Spending Your Money Wisely with Quality Food

Wherever possible, it is best to grow your own food. This is a help with the family budget. But many excellent articles of food may not grow well in your particular locality. They must be brought from a distance and exchanged for cash. If you are on a limited budget, how can you spend your money for the greatest value in food? This is a very practical question.

Foods which are manufactured and refined usually cost much more than those in the natural state. At the same time there is danger that some of the minerals and vitamins have been lost in the manufacturing process. In such a case you lose out in two ways, first, by paying much more for the product, and second, by the loss of essential elements from the food. This is not a wise way to spend a large portion of your money. Do not be carried away by all the glowing advertising material on the package or container.

Take the question of breakfast cereals so widely advertised today, particularly those flakes that have been coated with sugar. Such breakfast food is scarcely worthy of a place on your table and in your family budget. Dry cereals in any form offer less nourishment than do the raw materials from which they are made. Much of real value is lost in the manufacturing process. And when a sugar frosting is added, the effect on young children is far from good. That sugar coating is the worst feature of all. This excess sugar increases the possibility of dental decay and often results in chronic indigestion as well.

Cereals and similar products that are cooked at home are much less expensive than those that are already prepared. The same is true of breads baked at home. They, too, are more nutritious. It does take time to prepare such food. But in the end this saves money, and the whole family will be healthier and more satisfied.

People in well-to-do households may not have much trouble in selecting an adequate diet, provided they take the time to do so. Unfortunately, most of them do not bother. They just eat what comes their way or what is advertised over radio or television. This haphazard way of living is likely to result in serious deficiencies.

The family with limited means must be even more alert to the problem of selecting a diet that is suitable, but not too expensive. They must not allow themselves to be swept away by the flood of advertising so prevalent today. They must buy wisely and well.

Those who live in the country may find the situation a little easier. A small garden, with a few hens and a cow, may enable such a family to live far better than one whose means are not limited. Everything depends on the choice that is made.

Actually you can feed your family better than you think you can. But it does take a little planning. However, people who live on a well-balanced diet are naturally happier and healthier. Such a diet need not be an expensive one. In fact, there are many experiments in rats and other animals showing that a less liberal diet tends to promote a longer life. Many modern nutritionists believe that we live on only about half of what we eat. The rest only compels our hearts and other organs to work that much harder to get rid of the extra food.

Experiments at Cornell University seem to bear this out. A certain number of white rats were used. Some were allowed to eat all they wanted whenever they felt like it. Others were placed on special diets when they were in a rat's "middle age." Those rats which ate as they pleased lived 600 days or less. Those on the diet in middle age lived over 1,000 days. The oldest rat lived 1,400 days, and he never had a square meal in his life! It is not the quantity of the food, but the quality, that counts.

Planning Better Meals

Some people become confused over such scientific terms as calories, vitamins, minerals, and so forth. This is quite understandable. But don't let this scare you too much. Today you can balance your diet fairly well without knowing very much about these various terms. Without going into too much detail, you can reach a good middle-of-the-road plan that is almost foolproof.

During recent years nutritionists have worked out what is known as the "basic seven" food groups. If these foods are included in the diet each day, they will meet the needs of the whole family very well. One does not have to bother with all the endless details of a complicated diet. Just follow this basic plan.

These seven food groups are easily recognized. They should become the foundation of each day's meals. Some foods from each should be in one meal, others in another. But these essential things should always find a place at some time in the day. Other things may be added as desired. But it is best not to get too far away from this simple daily program. If any of these basic groups are missing in your daily planning, your diet is likely to be deficient in some things that are vitally important to good health.

Men and dieting part 2

I interviewed one man who was 30, six foot three, weighed 15 stone and would prefer to weigh 13 stone. Although he said he would prefer to weigh less, he felt that his weight was not that important. He said: 'I don't feel that my fatness has any effect on my attractiveness. Size and attractiveness are separate. People don't notice.'

I also asked him if being heavier than he wanted to be affected how he felt about himself. He replied: 'My self-esteem comes from being able to function to a standard set by myself both in my job and socially. Attractiveness comes from attitudes and personality.' He did admit that he felt more attractive in nice clothes but that 'people are more interested in what you have between your ears than in muscle'.

