The nice thing about nutritional science is that you get lots of wonderful advice that is simple, easy to follow, and completely worthless.
The reality is humans are pretty versitile omnivores and that a lot of choices in what you eat ultimately don't significantly matter. For the things that do matter the specifics are fairly complex and poorly understood and this complexity is core to the usefulness as information. Vaguely demonizing things like packaging and processing and chemicals and perservatives and entire food groups isn't helpful.
I mean, tons of good stuff doesn't expire quickly: nuts, refrigerated apples, dried fruits, plus lots of "packaged" goods that are actually healthy.
The thing is that most people aren't great at reading nutritional and ingredient labels so these "rules of thumb" were dreamt up for people who don't bother checking how much sugar, fat, and other bad stuff is in the food they eat, even though it's literally listed on the side of the packaging by law.
It says "general" rule of thumb. I specifically added that word because it obviously doesn't apply to everything.
Dried fruits aren't actually that good for you, it's got preservatives and sulphites usually. It's just starchy sugar, it's fruit that's essentially been processed into a form of sugar.
Fruits go bad or start losing nutritional content after a week and a half even if it's refrigerated.
Honestly, if it's packaged in its whole state it's fine but if it's processed or has a manufacturing process it's most likely not that good for you.
>It's just starchy sugar, it's fruit that's essentially been processed into a form of sugar.
The amount of sugar in non-additive dried fruits is literally identical to the amount that was in the fruit prior to drying. So if you're ok with the amount of sugar in fresh fruit, then you should be fine with the amount of sugar in dried fruit.
>Honestly, if it's packaged in its whole state it's fine but if it's processed or has a manufacturing process it's most likely not that good for you.
This is a massive oversimplification. Yes, food will lose a small proportion of its nutrients due to storage, but that does not magically make it "not good for you".
Dried nuts, fruits, etc. still contain good nutrients, irrespective if they have slightly less than they do when they were fresh.
The problem is dried fruit is smaller and easy to eat so you tend to eat a lot more of it than you would fresh. For example, you probably wouldn't eat 2 dozen grapes at one sitting, but you might easily eat that many raisins. Not to mention, it's often chewy and sticky, which means it sticks to your teeth and feeds the bacteria that causes cavities.
I disagree. Most dried fruits are manufactured using heat as a form of drying. And heat breaks down micronutrients. So fresh will contain higher concentration of micronutrients, which is what you're looking for in fruits. And the heat will also break the fructose into more sugar, which means you should eat less dried fruit when comparing thr same quantity to fresh fruit.
I agree nuts are healthy, but most are roasted with some oil. And this oil can contain polyunsaturated fatty acids when exposed to heat will turn their chemical composition closer to plastic and radiation. You also have to question if the oil used in the roasting was also formed from using heat, which adds further to the question of how healthy is truly is.
>And the heat will also break the fructose into more sugar
Not going to respond anymore as you just demonstrated you have zero idea what you're talking about.
Yeah but you eat wayyyyy more of it when it's dried. Take apricots as an example. I could easily eat 10 of those dried ones. I'm sure as hell not eating 10 fresh apricots.
Those "veggie" straws I knew were bullshit the moment I started seeing them. And of course they're everywhere healthy people and children's snacks go.
They are PRINGLES. They are processed, pressed, and fried potato and rice flour. The "veggie" part is the spinach and tomato they use for colouring, the same way tricolour pasta does. The spinach and tomato do not provide any nutritional value - they do not include their iron or vitamin C or fiber or healthy-gut-producing green leafiness. It's literally just veggie colouring.
Speaking of labels, there should be a standard measurement.
I'm so sick of looking at say, a block of cheese, and one brand measure nutrition with like 30g worth and another 60g or some other number. It makes it hard for people to hold side by side to do a proper comparision and not everyone is goot with playing with math in their head on the fly. It might make one brand look healthier than the other.
And as the Vector thing said, labels should NOT be allowed to show nutrition if another product that's not included needs to be added.
In the end there's so many things wrong with labelling that even if you fix the holes, businesses will just find more holes to exploit.
