Is a healthy diet more expensive?

Nelliegrace

Doesn’t this sound healthy and delicious?
Could it possibly be a Highly Processed Food with all the unknown risks for long term physical and mental damage? Is there an ingredient not found in the average kitchen?

Whey Protein, Vegetable Oils (Sunflower, Rapeseed), Lactose, Skimmed milk, Long Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids (DHA (Fish Oil), AA (Mortierella Alpina Oil)), 2'-Fucosyllactose (2'FL), Calcium Citrate, Potassium Citrate, Magnesium Chloride, Potassium Hydroxide, Emulsifier (SoyaLecithin), Potassium Chloride, Choline Bitartrate, Acidity Regulator (Citric Acid), L-Phenylalanine, Sodium Phosphate, Sodium Chloride, Vitamin C, Calcium Hydroxide, Taurine, L-Histidine, Inositol, Nucleotides (Cytidine-, Disodium Uridine-, Adenosine-, Disodium Guanosine-5'- Monophosphate), Antioxidants (Tocopherol-Rich Extract, Ascorbyl Palmitate), Ferrous Sulphate, Zinc Sulphate, Vitamin E, L-Carnitine, Niacin, Pantothenic Acid, Copper Sulphate, Thiamin, Vitamin A, Riboflavin, Vitamin B6, Manganese Sulphate, Potassium Iodide, Folic Acid, Sodium Selenate, Vitamin K, Vitamin D, Biotin, Vitamin B12.

This is the stuff most of the babies in the UK are fed from birth. 

It replaced simple full-fat evaporated milk, (with no additives,) which used to have instructions on the tin of how much boiled water and sugar to add per can, two and a half times and one teaspoon, I think. We had blue and white tins of full-fat National Dried Milk.  The baby clinic provided Vitamin drops. The other alternative was human lactation, but it went out of fashion. 

Katiehound

This made me go straight to my cupboard to look at my tins.
 Interestingly not all evaporated milk is the same!!

My tin states: milk, stabiliser (Disodium Phosphate), Vitamin D3: and that's it

"Evaporated milk with added vitamin D. 9% milk fat, 22% milk solids non- fat"
"Dilute one part evaporated milk with 1 1/2 water to obtain equivalent of full cream milk"

This is Tesco own brand evaporated milk- Morrison's has similar contents

willow_loulou

@Exodi it’s the protein I struggle to afford and cook, I don’t like much meat and the extra effort to prepare it is very off putting. 

I should explain chopping and cooking in general is difficult for me as I have reduced sensation in my hands so frequently burn myself. 

I’ve learned the beauty of the slow cooker over recent years which had broadened the options but still the cost can be prohibitive. 

I’ve started eating flax, nuts and semi dried no added sugar pears and prunes as an attempt to be healthy. Now I’m assuming they’re not good either 🙈

Longwalker

Im moving away more to plant and egg, fish, dairy  based protein. When I say plant, I mean as the whole plant, not plant based products

I make my own yoghurt which is something like 18gr of protein per hundred , eggs - excellent source and lentils are making up a big part of my diet, along with kidney beans and chickpeas - all very cheap in the great scheme of things

And fish - comes from tins. Sardines, mackerel and pilchards - not only good source of protein but all the essential fatty acids needed - at least 2 tins a week at around 50p a can

Lean protein as meat is expensive, we cant deny that, but unless you are an athlete you can get enough protein without meat. Im pretty active, do around 6 to 8 miles a day at a fast pace, I skip, Im getting the bike out, Im always on the go. At the moment after a long term injury Im working on getting the weight off - I gained 20lb , lost half now. so am really working on trying to get a balanced diet, enough to feed my body what it needs to do what I ask it, but not enough to turn to fat. The one thing that is really helping in the battle of the bulge is keeping it clean - as close to natural as possible

