Anyone else concerned about the Anti Sugar hysteria?
RutlandGav
Posts: 144
Like everyone else, I get irritated when food manufacturers over-sweeten products, or when diet versions of your favourite fizzy drink aren't available in small shops. However, the people banging the drum most loudly are Keto/Low Carb advocates and journalists embarking on such diets following post-christmas excesses.
I'm pro-choice and in an ideal world, whether you're trying to follow 80:10:10 or Keto the foods to build such a diet would be widely available and well labelled. However, it's possible to envisage some really horrible legislation that would result if the Guardian ( a paper i generally support, btw) get their own way.
"Ban Sugar / Added Sugar / Carbs".
Just remember -
Sugar 4 calories per gram
Starch 4 calories per gram
Fat 9 calories per gram
The only difference between simple carbs and complex carbs is how rapidly they are absorbed into the blood stream. Even then, factors such as the amount consumed in one sitting, presence or absence of fibre , protein etc. within the meal can be more significant than the type of carbohydrate eaten. Finally, rapidly absorbed carbs aren't always a bad thing, sure they don't keep you full as long as other foods and could lead to excessive blood glucose if you eat a large amount in one sitting and haven't exercised, but they do make their presence felt quickly to give that "satiated" feeling.
"Ban foods containing added sugar".
I'll quite often eat a salad that's been covered in sweet chilli sauce. Sweet chilli sauce = almost all sugar. Oh noes ! But the rest of the salad is just fibre and water. As a meal, it's low calorie density food, way less than bread (no added sugar), or say, a bacon and cheese pastry wrap (no sugar, low carb, no fibre, very high in saturated fat and calories).
"Eliminate non starchy carbs"
More nonsense. Almost all of the calories in fruit are from the simple disaccharide , Fructose (Fructose is evil, remember!). As a result bananas, peaches, grapes, pineapple, taste sweet. But, 85% of what you are eating is just fibre and water.
Bread , on the other hand, is starchy, but is by weight 70% carbs and 10% protein and only 20% non-calorie bearing fibre/water. Even though it doesn't taste sweet, bread is far more "fattening" than fruit.
The Law of Unintended (?) consequences
So what will my workplace look like, if a large tax or ban is put on "added sugar"?
The low fat yoghurts will go, even though they're only 65 calories a pot, because the canteen only buys the cheapest ingredients and won't pay the sugar tax. Yoghurts sweetened by real fruit would cost too much, so we'll either see pots of cream, or full fat yoghurt, or more likely no yoghurt at all. No more Chinese food, even more fried stuff, cheese, pasties and meat. The vending machines are currently stocked with Walkers crisps, Snickers bars, and Skittles. After legislation, they will only contain crisps, salted peanuts, and pork scratchings.
In the 70s and 80s, we mostly ate homecooked food, meat and 3 veg dinners, the odd stew or casserole. There were fish and chip shops, but it's nothing compared to the way high streets are now lined end to end with "fast food" joints. Finally, every school, workplace and public building is full of vending machines, which managers seem to think are a cheaper alternative to canteens. I work on a large site (500-1000 employees) in the middle of nowhere, which operates a shift system 24 hours a day, but the canteen is only open for six, the other 18 are covered by vending machines.
Most people end up eating from the food that's on hand when they become hungry. Half our staff are from Eastern Europe, they gain about 18lb per year that they work here and soon look like British people. I also watch Serpentza's Youtube channel (Westerner living in China), where he talks about being fat in China. He says that Asians simply have better genetics and faster metabolisms, that is why they are slim. He was obese when he first went over there, and is now slim. I can also show him a couple of morbidly obese Chinese people who work where I do, pattern anyone?
I'm pro-choice and in an ideal world, whether you're trying to follow 80:10:10 or Keto the foods to build such a diet would be widely available and well labelled. However, it's possible to envisage some really horrible legislation that would result if the Guardian ( a paper i generally support, btw) get their own way.
"Ban Sugar / Added Sugar / Carbs".
