In the ‘O-zone’: trying to follow the Australian dietary guidelines

We’re just back from holidays. Nothing fancy, just a trip to post-flood ravaged Queensland: sun, sand, surf and every meal bar breakfast eaten out. But unfortunately, a stroll along the beach, a ramble on the boardwalk and a splash in the pool does not, energy-wise, equal the total energy consumed in…

64sr2mg4-1361314591
At around 200 pages, the new Australian Dietary Guidelines aren’t easily translated into day-to-day practice. Flickr/Darren131

We’re just back from holidays. Nothing fancy, just a trip to post-flood ravaged Queensland: sun, sand, surf and every meal bar breakfast eaten out. But unfortunately, a stroll along the beach, a ramble on the boardwalk and a splash in the pool does not, energy-wise, equal the total energy consumed in cafes, restaurants, clubs and pubs for the two weeks of our stay. The result? Weight gain.

“Sweetheart, we need to go on a strict diet.”

“Why’s that, Pet?” asks my Significant Other.

“We’ve strayed into the O-zone and we need to make amends.”

“Ozone?”

“Yes, the O-zone; we’re overweight, obese even,”

“Obese? That’s a bit harsh!”

But the good news is that we’re back in time to benefit from advice from the new Australian Dietary Guidelines. So with hope in my heart I pick up the 200 or so page tome and my resolve falters. Perhaps I should go straight to the food recommendations in guidelines 2 and 3.

Guideline 2 (p31) tells us to “enjoy a wide variety of nutritious foods”; plenty of vegetables, fruit, grains, lean meats and milk, yoghurt and cheese each day. I am quite happy with the quality of our diet so I suspect that we don’t stray too far from the recommendations in terms of content.

We eat a variety, and quantity, of vegetables and fruit every day, so we just need to reinterpret what “plenty” means and think about “adequate” as it might fit with our need for fewer kilojoules.

And according to the guidelines, nuts are good for us again, even while we’re trying to lose weight. So there’s our instant, and healthy snack food.

Image from shutterstock.

So we start the day with a breakfast of fresh mango, nectarine and yoghurt – that’s full-fat yoghurt, not reduced fat as recommended. I prefer a product that’s simple, unprocessed and unadulterated, not the manufactured gloop full of additives, thickeners and sweeteners that fill the fridges in the supermarket.

Yoghurt is a simple and ancient food that’s made from milk and culture now transformed into an artificial concoction of skim milk, milk solids, thickeners, sweeteners, artificial sweeteners, fibre and a myriad of fruit and flavours.

My choice of a product comprised solely of whole milk and cultures contains 4.5% fat as opposed to the processed reduced-fat version at around 2%. I will sacrifice the benefits of 2.5% less fat the pleasure and reassurance of eating a less complicated food.

Ah well, time for lunch. We acknowledge that more fish is good for us so today we’re having a seeded wholegrain bread roll, spinach leaves, a scrape of mayonnaise and a fresh marlin steak. Of course, according to NSW Food Authority we should moderate our consumption of billfish, shark or fresh tuna to protect us from the dangers of excess mercury. But at $45 or more per kilo, there is absolutely no chance of overindulgence with tuna, swordfish, or marlin.

Image from shutterstock.

What strikes me about these guidelines is that they acknowledge the factors that contribute to the obesogenic environment we live in, the impact that has on the community, and the myriad influences that impinge on our ability to eat a healthy and nutritious diet. The guidelines also highlight the difficulties low socioeconomic groups experience when trying to eat a healthy, nutritious diet.

But I am not poor. I have lived a privileged life in many ways. However, I often find the cost of fish prohibitive, and despite loving a variety of beautifully fresh home-cooked fish, I simply cannot afford to buy it as often as I would like.

For dinner this fine evening, I cook a rich vegetable casserole, redolent of cumin, chilli, coriander and a pinch of smoked paprika served with a brown jasmine rice I picked up at a farmers market in the Northern Rivers district of NSW.

My Significant Other takes a helping somewhat larger than the recommended serving and loads his fork with fragrant stew. He chomps away, swallows and looks at me anxiously.