I interviewed another man who was five foot eleven and weighed 13¹/2 stone. He said: 'Although I would like to be lighter I don't get depressed about it. I'm more concerned about being fit since there are so many other qualities related to my attractiveness. If I lost a stone I wouldn't be or feel any more attractive, I would simply be a stone lighter.'

He also felt that his worries about his weight were 'my own silly concerns, no one else notices or is affected by how much I weigh. My attractiveness is associated with many other factors.'

Although these men would have preferred to weigh less this did not influence how attractive they felt.

I also interviewed a 26-year-old man who was 101/2 stone and five foot eleven. He wanted to be a stone heavier. I asked him if he felt that this affected his feelings of attractiveness. He felt that, even though he was aware of the ideal man: 'I am not strongly influenced by how men are supposed to look. The world of looking good is a completely separate world to mine and I choose to have no contact with it. I don't really think about attractiveness any more, there are too many other things to worry about.'

Self-satisfaction can be understood in terms of body image and self-image and the relationship between the two. Body image simply refers to the individual's satisfaction with their body, whereas self-image is a more global concept relating to a form of general self-appreciation. Perhaps self-satisfaction reveals a difference between men and women. Women's weight has a greater effect on their body image which in turn has a greater influence on their self-image. Although men may prefer to be of a certain weight, this has little effect on their body image, which is therefore not detrimental to their self-image.

However, some men do report a concern about their weight. I interviewed a 25-year-old man who was six foot three and weighed 15 stone. His ideal weight was about 12¹/2 stone. I asked him why he wanted to be thinner.

I would feel better about myself. It's not to do with health, but mainly to be attractive to women. Fat is unattractive. When I take my clothes off in front of someone I don't feel embarrassed but neither do I feel proud. I think 'I hope they don't mind and still want to go through with this'.

He felt that being his size was not 'a good selling point'.

So how do men respond to their dissatisfaction with their weight? Two per cent of Weight Watchers' members are men. So men do not seem to go to clubs. But do they diet at home?

I interviewed one man who said:

I don't really do anything, I just worry about it. I try to eat less and drink wine instead of beer, but it's more a matter of thinking about it than doing anything. . . .I would like to be thinner, but I don't want to pay the price. It is not worth the sacrifices.

Another man who was two stone heavier than his preferred weight said: 'I sometimes think about eating less but I never really manage it. It is too much effort.' Yet another who was a stone heavier than he wanted to be said: 'I undereat continuously. I can't remember the last time I ate till I was full. I find it difficult giving up things I really enjoy such as butter, but I generally cut down and eat salad.' However, he did add that he ate salad in addition to other foods!

What else do they do? Most men seem to get fit or go jogging rather than actually diet. They try to change their bodies through exercise not eating less. Maybe this is because food does not play such a central role in their lives, maybe it is more acceptable for women to say 'I'm on a diet'. But they are still pressurised to conform to a specific shape.

If weight is a concern for some men, maybe they also worry about other physical characteristics.

In 1955 a study was carried out to see which parts of the body were of most importance to men and women. Whilst women focused on hips, thighs and waist, the results for the men showed that their equivalent weak point was their height. Height seemed to be the factor which had the greatest effect on their body image. Men associated height with power, sexual strength and intellectual capacity.

Society expects a man to be taller than his female partner, and associates male height with other desirable qualities such as authority and social status. A study in 1968 evaluated the relationship between perceived height and power. Students were introduced to a Mr England and were told that he was either a fellow student, a lecturer, a senior lecturer or a professor. They were then asked to estimate his height. The results showed that his estimated height increased with his supposed seniority. Height was associated with power. Interestingly, this association also extends to politics. As a sociologist, Feldman, said in 1971, 'It is not by chance that every American president since 1900 has been the taller of the two major political candidates.' In addition, in 1960, American voters were asked whom they preferred, and whom they thought was the taller out of Kennedy and Nixon. It was found that preference and perceived height went together.

