By Lauren Hull
In an age where any question, at any time and on any matter can apparently be answered with a few swipes of a finger (3G notwithstanding), it is distressing to know that much of the information we are surrounded with is actually nonsense. Access to knowledge and the right to express an opinion are two societal cornerstones for which I am most grateful but when these two independently harmless things quietly collide on public forums such as, say, Buzzfeed, the outcome can be sinister and horribly misleading.
I recently read an article on fat loss in which the author, a keen advocate of the low carbohydrate approach, fiercely pioneered in his compendium of essential wisdoms the importance of high protein meals as fundamental to a successful outcome. This is fair enough, as it is consistent with many of the views currently held in both media and academic literature and up to this point his writing represented a passable summary of the same. He then proceeded to document his views on other food groups. Fat, apparently, is a uniformly dangerous substance which has no place in the diet of any individual attempting to lose weight. Skimmed milk, low-fat yoghurt and the elimination of all oils (coconut and fish oils included, apparently) are tenets to be abided by for all successful dieters. He didn’t have much to say about vegetables.
The guy is clearly mental. And quite confused.
What gave rise to my angst was not the aggressively single-minded tone which was the vehicle for his essay, but the insidious delivery of inaccurate and out of date information. The fact that he holds an opinion – and holds it firmly – is of no concern for me, but to present contentious and ill-informed data as fact is just wrong, and should have consequences.
When I thought more about this article, I found myself looking around at the food we eat and suddenly it was alarmingly clear where a big part of the problem starts. This issue is so much bigger than a few misguided blogposts. Where we buy our food, how it is advertised and packaged and the presentation of it in the media – our food landscape, if you will – lends itself to bad decisions, nutritionally speaking. However, in a society delineated by rules, there is no one waiting at the till to hand out cautions to people with too many Snickers in their trolley, and that absence delivers its own message.
Take breakfast, for example. In the cereals aisle, next to the Shreddies, is a product known as Cookie Crisp, marketed to kids via the character Chip the Wolf and his mate Koko the Koala. For every 30g serving, it contains 13g of sugar. Parents can buy this stuff and serve it to their children before shuffling them off to school, each and every morning. It’s completely legal, endorsed even, if you pay attention to the advertising, yet this meal is nutritionally desolate and provides little more than an insulin spike.
Think about it – in a country where obesity is on the rise, how is it possible that we haven’t legislated against sweets at till points, marketing of fast food chains near schools and the sale of energy drinks like Monster to under sixteen year olds? Probably, I would argue, because the manufacturers don’t have your digestive health as chief amongst their list of priorities.
Be smart. Think for yourself – don’t let the packaging tell you what it wants you to hear. Be suspicious of any processed food that comes in a packet. If a Nutrigrain bar, which comprises 32% sugar, can be marketed with a derivation of the word “nutrition” plastered across its box, you know the guys making this stuff really aren’t on your side.
Rant over 😉
Lauren H