“Darling,” he starts, “I love your cooking, you know that, but this tastes … dull, plain, thin … boring.”

“I’m implementing guideline 3,“ I tell him. "I added no salt to the cooking liquor and didn’t salt the finished dish. It’s for your own good, sweetheart.”

Image from shutterstock.

“Where’s the salt? I’m happy to diet, I’m moderately happy to eat dinner without meat. But no salt? No way.”

For me, salt is far more than a sodium additive: it adds and refines flavours and it enhances dishes of all sorts, even a chocolate sauce can benefit from a tiny pinch of salt. Perhaps this recommendation in guideline 3 is for implementing later.

“What’s up, Pet? You’re looking a little glum,” observes my Significant Other.

“I’m feeling dismayed and a tad disheartened,” I reply. “I’ve strayed into guideline 1 and the news is not good. I’m destined to be a fatty. In fact, my porkiness was predicted from babyhood. I’m trapped in the O-zone.”

Indeed, even the guidelines (p23) acknowledge that it is difficult to lose weight, and even more difficult to stay slim. It even goes so far as to say that achieving a body mass index (BMI) in the healthy range may not even be possible for those in the O-zone, the overweight or the obese!

Factors associated with the risk of the big Os (p20) include children who aren’t breastfed. They (read, me) have a greater chance of becoming obese as children, as adolescents and as adults. I do have to say, though, that I did inherit low blood pressure and good cholesterol levels so not all is gloomy.

“How much should we aim to lose?” asks my partner.

“Twenty kilos … each,” I reply, dismayed by the number and the upcoming effort.

“Let’s rethink that in line with the guidelines,” my Significant Other replies. “Section 1.4 says that a loss of five kilos will have a positive impact. Let’s start there and re-evaluate when we reach that goal.”

I’m totally startled he made it to page 22 of the guidelines but at the same time I’m thinking that a goal of five kilos is a perfect place to start.

Join the conversation

14 Comments sorted by

  1. Geoff Russell

    Computer Programmer, Author

    Penny, can you explain precisely what's natural, simple and ancient about your yoghurt? The dairy land was most likely cleared and the wildlife displaced, shot or poisoned. Then the land was pumped with fertiliser and quite likely flood irrigated to grow large amounts of lucerne. And then there's the cattle themselves. These are a far cry from the animals which gave 1300 litres per annum in 1900. Their bloated udders may yield 16,000 or more and the constant sequence of pregnancy and high production…

    Read more
    1. Penny Wilson

      PhD Researcher at Australian National University

      In reply to Geoff Russell

      Thank you for comment, Geoff.

      I mention yoghurt because when I select a foodstuff, I would like to be the person who adds the additives. Low fat or no fat yoghurt has to be supplemented with thickeners and stabilisers to make it palatable and to ensure it has a yoghurty texture. A sugar-free flavoured yoghurt is sweetened with sugar substitutes, fruit concentrates and natural or artificial flavourings. I would like to know exactly what is added to my yoghurt when I’m using it for a sweet or a savoury dish. I also believe that plain yoghurt tastes great and that sugar is not required to make it tasty. This is a personal belief and not a regurgitation of anyone’s advertising slogan.

      And by the way, I choose sheep milk yoghurt and would probably make it myself if I could find a good supply of sheep milk.

      report
    2. Geoff Russell

      Computer Programmer, Author

      In reply to Penny Wilson

      You called yoghurt simple and ancient. I'm still at a loss to understand this description given the substantial industrialisation of the production system and massive modifications via intensive breeding programs to the animals ... regardless of who does or doesn't add additives.

      Do you not like the taste or texture of thickeners/stabilisers or do you think they are unhealthy? If you think the latter, then that's a claim requiring evidence not guesswork. Many of the "e" numbers used for such purposes are no less natural than milk + bacteria.

      report
    3. Marian Macdonald

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Geoff Russell

      Gee and there I was feeling stoked that my high-performance dairy cows (by Australian standards at any rate) were on target for 7,000 litres this year. And constant pregnancy? We have to keep the bulls locked up so the cows get a little rest!