Just remember -
Sugar 4 calories per gram
Starch 4 calories per gram
Fat 9 calories per gram
The only difference between simple carbs and complex carbs is how rapidly they are absorbed into the blood stream. Even then, factors such as the amount consumed in one sitting, presence or absence of fibre , protein etc. within the meal can be more significant than the type of carbohydrate eaten. Finally, rapidly absorbed carbs aren't always a bad thing, sure they don't keep you full as long as other foods and could lead to excessive blood glucose if you eat a large amount in one sitting and haven't exercised, but they do make their presence felt quickly to give that "satiated" feeling.
"Ban foods containing added sugar".
I'll quite often eat a salad that's been covered in sweet chilli sauce. Sweet chilli sauce = almost all sugar. Oh noes ! But the rest of the salad is just fibre and water. As a meal, it's low calorie density food, way less than bread (no added sugar), or say, a bacon and cheese pastry wrap (no sugar, low carb, no fibre, very high in saturated fat and calories).
"Eliminate non starchy carbs"
More nonsense. Almost all of the calories in fruit are from the simple disaccharide , Fructose (Fructose is evil, remember!). As a result bananas, peaches, grapes, pineapple, taste sweet. But, 85% of what you are eating is just fibre and water.
Bread , on the other hand, is starchy, but is by weight 70% carbs and 10% protein and only 20% non-calorie bearing fibre/water. Even though it doesn't taste sweet, bread is far more "fattening" than fruit.
The Law of Unintended (?) consequences
So what will my workplace look like, if a large tax or ban is put on "added sugar"?
The low fat yoghurts will go, even though they're only 65 calories a pot, because the canteen only buys the cheapest ingredients and won't pay the sugar tax. Yoghurts sweetened by real fruit would cost too much, so we'll either see pots of cream, or full fat yoghurt, or more likely no yoghurt at all. No more Chinese food, even more fried stuff, cheese, pasties and meat. The vending machines are currently stocked with Walkers crisps, Snickers bars, and Skittles. After legislation, they will only contain crisps, salted peanuts, and pork scratchings.
In the 70s and 80s, we mostly ate homecooked food, meat and 3 veg dinners, the odd stew or casserole. There were fish and chip shops, but it's nothing compared to the way high streets are now lined end to end with "fast food" joints. Finally, every school, workplace and public building is full of vending machines, which managers seem to think are a cheaper alternative to canteens. I work on a large site (500-1000 employees) in the middle of nowhere, which operates a shift system 24 hours a day, but the canteen is only open for six, the other 18 are covered by vending machines.
Most people end up eating from the food that's on hand when they become hungry. Half our staff are from Eastern Europe, they gain about 18lb per year that they work here and soon look like British people. I also watch Serpentza's Youtube channel (Westerner living in China), where he talks about being fat in China. He says that Asians simply have better genetics and faster metabolisms, that is why they are slim. He was obese when he first went over there, and is now slim. I can also show him a couple of morbidly obese Chinese people who work where I do, pattern anyone?
0
Comments
-
Bit of a problem when bottled water costs more than fizzy drinks containing loads of sugar.Strava Profile: http://app.strava.com/athletes/20060660
-
Sugary stuff (simple carbs) is fine when you are burning the energy immediately (e.g. on the bike), but generally not a healthy option otherwise in significant quantities. The calorific content may be similar to a given quantity of bread, porridge or whatever, but the fact that it is absorbed quickly means that it will lead to a blood glucose spike unless you are burning it immediately or are in an energy deficit. Such spikes put stress on your insulin response system (eventually a risk for diabetes). Also, if you are relying a lot on fast carbs rather than slower ones chances are you will simply consume more carbs, because the sources are usually denser and quicker to eat, don't fill the stomach, and the insulin spike you get after the blood glucose spike leads to a blood glucose dip, leads to eating more, etc..
That said it's all relative, and the anti-carb, paleo diet brigade have just gone to the other extreme (most of them seem to be fat people looking for something to fixate on and make them feel that they are doing something that's good for their health because they're not able to do what would /really/ be good for their health, i.e. simply eat less...).
So, sugar when you need the energy, or when you don't need it then in moderation, like alcohol or coffee.
