Have you seen this in the national newspapers? :mad:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7428121.html
Printable View
Have you seen this in the national newspapers? :mad:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-a7428121.html
I couldn't quite believe what I was reading. Education is what is needed, I think this is an insult to 'poorer' families. Am I right in thinking that it is the group in society that have the greatest disease rates?
This has to be a wind up! ;)
I saw that! Basic fruit and veg, like apples and carrots, cabbage, bananas, peas, oranges, onions, potatoes etc are cheap to buy and are very filling.
I agree with John B, education is needed, people don't know how to prepare vegetables to maximise food intake.
I thought it was a wind up too, or the tabloids doing their thing!
If this is true, I think it is very sad. We live in a world of processed, plastic food that offers no nutrients. Education is key, carrot and swede mash, with potatoes and peas that's four veg and cheap.
This is laughable. Who are these poorer families? I can understand if the article commented about a product people don't have to buy.
But people have to eat, so why are they not choosing to spend their money on fruits and vegetables rather than processed food? I also have to question what do poorer families eat? Crisps, pop, cakes, biscuits? I know this sounds stereotypical and I'd like to think that this isn't the case, but I don't see how it is not possible to fit in 5 portions of fruit and veg a day.
Kelly James,
That's a sweeping statement!
You presume that poor people eat crisps, cake and general junk!
Vegetables can be expensive and fruit is not a cheap option, when you have a tight budget and a family to feed you have to cut your cloth accordingly. The article doesn't say people don't eat fruit and veg, it says people can't reach the target of five a day.
I realise that was a sweeping statement, but could it not be argued that suggesting poorer families can afford five fruit and veg a day is also a sweeping statement?
Like most people we choose to purchase some itwms at the expense of others. I don't see why that concept should be any different for poorer families.
Just because poorer families can't afford 5-a-day, is there any reason why the message still shouldn't be given?
How can they say the 5-a-day is an unrealistic target? And that it demoralises people.
The target is presumably there based on scientific recommendations for health, to change the target because it may be demoralising laughs in the face of the research! It's a joke!
As for demoralising, there are many things in life that we can't obtain for one reason or another, is it fair to get rid of them?
This country has become a nanny state, making people stupid.
I'd be interested to know what is classed as 'poorer families', I don't earn a great income and have a growing family. I choose my food shopping wisely, and ensure that good nutrition is my priority.
The article suggests that vegetables are three times more expensive than processed foods, but these foods fill people up for longer, which means an overall reduction in food.
If I gave my children a pizza for tea, they would be hungry 2 - 3 hours later. But if I gave them mash, peas, carrots and sausages they would stay fuller for longer.
The problem with processed food is that it is not satisfying, leading kids to pester for more food or pick on junk.
I agree with you whole heartedly Sophie, five-a-day was a recommendation based on the health benefits. All families should aim to strive for these recommendations. Like most of us, some days you can equal it, beat it or not not achieve it.
I think there are a very, very small number of people/families who couldn't generally afford to eat five portions of fruit and veg a day.
Most people, if they giggled their shopping priorities around could afford it.
Don't poor families claim money off the state to bring their earnings in line with take home pay of minimum wage?
Dale42,
There is money available off the state, but that doesn't mean people have available money. Most people live to their means, so excess money is not normally an option. Also, I don't believe the minimum way is that great!
Did you see this one? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38092146
Now there is a suggestion that the low socioeconomic group are at a higher risk of a low immune system, putting them at greater risk of chronic health conditions.
The BBC fails to make the connection between the lack of nutrition (fruits and vegetables) in their diets and immune system function.
Maybe the G.P's should get back on their soap box after all!
This was based on monkeys wasn't it? :dohQuote:
Originally Posted by J-jay
To be fair, when we switched to a healthier way of living our food bill went up quite considerably.
At first we went mad with all the exotic fruits and vegs trying to maximise our nutrient intake, but very quickly we realised we couldn't afford to maintain that level, so cut our cloth accordingly. we now stick to more 'basic' fruit and veg with the occasional treat of more exotic fruits.