30 Surprising Food Comparisons From A Nutrition Coach That Destroy Dieting Myths – Do You Agree With Him?

It is possible to consume balanced, nutritious food on a budget, but in 2018 it’s becoming ever more difficult when it comes to doing the same with convenience food. This is compounded by the fact that we rely on convenience more than ever - commuting, travel, time constraints etc... Why is there such a price difference? Do supermarkets want us to be unhealthy? Do they want us to get fat? No. It’s down to the increased cost of quality, fresh produce in comparison to cheap, processed, mass made, lower quality produce. Another factor worth considering is consumer demand - our desire to be healthy and eat quality ingredients. Think of it like a fashion accessory... The big question is - how could this cost of healthier ingredients decrease? At which point in the process could a cut be made, if any? Is it a case of saturating shelves with healthier convenience foods and limiting so called poorer quality foods? Would that create the competition which would reduce prices? I doubt it’s viable. After all, people still want/need to make money. That said, Britain is heading towards a staggering 30% obesity rate any day soon...I know one cheap, easy way to get around this. Buy quality ingredients at a good price and sacrifice a couple of hours each week to prepare your ‘on the go’ meals. That way you save money and remain in control.Have I cherry picked the cheapest poor quality foods and most expensive high quality foods? I don’t think so. Selections on both sides account for numerous examples of below and high quality food on the go, where it’s clearly getting more expensive to eat well conveniently... Too expensive for some, which is a great shame. A MacDonald’s cheeseburger is £0.99, whilst the average high quality salad with various meat/fish comes to £6.

Here we are again. Talking about obesity. And why it continues to rise in the UK (and the rest of the world). But more specifically in this case, how f*cked up we have become in our proposed solution to it. Irrational cherry picking and outright lies are vomited into our mainstream media every day. The latest installment of the former was last week on BBC 1. Apparently carbs are bad again 😒..In the 1990s, fat was the culprit. Out of all the food groups wrongly demonized, I guess fat makes the most sense as it contains 9 calories per gram and is thus the most calorie dense macronutrient. However, this was/is still an incredibly naive idea. In the early 2000s, carbs were the apparent cause of weight gain. You know... those carbs in the from of cakes, biscuits and pastries.... Yeah, the ones which actually contain more calories from fat😑. What about berries? Obviously lower in calories, but they are carbs too... This one is a joke as it can’t even correctly differentiate the foods it wants to demonize. In the last few years the blame has shifted to sugar - particularly refined sugar. It is not particularly satiating and is easy to over consume - but consumption is still decided by you. Naturally, it is included in sweet, calorie dense foods - so it’s easy to blame I guess

Here we are again. Putting to bed false perceptions on fat loss. The idea that food type defines whether fat loss occurs or not... Describing misplaced concepts about quality ingredients as a means to manage or change body composition..
Consumption of nutrients and quality ingredients is vital for optimal health and there is no doubt that the two juices on the left contain an abundance of nutrients. But they also contain calories and sugar - 1100 of total calories deriving from sugar to be exact. 1350 calories and 275g of sugar in total. I did plan to do this graphic with the zero sugar versions of the soft drinks on the right, but this actually displays my point better. Whilst the drinks on the right are bereft of any nutritional value, seven of the cans combine to 411 calories and 99g of sugar. That’s less than 1/3 of the calories of the ‘superfood’, ‘invigorating’ drinks on the left. In addition, nearly 1/3 of their sugar content.
-
-

If the goal is to alter body composition, every decision you make is important - everything you do means something. This doesn’t mean that you need to worry or be confused as to what you need to do or consume to achieve your goal. It means you need to be objective. You need to understand the basic fundamentals of energy balance and apply that theory to your goal. Consuming 1350 calories from the juices on the left may fit your goal. However, I suspect that consuming such a proportion of calories from a drink each week will not necessarily support your goal as well as consuming water and actual fruit, complete with fibre to help with satiety. Health and fitness is all encompassing. Many parts of it overlap. But don’t get confused with nutrient intake and calorie intake - whilst they are both important, they represent very different things. Ideally you want to be smart and get the best of both facets.

Given that their product is named ‘vitamin water’, one would assume that the main benefit of drinking it would be; hydration and consumption of vitamins. We know that hydration and vitamins are two things beneficial to us, so you can foresee the attraction towards such a drink. It’s a drink that should improve our health. In fact, one would be forgiven in assuming that this beverage is a better choice of hydration than water or a fizzy soft drink, due to its inclusion of vitamins. It’s mention of kiwi and strawberry flavour also sounds like it will taste nice. Furthermore, the seemingly normalized confusion between nutrient consumption and calorie consumption regarding fat loss, may lead one to believe that consumption of this drink will be advantageous for a fat loss goal.Here’s what vitamin water really is; a flavoured water enhanced by cane sugar and ‘naturally occurring’ flavourings (whatever that truly means). Per bottle, it contains 32g of sugar, 120 calories and added vitamins. This is where we are in 2018. Despite there being an array of vitamins and fibre from real food, we only take note when it is presented in a shiny, well marketed product. The simplicities of this comparison are as beautiful as they are alarming. Compare the vitamin water to any amount of water and the addition of actual kiwi & strawberries. Less than half the sugar, around half the calories, more fibre, sufficient vitamins, real versions of the flavours you enjoy and you actually get to EAT a reasonable volume of food.