      The Conversation isn't the place to regurgitate animal activist misinformation, Geoff!

      report
    4. Marian Macdonald

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Geoff Russell

      Here's the reality of what is being done right now on Australian farms:

      http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/Statistics-and-markets/Farm-facts/Dairy-at-a-glance.aspx

      Glad to report the average is 5,926 litres per cow - less than half the 16,000 you came up with.

      BTW, you should re-read the FutureDairy report, which actually said:

      "The latter is achieved by means of a very high stocking rate (4.5 cows/ha) and moderate milk production/cow (~7,500 L/lactation)."

      report
    5. Geoff Russell

      Computer Programmer, Author

      In reply to Marian Macdonald

      Marian, I never claimed 16,000 was the average, but only that some animals were getting to that point and the industry was constantly pushing for higher throughput. A 6000 litre average, means there would be plenty of 8-9,000 litre cows and it's hardly natural. Would you like to think about the kind of development a woman would have if she'd been bred to give 5 or more times the milk that she could supply an infant in 1900? Do you think cattle are happy carrying that load around? It's grotesque.

      I'm presuming you have no problems with my description of the fate of dairy calves and also that Penny is comfortable with this simple and ancient part of supplying her yoghurt.

      report
    6. Russell Hamilton

      Librarian

      In reply to Penny Wilson

      I just went and looked at the yoghurt that I eat everday abd it contains low fat milk, skim milk powder and live cultures. There are several local (W.A.) brands like that - I just buy the freshest. Does it worry you that milk is added to milk? I don't particularly like the taste so I add either blueberries, or vanilla essence - like you I prefer to add the things myself, no extra sugars or chemicals.

      report
    7. Marian Macdonald

      logged in via Twitter

      In reply to Geoff Russell

      I've never heard of a cow giving anything close to 16,000 litres and think most dairy farmers would be gobsmacked to hear of such a claim!

      The two main reasons why cows produce so much more milk than they did 113 years ago are advances in feeding and genetic gain. When farmers breed for extra milk, they also breed for stronger, fitter cows. Ours handle their 7000 litres very comfortably. Have a look at the pics on my blog of our herd and you'll see their udders are anything but "grotesque".

      By the way, I think you'll find that human athletes have made similar gains - mostly due to advances in nutrition and training.

      Of course I object to your other claims but we're used to hearing those and you're used to hearing our explanations, so I see little point raising them again.

      I smiled when I read your comment about mastitis tests. I reckon it's great that we monitor mastitis so we can identify and treat it quickly rather than waiting for a cow to become severely ill.

      report
    8. Penny Wilson

      PhD Researcher at Australian National University

      In reply to Russell Hamilton

      Hi Russell,

      A quick search on the web will direct you to a range of blogs about yoghurt making, providing some reasons for adding milk powder:

      http://www.salad-in-a-jar.com/family-recipes/answers-to-your-questions-about-making-homemade-yogurt

      http://www.thekitchn.com/better-homemade-yogurt-5-ways-125442

      The skim milk powder makes the finished product thicker to balance the ‘thinner’ texture of the low fat milk. It's the low fat / no additive trade-off, I think.

      Some sites recommend…

      Read more
    9. Russell Hamilton

      Librarian

      In reply to Penny Wilson

      Hi Penny,

      I'm interested that you say: "The skim milk powder does add more carbohydrates and sodium to the finished product, as well as boost the calcium" because one of the advantages of the low fat (I thought) would be fewer calories, from less fat ?? If you want to lose weight, wouldn't you want to reduce calorie intake? As a vegetarian I thought the skim milk powder probably added some handy protein to the yoghurt.

      I'm definitely not interested in making yoghurt - I think this idea of more effort is what turns people off following things like dietary recommendations. As soon as you see "eat 6 servings of vegetables a day' you just give up hope.

      report
  2. Mark Dressler

    logged in via email @gmail.com

    Throw out the guidelines and go Paleo. You'll never look back.

    report
    1. Sue Ieraci

      Public hospital clinician

      In reply to Mark Dressler

      A paleo hermit who comments on an on-line discussion site? LOL.

      report