If so, we will never solve the problem:
Sugar is fuelling a global obesity pandemic and should be controlled just like alcohol and tobacco, doctors argue. The health effects are so dangerous that it is contributing to 35million deaths each year from illnesses such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer, they say.
Experts suggest levying sales taxes, controlling access and tightening licensing requirements on vending machines that sell high sugar products. Writing in Nature, doctors at the University of California said sugar did far more harm than simply expanding waistlines, and at the level consumed by most Americans it changes metabolism, raises blood pressure and damages the liver.
"As long as the public thinks that sugar is just “empty calories”, we have no chance of solving this," said Dr Robert Lustig. "It is toxic beyond its calories."
Dr Lustig and his team said the public needed to be better informed about the dangers with a wide approach similar to that seen with tobacco and alcohol...
We live and learn, eh? I had no idea that there was such a thing as an "empty calorie" and am still baffled as to how to distinguish one from a "full calorie". And I am horrified to learn that sugar is toxic. Etc.
Forbidden Bible Verses — Genesis 42:18-28
47 minutes ago
29 comments:
"The health hazards mirror those of alcohol – which health experts point out is made from distilling sugar"
Did a monkey write that.
Den, I was too shocked to read that far, I thought it best to alert the wider world to the horrors of sugar as soon as possible.
The guy is right. Somewhere online is an hour and a half long lecture he gave on the issues regarding high fructose corn syrup, and the health problem associated with it. Its fascinating.
Basically the argument is this - the body metabolises sucrose and fructose in totally different ways. Sucrose goes straight to glucose and is used by the muscles, whereas fructose is metabolised more like alcohol (which is a sugar) and causes the same health issues as alcohol - weight gain and heart problems. Table sugar is 50% sucrose and 50% fructose, so stuff full of normal sugar is bad enough, however lots of products now contain high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which is a synthesised product made from maize that is predominantly fructose. Its sweeter than normal sugar, and cheap, hence its use in cola drinks and manufactured food products. You can chart the rise of HFCS with the rise in obesity in both the US and the UK.
The entire 'You must eat less saturated fat, and more carbs' thrust of medicine in the West for the last 35 years is wrong, and based on a study that basically falsified the evidence on the correlation between saturated fat intake and heart disease.
I personally eat a high fat diet - loads of cheese, butter and red meat, and keep the sweet stuff and carbs to a minimum. I had a cholesterol test just this week: total cholesterol 4.90, HDL 1.63, ratio TC to HDL of 3:1. I'm 6'0" and weigh 12 stone level.
Found the link: watch it and change your life. I showed it to my old family doctor (now retired) - he has changed his entire dietary intake as a result, and lost loads of weight. He regularly thanks me for showing him the lecture - he says I saved his life! A bit OTT but he's no idiot - if he thinks its true, thats good enough for me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM&feature=player_embedded
While the facts of it actually make the scare-nazi's point weaker, there is a case for "empty" and "full" calories.
A calorie, you see, is a measure of energy. It's the imperial equivalent of the Joule. The essence of the way they calculate calorific content is (and don't laugh) by literally burning the food and measuring how much heat they get from it.
I don't know if you know this: there is no fire in your stomach.
The body, and how it processes food is considerably more complicated than is represented by a single "energy content" number. For example, some foods are hard to digest, some are easy. A hard-to-digest-but-high-in-energy food could have less effective calories in it than an easy-to-digest-but-low-in-energy food.
It gets worse though... your body runs, at a cellular level, off a type of sugar (well, a derivative, called ATP). In the end, all energy extracted from food has to be converted to ATP for use by the body. Welcome the magical organ that is your liver.
You can well imagine though that those conversions have different levels of efficiency; and have different byproducts and storage forms.
The dirty little secret of the scare-nazis that they don't want to tell you (because "more calories"="bad" is so much easier to sell) is that all calories are not equal; and all calories don't translate into more fat.
No doubt of it; I'm going to have to give up eating fruit, then. I discovered it's loaded with fructose and was appalled when I learned that the chemical formula for fructose is C6H12O6 which is the same as the chemical formula for glucose, which is a sugar!
Is there no escape???????????
Where did my comment go?
S, you may have a point re glucose vs fructose, see here. But the article just referred to 'sugar'. If your diet works for you, then great. I prefer that sort of balance as well.