Why is height so important?

On the whole, men are up to 5 —10 per cent taller than women. Girls tend to have finished their significant growth by the time they reach 13 or so, just after they start to menstruate. They will reach their adult height by the age of 18. Boys start to grow a couple of years later but keep growing for a longer period of time. It seems to be because of this longer growth period that men end up taller.

What is life like without dieting?

Imagine not dieting. Picture how you would look and feel. Do you look fat and ugly, and feel unhappy?

Giving up dieting is like giving up an addiction; it is difficult to visualise life without it. Suggesting that people should stop dieting often causes quite strong reactions. In the course of my work I have had numerous people criticise my belief that dieting is self-destructive. I thought I would include several of these comments and illustrate how many of these criticisms are based on the myths surrounding dieting and are not founded in fact.

'It is all right for you to say don't diet, but I would feel happier if I were thinner.' This woman associates dieting with getting thinner, and being thinner with being happier. Firstly, dieting does not make most people thinner most of the time and, secondly, being thinner does not make most people happier.

'You are all right, you're not fat, but I need to keep on dieting.' Firstly, this women assumes that only fat people diet. Women of all shapes and sizes diet, up to 90 per cent of women see themselves as being larger than they want to be; dieting is motivated by perceived size not actual size. Secondly, she believes that if she continues to diet she will lose weight. Dieting involves thinking about losing weight but not necessarily achieving it. It is only necessary to realise how few dieters are successful to understand that dieting is not about weight loss.

'If I didn't diet I'd be enormous.' This women assumes that dieting is preventing a massive weight gain. Some people do manage to limit their food intake continuously and for extended periods of time so that they can keep their weight below their natural set points. If such people returned to eating the volume of food they ate before they started to diet, they probably would gain weight owing to a lowered metabolic rate. However, most dieters are not eating less overall, but fluctuate between episodes of undereating and episodes of overeating. What they are doing is thinking about eating less. In which case, if they stopped dieting they would not gain weight, but would stop being preoccupied with food and feeling miserable.

Giving up dieting is a positive step. Dieting does not make you thinner, happier, in control or successful, so why do it?

What are the benefits of not dieting?

Acceptance

Stopping dieting means you can accept yourself for who you are now, instead of looking to the future for a better person to emerge. It means you can be proud of yourself, and no longer make endless comparisons with better, thinner and more beautiful role models. As Anne Dickson says in her book The Mirror Within, that comparison is:

such an automatic process that we sometimes forget to ask ourselves too big/flat/short, for whom? Having learned the need for attractive parts, we compare these fragments to external media models, usually without any specific person in mind, and we rate ourselves in fragments and against some internal ideal.

Stop dieting and you can stop making these critical comparisons. The present you becomes important and the discrepancy between that and the future ideal can be forgotten.

Freedom

Stopping dieting means freedom from thinking about, dreaming about and denying food. It means you can go out for dinner when you want and join in wholeheartedly at social occasions. Stopping dieting means eating what the rest of the family eats and no longer cooking two separate meals. It means freedom to fill your time with other things. Time need no longer be taken up with planning diets and reading diet books but can be spent doing all the other things there are to do.

Confidence

Stopping dieting means that you will no longer be faced with disappointment, feelings of failure and depression. You will no longer need to set yourself unattainable goals resulting in guilt and feelings of weakness. Your confidence and self-esteem will grow as you no longer constantly undermine yourself with self-criticism.

Eating behaviour

Your eating behaviour will change. Dieting causes changes in all the factors which contribute to eating. Attempting to eat less creates:

• depression which results in eating to feel better; preoccupation with food resulting in thinking about food and so eating more;
• preoccupation with weight causing eating to compensate for no weight loss;
• feeling out of control and therefore undereating followed by overeating;
• deprivation and increase in the urge to eat;
• certain foods becoming treats, becoming more desirable and so being eaten more.

