Cheapest Way to Five a Day.

Penelope_Penguin

katholicos wrote: »

I understand. However, could you not feasably 'juice' all your fruits and veggies and drink them down?

If yu do that in a juicer, you're removing a lot of the bulky fibre, which is why you can only count 1 portion of juice or 2 of smoothie.

Obviously, it'll be fine if you use a blender and drink the whole of the fruit or veg.

tru

Juice counts as one, no matter how much you drink - if it's just the juice (either fresh or from a carton). BUT if you have a juicer that uses the whole fruit/veg (pips and peel) then each glass counts as one.

I wouldn't personally count veg in a shop-bought ready meal as a portion - it's been blasted to death before you even reheat it at home.

weezl74

juicing all your veg/fruit was ruled out by the 5 a day campaign because the body needs the plant matter as a solid to create a good stool and prevent diverticular disease.

Cheapest way currently to eat '5 a day' from a uk supermarket is just over 11 pence per person per day, or 19 pence if you eat all your colours

Penny:A, been meaning to ask you for a while, can you help me with a linkie that says more about the govt wanting it to be a larger number of portions, the only stuff I can find is about why we didn't go down the route of the American 7-9 (which is the same as our 5). Loads of people say it about the uk decision though, so I'm sure it's right, I just can't find it!

Almo

tru wrote: »

Someone on another thread was saying they'd found some dinner plates that belonged to their gran, they're much smaller than the ones we buy today. Maybe if we all bought smaller, we could still fill our plates but be healthier

Where are we going wrong???? We have dishwashers, washing machines, microwaves, cars. All designed to save time, but we seem to have less spare time than ever for actually looking after ourselves :undecided

I don't know . I suppose maybe it's connected to working longer hours to have all the stuff? There is an interesting quote in Bill Bryson's Made in America about what the average (American) household had in the 50s, I'll see if I can find it. So, working longer hours, perhaps commuting further and for longer, more activities outside the home, perhaps an unwillingness to do as much in favour of time spent with the TV/internet?

That last one is applicable to me , if I've had a long, crappy day at work, I often resent having to come home and cook or clean. I do, but I hate it. I am off sick at the moment and have been amazed at how much time I can waste on the internet! I think this one is a biggie for lots of people - they think TV/internet is quality, relaxing time but it just doesn't give you the same winding down effect.

kunekune

I find that breakfast time sets the tone for me. If I can get in 3 portions at breakfast, then I'll definitely hit the total for the day, and more. I don't like raw fruit very much, much prefer veg. So breakfast might be:

beans on toast, fruit juice, yoghurt with some extra fruit added (either from a tin or a jar)
omelette with mushrooms & tomatoes, fruit juice
avocado & tomato on toast, fruit juice

tru

I don't eat any fruit at breakfast time, I love a big bowl of cornflakes

So, it seems that - in theory - we're all working to pay for stuff that makes life easier and leaves us with more time. Except there's no time cos we're all at work :think:

I was laughed at (on the OS forum, of all places) for doing things like handwashing and sweeping the carpet. But doing things like this means I don't have to go to work, could start a small home biz, brings down our bills and gives me time for growing the fruit and veg and making yummier, healthier and fresher food from them.

I can't work full-time, if I did I'd have to give up most of the animals, give up my biz and the bills would go through the roof because I'd have a dishwasher, all the washing would be done in the machine, the hoover would be used every day, etc. I'm much healthier too, the extra work is good exercise and I've recently dropped a dress size without even trying

maltesers_2

According to the Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7095530.ece

5 a day was an american (Californian) marketing policy. It was an arbitrary figure and has no grounding in scientific evidence.

A recent study shows that eating fruit and veg has very little impact on cancer prevention.

'High intake of vegetables, and fruits and vegetables combined, was associated with a small reduction in overall cancer risk. The association was stronger in heavy alcohol drinkers but was restricted to cancers caused by smoking and drinking.' There was no appreciable reduction in cancers seen from eating fruit. They conclude: 'A very small inverse association between intake of total fruits and vegetables and cancer risk was observed in this study. Given the small magnitude of the observed associations, caution should be applied in their interpretation.' and under 'Limitations' they say 'The inverse association between overall cancer risk and high intake of fruits and vegetables was weak. Errors inherent to self-reported dietary habits may have resulted in bias.'

The study seems to say fruit isn't particularly helpful - probably because it contains loads of sugar and cancer thrives on sugar.

"
However, studies of over half a million people published in the last five years have found no benefit whatsoever with five portions in respect of cancer, and no significant benefit in heart disease with more than two portions a week.

When asked by the Daily Mail about this conflict with the five-a-day guidelines, Professor Sir Charles George, medical director of the British Heart Foundation, answered: ‘There is some argument about how much you need; I think five may be an arbitrary figure’. And, so, admitted that this seemingly vital piece of dietary advice was based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

And it gets worse. Over this last year, fructose – the sugar found in the fruit we are told to eat so much of – has been shown to be a possible cause of the current epidemics of heart and kidney diseases, high blood pressure in young adults, diabetes, obesity and cancer. Not that the last was particularly new: Professor John Beard at Edinburgh University had shown that fructose might be responsible for cancers as long ago as 1911.

Supporters of the ‘5-a-day’ campaign are always outraged by such findings, repeating their mantra that eating the recommended number of fruit and vegetables has numerous health benefits – without specifying what those benefits might be."
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/why-i-wrote-trick-and-treat.html

I don't think we need to get paranoid about not getting enough fruit and veg. If we all spent more time being concerned with eating natural food, preferably locally grown and seasonal we would be much healthier than relying on getting any of the so-called 5 a day from anything processed.

weezl74

Thank you maltesers, that's very interesting and useful

And hello:hello: haven't seen you around for a bit

Ladyhawk

tru wrote: »

I don't eat any fruit at breakfast time, I love a big bowl of cornflakes

Why don't you try a chopped banana or strawberries (when they come into season next month) or a handful of chopped acricots on top of your flakes?

anguk

Thanks Maltesers, that article certainly makes for interesting reading, I've often wondered about the importance of eating "5 a day" and I've struggled to find scientific proof to back the claims up.

My OH got into trouble with his diabetic consultant for eating so much fruit because it played havoc with his blood sugar levels and something that's also often forgotten is the calories in fruit. People trying to lose weight often eat large amounts of fruit because they think it's good for them, my OH did this (he would live on fruit if he could) until his dietitian added up the calories and it came to about half his daily calorie allowance!

Personally I feel that veg & roughage is better for us than fruit and I think the higher cancer rates have more to do with the processed crap people eat rather than a lack of "5 a day".