. Despite the hiccups, the occasional falling off the routine and unproductive cul-de-sacs, I have stuck with it. Up yours, detractors. I’ve also now had enough ‘developments’ to which I can effectively now self-motivate.

But what developments are they, exactly?

#1: I’ve lost fat. While ‘weight-loss’ wasn’t on my original list of desired improvements, it soon became part of it, for I was (am still, in fact) carrying too much flab. However, I’ve not lost much actual weight because;

#2: I’ve gained muscle. Admittedly, from a very low base. But it’s arrived. The simple upswing of level of weight-work and so on is evidence of it. I think now I’ve started to get the physique seen in some say manual workers and the like; we’re ‘tubby’, but there is a functional body under that… insulation. I say that for;

#3: My body has changed. The most obvious is in the shoulders and thighs; they’re both thicker and not in a fat way – I’ve recently had to throw out the t-shirts which now cut in at the armpits and underwear which did similar for the leg-holes. My stomach is a bit flatter too. Waist has done down by around 6cm; obviously, this is the main ‘improvement’ area as it’s devoid of muscles to bulk out. Though the strongest improvements are inside, for;

#4: My health has improved. I sweat (a bit) less; that is while say walking and similar. My nascent back pain has receded somewhat, think I’ve become a bit more supple in movement. I’m better-able to perform the more physical end of my ‘normal tasks’ without needing to collapse onto a sofa with the painkillers afterwards. Part of this is simply due to increased physical ability (such as more muscle mass) but it’s also down to the fact;

#5: I’m better-nourished. There’s no doubt about this. My ‘diet adventures’ have led me to get my salt and saturated fat intakes (usually) under the recommended maximum and I’m now getting my suggested allowance of fibre. I normally get my ‘five a day’ of fruit and vegetables and take a couple of generic supplements to make up for the deficits in my diet (which I can’t fix naturally). I’m less dependent on sugar and caffeine hits to get me through my day, but the most obvious improvement is in the mornings.

Before, I was the crappy 70’s BL car when confronted by a cold morning; needing an hour plus and a couple of coffees to simply get the brain in gear. Okay, I don’t now leap out of bed singing à la Stan Smith on American Dad, but my brain is at least alert to immediately handle at least routine tasks first thing. However, this comes at a cost;

#6: I get ‘protein farts’. One of the things They don’t tell you when you start doing This Thing Of Ours; that however careful you are, you will end up letting rip with scents redolent of a malfunctioning chemical factory at least occasionally. Often more than that. It’s why ‘smell-o-vision’ will cause a massive dip in the income streams for the online fitness gurus for as they’re there chatting about whatever in their gym gear you’ll keep on getting wafts of what smells like dead things. Wanting to get away from said stenches is one of the reasons that;

#7: I dream about expanding my ‘home gym’. It’s a little sad; I now get (marginally) excited by looking at anti-wicking underwear, foam floor mats, hand grippers and other bits of kit. Last Christmas when asked to make the usual ‘gift list’ to be circulated, it took a conscious effort not to put ‘two 2kg iron weight plates’ on the top of it. Over time, more ‘stuff’ accumulates to which it all now takes the floor-space of say, an armchair. I wasn’t told about this change or that;

#8: I’ve become the ‘annoying diet person’. It’s this which ‘outed’ me a few months back, when a sibling tagged along to the supermarket and I had no real way to hide my ‘developments’. They mocked my choices, complained that I ‘spent too much time reading the damn labels’ and then said I sneered at the crappy-snack aisles (which I hadn’t been down for perhaps a year). While said sibling has a tendency for hyperbole, they’d never make something out of nothing.

Since then, I’ve noticed other signs; like refusing something tasty ‘for it’s too heavy on carbs’, realising I’d not eaten any pork for months or feeling a touch guilty for putting a tiny amount of salt on a salad. Any ‘normal’ person visiting me right now would complain about there being ‘nothing to eat’ snack-wise save fruit, a fibre / protein bar or a hard-boiled egg.

While I’ve no way become as bad as my vegan sibling (I hope!), I have to accept that being said ‘annoying diet person’ is unavoidable due to the current situation regarding the food industry. However, it has changed my mental outlook for;

#9: I’m more aware of health and fitness out in the world. From the fact it appears the food industry is run by folks wanting to increase obesity rates to how our very lifestyles usually discourage physical heath; I’ve come to appreciate just how difficult it is to ‘swim against the tide’ of laziness, quick (non) fixes, rank commercialisation, desires for instant gratification and general ignorance.