OP, if you're into burning food, then try burning a poppadom!
FT, that puzzled me in biology lessons as well, but it appears that there is a difference, see link above.
S, it went to spam, whence I have just retrieved it.
@FT
Strangely, I think their scaremongering is based in fact on the processing of fructose sugar. (it's worth noting that in hydrocarbons the structure is more important than the molecule count, so fructose and glucose are indeed different).
Now... biology is not my thing, so this is, at best, a crappy view of what goes on.
Glucose is a key part of the energy cycle in your body. Sucrose (I believe) converts fairly easily into glucose. Fructose on the other hand does not.
Fructose is actually processed more like ethanol is. The key thing being the damage to your liver is almost identical (the drunkenness is not). The problem is that one of the byproducts of fructose/ethanol metabolism is an acid that burns your liver (since the metabolising is done in your liver, that's what burns). The other byproduct is fat.
So; unlike sucrose, fructose and ethanol are fattening. Unlike sucrose, fructose and ethanol damage your liver. High fructose corn syrup is in an extraordinary number of products these days. The key thing though is that you only need a little bit of HFCS to make things sweet, since its taste is so powerful.
That all being said: this is still scaremongering. Just as the alcohol bollocks is. You have to consume excessive amounts of fructose (certainly not the amounts in fruit) to be damaging. Sugary drinks are probably as fattening as beer; so if you care about that you can avoid them. Sugar those, isn't that fattening. It's not the sugar in your mars bar that's putting the pounds on, it's the fat in the chocolate.
Personally I couldn't care less. Provided you don't go mad with any one food stuff, I suspect you will be fine and your body will handle it all perfectly well.
(Ooops: I see sober's comment has just appeared which says the same as mine)
OP, you have to be careful with 'sucrose'. It appears that it is just a mixture of glucose and fructose.
Sugars and starches (which are quickly metabolised to sugars) are okay if you are able to consume them in moderation and take enough exercise to make use of them. But that is a lot of exercise – much more than people realise.
Many can’t do moderation or exercise and it’s a serious problem, leading to obesity and diabetes.
I agree with Sobers – we should have warned people about the carbs, not the fats. Now the message is confused.
Sucrose is just a molecule of glucose and a molecule of fructose joined by a weak bridge that opens up in acid e.g. in your stomach. "High Fructose corn syrup" is 55% fructose, 45% glucose and therefore little different from sucrose.
Ethanol is not a sugar.
If you want to just make up pseudoscience, it is conventional to call yourself a Climate Scientist.
Sucrose isn't toxic per se. But any chemical ingested in high quantity can be. Even drinking water to excess can kill you. It's the excess word that is important. The only empty calories you can eat will be triose sugars and other carbohydrates that humans cannot digest plus thickeners such as guar, carob and xanthan gums. They have a calorific value but you cannot digest them. Mind you, bacteria can so watch out for flatus (the polite medical term). Part of the problem with sugar is when it is sneaked into fods like baked beans and drinks.
'ang on sobers. Alcohol as in ethanol is not a sugar. It is produced by fermenting a sugar. Ethanol is an alcohol by chemical definition. Anway, if you consume more calories than you metabolise you store the excess as either glycogen or fat!
Well that should put paid to centuries of traditional jam making.
What a small,sad world this is becoming.
Rose
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3183821/Jam-can-curb-cancer-say-food-scientists.html ?
Den, that sounds like one of the arguments against DHMO.
Its really high glyceamic index carbohydrates that are addictive. By empty they mean there are only addictive carbohydrates in them. No body and mind mending minerals etc.
I have primary evidence by both self experimentation and that of others independantly arriving at the same results.
The problem with the article is it blames the wrong cause. The sugar itself and the addicts. Sound familiar? eg benefit scroungers, immigrants, muslims. Blame the victim slaves not the perpetrating masters. The Dr is a coward.
When cause of the addiction to hi gi carbs is rooted in the social system.
Hi gi carbs are slave food drugs. We are compelled to eat them. By the factories that profit. They are incredibly cheap calories, very easy to make, very easy to gather.
http://gco2e.blogspot.com/2011/05/slave-foods
Whereas freedom foods, those our hunter gather ancestors ate as free people: fish, lean meat, fresh fruit and vegetables are the opposite. Not for slaves!
http://gco2e.blogspot.com/2011/05/freedom-foods.html
This applies to all social drugs, that satisfy a miserable lifestyle by giving perpetual short term relief for our submission to slavery.
