Breakfast Cereals in the News Again

I watched with dismay a report on BBC Breakfast about the 'worrying' sugar levels in many of our breakfast cereals.

The news item was reporting on a new study by Which? magazine, which investigated the 'alarming' levels of sugar and salt in 100 cereals found on the shelves of British supermarkets (You can read more about the report here).

In a nutshell only 8% of the cereals qualified for a Food Standards Agency "green light" for low levels of sugar, but 31 out the 100 cereals examined containing more than four teaspoons of sugar per recommended serving.

So that means 69% were probably okay, if not spectacularly low in sugar. Not really newsworthy that is it?

The proportion of cereals high in salt was just 8%, down from 20% in a similar survey in 2006. So 92% weren't high in salt.

It depends how you present this stuff, doesn't it?

The presenters on BBC News grilled the particularly ineffective 'expert' from some cereal manufacturers association, or some body like that.

Comments like 'there's as much sugar in a helping of this cereal that you would find in a bowl of ice cream'.

So what?!

How much fat is there in a bowl of cereal compared to a bowl of ice cream? How much protein is there in a bowl of cereal compared to a bowl of ice cream?

Only when you compare all of the macronutrients in a product can you make a real judgement on something.

The problem I have with the way this news item was reported is:

firstly, that they did not specify what cereals are based upon. They are a grain product. Grains are little storage pods of starch ... which is a carbohydrate (or a sugar) and so a product based on carbohydrate is bound to be high in ... carbohydrate! and

secondly, our society is in danger of demonizing food of almost any kind. The calorie really is getting hammered these days.

So go to work on a bowl of cereal if you dare was the overall impression the breakfast team managed to create. Well done folks! You have just succeeded in sending half the UK population out to work on a bowl of guilt in the morning.

In reality for those with a weight issue (and lets face it that is around two thirds of us in the Western hemisphere these days), starting the day with no breakfast is not a smart move.

Many wannabe slimmers deliberately starve themselves by skipping meals in a mistaken attempt to lose weight or to try to keep it off.

However, if they really want to be slim, then perhaps they would be better following the example of successful slimmers.

Research into a register of successful maintainers, who have lost a minimum of 30lbs (or 13.6Kg if you prefer) and kept it off for at least a year, has shown that 78% eat breakfast everyday, typically of cereal and fruit. Hmmm?!

So if we are worried about the obesity epidemic and want to improve what and how people eat (including our kids), then perhaps we should look at what the successful few who manage to keep winning the war with their weight actually do and not just label cereals as high in this or that to grab the promo headlines for our new report.

Incidentally, if you want to read more about how successful maintainers keep the weight off, then you can find more info at Slimmer Secrets here.

That's all for now,

Take care and enjoy your food,

Dr Ian Bracken ridge

What Type of Cook are You?

There has been a lot of online chatter about an article penned by Tara Parker-Pope which appeared recently in the NY Times. The article focussed upon what type of cook we all are and the health implications of the outcome of the answer to that question.

According to the article, apparently in this time of economic hardship staying in is the new going out. So more and more people are putting that time at home to good advantage by preparing more meals from scratch in an effort to make ends meet.

But is your cooking better for you than what you would have chosen previously?

Well research conducted by Cornell University might help to give us a clue.

A team of investigators questioned the cooking habits of 770 family cooks and found that five distinct types of cook emerged.

“Giving” cooks (22 percent) are eager cooks and excel at preparing homemade treats and comfort food.

“Methodical” cooks (18 percent) follow the recipes for better or worse and so their cooking is clearly shaped by the cookery book they employ.

“Competitive” cooks (13 percent) want to create the best dish ever and don’t care about the consequences on health.

“Healthy” cooks (20 percent) focus less on taste and regularly use fresh ingredients and serve fish.

“Innovative” cooks (19 percent) tend to produce healthier meals by trying out innovative ingredients, cookery techniques and cuisines.

So what does the type of cook you are have to do with your weight?

Well, according to the survey, “giving cooks” tend to be the least healthy cooks, whilst “innovative” cooks tend to be the best in terms of the balance between taste and freshness.

Does this help us out in our slimming ventures?

Well there is a survey at the NY Times which can help you to determine which type of cook you are.

But much as I enjoyed reading the article and the underlying research I can’t help thinking that they miss a couple of points which are essential for successful slimming.

Point 1: This research is largely based upon the impact the “nutritional gatekeeper” has on the household in terms of their food choices, both in the home and out and about in the world.

These gatekeepers apparently influence about 72% of our food choices. I do not believe we need 28% of freedom of choice to get fat. I think a fraction of that freedom is all that is needed for many to put on weight.

Point 2: This is a static review of how people are at this moment in time. It’s a snapshot and not a video, if you like.

When I got fat, for want of a better way to put it, I was largely a “giving” eater, and not a “giving” cook. In fact I rarely cooked – I just made lousy choices: something to slam in the oven while I got ready to go out and drink too much. My food choices were largely poor. The repeated excessive drinking choice was clearly poor. My lifestyle was lousy. It didn’t matter what I did or did not cook.

Point 3: There is no indication in this research about whether they believe leopards can change their spots.

For my own part I had to – at least in my own mind.

As I have already stated I was a comfort eater and drinker which loosely translated into this research, as a single householder, makes me a “giving” cook.

But this is definately not how I cook now. And not how I lost weight. I became ... slowly admittedly ... a “healthy” cook ... much of the time. Which leads me onto the fourth point ...

Point 4: I believe most people are not just one category of cook all of the time.

I am a mix of these.

Nowadays, much of the time I am a “healthy” cook. I eat loads and loads of fruit and veggies ... between 5 and 10 portions per day. But when I started losing weight I was no where near this range – it took me years to get to this point and there were lots of other strategies I had to put in place along the way to allow me to make that long term transition.

However, I am only a “healthy” cook most of the time – the rest of the time I am largely a “giving” type, but not a giving type of cook, rather I am a “giving” eater. Finding the balance between the two allows me to still enjoy some of my old habits occasionally. It allows me to enjoy eating out with friends. I eat and drink to my heart’s content and I believe that is vitally important to the success of any long term venture ... to still be able to eat and drink in a way I enjoy.

Point 5: Following on from point 4 above, why can’t a “giving” cook create a “healthy” starter or dessert to go with a comfort main course, or for that matter, why can’t a “giving” main even be cooked with “healthy” options as accompaniments.

Point 6: I do not like categorizing people in this way. I think to stick people in boxes because of how they live their lives at this moment in time doesn’t define a persons capabilities – it does the opposite – it limits them to the category they have been dumped into ... just like being overweight or obese, or tall or short.

To be fair to the original article and the NY Times piece, the focus of the article is on healthy cooking, not necessarily on weight, but with ever expanding waistlines due to our Western lifestyle eating habits, the link is an obvious one.

Hope you find this interesting. If so please feel free to comment either here or drop me a line at my healthy weight loss site.

Until next time ... take care,

Dr Ian Bracken ridge