Talk:5 A Day

Untitled
The former contents of this page have been moved to Talk:5 A Day The Color Way - Pseudomonas 14:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

google ross woodford

Germany
The German version is missing (you is able to speak German, can look at the German Wikipedia Page!) mabdul 11:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Against Fruit
I think the phrase saying that fruit doesn't prevent cancer is a bit irrelevant or at least it's in the wrong place. I mean, who asked if fruit avoids cancer or not? (especially in the beginning of the article). I'm sure there's already an article for "Cancer and Nutrition" or whatever 200.104.52.195 (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You've taken the words out of my mouth there. That statement is rather random.  Moreover, you could go on forever listing ailments that eating 5 a day doesn't prevent.
 * The BBC News link indicates that WHO had previously claimed that it would "prevent cancer and other chronic diseases". This in itself is a dubious claim - did somebody really think that as long as you have your 5 a day you're guaranteed never to get cancer?  Still, if anybody can come up with a good rewrite of that statement so that it doesn't look out of place, please do. — Smjg (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Indeed, why single out one health benefit that 5 a day doesn't confer to tell us about? How about telling us what health benefits it does confer?  Meanwhile I'm removing that statement as it is totally out of place. — Smjg (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Origin?
What's the origin of the five a day campaign. I have heard that it was started as a marketing campaign by an American company. It was then taken up by various health organisations who lobbied the state to back it. It then gathered authority. Meanwhile it has never had any scientific backing to prove that it does anything. For one thing it never takes into account that people eat different quantities of foods and even a simple varied diet will cover most of the 5-a-day.

Also campaigners complain that some products overuse the term whilst having lots of salt and sugar. However your body naturally gets rid of excess salt. Excess sugar is only a problem very sedentary people. For the vast majority of people who are healthy there is no need to have a 5-a-day. Only those who already have health problems should watch what they eat. 79.70.75.85 (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to think that there was never any medical basis of the number 5 – but rather, it was designed as a realistic target for people to aim for. Some people eat plenty of fruit and veg anyway, but others may not be in the habit.  So the campaign is probably aimed at the latter group of people to get them eating more healthily.  Maybe partly to get the fibre and vitamins, and partly to help cut down on less healthy snacks.
 * What is your evidence that "For the vast majority of people who are healthy there is no need to have a 5-a-day"? Remember also that many people, while they may seem healthy at the moment, have no idea whether they're doing their long-term health any good.  So 5 a day may also be a campaign to help/encourage people to look after this. — Smjg (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)