A matter of time!

As you have probably worked out, I have a vested interest in issues of "self-esteem", especially as they relate to women and children. In society today, discrimination based on looks even though it is not legal to do so, is sadly allowed, and no-one says anything about it - that is, except you and me.   The worst offenders are the media, and to a lesser extent most other professions.

How many women's magazines, both nationally and internationally, show women of a "certain age" (and by this I mean from 35 to 80) in glowing terms; in advertisements including fashion supplements? For that matter how many of these magazines show women of size in a positive or highly acceptable way? A favourite saying of mine is that women's magazines are supposedly published for ALL women - not just young women, not just slim women, not just "celebrity" women. ALL women. Women of all ages, and all shapes and sizes. But will the editors, features editors and women's pages editors listen to common sense? Unfortunately they are the victims too of highly questionable attitudes and ethics of their employers - so many of these editors have been literally "sacked" for having the audacity to show healthy women of around size 16 on the covers of these magazines. When questioned the spokespersons of these magazines have claimed their readers would be upset at seeing "fat" women within the pages of the magazines. This is downright ridiculous and discrminatory to the extreme, and should not be accepted.  By anyone, INCLUDING the women's magazines staff.

You only have to walk around your own shopping mall; get on the bus or train; look at your own family members and the women you see are definitely not all a size 6.   You'll see women of all ages and sizes and shapes. Do you personally see them as being "unacceptable" when compared to you? And why would you compare? Because each of us is unique - we are incomparable. We are one-offs; and no one can copy us. They may try to, but they won't succeed.

There is enough negativeness in our society already without allowing for inappropriate and unkind attitudes to take form and become "normal" as far as being different to each other, as far as looks are concerned.

We're all different, but it is the difference each of us possesses, that makes us similar.

It's "inappropriate attitudes" that should not be accepted, not our age or size or shape!

What does it matter?

This photo is from dietjunkie.com

I do a lot of observing. I look around me and see a lot of things that don't make sense. Like - why are people of size treated differently to those who are young, slim and trim?

It only takes a moment or two however to see how other people treat the plus-size, to realise just how little respect is sometimes given them. In fact I've seen people stop talking in mid-sentence and turn around to stare at a large person, before breaking into peels of laughter. I've heard people say to strangers that they shouldn't be eating what they've chosen - even salads, for goodness sake!; I even heard one woman told she shouldn't expect to be invited to join club outings and other events because the other women might be embarrassed if she couldn't fit onto the small seats at the local cafes where they regularly meet.  She was humiliated in a rude and disrespectful way.  No wonder she sought other friendship groups where she fitted in well.   When women are treated this way, is it strange they get the impression they should never expect to be respected!  Why?   Because,  too many people who are biased and have no manners say plus-size people are out of control! Out of control?    Surely, it's the attitude of people like this that is "out of control".

So plus-size people need to be encouraged to see themselves for who they are and to build upon that foundation. They need those of us who have gone through the same experiences, to tell them sincerely, that they can buck the system, and discover their own true worth. And to show them in a variety of ways.  People who don't know us, as well as some within our own families, who display bad manners and intolerable attitudes, have a problem brought about by their bias and prejudice.  It's THEIR problem, not ours. (But we sometimes make the mistake of thinking it's all  our fault.)

Yesterday someone said to me, "well, what does it matter?" I thought about that. Because when it comes down to tin-tacks, I know that I matter.   So what really doesn't matter are unrealistic expectations and intolerable attitudes towards me.   If I can overlook their small mindedness and relegate them and their attitudes to the background of my thinking, then I can get on with life.   Their attitudes should not impact or influence how I feel about myself.   They're being discriminatory.   They put labels on those of us who may not look like them, or be as slim as them, or even as young as them.   They assume too much and their assumptions aren't always right.

So "what does it matter?" It doesn't. As long as we have respect for ourselves and to others, those out-of-touch attitudes and behaviours don't (and must not) erode our self-esteem.

Changing your attitude!

You're a chronic dieter but you never seem to lose those last 10 (20 or 30) persistent kilos?    You've felt inexplicably depressed for the past two weeks and can't seem to pull yourself out of it?   You've been trying for three months to find a job, but nothing seems right?

If you fit any of these descriptions, or if other lingering problems have got you down, you probably need to change your tactics to find some solutions.