I do think that sugary drinks in particular are evil. You are basically just drinking a sugar solution with absolutely zero nutritional value otherwise, and it's completely unnecessary. The one thing that most fat people seem to have in common is that they are always drinking the stuff and carrying it around.. One of the best things you can do for your health is always simply drink water with meals and when you are thirsty.0 -
Yes, although the solution is for people just to drink tap water and to insist on its public availability. There need to be more public fountains, taps in the street etc. One thing that really annoys me in the UK having lived elsewhere is that when you go into a restaurant or cafe to eat you usually have to ask for tap water (and get served it in a single tiny glass), rather than it being left out on the counter in big jugs.Bit of a problem when bottled water costs more than fizzy drinks containing loads of sugar.0 -
I do think that sugary drinks in particular are evil. You are basically just drinking a sugar solution with absolutely zero nutritional value otherwise, and it's completely unnecessary. The one thing that most fat people seem to have in common is that they are always drinking the stuff and carrying it around.. One of the best things you can do for your health is always simply drink water with meals and when you are thirsty.
To be honest this is one thing I have never really done, so I have a hard time finding sympathy for people crying about full fat coke. If you need to cut calories, surely the easiest place to do it is from your drinks rather than food? It's not as if diet cokes etc. don't exist.
I was just listening to some professor giving an interview on the radio, he was a little better informed than your average Guardian journalist. They could tax foods that are over a certain energy density, which sounds like the fairest way, however, sugary drinks are low density by volume compared with most foods, so they want to tax added sugar instead. This does beg the fairly obvious question why not make a distinction between food and drinks, but it shows at least some thought has gone into it.
Re: quick fixes, well sometimes that is what you need.
I ride to work, about 80 minutes before breakfast, get my breakfast on the morning break. By this stage i'm heavily in deficit and feeling slightly dizzy from low blood sugar. If I have a small sugary drink 5 minutes before break comes up, i'll feel a little more normal by the time i reach the canteen and won't go nuts loading stuff onto my tray. Some porridge, wholemeal bread or cereal can provide the sustainer charge.
If I only have slow release carbs, the problem is i just eat and eat and eat till break is over because my blood sugar doesn't go back into the normal range for half an hour, my stomach might feel full but i somehow feel compelled to keep going. Gone through a kilogram of bran flakes or 24 weetabix in one sitting that way..0 -
I'm glad I'm not your employer. It's your brain that needs sugar and, whilst you're in deficit, you're not thinking as sharply as you might.
Additionally, when you finish exercising, you insulin levels spike and this is the window where you have the best opportunity to restore your glycogen.
It sounds to me that you would benefit hugely from grabbing a few carbs as you arrive at work.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
Re: quick fixes, well sometimes that is what you need.
I ride to work, about 80 minutes before breakfast, get my breakfast on the morning break. By this stage i'm heavily in deficit and feeling slightly dizzy from low blood sugar. If I have a small sugary drink 5 minutes before break comes up, i'll feel a little more normal by the time i reach the canteen and won't go nuts loading stuff onto my tray. Some porridge, wholemeal bread or cereal can provide the sustainer charge.
If I only have slow release carbs, the problem is i just eat and eat and eat till break is over because my blood sugar doesn't go back into the normal range for half an hour, my stomach might feel full but i somehow feel compelled to keep going. Gone through a kilogram of bran flakes or 24 weetabix in one sitting that way..
why dont you eat a couple of bananas on your way to work? you ll get more out of your commute ride and not eating boxes of cereal at work, thats just ridiculous :shock:
Sugary drinks should be taxed through the roof, like fags are, some people need protecting from themselves,0 -
Or (radical suggestion here..) why not just have breakfast before you leave? I would never dream of doing anything in the morning before breakfast. I pretty much even refuse to talk to anyone before breakfast. Two fat slices of genuinely good wholegrain bread (impossible to buy in the supermarket unfortunately) or a bowl of porridge is all you need. (And in my case two espressos).Re: quick fixes, well sometimes that is what you need.
I ride to work, about 80 minutes before breakfast, get my breakfast on the morning break. By this stage i'm heavily in deficit and feeling slightly dizzy from low blood sugar. If I have a small sugary drink 5 minutes before break comes up, i'll feel a little more normal by the time i reach the canteen and won't go nuts loading stuff onto my tray. Some porridge, wholemeal bread or cereal can provide the sustainer charge.