I’m less judgemental towards the myriad of unfit / overweight folks I see out and about; knowing the struggles and effort I’ve had to go through to simply get to my current position. As for those fitter than me; my look is one of respect. Well, usually. For I’m now sorta-aware of just how much sacrifice and effort you’ve put into looking like that. Though I know why you’ve done it, for;

#10: I am happier. My body image isn’t in positive territory yet, but it’s at least ‘less negative’. I like knowing I have the physical strength and endurance to experience more of life. I frankly, revel (a bit) in my modest gains. And I look at those fitter than I as partly inspiration too; I want that too! A bit of positive vanity being used to propel me to push a bit harder. I’ve starting climbing that mountain – I want to see how high I can get!

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.

Let’s Waste Money On: Sports Drinks?

You all know the drill. You’re about to hit the gym, the park, the weights or well, anything – and you grab a bottle of sports drink. Often along with a protein bar too. Yet… why do you do it? Do you actually need it? And if you do need it, is it worth the price you’re paying for it?

Hey, I can’t claim innocence on this front. I often do a fair bit of physical labour over the summer months (well I did; looks like 2020 will be a coronavirus-caused washout), and by the end of the day I’d have drunk perhaps two-three litres, sweated it all out and be admiring the salty scent coming off my breathable clothing. Yet… it’s this situation the sports drinks were made for; long periods of physical exertion where you need the energy input but don’t want say that chicken sandwich sitting on your stomach.

Naturally, I was burning a huge amount of cash on this. I tried the usual tricks, such as trying cheaper brands and so on. A box filled with a myriad of interestingly shaped-bottles with those caps in my kitchen are testament of my affair with various products which were odd in taste and lurid in hue. Then I finally questioned; why?

In fact, I looked into seeing if they sold huge bottles of the stuff first; idea being I could decant from say a 3L bottle first (answer: no). Then I searched for them in powdered form; but not only is this not much a thing in the UK, but the per-serving was only marginally cheaper than my current method. This was good in a way, for it forced me to then question the point of them in the first place.

This was a reasonable question; after all, sport/fitness nutrition has become massively commodifed, and sports drinks is no exception. The old nexus of money raises it’s head; like in the 90s when ‘The American College of Sports Medicine’ took a big bribe donation from the lovely folk from Gatorade and then, utterly by chance started pushing the line that folk in sport/fitness should drink beyond thirst products… like Gatorade. Much of the ‘science’ behind their claims are flimsy at best; often by using stupid parameters – akin to comparing a top speed of a car with a person running.

It barely took any digging, but then two facts came to light. One, most people do not need sports drinks and two, they’re pretty easy to make at home. Naturally, both are linked.

Let’s consider the purpose of sports drinks; to maximise athletic performance. That’s it. Often, many will contain a large dollop of glucose for the energy to perform. That’s calories. Therefore, if your goal of your workout is to lose weight, you’re inhibiting your progress unless you’re either using the energy boost to exercise more than the calories consumed (example: a Lucozade Sport will need your jog to be ~25 minutes longer to break even) and/or you make a reduction elsewhere in your diet. In the grand scheme of things, many of these drinks are nutritionally closer to the sodas and other soft drinks packed with the sugar than anything else.

This is why many go for the ‘sugar free’ versions of said drinks. But if you do, what are you buying? Basically, water with flavouring, colouring and an assortment of trace elements you lose more rapidly while sweating. Clearly, ‘sports drink’ or ‘isotonic’ sounds so much better marketing-wise than the more accurate term: flavoured salt water.

Now, once you understand that, you can start to appreciate how much a waste of cash they actually are. You’re paying all that cash for the brand, the bottle, the colouring, the flavouring and the trace elements. That’s it. Now, while it’s true that a true isotonic is much better calibrated in the last category than what you could do at home, the truth is chances are you don’t need that. Only athletes at the top of their game, where they’re squeezing every tiny advantage they can get require this precision. The rest is marketing, people – in the similar manner that you’re told you must join a gym to work out.

Once I realised this, I think you can guess my next action; to ask a search engine ‘homemade sports drinks’. There’s many ideas. From people soaking pieces of fruit in iced water to watered-down fruit juices, with a tiny pinch of regular salt. There’s various syrup flavourings you can use. The humble squashes are my go-to. If the glucose boost is vital, just shove in some normal, everyday white sugar to the thing. Mix and match; work out flavour combination which suits your taste.