No matter what your problem, you can tackle it with a step by step formula that incorporates attitude and behaviour changes.

Step 1.   Define your problem, being as objective as possible.  Try to identify the circumstances and causes.  Measure its importance in the context of your life.

Step 2.  Accept your problem.  Admit that it exists, and that you've got to deal with it - now.

Step 3.  Break down your problem into manageable segments.  Divide it into pieces, and attack the easiest ones first.  As you whittle away at the problem you'll develop a sense of confidence that will carry you through to the end.

Step 4.  Establish a goal that will resolve your first problem segment.  Be as specific as possible, including a timeframe and the results you want, but keep your goals within reach.

Step 5.  Explore all possible plans of action.  Imagine how others might proceed and see if these methods suit you.  Go through each plan mentally, "trying each on for size", to find one that seems more comfortable and potentially effective.  Outline a "contract" (written or mental) with yourself to follow it through.  Include rewards to give yourself when you reach specific goals.

Step 6.  Take action.  Once you've found a plan you can accept, try it.  Stick with it until achieve your foal of until you reach the end of the timeframe you've set.

Step 7.  Review progress.  When you complete your first plan of action, take another look at your original problem.  Has it changed?  Do you feel differently about its important or how to want to resolve it?  Once you've re-examined the problem and staked out a new piece to tackle, continue your plan from Step 4.  Keep rotating through these steps until you solve your problem

The most critical element in the process may be your willingness to actively deal with your problems.

It is a well known fact that people say by their behaviour whether they're ready to change.

 Some people after analysing their problems, find they don't really have any.  Others discover there are multiple problems beneath the surface.

How long it may take to soleZ your particular problem depends both on the problem and on your willingness to change.

A critical part of your strategic planning is to establish a realistic timetable for progress.

Set your goals within a timetable that gives you a sense of accomplishment.

To be realistic, your schedule must allow for a certain amount of backsliding.  Usually it's a "yo-yo" routine for the first few weeks as you go in and out of acceptance of the situations.

But once people do things differently on a consistent basis they can maintain the changes.

The sense of accomplishment you get from solving one major problem may prevent future problems.

Once you've got that mental attitude of being a victor, you can solve just about any problem.

... Alison H, of Elizabeth, South Australia (reprinted from RoseMary's NoteBook© Winter 2000).

What has happened since ....

Of course the 60s upset the whole apple cart of fashion as it were, and put everything into new and sometimes psychedelic puzzles, but it was not only the woman of size who was affected but all women.

So why is it in the year 2011 that we still hear some of our mega-flavour-of-the-month designers both here and elsewhere around the world, say that they would NEVER design a garment for a woman who is larger than size 14?   Size 14, heavens there aren't many of us who have ever been a size 14!

OK, they may be recognised around the world as the "top" designers.  And they obviously have repeat clientele of small women who upgrade their wardrobes each and every season, as well as in between!  But what about the other 68% of Australian women who are size 14 and above?  ** (Refer to the link below on an article that appeared in the "West Australian" back in September 2010 where you'll see that some Australian designers ARE recognising the need and are meeting the challenge).

If designers of the calibre of Christian Dior (not the present day executives) and Coco Chanel (not the present day executives) were able to design clothes which translated into larger sizes WITHOUT losing their style or design, then why can't Australian designers design clothes for Australian women that will easily translate from small to large.  And for that matter just where are the rest of the Australian designers hiding?   Commentators and fashion pundits rave about our designers who present "original", "unique" and/or "oriental/ethnic" garments but if you really look at most of the other designs, you'll see that they are a carbon copy or a clone of what is appearing at the New York or Milan Fashion Shows as well as other shows around the world.  In fact shove a bit of fabric somewhere on the body of a skeletal model, muss up her hair and send her out on the catwalk and everyone goes into raptures!

Let's not kid ourselves.  The fashion industry in Australia at any rate is losing, if not has already lost, it's opportunity to take centre-stage and reap the tremendous benefits of AUSTRALIAN PLUS-SIZE FASHION.  Let's use our own natural fibres;  colours which truly represent this land of the Southern Cross;  our own natural dyes;  our own natural flora and fauna to be used as themes;  create garments that are designed and made FOR the Australian climates (of which there are many), and FOR the Australian woman.   Just where are the Ken Done fabrics, colours and designs for the larger size Australian woman?   Where in fact are the wonderful Jenny Kee designs (for knitwear) hiding these days?   (Other than in the original knitting books that you may have stacked away in your bookcase). 