If I only have slow release carbs, the problem is i just eat and eat and eat till break is over because my blood sugar doesn't go back into the normal range for half an hour, my stomach might feel full but i somehow feel compelled to keep going. Gone through a kilogram of bran flakes or 24 weetabix in one sitting that way..
why dont you eat a couple of bananas on your way to work? you ll get more out of your commute ride and not eating boxes of cereal at work, thats just ridiculous :shock:
Sugary drinks should be taxed through the roof, like fags are, some people need protecting from themselves,0 -
some people need protecting from themselves,
Holy cow, peeps who think like that worry me. Unless they are talking about people who are mentally ill, and need sectioning briefly to allow treatment, what they really mean is 'people who make life choices that I don't think are appropriate need to be forced to do as I say'
I'm sure equally as self righteous people were calling for similar measures against 'evil' saturated fat twenty years ago, for peoples 'own good', obviously. That didn't work out to be scientifically solid, did it? The unintended consequence was that foods were rammed full of sugar to maintain taste, of course, but, hey ho, as long as THEY are convinced that OTHER people need protecting from themselves, all is justified.
Where is Lord Salisbury when you need him?
'No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.'0 -
Last year I did a quick search for someone who was looking to do a long (multiday) bike ride on some tiny budget. I was looking to see which food gave you the most calories per £ - so that you could maximise the energy from a very limited budget. What I found interesting was that just about all of the usual suspects gave almost identical kcals/£ - whether it was sugar, butter, oats, rice (I don't remember what else I looked at - maybe OJ, golden syrup) - it was almost spooky. I'm not sure whether taxing one of these is the answer but helping people make sensible decisions (whether that's tobacco, alcohol, drugs, or foods that are best eaten only in moderation) isn't a bad thing, per se, and people are sensitive to cost.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0
-
Unfortunately, however, the alternative is far worse - the sort of anti-intellectualist popularism that makes a virtue out of ignorance and gets people like Donald Trump widespread support in the States.. The experts often get it wrong, but they are still right massively more often than everybody else is.
'No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.'
The experts never recommended that people should eat sugar (quite the opposite), and despite the propaganda of the paleo diet industry the jury is very much still out on saturated fat. Eating large quantities of it is probably not good idea until more is known.
As far as protecting people from themselves goes, that's a complex social and philosophical issue. Most people would agree that mandatory seatbelts in cars are a good idea, but most would also not be in favour of alcohol prohibition. And there's the wider societal issue that we all pay for other people's ill health through our taxes and the effect it has on society at large.
The role of a progressive government should be to strongly encourage obviously healthy lifestyle choices and make it easier for people to make them, without making them compulsory. It's pretty difficult to eat healthily in this country even if you want to because the food and retail industry isn't regulated enough. There need to be more government subsidies for healthy food to force it to be made more widely available. Freedom of choice is relative, you aren't going to make healthy choices even if you want to if the practicalities make it very difficult to do so.0 -
I don't necessarily support taxing sugary foods or drinks, but would support the corresponding subsidy on whole foods and whole ingredients. It is an unfortunate generalisation but it is lower-income social groups that suffer most from high-sugar diets and so it is reasonable to assume that an economic benefit would have a significant impact upon this social group. Taxation or penalties would proportionally hurt those with fewer purchasing options.
For me, sugary drinks serve a purpose in terms of (re)fuelling during and after training and racing, but otherwise I try to have a very low processed sugar diet for the family and the kids.0 -
There absolutely should be anti sugar hysteria.
People are only now, after centuries of use, waking up to the fact that refined sugar is a poison. People say it's got no nutritional value but this is not the whole picture. Refined sugar is an anti-nutrient, i.e. it actually removes nutrients from the body. It depletes store of various vitamins and minerals because these are required for the process of digestions and assimilation, once digested all the body gets in return are empty calories. If the nutrients that are used up during digestion are not replaced and sugar continues to be consumed then over time the body will slip into a state of inflammation and disease due to the (micro)nutrient deficit.
Then of course you've got high fructose corn syrup which is becoming more and more prevalent in this country after taking America by Storm. HFCS is even more damaging to the body the refined sugar because not only is it devoid of micronutrients but it does catastrophic damage to the liver when consumed in sufficient quantities, hence the exponential increase in non-alcholoic fatty liver disease seen in the US and probably here soon too.
