@travellor Could you point out which things please? It was scrutinised by a GP (obviously) before being posted on their notice board.
IMHO and that of many qualified medical practitioners, the "Healthy eating" plate is responsible for a great deal of the obesity epidemic. After being diagnosed with diabetes I was sent to the dietitian who advised me to eat from the Eatwell plate. I gained 3 stone and it has taken a long time to get rid of it.
If you look into the whole heart health issue you will find out that it is mostly based on the flawed findings of the study conducted by one hugely egotistical man by the name of Ancel Keys. It started as an analysis of the diets of 22 countries and the ones that didn't fit his hypothesis he threw out of the study, retaining only 7 countries which "proved" his hypothesis.
With due respect
@jeanettem1 I cannot recall anyone in this forum recommending zero carbs. I do know another forum where they do, perhaps you have mixed them up?
With reference to the previous admin comment, the following is meant in the spirit of answering the question, rather than ignoring the points raised in it, and trying to be helpful by answering them, and hopefully modifying the issues with the poster especially.
No, the eatwell plate isn't responsible for anything, it's based on a great variety of research.
Not simply from a study from over half a century ago.
People can choose to blame it for their eating issues, but at the end of the day, it goes hand in hand with our own responsibly for eating, no one but ourselves puts the food in our mouths.
I simply calm it down now, and eat less when my weight drifts upwards.
As recommended alongside all other NHS advice.
"Eat less, move more"
Keys has just become a convenient whipping boy who is pulled out of the past, along with the 1860's Banting diet book.
If you look into whole heart health you will find a lot of much more recent information out there.
It's well worth keeping up to date with.
As to the poster.
No food can be eaten freely. Moderation is key.
There is never a suggestion snacks especially can be eaten freely.
Fish and oil can't be eaten freely, they are highly calorific, and farmed fish are high in pcp's and other contaminantions, and can even be carcinogenic in quantity and the current suggestion is to be limited to one or two a week.
Nuts are highly calorific, oily, very often heavily salted, and not normally included without the suggestion to check for allergies, especially if you are advising to suddenly switch to an unlimited amount daily.
Diet drinks are proving to be unhealthy as they are a chemical cocktail, and many on here suspect they also raise their BG, but personally I haven't seen that.
Sugar free jelly is a chemical cocktail by design.
Hard cheese has a portion size, but soft cheese is preferable, spreadable cheese has added sugar though, so not good.
As you say, in moderation. Not as an unlimited snack.
Is it worth mentioning the comment on low fat food may have added sugar, that advice is so out of date, probably at least by ten years, personally I use low fat caser dressing, it's got less carbs than full fat. (not my driver, less fat is good for me)
Things move on.
Fibre is important, and should be included.
Red meat is definitely food that should be limited on any diet, for many known reasons.
I looked at a lot of foods when I dieted, and a lot of research on the effects, and also what carbs, fats and proteins are in them.
Back to the nuts, without being specific, the highest carb nuts run up to 22g per 100g (Cashews)
That's a lot of carbs for an unlimited snack.
A Ginsters Steak and Ale pastie has less, at 19.6g
Asda breaded chicken is just 14g
Smoked haddock fish cakes come in at 15g
A bubble and squeak frittata comes in at just 7.6g
All per 100g
All processed food, but all more diabetic friendly than the nuts.
Even pizza starts at just on 30g carbs per 100g,
So 75g of pizza, or 100g of nuts for a snack?
One is your absolute avoid, one's eat unlimited?