Dieting aims to result in eating less, but paradoxically can cause overeating. Giving up dieting takes away this problem. Initially you may eat as a response to the new-found non-dieting freedom but gradually food will no longer play a central role in your life. Stop dieting and you will think about food less. You will eat when you are hungry, not when your craving for food becomes too strong to ignore. You will no longer wish for platefuls of cakes and high calorie foods because knowing that you can eat them whenever you want stops them from being so attractive. Cream-cakes every day may seem wonderful on a diet but as a reality will become boring. Stop dieting and eating will become less important to you.

Stop dieting and you can get on with life and appreciate all the other things that there are on offer.

Why is sugar regarded as 'empty kilojoules'?

Unlike other foods, sugar supplies energy only, which is why it is often accused of providing 'empty kilojoules'. The underlying fear is that if you eat a lot of sugar, you may leave out more nutritious foods, to the extent that your diet may be deficient in nutrients such as minerals and vitamins. However, studies of nutrient intakes have shown that this is not necessarily the case. There is in fact no evidence that people who eat a lot of sugar are more likely to suffer from nutrient deficiencies than those who eat very little.

The explanation for this apparent contradiction lies in the composition of the diet as a whole. Generally speaking, sugar consumption rises with income (up to a point), therefore people whose diets contain relatively large amounts of sugar also tend to eat large amounts of a wide variety of other foods, so it is unlikely that they will suffer from nutrient deficiencies. Incidentally, it is important to realise that when referring to sugar consumption we are talking not so much about `sugar bowl' sugar as about that contained in processed foods, desserts, and so on - in other words, in the diet as a whole.

Another interesting point here is the apparent inverse relationship between sugar and fat in the diet - described by some authors as the 'Sugar:Fat See-Saw'. Recent studies have shown that in certain populations, people who eat less sugar tend to eat more fat and vice versa. What these studies also revealed was that those who ate more sugar but less fat were taking in more of other essential nutrients and fibre as well.

The conclusion that can be reached from all this is that there is no direct relationship between the amount of sugar you eat and the overall quality of your diet. Far more important is the composition of the diet as a whole. Obviously, excessive sugar intake should be avoided, but if you are aiming to improve the nutritional value of your diet it would

be better to examine what you eat in total and make all-round improvements, than to focus on the elimination of a single foodstuff such as sugar.

The 'pure, white and deadly' tag

In the past few decades there has been an alarming increase in the incidence of so-called Western diseases such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, hypertension and certain gastro-intestinal disorders. In the search to find out why this was happening, attention naturally focused on diet, since this was one of the areas that had undergone remarkable changes. Amongst other things, one aspect of the average diet that had changed was sugar intake.

In the early days sugar was a rare commodity out of the price range of most people, but as it became increasingly available, it was eaten in greater quantities by more and more people. Recognition of this fact led to a series of investigations in which sugar intake was compared with the incidence of various diseases and in many cases, the relationship seemed obvious - hence the claim made in the 1970's that sugar was 'pure, white and deadly'. However, in drawing simple comparisons such as these it is both easy and tempting to ignore the many other factors that could influence the outcome. In the years that have elapsed since these claims were first made, a great deal of research has been done on the causes of these diseases and we are now better able to identify those to which sugar may genuinely be linked.

Sugar and diabetes

Diabetes (or more correctly, diabetes mellitus) is a very complex disorder and neither its causes nor its treatment are as yet fully understood. For many years it was believed that eating too much sugar caused diabetes, but this theory has now been discounted. The cause is not yet known, although it is accepted that obesity is a contributory factor. Recent years have seen a considerable shake-up of traditional views on the treatment of diabetes. Nowadays, the diet recommended for diabetics is high in complex carbohydrates and low in fat. Some experts believe that a small quantity of simple carbohydrate can also be included, provided the condition is well-controlled and the intake of fibre sufficiently high. This is however controversial and no diabetic should eat sugar without the go-ahead from his or her doctor and/or dietitian.

Sugar and heart disease

The subject of diet and heart disease continues to be controversial and although there seems to be little doubt that the amount and type of fat you eat is important in determining your risk of having a heart attack, no such link has been confirmed for sugar. However, a small proportion of people are particularly sensitive to carbohydrate - for them, eating large quantities of sugar can result in a higher level of fat in the blood so sufferers of this condition should reduce their sugar intake to a minimum. This is generally referred to as 'carbohydrate sensitivity', a term used to describe a condition where serum triglyceride levels are elevated and the insulin response to a sucrose load is accentuated. The condition can only be diagnosed by a doctor with the aid of certain blood tests.