Moral of the story: if it isn't a natural whole food, don't eat it!0 -
I'm not sure I understand the "empty calorie" paragraph. Sugar is a calorie and one that's pretty readily (too readily?) available to the body. It's also very easily ingested. This isn't a Bad Thing If we need it (a diabetic in hypo for instance) it's just not great in excess.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0
-
Well, anything is a poison if you eat it exclusively. Sugar doesn't actively remove nutrients from the body, it just happens to be high in energy and (in the case of refined sugar) effectively without any other nutrients. All food will require some vitamins and minerals for it to be absorbed and digested, and many types won't themselves contain the precise nutrients required for their own absorption. The concept of an "anti-nutrient" only makes sense in isolation, you have to look at whole diets. Sugar is particularly dangerous if it becomes a significant proportion of your diet, but if you are getting enough nutrients from the rest of your diet and your total energy consumption is matched by energy expenditure then moderate amounts can't be viewed as "poisons". A total diet might be seen as "poisonous" at a pinch, but if I eat 25g of sugary milk chocolate immediately after my wholemeal pasta, broccoli and tofu lunch it isn't poisoning me (it's probably helping to fuel the absorption of the nutrients from my lunch).There absolutely should be anti sugar hysteria.
People are only now, after centuries of use, waking up to the fact that refined sugar is a poison. People say it's got no nutritional value but this is not the whole picture. Refined sugar is an anti-nutrient, i.e. it actually removes nutrients from the body. It depletes store of various vitamins and minerals because these are required for the process of digestions and assimilation, once digested all the body gets in return are empty calories. If the nutrients that are used up during digestion are not replaced and sugar continues to be consumed then over time the body will slip into a state of inflammation and disease due to the (micro)nutrient deficit.
Then of course you've got high fructose corn syrup which is becoming more and more prevalent in this country after taking America by Storm. HFCS is even more damaging to the body the refined sugar because not only is it devoid of micronutrients but it does catastrophic damage to the liver when consumed in sufficient quantities, hence the exponential increase in non-alcholoic fatty liver disease seen in the US and probably here soon too.
Moral of the story: if it isn't a natural whole food, don't eat it!
Also, while something being a "natural whole food" might be a good rule of thumb for it being healthy there's nothing inherently healthy about "natural" things and unhealthy about "unnatural" ones. My yeast extract spread fortified with vitamin B12 is pretty unnatural but it's almost certainly good for me. Fresh orange is (or can be) a natural whole food, but yoo much of it will give you a blood glucose spike just as refined sugar will (even if it also provides some nutrients as well).0 -
Well, anything is a poison if you eat it exclusively. Sugar doesn't actively remove nutrients from the body, it just happens to be high in energy and (in the case of refined sugar) effectively without any other nutrients. All food will require some vitamins and minerals for it to be absorbed and digested, and many types won't themselves contain the precise nutrients required for their own absorption. The concept of an "anti-nutrient" only makes sense in isolation, you have to look at whole diets. Sugar is particularly dangerous if it becomes a significant proportion of your diet, but if you are getting enough nutrients from the rest of your diet and your total energy consumption is matched by energy expenditure then moderate amounts can't be viewed as "poisons". A total diet might be seen as "poisonous" at a pinch, but if I eat 25g of sugary milk chocolate immediately after my wholemeal pasta, broccoli and tofu lunch it isn't poisoning me (it's probably helping to fuel the absorption of the nutrients from my lunch).There absolutely should be anti sugar hysteria.
People are only now, after centuries of use, waking up to the fact that refined sugar is a poison. People say it's got no nutritional value but this is not the whole picture. Refined sugar is an anti-nutrient, i.e. it actually removes nutrients from the body. It depletes store of various vitamins and minerals because these are required for the process of digestions and assimilation, once digested all the body gets in return are empty calories. If the nutrients that are used up during digestion are not replaced and sugar continues to be consumed then over time the body will slip into a state of inflammation and disease due to the (micro)nutrient deficit.
Then of course you've got high fructose corn syrup which is becoming more and more prevalent in this country after taking America by Storm. HFCS is even more damaging to the body the refined sugar because not only is it devoid of micronutrients but it does catastrophic damage to the liver when consumed in sufficient quantities, hence the exponential increase in non-alcholoic fatty liver disease seen in the US and probably here soon too.
Moral of the story: if it isn't a natural whole food, don't eat it!