You can't tell me that the original and truly unique designs of these two Australians are locked in a time-warp and were only available or relevant to the years in which they first came on the scene.   Their designs based on the Australian landscape, fauna and flora translated into ANY season and any decade.

As you've probably guessed, I am NOT an expert on fashion.  Far from it.  I'm not even a dressmaker even though there are times when I wish I were.  But I do wear clothes, and I do know what I would like and I do know what I want when it comes to fashion.  And in speaking with other Australian women right around the country, as well as expatriates overseas, they tend to agree with me.

........ Lenore Dembski

So my point is this.  If we can't convince our so-called "leading designers" to create fashion for us, then let us look at our indigenous dress designers.  While I haven't as yet seen any creations by these wonderful designers in the marketplaces of Melbourne, Sydney or Brisbane, I hope it won't be too long before we get a glimpse of what is available.  Back in the 1980s there was a flurry of interest as major Australian fashion designers put indigenous textiles on display.  Just look on the internet and you'll find articles on exceptional indigenous women designers, like aboriginal Lenore Dembski of Paperbark Woman, http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/hsc/paperbark/lenore.htm

We have Australian women (indigenous) of great talent; we do have Australian textiles; but where do we buy garments created by these women in the fabrics and designs and themes of their culture?

We remain optimistic!

Here also is the link from the West Australian newspaper which relates to Leona Edmiston and Collette Dinnigan vefnturing into the plus size market.    Perhaps there's more to come.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/full-coverage/7975887/industry-awakes-to-real-women-sizes/

Clothes for the Plus-Size Woman - back then ....

"But now as she stood before the stunning creations hanging in the wardrobe she found herself face to face with a new kind of beauty - an artificial one created by the hand of man the artist, but aimed directly and cunningly at the heart of woman.  In that very instant she fell victim to the artist:  at that moment there was born within her the craving to possess such a garment - a Dior dress."    .... Paul Gallico, "Floeers for Mrs Harris" 1958.

I recall seeing the film, "Mrs Harrison Goes to Paris", starring Angela Lansbury.  This film was based on Paul Gallico's book Flowers for Mrs Harris.   In the above excerpt is really the basis of the story, and a wonderfully happy little film this is.

Each time however I read the above paragraph it reminds me of something quite incredible.  Fashion in the early 50s through to the 60s was undergoing radical change.  The Fashion Houses of Dior, Chanel, Schiaparelli, Monyneaux, Hartnell were designing creations that were fluid art, soft, feminine and flattering.  And everywhere, including the rag-trade of good old Melbourne town, took these designs to their heart, and recreated them (with appropriate subtle changes, of course!) into affordable fashion for the everyday woman.  Yes, they were a little more expensive than one bought from Forges of Footscray or Dimmeys of Richmond, but for a special occasion, the extra cost was well worth the effort.   Why, one could even wear such a garment time and time and time again, and no-one ever made comment about the fact that perhaps you had only one such gown in your wardrobe suitable for those special occasions.  The reason of course was that everyone else was in the same situation.

But what is even more incredible is that the majority of this affordable fashion was available in a comprehensive size range.  OK, so there was XSSW (the very petite and tiny woman) through to SSW, SW, W (which was the benchmark for the size of the average or typical woman - as far as the purchaser was concerned, anyway!).  Then came XW, XXW, and XXXW.  Sizes then progressed to XXXXW and the five X's.   I am unaware of whether where were in fact sizes for the larger woman than the 5X's.  But I do know this.  If there was a garment in XXSW that took my eye, I could without too much bother purchase a similar garment, in the same fabric and a similar colour range, in W - equivalent today to between size 16 and 18.

The other option available to women of size during those years was the huge market for "paper-patterns".  While there is quite a selection available today, the choice back in the 1950s was quite plentiful taking into account the fact that Australia (as with Britain) was trying to get back on its "feet" following the Second World War.  And readers who do recall the 1950s (either personally or from things their mothers or grandmothers have spoken about) will also remember the FREE paper patterns which were included in every issue of a leading Australian women's magazine, The Australian Home Journal.

Another favourite paper pattern supplier was "Madam Weigal" - marvellously simple to use, and always resulting in a garment that received ooh's and aah's from friends.

