Top 10 Foods That Can't Be Called HEALTHY ANYMORE!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Admiral Benbow said:
Why do every time I watch this guy and Dr. Berg, do I feel I'm not doing enough?
Click to expand...

You are human and the people producing these videos (not watched this one) are very clever at pushing your buttons to get you to watch them and any others they have made. They manipulate you to watch them because your watching them earns them money from Youtube. Its as simple as that.

Don't watch them. Rely on your judgement about whether you are doing enough. In their eyes you never will be. They know full well that they will never get enough revenue earning clicks by giving balanced information and telling people they are probably doing OK. So they don't.
 
Not a Dr Berg fan but really what Dr Ekberg is saying is remove most/all multi ingredient processed foods from your diet and you won't go far wrong..
He makes long videos but at heart has a simple message...
Eat real food not factory produced rubbish.
 
Callista said:
Isn't there a saying - don't eat any processed food with more than three ingredients. Which just about rules them all out!!!!
Click to expand...
Probably a good idea.
My diet is based around single ingredient food, freshly prepared and cooked, mainly meat.
After 7 years in remission it seems to work quite well for me.
 
Docb said:
You are human and the people producing these videos (not watched this one) are very clever at pushing your buttons to get you to watch them and any others they have made. They manipulate you to watch them because your watching them earns them money from Youtube. Its as simple as that.

Don't watch them. Rely on your judgement about whether you are doing enough. In their eyes you never will be. They know full well that they will never get enough revenue earning clicks by giving balanced information and telling people they are probably doing OK. So they don't.
Click to expand...

Also they like to make you feel inadequate so that your more willing to accept their methods, tbh wouldn't give them time of day.

Callista said:
Isn't there a saying - don't eat any processed food with more than three ingredients. Which just about rules them all out!!!!
Click to expand...

So many foods are processed, anything from salt n pepper to oxon cubes bacon sausage hams cheese bread tea coffee, list is endless.
 
Callista said:
Isn't there a saying - don't eat any processed food with more than three ingredients. Which just about rules them all out!!!!
Click to expand...

Would have ruled out the (very tasty) veggie shepherd’s pie we had tonight…

Mashed potatoes with plant-based ‘butter’ and cheese on top plus salt and pepper (so there’s 5 ingredients right there!)

Not to mention
Mushrooms
2 cloves of garlic
3 small onions
2 sticks of celery
2 green peppers
A courgette
A carrot
A splash of red wine
Fresh tomatoes
Tomato puree
A can of haricot beans
A teaspoon of Bouillon Stock
A teaspoon of paprika
A tablespoon of soy sauce
Salt and pepper

It was bloomin lovely! And half of the sauce is left for converting into a chilli on Sunday

😛😛😛
 
Callista said:
Isn't there a saying - don't eat any processed food with more than three ingredients. Which just about rules them all out!!!!
Click to expand...

My end of week leftovers chilli would be a burn then.
Every leftover goes in it.
 
Docb said:
Don't watch them. Rely on your judgement about whether you are doing enough. In their eyes you never will be. They know full well that they will never get enough revenue earning clicks by giving balanced information and telling people they are probably doing OK. So they don't
Click to expand...
I’m kind of surprised at this cynical attitude from a mod commenting on a well known source (Whether you agree with him personally or not)

That’s probably true about some of the sources out there having little interest in our health (YouTube’s, websites, blogs FB groups etc all included in this) many are from well respected medical, research and peer advocate sources (bit like this forum in fact). I’d always suggest you verify the info contained in them from other sources for sure though. Without looking at some of these I never would have got to remission and maintained it for years. And I never paid a penny for them. Sure the creator probably got revenue for it via adverts or speaking fees etc somewhere along the line but some do it for free and those that make money do deserve something for their time if it genuinely helps people surely? I’m sure you get a wage for your job.

Dismissing them all this cynically and not learning what methods are potentially useful to you isn’t such a great option either considering the serious lack of ambitious or overly effective “official” help out there. (“Baby out with the bath water” springs to mind). Most of those T2 I know of that reached remission didn’t do it by the standard advice but by seeking extra info and methods elsewhere. Telling someone how well they are doing, if they aren’t, might be kind and might be encouragement to the disheartened but it could also be a lie or a limitation that could hold them back and enable a deterioration that could have been avoided.

I think it’s about framing your own mindset towards these sorts of advice sites to avoid them simply making you feel bad. Sure there’s alway more you could do but isn’t it about deciding what you are willing and able to do whilst managing anything else in life you need to, rather than feel defeated or guilty. The same could be said about anything in life really: exercising more, being a better parent, child, spouse, employee, employer etc etc. Do we refuse to aim higher or refuse accept we’re doing what we can in other areas?