It’s truly that easy. Easier on the wallet, too.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions. Part of my Frugality series.

A (Partial) Defence of Low-Carb

This blog is littered with little digs and side-swipes at the various ‘low-carb’ diets out there; if I remember right I’ve called at least two of them nothing more than fads, for example. Yet… after some research and some deeper thought on the subject, I’ve come to realise that they do have some worth, though admittedly it’s hardly a ringing endorsement of them.

Low-carb diets have a long history; the first obvious one being the ‘Banting Diet’ of the 1860s – to the point that for a long time the two words meant the same thing. We’ve all heard of at least two others; Atkins, Paleo, Keto, South Beach and so on. And while the science (or lack of it) behind the various diets may appear different, the general premise behind them all is a relatively simple one: we all consume too much carbohydrate.

This is unsurprising when you think about it. We – in the advanced world, at least – have reached a level of economic and technological development which has both cut down our calorific needs and provides a massive glut of cheap foodstuffs, year-round. We’re in the first society in human history which the poor are more likely to be overweight than the rich, and that obesity rather than starvation are a critical public health issue in advanced nations. Something to celebrate, no?

Anyway, the thing which makes low-carb diets shine is that while each of them has their own banned lists, they all pretty much agree that that the high-carbohydrate, sugar-laden products of the industrial world – pastries, milk chocolate, crisps, carbonated drinks and so on – are the first for the chopping-block. Which is also the primary target of almost any diet. Often, it’ll also have the benefit of pushing you away from the processed items loaded with salt too.

Said diets also have the bonus of being fairly robust – in that it’s fairly easy to follow a ‘don’t eat this / eat that’ mentality rather than obsessive reporting and calorie-counting. It’s a simple rule of thumb; the easier something is to stick to, the higher the chances you will.

Though don’t mistake the above to be a ringing endorsement of low-carb; I still maintain that some of them are worrying in their ignoring of such things as fibre, saturated fats and calorific limits – a calorie is still a calorie whether it’s from a steak or a doughnut, after all. Then there’s the risks inherent in some of the truly low-carb diets out there. Lastly, there’s also the ecological damage such a diet can cause; ‘low-carb’ normally results in ‘high-protein’, which results in a heavier carbon footprint unless you’re careful.

But… low-carb has it’s part to play. A half-arsed following of one – if coupled with overall calorie reduction – can be beneficial by simply pushing the carbohydrate intake down below sixty-five percent, and into the zone recommended by reputable public health bodies. Naturally, this must be done in combination with other things; such as much of the remaining carbohydrates should be gained from vegetables, fruits and fibrous starches, it’s not an excuse to go overboard with the saturates and so on.

It’s this diet I’ve personally been following since the New Year; aiming to keep my carbohydrate intake around half my total needs (as well as a mild calorie reduction). At that level, it allows the continued consumption of fruits and fibre-rich products such as rye bread, a little give to allow the occasional junky item, but not much more. And while admittedly the progress has been slow – having lost only 2.75kg since then (this working out at around a half-pound a week in old money) – it’s one which has not required much willpower to follow or forced a rapid change in diet.

After all, dieting is a marathon, not a sprint. I’ll let you all know if I reach the end…

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.

Why Diets Fail

A week ago, a relative of mine announced that they’re going on a diet. My reaction to this was a non-specific ‘uh-huh’ – after all, I’d heard this phrase at least a dozen times in as many years and I think they’ve got fatter. However, there was a difference this time; they’re pre-diabetic and malnourished. Yet what truly piqued my curiosity was the unbidden ‘advice’ which was given by another – the type which well-meaning sent me well into ‘what the fuck?’ territory. And turning this over in my head afterwards led me to the conclusion; while far too many of us focus on ‘how to diet’, precious few of us ever bother asking why diets fail.

It’s a serious problem; for the vast majority of diets do fail; even the ones which succeed in the short-term fail in the long – thus the term ‘yo-yo dieter’, one who goes on the diet, sheds the flab, then puts it all back on. My principle is this; if you know how something can fail, you can then work out ways to avoid it. So, in no particular order (disclaimer; not a dietitian)..