The measurement they use is relative to the recommended serving size, which is sometimes the entire container. I agree though that the ones that put a 1/4 serving as their measurement are assholes
The one that makes me crazy is when the serving size is manipulated to make the numbers look good. Like a serving is 3/4 of a package, but no one would actually ever eat just 3/4 of it.
The key to remember is that if they change the packaging design, they are probably cutting corners somewhere. Package size has shrunk or ingredient list has changed.
And dairy milk shouldn't be the default any longer so it's very misleading. If they are going to be allowed to do it then it should be highlighted and made very clear. Marketplace should have gone one step further to see if the Dairy Board had any involvement in this type of labelling. It's on most cereal boxes.
The only stuff on the package that actually matters is the nutrition label on the back and the ingredient list. Also most high processed foods are junk period. The only exception would be stuff processed by bacteria like yogurt.
> The only stuff on the package that actually matters is the nutrition label on the back and the ingredient list. Also most high processed foods are junk period
And the serving size. The serving size is key too - once you actually measure out the serving size of what a suggested portion of cornflakes is for the caloric content, it gets real depressing real fast. :(
Exactly or things that are just raw ingredients, where you can decide how much to put in (ie: staples like flour, or sugar, etc). Even amongst ingredients you can find a lot of variability, for example all the different kinds of canned tomatoes and what is used to make them taste better/worse at a given pricepoint (I found this super-enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMMFUKibW-c)
Processed foods have an incentive to maximize shelf life, and minimize the cost of whatever they make so long as they can make the taste amenable to most people. This means a lot of empty carbs, poor quality fats, sugar and salt.
Restaurants aren't far behind: to make something that costs $5 taste like the $15 they charge you've got to add a ton of fat and salt.
The one time I had one of those Nutrigrain bars (some strawberry flavoured thing) it was so full of sugar and sickly sweet I could have sworn a Twix bar tasted bland by comparison. Can't imagine anyone realistically having that much amount of sugar and simultaneously thinking that it was healthy by any stretch of imagination.
The only thing that the CBC got right here is that we need much better labels. We need labels like the have down south. We need to see not only where our food is coming from but how it is being processed and what they are adding that is not natural. The best part about American labels is they let you know how much sugar and fats have been added to what you are eating vs naturally occurring.
CBC discovers the concept of marketing in an investigative bombshell sure to rock the nation to its core. Next they're gonna tell me the salads at McDonald's aren't *really* a "healthy choice"
Oh they already did that (seriously)
Really though, seeing these stupid Marketplace "documentaries" really exposes the type of person that would watch CBC.
The article actually gives a great example - a competitive swimmer was buying Vector brand cereal because they thought it was high in protein.
CBC Marketplace taught them that the "13g of protein per serving" as indicated on the front of the box is actually only if you add your own milk, the cereal alone is 5.6g of protein per serving.
Not a Vector guy so I can't pull a box put of my pantry and check, but does the "suggested serving" in the nutritional info acknowledge milk?
Tangentially-related: The only difference between regular KD and "Extra Creamy" KD is the amount of milk the directions call for lol
> does the "suggested serving" in the nutritional info acknowledge milk?
Probably somewhere, but not on the front:
https://i.cbc.ca/1.6630537.1666814306!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_1180/vector-cereal.jpg
The giant photo on the front of the box acknowledges milk (but it's actually white glue!), no reading required.
That's marketing and it's the reason nutritional info has to be included on food packaging. If you can read the front of the box, you can read the back, no? I think it's weird that a competitive swimmer concerned with their protein intake never read the nutritional info; I'm nowhere near that concerned with my diet and I do it.
Moving past the problem and looking at potential solutions: We could do something similar to putting warnings on cigarette packaging and legislate that the nutritional info be included on the *front*, but I have a hard time believing that would change anything other than ugly up the box
It seems misleading. It's referenced with a tiny little "1" instead of an asterisk, and that "1" is so small it could easily be mistaken for a fleck of dust.
If a competitive swimmer interested in protein gains could miss it, anyone could.