Also, while something being a "natural whole food" might be a good rule of thumb for it being healthy there's nothing inherently healthy about "natural" things and unhealthy about "unnatural" ones. My yeast extract spread fortified with vitamin B12 is pretty unnatural but it's almost certainly good for me. Fresh orange is (or can be) a natural whole food, but yoo much of it will give you a blood glucose spike just as refined sugar will (even if it also provides some nutrients as well).
I'm afraid you're wrong my friend. Refined sugar is a poison because it is harmful in any quantity. It contains no micronutrients and therefore it depletes your own nutrient store - hence it is an anti-nutrient - you are loosing nutrients while you eat it. All natural foods contain a mix of micronutrients, hence, when you eat a balanced diet you will have no problems.
You're argument is equivalent to "a snake bit is not poisonous because I have the anti-venom with me. So when I am bitten by this poisonous snake I will inject the anti-venom and I will be healthy again."
You can be pretty sure that the majority of the population are deficient in some nutrient or other so eating sugar is going to be a really bad idea unless you have the constitution of an Ox.
(as an aside I would say that you're lunch of 'wholemeal pasta, broccoli and tofu' is actually really quite bad for you. The Wholemeal pasta and the tofu will be absolutely full of another anti-nutrient called phytic acid (Google it) which will prevent many nutrients being absorbed. Then there all the stress you're putting your digestive system through by eating unfermented wheat and soy. So good luck with that!!
Yeast is a natural whole food so I'm fine with that. I presume you are referring to orange juice (you dont actually say it?) that's not a whole food, hence it's bad. As a general rule the principle works very well, there are exception but those aren't them.0 -
This anti-nutrient stuff is nonsense. Nothing contains all of what you need so everything needs more. You need carbs and sugars for your brain so there are plenty of "natural" foods (sugar is completely natural) that won't support the needs of your brain. Are they also poisons? Water is a poison by your definition.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0
-
Sorry, but all this is pseudo-science picked up from the diet fads on the internet and websites promoted by people who are either trying to sell something, make a name for themselves so that they can sell something, or are influenced by such people.
I'm afraid you're wrong my friend. Refined sugar is a poison because it is harmful in any quantity. It contains no micronutrients and therefore it depletes your own nutrient store - hence it is an anti-nutrient - you are loosing nutrients while you eat it. All natural foods contain a mix of micronutrients, hence, when you eat a balanced diet you will have no problems.
You're argument is equivalent to "a snake bit is not poisonous because I have the anti-venom with me. So when I am bitten by this poisonous snake I will inject the anti-venom and I will be healthy again."
You can be pretty sure that the majority of the population are deficient in some nutrient or other so eating sugar is going to be a really bad idea unless you have the constitution of an Ox.
(as an aside I would say that you're lunch of 'wholemeal pasta, broccoli and tofu' is actually really quite bad for you. The Wholemeal pasta and the tofu will be absolutely full of another anti-nutrient called phytic acid (Google it) which will prevent many nutrients being absorbed. Then there all the stress you're putting your digestive system through by eating unfermented wheat and soy. So good luck with that!!
Yeast is a natural whole food so I'm fine with that. I presume you are referring to orange juice (you dont actually say it?) that's not a whole food, hence it's bad. As a general rule the principle works very well, there are exception but those aren't them.
Like all pseudo-science it uses genuine scientific knowledge (soy, like most other seeds and grains, does contain phytic acids that bind to zinc, calcium, iron etc), but completely misses the point by not quantifying anything or relating individual elements to the whole picture. I may eat a fair amount of tofu and whole grains, but I bet you I'm not deficient in zinc or iron (because I get plenty of those nutrients in my diet anyway, some of them actually from soy and grains themselves which also provide a lot of other nutrients that are good for me).
You ultimately determine what a healthy diet is by epidemiology, not by simple ideas that x is always bad for that reason and y is always good for another reason. The problem with the latter approach is that human nutrition and metabolism is so complex that you can always find a causal relationship to put forward as a universal principle to apparently support whatever you want, when in fact it is meaningless without context and quantification. It sells books and nutritional supplements, but it's not a good basis for your diet.