#1: Short-Termism. You see it everywhere; ‘this diet will get your body beach-ready’ and all that. It comes in many guises and with different names, but the premise is identical – a few months of pain, you get the gain (or more correctly, the loss), you’ll be happy and then you can go back to a normal diet.

There’s two fundamental problems with this. First off, a healthy, reasonable rate of loss is about a pound a week; meaning it would take four months to lose a stone. And second; why are you going back to the ‘old’ diet afterwards? Generally, that was the thing which made you lardy in the first place!

This mentality is like helping a hoarder to clear their hoard, but not dealing with the issues which cause them to hoard. Sure, you’ll give them a nice, clear front room at the end of the day, but give it a month and it’ll be full of crap again. Diets that stick are ones where you change your diet for good.

#2: Too Rapid Change. We’ve all seen this. Person announces they’re going on a diet; out go the kebabs, cake and fry-ups, in come the salads and bran. And we know the result; they’re tired, they’re unhappy, hungry as fuck and quite likely feeling physically ill to boot. I credit the few who can genuinely tough it out until the changes “bed in” with willpower way above mine.

The reason for this is simple; the rapid shift in diet was too much, too quickly for them to cope with either in body or spirit. Dieting is a marathon, not a sprint; that making a series of incremental ‘Less Worse’ changes, allowing each to become the norm before moving on is often the most productive way to go – hell, this is the method which got me eventually eating salads!

#3: Lack of Knowledge. It’s simple enough; how can you eat healthily if you don’t know what ‘healthy’ actually is? We’re bombarded with dietary information which is often biased, outdated or just plain lies, peddled to us by actors who are mainly motivated by gaining the maximum cash out of your wallet. The only thing which hurts than a hard, long slog is when you finally realise that said slog didn’t even produce the desired results.

Similar could be said about understanding your current situation; how can you judge what needs improving if you’re unaware of your present? It’s like trying to set a journey plan on a satnav, but without putting in a start-point.

A common fault on this front is utterly screwing up the ‘calories in/out’ estimations. It’s why almost all half-sane diets urge you to keep an honest food diary, and why some of the diet plans such as WeightWatchers is popular (as much of the food has already been ‘measured’ for you).

#4: Unsuitable / Difficult Diet. Every single one of us has our own dietary preferences, lifestyles, needs and so on. Trying to get me (for example) on a high-fish diet is pointless, as I hate the stuff. Urging one who is often out and time-poor to ‘only consume home-cooked meals’ is as stupid as telling one who is poor to buy products which they won’t be able to ever afford. A related version of this is the ‘hard to follow’ diet, merely due to the fact you’re hard-pushed to even find the foodstuffs to follow it.

That’s why there’s so many diets and broscience kicking around this topic; each of us is unique, just because it worked for say, a particular celebrity doesn’t mean for a second it’ll work for you.

#5: Inflexible / Laborious Diet. If we’ve not been here, we’ve seen it; the diet which basically can’t cope with Real Life. The one who never eats out, enjoys a little treat or is seen fastidiously picking out The Banned off a plate like they’d been served Deathcap mushrooms. From what I’ve seen; there’s a simple rule of thumb; the more inflexible a diet is, the higher the chance you’ll fall off it, and when you do you’re more likely to say ‘fuck it’ and give up.

Similar could be said for diets which call for continuous obsessive calorie-counting, oodles of prep-work, the making of separate meals for you vs the family and so on. The more of a bitch it is to follow, the higher the chances you’ll dump it.

#6: Incorrect Action / Goals. This partly ties into point #3, but with a different aspect. What, exactly are you trying to achieve with your diet? An honest answer, please. To lose weight? Fit into a particular piece of clothing? Improve health? Physically buff up? This may seem a stupid question, but it isn’t; for it defines what physical activities you put in with your diet. I myself fell into this trap somewhat; I did far too much strengthening work and not enough cardio, resulting in the fact that weight-wise I barely lost a kilogram. I’m just lucky that I rather liked the accidental result.

What activities you pick is also important; for they need to fit your lifestyle and temperament; for example, my idea of having a personal trainer yelling at me or joining a running club is a true vision of hell. And if you don’t like it, you’re more likely to ditch it.

* * *

As you’ll notice, I haven’t put any ‘Do’ points, simply ‘Don’t’. The former is for you to work out yourself, ideally with the advice of genuinely qualified people. The above points are simply from my own observations of why for many “dieting” fails.

As everything on this blog, merely my own thoughts and opinions.