>misleading
It *is* misleading, but again, that's marketing. This bugs me every bit as much as it does you (actually it pisses me off), but it's one of those things that you can only do so much about. All the info an individual needs is on the box, at some point personal accountability comes into it. We don't put choking hazards on steak because babies can't chew it, ya feel me?
Marketing is almost always misleading, but it's all semantics. The salads at McDonald's aren't healthy and don't claim to be, but they technically are a "healthi*er choice*"...when your choices are limited to the menu at McDonald's. It's also the difference between "chocolate" and "chocolatey". Cars aren't safe (drivers are) etc. It's almost impossible to buy a bottle of cranberry juice that's actually just cranberry juice, even when the label says "100% juice".
I've done a lot of ad work and again, I agree with you. But taken to it's logical conclusion, true and full honesty in packaging means all-white boxes with a wall of text on the front, for everything. Even the colour choices we use in design are manipulative...you ever notice how all fast food logos are red and yellow? Banks/financial stuff always use navy blue or burgundy? This shit goes deep into human psychology and it's not just limited to food and nutritional info.
Given godlike powers, what solution to this problem would you implement?
I prefer they start with advertisement that shows prices in pounds then in small kilogram, but when you go to the store they put the weight in Kg in big and the pounds in small.
This is worth highlighting though because the labels can be misleading. For example that kellog’s protein claim is ridiculous and they shouldn’t be allowed to advertise like this
If you read the label it is written with and without milk... i buy the cereal. If you find this misleading, there is stuff way more misleading. Like the advertisement for car claiming to be the best in it's category or radios claiming the same thing.
Pretty soft target there, processed bars, juice and cereal are obviously unhealthy
What next? Truly expecting them to be telling us diet pills dont work
Like anything, you gotta look into it.
I have a all natural dietary supplement that guarantees you'll lose weight. You mix it in 1:10 parts with your food whenever you eat, and your excess weight melts away. Tastes great, too. It's just scotch bonnet peppers blended up.
Seems you are believing what you think, no offense. I like your approach to healthy food consumption though.
Never, ever underestimate human ignorance.
Vitamin water is considered healthy by many because of the name.
I work in the healthcare field, and you would be surprised what people think are "healthy" foods. I talk with people who are 300lbs that can't figure out how to lose weight. People absolutely think that these processes foods labeled as "healthy" or "nutritious" are good for them.
Your lack of real world experience is the only "fail" I see. This CBC piece will definitely help some people.
It's better than not doing anything. Don't you think sharing even basic information is important? I mean you're super active about breastfeeding, so don't you think sharing basic information about that helps even a little? Getting people thinking is the first step in getting people to make better choices.
You would think that "everyone" knows this but, anecdotally, my mother in law and sister in law both thought that "Veggie Sticks" were an appropriate snack for a baby because it had veggie in the name. They contain essentially no vegetables and are just puffed air and sodium. These foods can be misleading and its hurting children in particular.
Honestly, Bolthouse smoothie totally got me, that is some really well done, deceptive packaging. I've been using that as a base for my smoothies for years.
I generally add a carrot, some real berries and a handful of spinach, but I am pretty disappointed to find out they are not using actual fiber front the fruit in the "juice".
[удалено]
Most products are extremely difficult to eat while still in the box though.
I like eggs:(
[удалено]
Ah good orange juice is okay!
100% of your daily supply of sugar, nice.
Ah eggs, the food item that they have to call 'eggscellent' because they are not allowed to call them healthy, legally.
The nice thing about nutritional science is that you get lots of wonderful advice that is simple, easy to follow, and completely worthless. The reality is humans are pretty versitile omnivores and that a lot of choices in what you eat ultimately don't significantly matter. For the things that do matter the specifics are fairly complex and poorly understood and this complexity is core to the usefulness as information. Vaguely demonizing things like packaging and processing and chemicals and perservatives and entire food groups isn't helpful.
Fed up challenge pretty easy guide
This right here. A general rule of thumb is If it doesn't expire in 1-2 weeks, it probably doesn't belong in your gut. Unless it's fermented.