Sugar and dental decay

There are several factors involved in the development of dental caries (tooth decay), including heredity, oral hygiene and of course, diet. The role played by diet is more complex than you might think - it is not only what you eat that's important, but also how you eat it. The adhesiveness (stickiness) or abrasiveness of specific foods is yet another factor.

It is common knowledge that sugar contributes to dental decay, but perhaps less well-known is the fact that this applies to all fermentable carbohydrates, including those that don't even taste sweet (such as sausage rolls or potato chips). Research has shown that perhaps the most important thing to consider in terms of diet and dental caries is how often you eat cariogenic (caries-producing) foods such as those containing sugar. To help prevent caries, these foods should be eaten with meals rather than in between. This is because tooth decay is caused by acid-producing bacteria present in the mouth. Each time cariogenic foods are eaten, acid is produced, so it follows that the more often you eat these foods, the greater the likelihood of caries developing. In addition, try to choose foods that are easily chewed and swallowed - the longer the food stays in your mouth, the more likely it is to cause trouble. Boiled sweets that are sucked slowly, or foods that leave bits stuck to the teeth (such as biscuits or dried fruit) are particularly cariogenic.

Interestingly, some foods act as 'buffers' and counteract the harmful effects of other foods on the teeth. These include nuts and certain cheeses (for example, mature Cheddar, Gouda, blue Brie and Mozzarella). Such foods cause less acid to be produced than does cariogenic food. So the long-standing tradition of following a sugary dessert with cheese is highly recommended, at least as regards dental health!

What the Food Label Say

What the Food Label Says	What It Mean
Fat-free	Less than 1/2 (0.5) gram of fat in a serving.
Calorie-free	Less than 5 calories per serving.
Low fat	3 grams of fat (or less) per serving.
Lean (on meat labels)	Less than 10 grams of fat per serving, with 4.5 grams or less of saturated fat and 95 milligrams of cholesterol per serving.
Extra lean (on meat labels)	Less than 5 grams of fat per serving, with less than 2 grams of saturated fat and 95 milligrams of cholesterol.
Less	Contains 25 percent less of a nutrient or calories than another food.
Reduced	A nutritionally altered product that contains at least 25 percent fewer calories, sodium, or sugar than the regular one.
Lite (Light)	Contains 1/3 fewer calories or no more than 1/2 the fat of the higher-calorie, higher-fat version; or no more than 1/2 the sodium of the higher-sodium version.
Cholesterol-free	Less than 2 milligrams of cholesterol and 2 grams (or less) of saturated fat per serving.
Healthy	The food must be low in fat and saturated fat and contain limited amounts of cholesterol and sodium.
Percent fat free	The food must be low in fat or fat free. Plus, it must reflect the amount of fat present in a serving. In other words, if a food contains 5 grams of fat in a serving, it can be labeled "95 percent fat free."
Low-calorie	Fewer than 40 calories per serving.

What the FoodLabel Says

Don't confuse total fat and calories with cholesterol, saturated fat, and sodium. All the nutrients that a food contains are important; however, to achieve weight loss, the total fat and calories are the most important to track. Cholesterol and sodium (salt) don't add calories but eating too much sodium can contribute to water retention and therefore water weight. The calories from saturated fat are included in the calories from fat total.

Sneaky Servings and Other Portion Tricks

Many dieters find that portion control is real tricky. Manufacturers certainly don't help in this regard. Some containers look as though they should contain one serving, because that's probably how most people consume them. However, consider that

• A 16-ounce container of iced tea is 2 servings.
• A 16-ounce container of iced tea is 2 servings.
• A 61/2- to 7-ounce can of tuna is 21/2 servings.
• A 4-, 6-, or 8-ounce container of yogurt is considered one serving.
• A 20-ounce bottle of soda is 2 servings.