Don’t let guilt take over. Be open, do your best and accept that’s all any of can hope to achieve.
 
HSSS said:
Most of those T2 I know of that reached remission didn’t do it by the standard advice but by seeking extra info and methods elsewhere. Telling someone how well they are doing, if they aren’t, might be kind and might be encouragement to the disheartened but it could also be a lie or a limitation that could hold them back and enable a deterioration that could have been avoided.
Click to expand...

This is so true.
Default 'treatment' when first diagnosed with T2 seems to be Metformin, Statins and probably an Aspirin for good measure.
I had enormous help from another sources (other than my diabetic 'specialist'!) to tackle my conditions. For example, another diabetes forum, Dr Malcolm Kendrick and Ivor Cummins were a good start. They all recommend a healthy lifestyle, something not mentioned by my nurse.
In fact, I had a right old pop at my nurse on my last 'consultation', which was by phone a few weeks ago.
Due to a number of factors my HbA1c has crept up to 47. 'One more and we'll get you on Metformin,' she said.
'That'll be the stuff that literally made my wife sh** herself while walking through town the would it? When you put her on it when her count also reached 47.'
Silence.
'I'm trying really, really, hard,' I tell her, 'let's have a bit of encouragement eh? Instead of here, shovel some more tablets down.'
More silence.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of professionals being shut down when they are offering an alternative to the establishment mantra. I'm certainly not advocating that we believe everything we see and hear, and of course, we must pick and choose who we put our faith it - because trust is hard earned - but we must be allowed to discuss our own health and treatments in order for us to make our own decisions about our own heath.
 
@HSSS - Should have tagged that post with a comment that it was made from a personal point of view and not as a moderator. And yes it was a touch cynical. It did however come from the heart having had to watch over and now care for somebody with anorexia whose problems were and are made worse by all the food related stuff all over the media. Some, and not only teenage girls, take it to heart, extract only the things which reinforce their often already prejudiced point of view and in the end do themselves considerable harm.

I do stand by my assertion that many of these sites are there to influence rather than inform as a means of making money. They use all the techniques available to attract clicks, with little regard to harm being done to some. Generating anxiety and then offering a miracle cure is a standard advertising technique. Most dismiss the whole thing, sufficient buy the miracle cure to make it worth the effort but some are left only with the anxiety. It is a problem rarely talked about.
 
Docb said:
@HSSS - Should have tagged that post with a comment that it was made from a personal point of view and not as a moderator. And yes it was a touch cynical. It did however come from the heart having had to watch over and now care for somebody with anorexia whose problems were and are made worse by all the food related stuff all over the media. Some, and not only teenage girls, take it to heart, extract only the things which reinforce their often already prejudiced point of view and in the end do themselves considerable harm.

I do stand by my assertion that many of these sites are there to influence rather than inform as a means of making money. They use all the techniques available to attract clicks, with little regard to harm being done to some. Generating anxiety and then offering a miracle cure is a standard advertising technique. Most dismiss the whole thing, sufficient buy the miracle cure to make it worth the effort but some are left only with the anxiety. It is a problem rarely talked about.
Click to expand...
I agree that there are plenty of charlatans out there operating purely for profit. And yes, they target the vulnerable, including sadly the person you watched over with anorexia. That is difficult to take.

But there is good out there too. Genuine people and 'professionals' who can offer good, beneficial advice. I have benefited, as have many others.

The problem comes with how to regulate it all. And who does the regulating.
As with so many areas, particularly over the past few years, vested interests play a massive role in what the general public sees. One only has to look at the paucity and one-sided nature of the information provided by mainstream media to realize that it is utterly biased.
It is very difficult to know who to trust and you're right, those who are most impressionable and vulnerable are the ones likely to get hurt. Some of us are fortunate to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff and make our own decisions.
 
The 'more than three ingredients' refers to all the chemical preservatives in processed food - not having a mix of actual 'food' ingredients, of which, very often, the more the better (all that advise about 'rainbow' meals with lots of coloured food etc) (naturally coloured, not by chemicals!)
 
I think the Internet content is, like all 'information', to be taken cautiously, but not necesarily ignored or discounted either. I think the point about the 'medical establishment' always knowing 'best' has to be tempered by remembering that there have been some serious 'errors' in medical thinking along the way -

For years, medics resisted the concept of 'anti-septic', going straight from dissecting diseased corpses to hands-on examination of post-partum mums (and thus sending maternity death rates sky high!)