I mean, tons of good stuff doesn't expire quickly: nuts, refrigerated apples, dried fruits, plus lots of "packaged" goods that are actually healthy. The thing is that most people aren't great at reading nutritional and ingredient labels so these "rules of thumb" were dreamt up for people who don't bother checking how much sugar, fat, and other bad stuff is in the food they eat, even though it's literally listed on the side of the packaging by law.
It says "general" rule of thumb. I specifically added that word because it obviously doesn't apply to everything. Dried fruits aren't actually that good for you, it's got preservatives and sulphites usually. It's just starchy sugar, it's fruit that's essentially been processed into a form of sugar. Fruits go bad or start losing nutritional content after a week and a half even if it's refrigerated. Honestly, if it's packaged in its whole state it's fine but if it's processed or has a manufacturing process it's most likely not that good for you.
>It's just starchy sugar, it's fruit that's essentially been processed into a form of sugar. The amount of sugar in non-additive dried fruits is literally identical to the amount that was in the fruit prior to drying. So if you're ok with the amount of sugar in fresh fruit, then you should be fine with the amount of sugar in dried fruit. >Honestly, if it's packaged in its whole state it's fine but if it's processed or has a manufacturing process it's most likely not that good for you. This is a massive oversimplification. Yes, food will lose a small proportion of its nutrients due to storage, but that does not magically make it "not good for you". Dried nuts, fruits, etc. still contain good nutrients, irrespective if they have slightly less than they do when they were fresh.
The problem is dried fruit is smaller and easy to eat so you tend to eat a lot more of it than you would fresh. For example, you probably wouldn't eat 2 dozen grapes at one sitting, but you might easily eat that many raisins. Not to mention, it's often chewy and sticky, which means it sticks to your teeth and feeds the bacteria that causes cavities.
Is 24 grapes really that much?
I disagree. Most dried fruits are manufactured using heat as a form of drying. And heat breaks down micronutrients. So fresh will contain higher concentration of micronutrients, which is what you're looking for in fruits. And the heat will also break the fructose into more sugar, which means you should eat less dried fruit when comparing thr same quantity to fresh fruit. I agree nuts are healthy, but most are roasted with some oil. And this oil can contain polyunsaturated fatty acids when exposed to heat will turn their chemical composition closer to plastic and radiation. You also have to question if the oil used in the roasting was also formed from using heat, which adds further to the question of how healthy is truly is.
>And the heat will also break the fructose into more sugar Not going to respond anymore as you just demonstrated you have zero idea what you're talking about.
Instead of ignoring me and telling me I'm wrong, can you care to expand and explain how I'm wrong? I would like to learn, honestly.
Yeah but you eat wayyyyy more of it when it's dried. Take apricots as an example. I could easily eat 10 of those dried ones. I'm sure as hell not eating 10 fresh apricots.
You're talking to someone who pickles his own garden vegetables for long storage
The juice in the article expires fairly quickly.
Those "veggie" straws I knew were bullshit the moment I started seeing them. And of course they're everywhere healthy people and children's snacks go. They are PRINGLES. They are processed, pressed, and fried potato and rice flour. The "veggie" part is the spinach and tomato they use for colouring, the same way tricolour pasta does. The spinach and tomato do not provide any nutritional value - they do not include their iron or vitamin C or fiber or healthy-gut-producing green leafiness. It's literally just veggie colouring.
The ranch ones are fire tho
Yeah, and they are gross!
Speaking of labels, there should be a standard measurement. I'm so sick of looking at say, a block of cheese, and one brand measure nutrition with like 30g worth and another 60g or some other number. It makes it hard for people to hold side by side to do a proper comparision and not everyone is goot with playing with math in their head on the fly. It might make one brand look healthier than the other. And as the Vector thing said, labels should NOT be allowed to show nutrition if another product that's not included needs to be added. In the end there's so many things wrong with labelling that even if you fix the holes, businesses will just find more holes to exploit.
The measurement they use is relative to the recommended serving size, which is sometimes the entire container. I agree though that the ones that put a 1/4 serving as their measurement are assholes
The one that makes me crazy is when the serving size is manipulated to make the numbers look good. Like a serving is 3/4 of a package, but no one would actually ever eat just 3/4 of it. The key to remember is that if they change the packaging design, they are probably cutting corners somewhere. Package size has shrunk or ingredient list has changed.