So I started making changes about 8 weeks ago and have I found it to be more expensive? No. Cos I have cut all precessed carbs, cut out butter, go easy on the cheese, forget about nice things like sliced salami and pate and cut bread near enough completely , the money saved there covers the extra cost of more veg and fruit. Shopping trips are quicker - fruit and veg aisle basically  

it is more time consuming, I dont like veg so Im learning new ways of cooking it, lentils and beans often mean having to get out the pressure cooker, have to remember to set up the yoghurt but Im slowly getting there and things are becoming second nature and the time taken is less. A five bean chilli is packed with protein and is twice as filling as a meat based one, same as a lentil bolognese 

leftatthetrafficlights

pumpkin89 said:

leftatthetrafficlights said:

People not dropping dead instantly is not valid evidence that they are not toxic in small amounts. 

Considering that 25.9% of adults in England are obese and a further 37.9% are overweight but not obese and almost half of the UK population (45.7% of men and 50.1% of women) reported having a long-standing health problem, I think we all need to be very suspicious of what the food industry is peddling

What you are talking about is ingesting small amounts on a frequent basis - i.e. in total not a small amount!

I'm simply saying that there is a difference between ingredients used in the Victorian era which were genuinely toxic (arsenic mints, anyone?) and the ingredients used in modern UPFs which are demonstrably not toxic in small amounts but may well be highly concerning in the excessive amounts currently consumed by many people.

No, I'm talking about the lack of evidence that even a small amount is safe - not a small amount on a frequent basis...for example, processed meats are a class one  carcinogenic - what evidence is there to say that they have never triggered an immediate mutation in someone's cells which have led to cancer after ingesting only once?

I'm not saying it has; my point is that there is no evidence (that I have found) that UPF's are safe at any level - however, please do direct me to the evidence from the double-blind clinical studies which you state demonstrably shows they are definitely not unsafe in small amounts, I'm always willing to learn.

pumpkin89

leftatthetrafficlights said:

I'm not saying it has; my point is that there is no evidence (that I have found) that UPF's are safe at any level - however, please do direct me to the evidence from the double-blind clinical studies which you state demonstrably shows they are definitely not unsafe in small amounts, I'm always willing to learn.

If you stop and think about it, you'll realise that's a ridiculous request.  Can you direct me to a similar double-blind clinical study proving the safety of bananas?  No, didn't think so.

Nelliegrace

I expect the powerful food industry will come up with lots of ways to try to ridicule independent research, and to intimidate anyone presenting the facts. 

I would suggest that history provides the evidence for the safety of bananas. 

Bananas are not that good for the food industry, labour intensive to grow, susceptible to damage from weather and wildlife, expensive to transport, and a short shelf life.

Synthetic banana flavouring might make a profit, in some sort of HPF dessert, a cheap chemical foam with a shelf life of years, chilled to resemble a real mousse of cream and eggs, labelled as low sugar,  low fat, and suitable for vegans.
Advertise it with cartoon character aimed at children, monkeys eating bananas, parents will think of the “5 a day,” slogan, add a vitamin and label it healthy. Sell the same stuff under a weight loss club label, and several own brand labels. A Highly Profitable Fake, a market winner. 

MattMattMattUK

leftatthetrafficlights said:

pumpkin89 said:

leftatthetrafficlights said:

People not dropping dead instantly is not valid evidence that they are not toxic in small amounts. 

Considering that 25.9% of adults in England are obese and a further 37.9% are overweight but not obese and almost half of the UK population (45.7% of men and 50.1% of women) reported having a long-standing health problem, I think we all need to be very suspicious of what the food industry is peddling

What you are talking about is ingesting small amounts on a frequent basis - i.e. in total not a small amount!

I'm simply saying that there is a difference between ingredients used in the Victorian era which were genuinely toxic (arsenic mints, anyone?) and the ingredients used in modern UPFs which are demonstrably not toxic in small amounts but may well be highly concerning in the excessive amounts currently consumed by many people.