In fact a number of women's magazines offered patterns, whether as enclosures, or actual patterns that one could trace out onto brown paper and which would become the basis of a pattern to be used over and over, with cunning little changes that belied the fact that you may only have had one pattern to your name!

So women of size WERE treated with, dare I say it, more respect back in the 1950s than today, from a fashion perspective.   Discount the fact that the "sketches" on the fronts of these magazines and patterns showed tiny, tiny waists, the patterns themselves easily met the needs of a woman who had a figure - a "real" figure.    It must be remembered too that back then there were no shopping malls, there were only a few department stores and most shopping precincts consisted of what is termed today as a "shopping strip" - shops along both sides of a certain part of a street which were the hub of a suburb.

To be continued - What has happened since ....

O, my gosh - it goes on and on .....

The subject currently on every body's lips (and hips) is "obesity". What an absolutely horrid word - degrading, disdainful, demeaning. I'm old enough to remember when people used such words as "homely", "natural", "chubby", "generously endowed", "well proportioned" and so on. I can even recall a Doctor back then trying to tell me, without offending me, that I was a "little overweight". And in among hundreds of other doctors and specialists that I've visited during the years in between, I've been called a lot of names, and "obese" is among those words. I do not like the word, in fact I loathe it. And I will not admit to being "obese" - I am a "fully-rounded" woman!

Blame is being piled on parents of beautifully formed and healthy children; they're being told their children are "obese" and they've got to do something about it - immediately! Just look at the media and the government pushing the idea of "food police" to check on children's lunch boxes; just look at parents being threatened with "abuse" if they don't feed their children food that the so-called experts (and the government departments involved) demand they eat; putting children onto crash diets and extreme exercise regimes (all costing a lot of money to parents of course), and on it goes. 

Not to mention the emotional trauma all this leads to.

Blame, blame, blame, and parents are taking upon themselves all sorts of guilt trips.

Yet I come back to the same argument I've been promoting for the past twenty years or more. Maybe it's NOT the food or the quantity of food that we're eating - maybe it's what's IN the food that we're eating.

On two separate occasions on recent telivison here, one a replay of the "Cook and the Chef" on the ABC which is a very entertaining, and informative and enjoyable show showing cooking tips and hints, with easy-medium-hard recipes, and the second "The Food Investigators" on SBS, this very subject was raised. And it justified what I've been saying (and what others of my kind have been saying) for decades.

For instance. Bread. Bread that is baked today no longer resembles the bread of "yesterday" - and I'm talking about 20-30-40 years ago. The ingredients are different - the quantities of salt and sugar are different - the additives are different; the food colourings and chemicals are different. You're beginning to see where I'm coming from?

Now we come to the nitty-gritty. Most of the grains that make up breads are genetically modified. OK, we're being told over and over again that there's nothing wrong with genetically modified foods (and in fact they're "good" for us - haaa). No one knows for sure. And no one will know for sure until at least another two generations. Because if we have food such as bread which is made to "look" fresh without being so, then something is happening and we're being drawn into the trap of believing something that is not true nor good for us.

What I mean by this is simple. We used to buy bread that if it became stale, we'd be aware of it. If it became mouldy, we'd be aware of it. If it started to "smell, we'd be aware of it. It usually went out to the chooks in the back yard, long before it even got to the mouldy stage. But today? Because of being genetically modified, it no longer goes stale, it no longer smells, it no longer goes mouldy. And anyone in the health and nutrition profession will tell you that eating bread that is mouldy is putting toxins into the body, which are not only harmful but deadly. Yet because we can't "see" or "smell" that the bread of going "off", we eat it merrily thinking that it is good for us! We're being "conned".

Oh yes another thing. We're told now that we shouldn't "freeze" bread. We should store it in a wooden (for preference) or plastic bread bin. Sounds like my Grandma talking!

The other items which were referred to in the Cook and the Chef were dairy products. Again, it is was pointed out that many of the natural ingredients of milk (and subsequently in cream, cheese and yoghurt) were removed from the milk, only to be replaced by additives, chemicals and colourings. So if the cows are eating grass in fields of genetically modified grasses, then who knows what's actually going into or happening to the milk. Oh, yes, another thing. Years ago, dairy farmers always washed their milking machines in an iodine wash - it acted as an antiseptic and cleanser, and would you believe it, because it then fitted over the cow's teats at milking time, that iodine found itself in the milk. And that was good for us! So what now? The farmers wash the milking machines with flouride, which means no more iodine. Now the government says, the farmer has to add iodine to the milk he's producing from his cows. Take something out, add something else, and then reconstitute food stuffs to suit the current "thought" of the day.