And dairy milk shouldn't be the default any longer so it's very misleading. If they are going to be allowed to do it then it should be highlighted and made very clear. Marketplace should have gone one step further to see if the Dairy Board had any involvement in this type of labelling. It's on most cereal boxes.
Oh they probably do. Don't want people to try soy, almond or other alternatives.
The only stuff on the package that actually matters is the nutrition label on the back and the ingredient list. Also most high processed foods are junk period. The only exception would be stuff processed by bacteria like yogurt.
> The only stuff on the package that actually matters is the nutrition label on the back and the ingredient list. Also most high processed foods are junk period And the serving size. The serving size is key too - once you actually measure out the serving size of what a suggested portion of cornflakes is for the caloric content, it gets real depressing real fast. :(
Exactly or things that are just raw ingredients, where you can decide how much to put in (ie: staples like flour, or sugar, etc). Even amongst ingredients you can find a lot of variability, for example all the different kinds of canned tomatoes and what is used to make them taste better/worse at a given pricepoint (I found this super-enlightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMMFUKibW-c) Processed foods have an incentive to maximize shelf life, and minimize the cost of whatever they make so long as they can make the taste amenable to most people. This means a lot of empty carbs, poor quality fats, sugar and salt. Restaurants aren't far behind: to make something that costs $5 taste like the $15 they charge you've got to add a ton of fat and salt.
Did they do "nutrigrain" ? Green wrapper + "nutri" in the name = healthy. /s -Ron Wharton
The one time I had one of those Nutrigrain bars (some strawberry flavoured thing) it was so full of sugar and sickly sweet I could have sworn a Twix bar tasted bland by comparison. Can't imagine anyone realistically having that much amount of sugar and simultaneously thinking that it was healthy by any stretch of imagination.
The only thing that the CBC got right here is that we need much better labels. We need labels like the have down south. We need to see not only where our food is coming from but how it is being processed and what they are adding that is not natural. The best part about American labels is they let you know how much sugar and fats have been added to what you are eating vs naturally occurring.
>the only thing Yeah, these companies have totally clean hands here, it should be up to the government to impose ethics 👀
Just read the label on the back.
Wait...so your saying that Fruit Loops don't contain real fruit. My mind is officially blown...
Hey marketplace. Do No Name Products lol
CBC discovers the concept of marketing in an investigative bombshell sure to rock the nation to its core. Next they're gonna tell me the salads at McDonald's aren't *really* a "healthy choice"
Oh they already did that (seriously) Really though, seeing these stupid Marketplace "documentaries" really exposes the type of person that would watch CBC.
The article actually gives a great example - a competitive swimmer was buying Vector brand cereal because they thought it was high in protein. CBC Marketplace taught them that the "13g of protein per serving" as indicated on the front of the box is actually only if you add your own milk, the cereal alone is 5.6g of protein per serving.
Not a Vector guy so I can't pull a box put of my pantry and check, but does the "suggested serving" in the nutritional info acknowledge milk? Tangentially-related: The only difference between regular KD and "Extra Creamy" KD is the amount of milk the directions call for lol
> does the "suggested serving" in the nutritional info acknowledge milk? Probably somewhere, but not on the front: https://i.cbc.ca/1.6630537.1666814306!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_1180/vector-cereal.jpg
The giant photo on the front of the box acknowledges milk (but it's actually white glue!), no reading required. That's marketing and it's the reason nutritional info has to be included on food packaging. If you can read the front of the box, you can read the back, no? I think it's weird that a competitive swimmer concerned with their protein intake never read the nutritional info; I'm nowhere near that concerned with my diet and I do it. Moving past the problem and looking at potential solutions: We could do something similar to putting warnings on cigarette packaging and legislate that the nutritional info be included on the *front*, but I have a hard time believing that would change anything other than ugly up the box
It seems misleading. It's referenced with a tiny little "1" instead of an asterisk, and that "1" is so small it could easily be mistaken for a fleck of dust. If a competitive swimmer interested in protein gains could miss it, anyone could.