No, I'm talking about the lack of evidence that even a small amount is safe - not a small amount on a frequent basis...for example, processed meats are a class one  carcinogenic - what evidence is there to say that they have never triggered an immediate mutation in someone's cells which have led to cancer after ingesting only once?

I'm not saying it has; my point is that there is no evidence (that I have found) that UPF's are safe at any level - however, please do direct me to the evidence from the double-blind clinical studies which you state demonstrably shows they are definitely not unsafe in small amounts, I'm always willing to learn.

One cannot disprove a negative. No research could show that anything in small amounts is definitely not unsafe, just as no amount of research can disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster. The balance of probabilities already shows that in small amounts highly processed foods likely pose no negative impact to health.

leftatthetrafficlights said:
what evidence is there to say that they have never triggered an immediate mutation in someone's cells which have led to cancer after ingesting only once?

Sunlight, a neutron interaction, complete random chance etc. can all cause a mutation that causes cancer. It cannot be proven that they have never triggered an immediate mutation, just as it cannot be proven that carrots or water have never triggered an immediate mutation. Asking someone to provide evidence to such shows a complete lack of understanding of how reliable scientific research is conducted. 

MattMattMattUK

Nelliegrace said:

I expect the powerful food industry will come up with lots of ways to try to ridicule independent research, and to intimidate anyone presenting the facts. 

It depends what you mean by "independent research", do you mean peer reviewed research conducted by people with the correct credentials, or do you mean opinions presented as fact by some quack on Youtube? For what it is worth the "powerful food industry" already accept that many foods are unhealthy and that highly processed foods are bad for people when they form a large part of those people's diets, no one disputes that. 

Nelliegrace said:

I would suggest that history provides the evidence for the safety of bananas. 

It depends what safety you want, there is no body of evidence which shows that bananas have zero negative health effects across an entire population, there is reasonable anecdotal and correlative data that shows that at a population level they do no harm, those are not the same thing though.

Nelliegrace said:

Bananas are not that good for the food industry, labour intensive to grow, susceptible to damage from weather and wildlife, expensive to transport, and a short shelf life.

Bananas as we know them (Cavendish) will likely be functionally extinct in a decade or two, just as the Gros Michel was before them.

Nelliegrace said:

Synthetic banana flavouring might make a profit, in some sort of HPF dessert, a cheap chemical foam with a shelf life of years, chilled to resemble a real mousse of cream and eggs, advertised as low sugar and low fat, cartoon character aimed at children, monkeys eating bananas, parents will think of the “5 a day,” slogan. A Highly Profitable Fake, a market winner. 

Lots of people eat sweets, banana flavouring is based on the Gros Michel rather than the modern Cavendish and has existed for 80 years. Some people will eat healthily, others will not, that is human nature, the market caters to human nature, it offers products that appeal to everyone by offering everything from flavoured sugar in the form of sweets, through to fresh fruit and vegetables. 

Exodi

willow_loulou said:

I’ve started eating flax, nuts and semi dried no added sugar pears and prunes as an attempt to be healthy. Now I’m assuming they’re not good either 🙈

I'd say it depends how far down the rabbit hole you intend to go.

Nuts are high in polyunsaturated fatty acids, which is considered 'good fat' but they are also extremely calorie dense - probably one of the most calorie dense foods outside of lard and oil. I would personally (and many differ) recommend that someone hoping to maintain a calorie deficit should limit their intake of nuts in favor of more satiating foods. Those not seeking to lose weight, nuts are fair game!

Dried fruit is also misleading as it is effectively pure sugar. It's better than sweets, but it's much more nutritious to eat the fruit in it's natural form.

But this is why I said it depends how far you go, because those two things are relatively much healthier than a kebab and a pack of haribo. I feel like healthy eating is a balancing act between nutrition and satisfaction. While chicken, broccoli and rice might be nutritionally efficient, its also pretty miserable (from experience!).