Hunger and how to reduce it without going hungry.

 I watched a couple of hours of television last night and noticed several commercials for foods that contained a certain amount of calories that would stop one from getting hungry. Highlighting a problem and offering your product as a solution is a tried and tested way of selling something, but since when was hunger a problem? You may know that this really bothers me as hunger is an entirely normal condition, not one that has to be fought against. Hunger is not the enemy when it comes to eating and we should respond to it,  yet the signals that tell us we are hungry often get ignored and, for many people, are simply there to be beaten.

When we are hungry, we should eat, but as eating can be so fraught, the signal to eat can be confusing if not alarming for so many people. One of the most effective ways to market any product is to offer it up as a solution to a problem, and food marketing is no exception. It seems obvious that eating food will allay hunger, and so the methods that food manufacturers use to get us to choose their product are complex and varied, but rarely have anything to do with hunger.  

But why? What is wrong with being hungry, and why do so many people fear it? It may seem obvious, but I feel that for many people think that if hunger can be conquered, then eating can be controlled and weight can be lost – isn’t that the Holy Grail when it comes to food sales?  Food becomes a battleground, and the signal to attack is hunger, so no wonder it’s something to be conquered.  One could argue that this is all the wrong way around, as if there were any issues with eating, then responding to the very first sign of hunger would get rid of the feeling which would mean that one needn’t eat. But in practice, people who want to control what they eat, or are on a diet to lose weight, or worried about gaining or regaining weight will often try to muddle through until the next scheduled meal rather then respond to a hunger signal.

If we look at the language of being hungry, the word hunger is most often followed by ‘pangs’, which means ‘ a sharp feeling or spasm of pain or emotional distress’. If this were true, and it is for a large percentage of the population, then we might be able to see why the issue of hunger is a minefield. The signal to refuel is triggered by several things, perhaps the most notable is low blood glucose levels. In the next section I will detailing how to eat so that blood glucose levels can be maintained at an even level, which avoids extreme and true hunger, but we should explore what happens to the average weight-conscious person when they do get that biochemical signal that says ‘feed me’.

That signal to eat may come from a basic physiological need, and whilst our ancestors may have responded appropriately, had there been food available, these days our hunger is clouded by several issues, not least what we do or will weigh if we eat – our emotional life gets in the way and in no small way influences our decision.

One of the problems with hunger is choice; we have so much choice that we don’t know what or how to eat, and hunger is the gateway to all that potential confusion. If you aren’t hungry, then the struggle is minimised, that’s obvious. One of the reasons that strict diets are successful is that they remove choice, and so when you get hungry, you have to eat X or Y, a prescribed food, one that feels ‘safe’. There is no choice, no confusion and no argument. The internal dichotomy ( ‘should I, shouldn’t I?’) simply doesn’t happen and this whole area of conflict is removed. After the diet, or even if you have never been on one, then of course there are unlimited choices, and given how much commercial interests influence what foods we think of, we may eat in a way that doesn’t really serve us that well.

 Low calorie food may quash hunger for a short while, but as the glucose the contain lasts for a short while and so the hunger returns and the cycle begins again.  Following The Food Doctor way of eating means that hunger is gentle and easily managed, and so the food choices one makes lead to longer lasting energy alongside slow and sustainable weight loss.

To find out more see How Not To Get Fat ( Quadrille Publishing, £9.99 ) or order via http://www.thefooddoctor.com

Health claims, the EFSA and Sunday Times.

I rarely read the mainstream Sunday papers as I find that they are a little too rich in fluff for my liking. However I did flick through the Sunday Times yesterday and came across a story that suggested that health claims made about food were being rejected by the European Food Standards Agency ( EFSA). The piece was written using the sort of language that one might associate with a tabloid rather than a broadsheet – words like ‘bamboozled’, ‘exposed’ and ‘purport’ were used which implies that the manufacturers are trying to pull a fast one on a trusting and innocent consumer and the EFSA are protecting us like See the article here – http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6719095.ece.