And a simple question. How do insects, birds and wildlife know they're in a genetically modified field, before travelling int into another which the farmer (or his neighbour) has done everything to maintain as genetically free. Do insects and birds and wildlife read little notices telling them - "Beware - this is a genetically modified field (or paddock) - tread carefully! And who translates for them?

This is a serious problem. And I believe it has a bearing on the so-called "obesity" epidemic. Every morsel of food that we eat has been tampered with. Even, if we plant seeds ourselves, we don't know what contaminants have been fed into the soil in our backyard, and we don't know whether the seeds have come from genetically modified parents or not.

A lot of serious and intelligent discussion is required, by ordinary everyday people.

I've been somewhat tardy .....

It's been a few days since I posted - been busy of course, but as with so many things these days I can't quite remember what I've been doing - all I know is that I was too busy to get to the computer and write a post!   Not much of an excuse but I'll stick to that one

As most of my friends know I "collect" heaps of clippings, magazine articles and quotations.   They all come in handy (that is if I have the time to read them, file them and remember them!).  But here's ten things that ONLY and EVERY woman will understand:
 
10.  Why it's good to have five pairs of black shoes
9.    The difference between cream, ivory and off-whitw
8.     Crying can be fun
7.     "Fat" clothes
6.     A salad, diet drink and a hot fudge sundae make a balanced lunch
5.     Discovering a designer dress on the clearance rack can be considered a peak life experience
4.     The inaccuracy of every bathroom scale ever made
3.     A good man might be hard to find, but a good hairdresser is next to impossible
2.     Why a phone call between two women never lasts under ten minutes


and the Number 1 thingthat only women understand?

1.   OTHER WOMEN!

(I realise this quotation has probably been making the rounds for years now, but sometimes it's worth while being reminded of some of the fun things that are important and pertinent - to us!)

What I need to know about life

What I need to know about life, I've learned from the story of Noah and his Ark.

One:     Don't miss the boat.
Two:     Remember that we are all in the same boat.
Three:   Plan ahead.  It wasn't raining when Noah built the Ark.
Four:     Stay fit.  When you're 600 years old,
                someone may ask you to do something really big.
Five:     Don't listen to critics;  just get on with the job that needs to be done.
Six:       Build your future on high ground.
Seven:   For safety's sake, travel in pairs.
Eight:    Speed isn't always an advantage.  The snails were on board with the cheetahs.
Nine:     When you're stressed, float a while.
Ten:       Remember the Ark was built by amateurs;  the Titanic by professionals.
Eleven:  No matter the storm, when you are with God, there's always a rainbow waiting ...

May your troubles be less, may your blessing be more, and nothing nothing but happiness come through your door!

How do we see ourselves?

Look at yourself!

We do. Many times a day when passing a mirror or the reflections in shop windows. So often though we shy away from actually "looking" at ourselves because we fear being reminded that we are not exactly perfect or meet society's perception of what is ideal.

But if we are serious about changing attitudes, and perceptions, we have to make ourselves vulnerable to our own inspections. We have to expose our real personality and character from behind all those layers of protection we wear. Many of these layers are quite invisible and forgotten but have to be shed just as though they were fabric.

Next time you shower or bathe, take time out and actually look at yourself in the mirror. The whole you. Don't just look at the double chin, the drooping boobs, the fat sloppy tummy, the thick thighs, the bulging knees, and the thick ankles. Ankles? you ask - do I have any? Yes, they're there just as you have a waistline, and just as you have a decollete.

Take note of what you see. Thrust away any ideas of comparisons. In other words when you do look at yourself, don't see a fat and ungainly edition of Angelina Jolie or Nicole Kidman. See and appreciate the special limited edition of you! There is no other. You cannot be copied, or cloned. You are you, and you are unique. Even if you are a large, economy size!

And don't make excuses and don't feel guilty. Your body has a certain shape and size for very good reasons. Only one of those reasons MAY be because of the wrong diet or lack of moderation. We have to throw out these archaic ideas that just because we are taller, heavier, wider and broader than the so-called "ideal" women (who are after all in the main genetic freaks - not my words but womens clothing manufacturers. commentators and even some fashion writers), then it is because we over-eat. That's what we've been told for far too long, and unfortunately that's what we come to believe.