Proof? I can only recommend you try it yourselves for 2 weeks. You will be amazed at the immediate transition. Ie cravings for the carbs will disappear, weight will start to fall to natural stable levels, almost no viral infections, there is more.
Of course if you dont try it, you will never know. Then remain a slave. Your choice.
@Dr Evil: you're right it's not. My A level Chemistry was a long time ago! But as Onus Probandy points out with more technical knowledge than I, fructose is metabolised the same as ethanol by the body, with the same problems.
And there as another mistake in my initial comment - sucrose (table sugar) is disaccharide, one molecule of glucose loosely attached to one of fructose, as several people have rightly pointed out.
I strongly urge you to watch the lecture on Youtube I linked to. It is long and technical, but it does clearly lay out the facts on the metabolic pathways for glucose and fructose and the different ways they affect our bodies.
I have a theory, entirely without any scientific backing I'm sure, that we humans are not designed to metabolise complex carbohydrates in large amounts. Our caveman ancestors ate meat and fruits and berries. Farming allowing production of grains did not arrive until around 10,000 years ago. The oldest humans, or pre-humans, are up to 7 million years old, so they will have evolved to suit their environment. We have had nowhere near long enough for our digestive tracts to evolve to deal with the new diet, which is why we are struggling.
Sobers, correct, low gi, hi "good" fats. But you will die 20 years young on those fats. Try fats with a higher proportion of omega 3 to omega 6.
Eat as much meat as you can, but lean meats and stuff that eats grass especially man killing cows. Avoid grain fed(hi gi) animal protein.
Fish is better than all of them. Venison is really good.
You wont be able to eat too much of any of it. Because the hi gi induced cravings will disappear. You wont want it. Simples. But this is hard for slaves to see of course.
The other chap on fructose. Common error. Yes fruit is frutose but low in proportion to the high nutrient content of fruit. Eat as much fruit and veg as you can. You wont be able to over do it.
High Fructose Corn Syrup may well be cheap, nasty sh*te, which various manufacturers have alighted upon as a way of both bulking out products - more weight, less cost - than the alternatives, and giving them an extra "sweetness" which is cheaper than using alternatives - and over consumption of HFCS may not do one much good, and may well do one much harm. But, the paper upon which the press release upon which all the stories in the medja are based - and many are straightforward 100% copies of the entire press release, complete with "quotes" - just flags up "Sugar" - so any "sugar" - as the evil ... and try as I might I can't find whether or not the research insitute which prepared the study gets funding or sponsorship from makers of "sugar alternatives " but it is certaintly an research institute which benefits from "alcohol control funding" and which has published on "that topic" - which makes you wonder how on earth (other than for the purposes of "misinforming to a specific end ???) that rubbish about alcohol being distiled from sugar (which the medja gaily repeats - even the pieces byelined with some "I am an expert" tag) .. see for example ..
Societal Control of Sugar Essential to Ease Public Health Burden, Experts Urge
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120201135312.htm
"Sugar is fuelling a global obesity pandemic ."
This first statement is made with no offer of proof.
Unless it is proven that there is a global obesity epidemic, there is nothinmg for sugar to fuel.
In 1998 in America, they changed the standards for being over-weight and obese.
One morning, 30 million adults woke-up to find they had become over-weight or obese without gaining a single pound of mass.
However; since there were now 30 million more over-weight or obese adults, there was an epidemic of over-weight /obese adults going on.
Epidemics are easy to create.
Gary K.
GaryK, putting all the clever science stuff to one side, it's not a pandemic either, because being fat is not an infectious disease.
ooh Loookeee ... Writing up "the tale" the G science person "appears" to have kindly "corrected" that little slip about "how distilling sugar creates alcohol" ..
"This is no surprise, because alcohol is derived from the fermentation of sugar."
Or maybe he has just um actually um picked up the 'phone, sent an email, consulted the authors ... because he also quotes another "AND THIS IS WHY WE MANAGE TO SELL THIS STUFF" quote ..
