99.2% of Brits Do Not Eat a Healthy Diet

My salt goes over regularly.
I consider my eating healthy. Salt is not a problem for me (low blood pressure, working out a lot actually requires some extra intake) so I don't worry about it.

I'm utterly sick of food being categorised as healthy or not based on arbitrary numbers. It's as stupid as the "Speed Kills" road safety campaign that's killed thousands of people since it was introduced here. Driving by numbers does not make you a safe driver any more than painting my numbers will produce work worth of Rembrandt or Picasso - and eating is the same.

I consider my diet to be moderately healthy. Not much saturated fat - yesterday's steak was an exception. Not too much sugar if I can avoid the temptation of the chocolate bar. Fruit and veg in at least two meals a day. Not much salt, because I don't like the taste.

I probably miss all of those targets at least one day a week.

I'm still alive, and I'm not expecting to die any time soon. And I'm enjoying life much more than if I was obsessing about a nutrition score card.

Was it here that I read the advice "Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly Plants"? That seems a lot more sensible than analysing every mouthful to death.

I think the first paragraph in "How to Interpret this" says it all. Not only do studies like this ususally contain flaws of many kinds in terms of data collection and respondent perception, but the yardsticks by which some organisations judge what is healthy and what is not vary to a degree that makes trying to interpret data like this largely self-defeating!

my best friend is from liverpool, england- she does confirm that most of the English have a very lavish diet, including bacon sandwiches, a multitude of fried treats, and of course, innumerable sweets. however, it isn't that much different than the American diet, when it comes to fat and calorie content. it all just sounds a little worse; for instance: a bacon sandwich in america is actually what we call a BLT. besides, if you ask my opinion, a study should be done more than once over a period of time to confirm the results. i believe it is also open to "interpretation".

It looks to me like a study that the Food Standards Agency did to try and embarrass there own people into eating better. This is a pathetic attempt at an actual study but does what they wanted it too do; give them publicity. They get an F in science ,but I suppose they get a solid B in marketing for this little stunt.

This means the term "healthy diet" is a ridiculous phrase when these people use it and they should never be listened to on anything they say ever again.

When 99.2% of the people are considered bad, it means the standard for good and bad is wrong and the people who are promoting that standard are not to be taken seriously.

I think so many of these studies base "Healthy" on something of the past. So much of our food is processed and/or prepackaged - thus the added sodium and all kinds of ingredients that are not food.

And, I agree with Ben when he says "When 99.2% of the people are considered bad, it means the standard for good and bad is wrong and the people who are promoting that standard are not to be taken seriously."

Makes sense to me. I always knew there was something a bit off with the Brits and their teeth! Poor diet = poor teeth!

No offense, I love the British but it's just an observation.

I doubt it's very accurate. However, if it's true and they are all eating like the people on the "You Are What You Eat" BBC show, then they're screwed.

I agree with your assumption that not following these specific guidelines makes your eating habits unhealthy. Having said that, I still think that we could all try to improve our eating habits as a whole and not just the British.

There is a problem with doing studies like this. Yes the criteria are fairly meaningless and the data is questionable; but they have to use some criteria to judge these things. There will never be a time when everyone agrees on what is healthy and what qualifies as unhealthy, and sociologists need data to click there tongs over anyway.
This study has put food on the table for a lot of researchers and there families.

Hows that for a bright side?

Do they take into consideration variance in diets based on the region of the country they're looking at? Because I know that if they surveyed the diets of most of my fellow Wisconsinites, they'd think the whole country eats brats, braunschweiger, and Miller Lite all the time. Likewise, if they surveyed California, they'd assume that everyone eats sushi and drinks Cabernet.

I wouldn't make the cut either because my saturated fat intake is too high (I don't believe that saturated fat is bad for you). Sometimes my sodium goes over as well. The criteria they used is pretty meaningless. I guess I should start scrambling my eggs in PAM instead of butter to be healthier!! Or not.

I totally agree with your criticisms of the study. "Healthy eating" isn't universally defined - it depends on your personal health goals. Someone trying to lower their cholesterol will have a different diet than someone who is obese and trying to lose weight. A great example - I told my best friend I'd forced myself to learn to like avocados b/c they're so healthy. She was shocked - she'd always thought of them as *unhealthy* because they're high in fat. But it's monounsaturated fat plus lots of fiber, so for my goals they're perfect! But if your main goal is losing weight, not so perfect.

the funny thing is that not many countries have a healthy diet any more.. I read on www.pro-thinspo.com that most people all over the world in any largly populated area are 40%. They had this entire diet stradegy for all countries types of foods and stuff.. thought is was interesting with this post.

Thanks You Are What You Eat