Stuff and nonsense! Let's get things into perspective. There are very good reasons why we sometimes eat food that is supposed to be bad for us. There are very good reasons why sometimes we eat too large meal or snack. But those reasons are not because we are undisciplined, it is because our body and yes our mind, tell us that this is the way we can handle situations, or people, and it gives us comfort combined with the incentive to move on from those particular situations and people. Psychologists give us all sorts of technical and chemical reasons, but we know what happens when we feel down, stressed, out of sorts, when we feel sad, and/or feel unloved or unappreciated. "Professional" people treat the chemical person, we live as a physical and spiritual person.

There's a lot of discussion recently about whether a fat person does in fact eat too much! This subject crops up every decade or so, and nothing ever changes in the attitudes of society or people who could make a difference in the public's perception and acceptance of the plus size (such as journalists, editors of women's magazines, as well as the fashion industry itself). And why don't things change? Because it's too darned easy to blame someone else for their inappropriate attitude - they'd have to change policies within their industries and that wouldn't do. It wouldn't do at all! Because as a consequence they'd have to admit they were wrong.

Learn to like what you see. Let the female form be seen for what it is - it was created for procreation, and it was created for pleasure. Not lustful pleasure but personal pride. Something which is uniquely yours, and which you can enhance in so many wondrous ways - particularly if your imagination allows you the freedom to do so.

Food, food, glorious food

When I visited a favourite little cafe in Guildford recently, I chose some venison skewers served on 'cos lettuce and with pita bread, a small vegetable sausage cut in two, a small bowl of low fat yoghurt and some spicy no-sugar chutney. I reckon I did well. This was my main meal for the day, and apart from a small breakfast serving, I ate fruit throughout the day, with plenty of water.

With all the publicity about "obesity" and being told we're eating the wrong food and eating too much of the wrong food, it comes as a little bit of a surprise to hear that in a recent survey here in Australia, it's been found that one in five households are eating what everyone tells us we SHOULD be eating. That doesn't sound too different to people's choices of a decade or so ago, when you think about it.

Going further into the survey, meat and three vegetables is still the favourite meal. Well, we're told we should be eating more vegies but doesn't this contradict the theory that none of us are eating the preferred requirements?

Salads or vegetables are served as an accompaniment to meat, fish and chicken dishes. Salads go with lasagna and pasta meals. Stir frys are a regular weekly event and spaghetti bolognaise join stir frys as favourites. Many families eat fish at least three times a week. Chicken at least two.

Am I reading this all wrong or what? Because to me this sounds like what we should be eating.

Across the board however, the survey, carried out by Westinghouse (Australia?), found the following:

Top 10 home-cooked meals
1. Steak or chops with vegetables or salad
2. Roast/baked dinner
3. Spaghetti Bolognaise
4. Stir Fry
5. Seafood with vegetables or salad
6. Chicken pieces pan fried with sauce
7. Casserole
8. Barbeque
9. Schnitzel
10. Ready-made meals.

What the survey doesn't say, is that number 10 - ready-made meals are very often meals prepared by the person doing the cooking in the home (usually Mum) at the weekend in preparation of the week, and frozen in readiness to re-heat.   Quite often too, the ready-made meals are actually the remainders of the other meals, when too much has been cooked, and then frozen.

The re-emergencw of home-cooking is taking everyone by storm. And it doesn't take much to see that people, even when pressed for time, and pressed for money (with the economic downturn) will return to their mothers and grand-mothers cooking books and hints and tips.

Another thing that I'm hearing all the time is this. Most people have taken note of the "obesity" obsession with the media and the government and done something positive about their own sizings of meals. The number of women I've spoken to who have willingly reduced the plate size from a "mains" to a side plate, have to be taken seriously. Yet, as they, and I've found, this has no effect on body weight (by this I mean losing weight). In other words people are NOT over-eating, and they're eating what they consider to be good food, and what the experts tell us we should be eating.

I can't remember when I last heard anyone saying they had "sweets" or "desserts" following their main meal of the day. People have cut these out. The sales of fruit confirm this, as almost everyone now has bowls of fruit readily available for both the kids and adults.