You’re in the supermarket. You walk precariously down the crisp aisle (or chips aisle if you’re American). “Nope, not this time! I need to lose weight so I’m going to be good... I’m going to source a healthy snack instead”. 16 minutes later (because that’s how long it takes to find the ‘health foods’ aisle), you are faced with an assortment of products. And there they are. Kale chips. In your determined mind you join ‘kale’ and ‘chips’ together to conclude that this is THE perfect alternative... You’ve heard kale cures obesity on instagram, whilst the inclusion of the word ‘chips’ has you salivating at the prospect of actual chips...You’re at the checkout. £2.49. “Wow... these better be good.” You open the packet. The packet is EMPTY. “No, wait... there’s a few at the bottom... making up approximately 1/10 of the size of the packet. You’re already knarked off. You taste them. Now you are overwhelmed with anguish, despair and eternal doom. And this is despite being unaware that you just consumed more calories than you would have if you chose what you actually wanted to eat in the first place. Micro-nutritionally, these kale chips are far superior to most potato chips. They contain the nutrients from kale and cashew nuts. But here’s the thing. The ‘healthy’ choice you made for fat loss becomes redundant if that choice exceeds the calories of the original choice. Yes, you’ve just consumed some micronutrients and monounsaturated fats (both good for long term health), but you also consumed more calories (at an extortionate price). If your diet is already balanced and effective, you should be consuming the bulk of these nutrients with main meals anyway. A good overall diet is a flexible diet. Rich in variety, nutrient intake and consumption of less optimal foods you enjoy in moderation. Eat your potato chips - but understand what that means.

Nutritionally speaking, snacking on fruit is better than snacking on processed foods of less nutritional value for a multitude of reasons. Nutrients. Hydration. Fibre. Vitamins... to name a few reasons. However, the term ‘fruit’ should not be confused with ‘dried fruit’ or further modified fruit such as these banana chips. This is because the calorie and sugar properties can be very different from the fresh versions. Why are the banana chips SO much higher in calories? Well, it’s a very simple answer. Fresh banana gets 70% of its weight from water. Whereas dried bananas lose around 95% of water content, making them a far more concentrated calorie source. Essentially, per 100g, you’re eating the calorie worth of what would be a LOT more fresh bananas. The same applies to all dried fruit. Banana chips are also different from dried banana. These chips are dehydrated, but also coated in oil and contain additional sugar, making their calorie/sugar content even higher still. Snacking on fruit is great. But you still have to be smart about it. If weight loss or reducing sugar intake is your goal you are better placed to consume fresh fruits, rather than dried or modified.. So called healthy foods still need the same level of awareness. They contain calories and sugar, just like any less nutritious food does. It’s this type of blind consumption without awareness that could stall fat loss progress or lead to insulin related health problems. Simply defining all forms of fruit as a good option is slightly short sighted. As you can see, gram for gram the differences can be astronomical. “But I snack on fruit”... yes but you also snack on calories and sugar. Therefore is might be a better idea to get clues up on the nutritional values of the food you consume. The likelihood is that you’ll source fresh fruit, lower in calories (and sugar if that’s a concern)

Wine is not bad. It can be enjoyed as part of a fulfilling, healthy diet. In fact, a glass of wine each day can possibly fit the same statement.But here’s the thing. For fat loss, I always advise a gradual and sustainable calorie deficit - usually 10-15% from maintenance. For example if 2500 daily calories maintains your current weight, shaving off 10% leaves you with 2500-250=2250 calories per day to hit that 10% deficit. If we put daily consumption of a glass of wine into this scenario of daily, weekly and monthly calorie intake geared towards fat loss, this one glass could actually negate a big chunk of your calorie deficit. The question is; Do you really need it? Furthermore; Do you even track it?

When eating out (and eating in general) there is a plethora of misconceptions regarding what’s ‘good and bad’. This results in the inevitable unnecessary elimination of the food you want, for something you’ll tolerate because you hear it’s ‘healthy’ aka ‘supports’ your goals. The problem is that most of the time, you simply don’t know what you’re consuming. For example; unless you enjoy it more, choosing brown bread over white is as pointless as choosing sweet potato fries instead of regular fries (unless you prefer SP fries). More fibre you say? How about you take care of your fibre intake with your overall nutritional intake instead. After all, you go out to catch up with friends, have fun. You don’t go out to stress profusely about decimal points of fibre intake (hopefully). Consumption of one mildly excessive, non controlled meal out of 20-25 meals each week will not impact progress unless you eat out several times per week - then the lack of knowledge as to what you are consuming may become an issue. It’s surely a better idea to, when out, order what you want when out and enjoy it. Then focus on your goal with controlled, measured intake of calories and nutrients the rest of the week (about 95% of your intake). It’s called balance.

Special K. The ‘healthy’ cereal that ‘makes you slim’. There was a time a while ago where Kellogg’s created the special K diet for those looking to lose weight. ‘Drop a jeans size in 2 weeks’ I believe it was called...The concept was that you would eat special K suggested cereal servings/special K protein bar for breakfast and lunch, followed by a ‘normal’ meal for dinner (so this could literally entail ANYTHING... aka HEAPS of calories). I talk in the past tense as this is surely no longer a thing... I hope. The thing is. Whilst consuming vermin sized portions of Special K will naturally create a calorie deficit, so does eating any food, as long as you consume less energy than you expend. Maybe Kelloggs should create the same diet with their coco pops? Because exactly the same results would be achieved (nutritionally they are basically equal). But it’s the power of marketing, words and human vulnerability which run true here. This results in many perceiving the product on the left as ‘good’ for losing weight, whilst most people believe the product on the right will be inherently ‘bad’ for weight loss. But the reality is that neither are good or bad for weight loss.Weight loss can only occur if you are in a calorie deficit, regardless of food type. This example is indicative of MANY foods/products which market themselves as a food which makes you lose weight. It’s not the type of food that does the job, instead it’s the quantity of food.