Health claims of all descriptions are tightly governed and monitored. Shane Starling of nutraingredients.com has written an excellent piece on their website – I can’t improve on what he has to say so read it here – http://www.nutraingredients.com/Publications/Food-Beverage-Nutrition/NutraIngredients-USA.com/Regulation/Mainstream-press-exposed-for-health-claim-sensationalism/?c=7xZQSb2wZiMEJYOmPx5lzw%3D%3D&utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily

As a consumer and food manufacturer I am entirely confident that the FSA in this country and EFSA reject claims that are spurious, but rightly accept claims that aren’t and so I trust them to get it right, without the sensational headlines that Sunday newspapers thrive on.

Slumdog Millionaire, Change4Life and Revels.

I think there must be something wrong with me.  Now I think about it I am sure there are plenty of things that are wrong with me, and I am very lucky to have people all around who are only to happy to tell me how wrong I am.

Despite all my obvious faults, it’s a movie that is the source of my failings this time. Over the weekend, I went to see Slumdog Millionaire having bought the requisite bag of Revels, some green tea and a bottle of water.Despite winning Golden Globes, I felt that the movie was ordinary, and even using every cinematic trick there was, it managed to remain flat and uninteresting whilst the love interest was unconvincing and dull. Not even the orange Revels could distract me from noticing that the hero was mostly unmoved by winning a life-changing amount of money.

The message of the movie wasn’t lost on me ( love is more important than money, that the world of popular culture is often corrupt and that holding on to one’s dignity is more important than personal gain ) but I don’t think that the messages were delivered with the subtlety that would have suited. Instead, the movie bashed you on the head with its moral take on the story and bullied you into feeling things.

When the director seems to think that the audience are not bright enough for gentle and clever messages about life, but instead need them pointed out with neon signs, then the movie loses some integrity. You aren’t stupid, you don’t need these things spelt out for you just in case you miss them. Do you?

I was struck by the same approach in the new Change4lfe advertisements that are running on television and in newspapers. Why do we need to have health messages delivered in the form of animation? Is it because the message about healthy eating isn’t getting through to those that need it the most?  Take a look at the website, http://www.nhs.uk/change4life and you will see that the message is excellent, and there is nothing controversial or ground-breaking about what is needed, but like Slumdog, I am questioning the delivery.

If you do a web search, Change4life, you will see that in the ten days since its inception, the campaign has attracted some harsh comments from members of the community who feel that their needs have been overlooked. In addition, the British Heart Foundation have called for food manufacturers to change the way they advertise food ( In fact the BHF said “It’s time for the government to show that it truly has the stomach to lead the fight against obesity” displaying the same level of subtlety as Slumdog ).

The Change4Life campaign is laudable, and the Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo says that “We are trying to create a lifestyle revolution on a huge scale – something which no Government has attempted before”. Multinational brands are working within the campaign including Cadbury, Kellogg’s, Kraft and PepsiCo are all taking part alongside major supermarkets Asda, Tesco and The Co-operative Group and people will be able to call a dedicated helpline and speak to specially-trained advisors for advice on exercise, nutrition and support services. Pretty good stuff then – well supported and excellent partners, who could ask for more?

Despite my predilection for Revels, I am happy to support the Change4Life campaign, but do wish that the delivery message had been a little more subltle.

 

 

 

 

Misleading advertising – Maltesers et al.

Maltesers and Jaffa Cakes are not that low in fat it seems, despite the advertising for the former on TV. I have seen the ad and I am sure it says that its ‘less than’ 11 calories per Malteser.

 

The Advertising Standards Authority, the ASA, have ruled that the ‘less than’ part was misleading as it implied that the sweets were ‘low energy’.

 

Jaffa cakes television adverts said that they contained only one gram of fat but claims like this can only be made if the solid food contains 3g of fat  ( or less ) per 100g. Jaffa cakes contain 8g of fat per 100g

 

Unusually. Innocent’s water brand, This Water, was rapped too as the ASA said that their branding implied that the product contained only fruit and water, but in fact there was sugar present too. And how – some 32g per standard bottle. The poster advertising will be changed accordingly I expect. I say ‘unusually’ as the Innocent brand is spotless and very much admired.

 

Interesting isn’t it? The foods that we know aren’t especially healthy ( such as chocolate sweets and biscuits ) are making attempts to claim that they are healthier than we might expect. Its fair that they do so but only if they indeed are, but on this occasion, the ASA felt otherwise.

 

I am glad that the ASA has teeth. Now, all they have to do is deal with POM, the pomegranate juice, who are claiming that by drinking their product, we could ‘cheat death’. Are they serious?