Then there was the belief in hacking out bits of the brain to 'calm people down' (lobotomy).

Currently, of course, there is the fear that the medical establishment is the catspaw of Big Pharma etc.

So I do think we all have to do our best to evaluate what we are prescribed, and why etc etc, to the best of our ability, and against what works best for us as well.

We also have to remember how much pressure the NHS is under (because it's underfunded for the demands on it), so 'quick fixes' become more important to the NHS than they may be wise and right for ourselves. Handing us pills is quicker than monitoring our lifestyle.

But for us to evaluate both medical mantras, and the 'wild west' of what appears on the Internet does require informed assessment on our part, and that may vary with age (vulnerable teens!) and access to 'objective' judgement.
 
Jotheboat said:
I agree that there are plenty of charlatans out there operating purely for profit. And yes, they target the vulnerable, including sadly the person you watched over with anorexia. That is difficult to take.

But there is good out there too. Genuine people and 'professionals' who can offer good, beneficial advice. I have benefited, as have many others.

The problem comes with how to regulate it all. And who does the regulating.
As with so many areas, particularly over the past few years, vested interests play a massive role in what the general public sees. One only has to look at the paucity and one-sided nature of the information provided by mainstream media to realize that it is utterly biased.
It is very difficult to know who to trust and you're right, those who are most impressionable and vulnerable are the ones likely to get hurt. Some of us are fortunate to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff and make our own decisions.
Click to expand...

You can soon work out the grifters by the first thing they do is promote their inner circle, and it's all click bate to move you around the team.
Although I have found YouTube is good for cat videos, I wouldn't use it for medical advice.
 
Docb said:
@HSSS - Should have tagged that post with a comment that it was made from a personal point of view and not as a moderator. And yes it was a touch cynical. It did however come from the heart having had to watch over and now care for somebody with anorexia whose problems were and are made worse by all the food related stuff all over the media. Some, and not only teenage girls, take it to heart, extract only the things which reinforce their often already prejudiced point of view and in the end do themselves considerable harm.

I do stand by my assertion that many of these sites are there to influence rather than inform as a means of making money. They use all the techniques available to attract clicks, with little regard to harm being done to some. Generating anxiety and then offering a miracle cure is a standard advertising technique. Most dismiss the whole thing, sufficient buy the miracle cure to make it worth the effort but some are left only with the anxiety. It is a problem rarely talked about.
Click to expand...
In the context of a diabetes forum I made the assumption you were discussing online sources for diabetes

I appreciate it came from the heart and fully agree with the fact there are dodgy sites out there too, which have both poor information and poor motivation. And having seen the effects of eating disorders I understand how triggering the issue can be in that context for you and for those suffering first hand. However I stand by my assertion lumping all diabetes sources into one “to be binned” group causes as much if not more loss of health opportunities as it does potentially cause distress

Also diabetes is primarily a physical disorder, that mental health can influence and be influenced by, whilst eating disorders are mental health issue that then affect physical health so those seeking out these sites already suffering a mental rather than physical health issue are inherently more vulnerable.
 
Callista said:
The 'more than three ingredients' refers to all the chemical preservatives in processed food - not having a mix of actual 'food' ingredients, of which, very often, the more the better (all that advise about 'rainbow' meals with lots of coloured food etc) (naturally coloured, not by chemicals!)
Click to expand...

That rules out the bacon sandwich I had this morning, on both the bacon and the bread roll.
It rules out most of the sausages I eat from supermarkets, it definitely rules out the pizza I had yesterday.
Probably the beer and crisps as well.
 
travellor said:
You can soon work out the grifters by the first thing they do is promote their inner circle, and it's all click bate to move you around the team.
Although I have found YouTube is good for cat videos, I wouldn't use it for medical advice.
Click to expand...
I use online sources as a starting point for seeking further evidenced based information not as a bible for health advice. The ability to assess and discern opinion from varying types of evidence is required to avoid being scammed for financial reasons.
 
HSSS said:
I use online sources as a starting point for seeking further evidenced based information not as a bible for health advice. The ability to assess and discern opinion from varying types of evidence is required to avoid being scammed for financial reasons.
Click to expand...

Would cyber security really be enhanced from a clip on YouTube?
 
You've just got to trust your common sense. Some peoples don't seem to have a lot of it nowadays imho. 🙂 On the other hand my common sense tells me bacon and eggs is bad for me and a jacket with baked beans is good for me so what does my common sense know!

Those nice twins are on every day next week, every morning they'll be telling us what's what. I'll be taking everything they say as gospel. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top