Dr Tim Lobstein, director of policy and programmes at the International Obesity Task Force, said sugar consumption was a major battleground for public health. "The large food manufacturers are very reluctant to see any restrictions on the use of cheap, bulk ingredients like sugars and starches. In the UK we have seen a gradual decline in sugar purchases, but this has been amply made up by an increase in sugar added to manufactured products, including ready meals, soups, snack foods and alcoholic drinks, and the last decade has seen record purchases of confectionery and soft drinks, despite endless health education campaigns.
"There is certainly rising interest in taxing sugary foods, and treasuries will see this as an opportunity to boost state income while helping improve our diets."
A couple of years ago I took it into my head to read the ingredients lists on packets of supermarket mueslis. They are sugar-packed, so now I mix my own, the only sugars being what are already in the ingredients e.g. in dried apricots. Dead easy, probably cheaper, probably better for me. No need to rant about us being slaves to Bigtuck, just mix your own. No cooking skills required.
California. Of course. Capital of weird.
Doesn't that arch anti-smoking fanatic Glantz 'work' there?
As for the public needing to be "more aware" - they mean bombarded with junk science.
Anon @ 14:28. I think there is something like you say behind this. The experiance of my friends tells me it's carbs that make you fat. Two of them have gone on the same diet as Sobers and they have lost a lot of weight really quickly. The problem is that our diet (bread and potatoes) has evolved to suit a lifestyle that, for most people, involved hard physical labour and now very few lifestyles do that any more. So for a study to pinpoint a particular carbohydrate and not all carbohydrates as being the cause of lots of people being fat does rather suggest special pleading.
Are you one of those numptiesm who think we are content to come after you fighting "one front at a time?"
Well think again, bozo !
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/feb/04/cancer-fat-salt-sugar-food
Opening line - "Foodstuffs and drinks need to contain less sugar, salt and fat in order to help combat ...."
and guess what, even though the authors of the report which has reached thisn conclusion have also established that there is "some other, bigger factor at play" the "message" they want to put across is [Tada !] ...
The WCRF identified the ageing population as the key factor behind the rise, because cancer affects mainly the over-60s. But it also said improvements in lifestyles, such as eating better, maintaining a normal weight and taking exercise could prevent as many as a third of all cancers.
"Measures to tackle the fat, sugar and salt content of food and drinks and to improve the opportunities for physical activity are the type of developments we need to cut these predictions of future cancer cases," said Dr Kate Allen, the science and communications director at WCRF International.
Which is jolly good - if all these measures are introduced then the statistics we knock together on the likely future incidence of cancer might look different !
Somehow, I doubt it. But on the other hand, if we could all just stop, right now, living longer and getting older and as a result, increasing the likelihood of getting cancer, that would be a big big help !
Bayard:
It is High Glycemic Index carbohydrates that are the problem.
Low and medium GI are not a problem.
Avoid potatoes, rice, grains and you will be fine.
BTW Sobers will die young on his diet. Though it will help lose weight it will make him extremely unhealthy and mentally unsound...
He is eating fats that are very bad for you. Hi Omega 6 in proportion to Omega 3. The Atkins Diet was especially notorious for this. All he needs to do is avoid fatty proteins that are grain fed: Sea food, fish, lean meats(pork loin, turkey, chicken, venison, beef fillet)
The Paleo Diet is still only hypothesis. But its worked for me. The health benefits being that I no longer get immune system related virus's. And weirdly think differently.
See here for a brief exposition:
http://paleodietlifestyle.com/
And for athletes:
http://bit.ly/wg8i5n
I'm trying to promote it as Cavenomics here:
http://bit.ly/yz8dvC
Its about slavery in the end:
http://bit.ly/y4nZoJ
Robin, I think losing weight and staying healthy are two different diets. After all, if you want to lose weight, you need to put into your body slightly less than it needs. Personally, if I want to lose weight, I simply eat less of everything by skipping supper.
"Sea food, fish, lean meats(pork loin, turkey, chicken, venison, beef fillet)" Are these things to avoid or things to go for?
Bayard, go for those things. See links above for very short articles on how so very simple it is to get healthy in weeks.
I never meant that losing weight and staying healthy are the same thing.
Being the optimal weight is part of being healthy. What Paleodiet does is by nature make you the right weight. The genes do it as per the theory. Mostly by reducing cravings to zero. You eat what you need and just don't feel hungry anymore.
But losing weight by eating not enough or bad fats and carbs will definitely make you unhealthy.
Why not stop talking the walk. Try it. Plan it carefully. You will know within 2 weeks.
Post a Comment