It's not harmful if you're half way through a fast 60 mile ride and your energy tanks are empty. In fact in that situation it would be more harmful NOT to eat it, assuming you tried to keep going at the same pace. You might "lose nutrients while you eat it", but you will gain the energy which you most need at that moment in time and replace the nutrients when you have a proper meal later on. You're right about a balanced diet of course, but the whole point of balance here is that you need to factor in everything, not see the elements in isolation. If I eat a salad that has almost no carbs in it but with a little bit of dressing containing a small amount refined sugar, how does that differ from eating a a single "natural food" (such as an orange) that contains no refined sugar but has a higher percentage of simple carbs to nutrients in it than the salad with the dressing does?Refined sugar is a poison because it is harmful in any quantity. It contains no micronutrients and therefore it depletes your own nutrient store - hence it is an anti-nutrient - you are loosing nutrients while you eat it. All natural foods contain a mix of micronutrients, hence, when you eat a balanced diet you will have no problems.0 -
I'm not sure whether taxing one of these is the answer but helping people make sensible decisions (whether that's tobacco, alcohol, drugs, or foods that are best eaten only in moderation) isn't a bad thing, per se, and people are sensitive to cost.
This is the idea of libertarian paternalism and is pretty common now (e.g., Nudge). The idea is that you retain freedom of choice but also help people to make sensible decisions.
These food fads come and go though - unfortunately "everything in moderation" doesn't sell newspapers.0 -
some people need protecting from themselves,
Holy cow, peeps who think like that worry me. Unless they are talking about people who are mentally ill, and need sectioning briefly to allow treatment, what they really mean is 'people who make life choices that I don't think are appropriate need to be forced to do as I say'
I'm sure equally as self righteous people were calling for similar measures against 'evil' saturated fat twenty years ago, for peoples 'own good', obviously. That didn't work out to be scientifically solid, did it? The unintended consequence was that foods were rammed full of sugar to maintain taste, of course, but, hey ho, as long as THEY are convinced that OTHER people need protecting from themselves, all is justified.
'No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.'
yes your right, all those people who poo hoo ed the dangers of smoking or that Asbestos is perfectly safe, they were all right weren't they?
its not about is sugar bad, its about the amounts being consumed in drinks, the dental and obesity problems this causes, which my taxes then have to put right, meaning less money for non avoidable health issues
Very easy for reasonably well educated people say "its a life style choice" blah blah blah but if you cant read the label, let alone watch a news program, its not a choice is it?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-facing-literacy-crisis-which-will-leave-nearly-15-million-11-year-olds-unable-to-read-9717408.html0 -
I don't worry. I eat plenty of carbs including sugars. My weight is stable. If I can't buy foods with added sugar like cake (I love cake) then I can buy a bag of sugar and bake. I will always eat cake. Cake the government won't ban cake.
banning added sugar is not a subsitiute for an inactive lifestyle. The problem is inactivity. Banning cars will have a big impact on obesity. Also all this talk of obesity costing the NHS money is poppy cock. studies have shown (unless then have been proven wrong later) that smokers cost a country less over there lifetime than non smokers because they die earlier and quicker. non smokers live longer and need more treatment costing more. Same goes for obesity I think. It just the cost is front loaded.
People should be able to eat what they want. If it harms there health then that is a shame but I am against trying to control what people eat.
Inactivity is the main problem. A Victorian farm labourer burned 6500 calories a day. You did not find many fat Victorian farm labourers.http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.0 -
No-one's suggesting (at least I'm not) that it should be banned, just that taxing certain items (e.g., extremely high sugar fizzy drinks which are universally agreed to be harmful to health - in excess) would encourage people to consume less of them. You could still buy them if you wanted, it would just be a little more expensive than the non-sugary option.0
-
I suspect it will be near impossible to wean people off sugar even if it is heavily taxed. Our brains are hard-wired to find it pleasurable so the only course of action is long-term nutritional education which should start in schools.
As others have said there is a time and place for sugars of all sorts in our diet, it's just a question of making informed choices about when and how much.0 -
I don't worry. I eat plenty of carbs including sugars. My weight is stable. If I can't buy foods with added sugar like cake (I love cake) then I can buy a bag of sugar and bake. I will always eat cake. Cake the government won't ban cake.
banning added sugar is not a subsitiute for an inactive lifestyle. The problem is inactivity. Banning cars will have a big impact on obesity. Also all this talk of obesity costing the NHS money is poppy fool. studies have shown (unless then have been proven wrong later) that smokers cost a country less over there lifetime than non smokers because they die earlier and quicker. non smokers live longer and need more treatment costing more. Same goes for obesity I think. It just the cost is front loaded.
