Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Pork scratchings

Heavy and hard, we are talking fatty pig skin deep fried and then doused in salt. Also, if you are lucky you might even get one sporting a few hairs; pig hair is usually removed by quickly burning the skin before it is cut into pieces and cooked in the hot fat. Plus they are not great for your teeth either; we couldn't get the stats on how many dental injuries have been inflicted by eating these suckers but we are guessing it's pretty high.


Fried desserts

Fried desserts feature high up on the list of worst foods to eat as essentially you are dipping something in batter that is already high in sugar and fat, and then deep frying it. And don't be fooled by pineapple and banana fritters either, they are no better because they are fruit, the layer of batter and the fact they are swimming in sugary syrup make them no go dishes too.


Cheesy chips

Chips or fries could feature as a bad food on their own, but, as you know we are all about moderation here at realbuzz.com and seriously cutting chips from your life totally would be a hard move. But taking a plate of chips and layering them in cheese, well, that takes them up a notch in the bad food stakes. Cheese typically contains over 10 times as much saturated fat as fish and white meat and coupled with deep fried carbs, a serving of cheesy chips are a big bad no no.


Fizzy drinks

Pop and soda - yeah they're bad, mainly because they pack massive amounts of calories even in small quantities, so you are adding to your daily calorie quota and getting little nutritional value in return. Studies have also linked fizzy drink consumption to osteoporosis, tooth decay and heart disease. And diet drinks are not recommended either, granted they are lower in calories but as they contribute to dental erosion (the bubbles in the drink are acidic) they are a no go as well.


Coloured alcopops

Cutting alcohol totally from your diet is a bit like the chip situation, not entirely practical and could lead to a generally joyless existence, but there are boozy drinks that are far worse than the others and alcopops are one of them. Alcopops are again big calorie culprits as they are packed with sugar and calorific alcohol. Plus the fact that they are full of colours and flavourings all contribute to making them a pretty toxic tipple. Little rule of thumb, the brighter the colour of the alcopop, potentially the worse it is for you. Instead opt for clear spirits with soda, tonic or fruit juice and steer clear of the Technicolor stuff.


Liquid meals

Okay, they aren't inherently bad for you, but liquid meals or meal-replacement drinks do keep you from eating proper food. You need to make sure you eat eating whole, natural foods to ensure you gain all your nutrients. Meal replacements maybe okay for people who are too ill to eat, but don't let them replace the real foods in your diet.


Processed meats

These are also sometimes referred to as 'mystery meats' because it's ambiguous as to what some of them actually contain. But you can be assured that if it comes from a can and is kind of unrecognisable - it's not going to be great for your body. Try to steer clear of sausages and salamis too, these food stuffs are generally all the unwanted bits churned up with fat and salt, we are talking heads, knees and toes (plus a few other less-desirable bits).


Chicken nuggets

First off, chicken nuggets that are not made from fillets are the real bad guys. Again it's similar to the sausages situation, all the leftover carcass bits mixed up with sawdust-type stuff to bulk out the meat so manufacturers can crank out more portions. But it's when these little nuggets are deep fried that really boosts their 'worst-food' status and it's all to do with the size. Smaller fried items, i.e. nuggets absorb more fat that larger pieces of fried goods, so a portion of nuggets will pack way more fat that a single larger fried piece. So if you want fried chicken - go for a big breast.


Doughnuts

If there is one food that epitomises the 21st century junk food it's the doughnut. Coated, filled, glazed, sugared, jam crammed or plain old ring they are not great for your body. And it's not only the refined flour, refined sugar and then the frying in the refined oil that makes them bad for you. Doughnuts will upset blood-sugar balance, and give a quick high followed by a crash and burn low, then you guessed it, you're hungry again and reaching for another one - that's why they generally come in bags of 10.


Canned soups

Now, soups don't seem to be one of the bad boys and in comparison to some of the above, and they probably can sit quite comfy in the middle of the bad-food scale, but it's their salt-packing stealth that gets them into this list. Soups mainly sport a healthy identity; wholesome, warming and good for you. The reality is many canned varieties are super-high in salt, so if you must have soup, avoid the canned ones or make your own.

Pigs' trotters are delicious.


As for the list, is this from the website of No-Shit-Sherlock? What a load of money for old rope - except for the bit about sausages. What the hell kind of sausages are they eating?


Oh and the pork scratchings? We couldn't find any evidence to back this bit about teeth up, but we reckon there must be some, so, you know, it's like fact n that.


Oh and the fried desserts. Deep frying something that's already high in fat (a pineapple slice or banana for a fritter???)


Oh and the coloured alcopops - "Little rule of thumb, the brighter the colour of the alcopop, potentially the worse it is for you." (my bold)


Who writes this stuff? Sorry DJKQ, I have no problem with articles on healthy eating, but they could at least bother gathering some actual facts before they commit facile finger to keyboard.



The first time I made brownies at home and I saw exactly what went into them was an eye opener ? it?s one of those things which you instinctively ?know? but are able to dismiss. But when you are creating this pile of fat and sugar for consumption it?s a different story

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...