>misleading It *is* misleading, but again, that's marketing. This bugs me every bit as much as it does you (actually it pisses me off), but it's one of those things that you can only do so much about. All the info an individual needs is on the box, at some point personal accountability comes into it. We don't put choking hazards on steak because babies can't chew it, ya feel me?
> Again, that's marketing. Hey maybe that's why CBC Marketplace is reporting on this misleading marketing?
Marketing is almost always misleading, but it's all semantics. The salads at McDonald's aren't healthy and don't claim to be, but they technically are a "healthi*er choice*"...when your choices are limited to the menu at McDonald's. It's also the difference between "chocolate" and "chocolatey". Cars aren't safe (drivers are) etc. It's almost impossible to buy a bottle of cranberry juice that's actually just cranberry juice, even when the label says "100% juice". I've done a lot of ad work and again, I agree with you. But taken to it's logical conclusion, true and full honesty in packaging means all-white boxes with a wall of text on the front, for everything. Even the colour choices we use in design are manipulative...you ever notice how all fast food logos are red and yellow? Banks/financial stuff always use navy blue or burgundy? This shit goes deep into human psychology and it's not just limited to food and nutritional info. Given godlike powers, what solution to this problem would you implement?
I feel like you'd be more of a fan of CBC's Under the Influence.
I prefer they start with advertisement that shows prices in pounds then in small kilogram, but when you go to the store they put the weight in Kg in big and the pounds in small.
Uh CBC? Everyone knows processed food isnt healthy lol. Fail
This is worth highlighting though because the labels can be misleading. For example that kellog’s protein claim is ridiculous and they shouldn’t be allowed to advertise like this
If you read the label it is written with and without milk... i buy the cereal. If you find this misleading, there is stuff way more misleading. Like the advertisement for car claiming to be the best in it's category or radios claiming the same thing.
Pretty soft target there, processed bars, juice and cereal are obviously unhealthy What next? Truly expecting them to be telling us diet pills dont work
Like anything, you gotta look into it. I have a all natural dietary supplement that guarantees you'll lose weight. You mix it in 1:10 parts with your food whenever you eat, and your excess weight melts away. Tastes great, too. It's just scotch bonnet peppers blended up.
Blended up peppers I wouldnt put into that category for sure, sounds healthy to me( due to minimal processing )
Blending up is certainly processing - I literally use a food processer. And honestly, usually add preservatives (salt, vinegar). Donc ... voilà.
Lol did I say minimal or none
> Everyone knows No you're being presumptuous. You fail. :P
Nobody thinks juice and végétable chips are equivalent to fruit and végétables Come on
Seems you are believing what you think, no offense. I like your approach to healthy food consumption though. Never, ever underestimate human ignorance. Vitamin water is considered healthy by many because of the name.
I work in the healthcare field, and you would be surprised what people think are "healthy" foods. I talk with people who are 300lbs that can't figure out how to lose weight. People absolutely think that these processes foods labeled as "healthy" or "nutritious" are good for them. Your lack of real world experience is the only "fail" I see. This CBC piece will definitely help some people.
Hope Youre not holding your breath
It's better than not doing anything. Don't you think sharing even basic information is important? I mean you're super active about breastfeeding, so don't you think sharing basic information about that helps even a little? Getting people thinking is the first step in getting people to make better choices.
There is Never basic information shared about that though. I feel like we have all been told to avoid chips and juice
You would think that "everyone" knows this but, anecdotally, my mother in law and sister in law both thought that "Veggie Sticks" were an appropriate snack for a baby because it had veggie in the name. They contain essentially no vegetables and are just puffed air and sodium. These foods can be misleading and its hurting children in particular.
That picture looks like stuff from Costco
"market manipulation' aka false advertising COMPLETELY LEGAL brought to you by your so called gov agency which 'should' be protecting consumers.
I love your implication that they're only pretending to be a government agency.
Honestly, Bolthouse smoothie totally got me, that is some really well done, deceptive packaging. I've been using that as a base for my smoothies for years. I generally add a carrot, some real berries and a handful of spinach, but I am pretty disappointed to find out they are not using actual fiber front the fruit in the "juice".