People should be able to eat what they want. If it harms there health then that is a shame but I am against trying to control what people eat.
Inactivity is the main problem. A Victorian farm labourer burned 6500 calories a day. You did not find many fat Victorian farm labourers.
Excess sugar resulting in glucose spikes followed by insulin releases cannot be avoided by excercise. And insulin resistant diabetes is on the rise throughout the whole developed world.
The fad diets are just that but consuming whole foods is how people should eat. If you cannot tell what you are eating by looking at it then you probably should not eat it. It is the over processing of foods which causes diabetes and many other hormonal and physiological issues. This goes for refined carbs, i.e. white bread, excess sugars and even tofu ors oy milk or fruit juices.
You cannot expect to strip all of the fibre and other parts from foods and expect the body to adapt it when it has been processing real food sources for millenia. Just like you can't pour petrol into diesel engine and expect the engine to know the difference. In the short term it may seem ok and it can be diluted but the parts are not made for it.Raleigh RX 2.0
Diamondback Outlook
Planet X Pro Carbon0 -
Just like you can't pour petrol into diesel engine and expect the engine to know the difference. In the short term it may seem ok and it can be diluted but the parts are not made for it.
Jesus wept0 -
It can't be avoided by exercise generally, i.e. just because you exercise doesn't mean you won't get glucose spikes if you eat sugar when you're inactive. But if you ARE exercising strenuously at the time then the glucose will just be used there and then by your muscles. Similarly if you are recovering from very recent strenuous exercise it will be used (up to a point) to fuel the recovery process.Excess sugar resulting in glucose spikes followed by insulin releases cannot be avoided by excercise. And insulin resistant diabetes is on the rise throughout the whole developed world.
Sugar is fast energy - just don't eat it when you don't need it (i.e. most of the time).
There is some truth in the points raised above about it completely lacking nutrients, thus if a large percentage of your energy intake is in the form of sugars, even if you are burning them all pretty quickly (e.g. riding all day, every day as in a multi-stage race) you will end up deficient in lots of things because you need to up your nutrient intake in line with your energy turnover. That's why Team Sky make sure the riders get oodles of ultra-nutrient dense healthy foods off the bike.0 -
Just as a BTW - it has been shown that exercise can reverse type 2 diabetes (the type of diabetes that tends to come from poor diet and lifestyle). Diabetes is also a massive burden on the NHS - not only directly in diabetes care but more so in the co-morbities: heart and circulation issues, nerve damage and amputations, eye sight and kidney damage.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0
-
I live in Barbados which has one of the highest levels of diabetes in the world; for two reasons, one being genetic, which you have no control over, but more importantly a history of sweet drinks and large portions of carb dense foods in the average diet. It is not unusual to see people sleeping after lunch, from insulin caused drowsiness, after large potions of pasta (macaroni pie) and sweetened drinks (sugar added fruit juice).
From memory I think it is around 16%-20% of the total population have diabetes and averaging one amputation a day for a contry with 280k people.Raleigh RX 2.0
Diamondback Outlook
Planet X Pro Carbon0 -
Interesting to see that no-one's distinguishing between the different types of sugar. From the reading I've done fructose is the problem, not glucose (sucrose/table sugar/refined sugar being essentially 50/50). I'm not going to offer my opinion here as I don't have the time to fully join the debate, but I can highly recommend reading Sweet Poison by David Gillespie. I haven't been able to verify(i.e. I haven't had the time to try, rather than I tried and couldn't) his evidence, but he appears to have done a pretty thorough evidence-based investigation in to why you should be cutting sugar (fructose) from your diet.0
-
It's the hysteria bit that really gets on my tits. Seems every 3 or 4 months there's something new to worry about. Or stop worrying about as is possibly the case with saturated fats...
Journalists seem to like a simple story / headline which demonises a single component of diet and blames it for all our health problems. Scientists are constantly in search of the next round of funding, so like to issue press releases designed to talk up their particular area of research. Often they have been trying to prove that a single ingredient causes cancer / obesity / cardiovascular disease, which is tricky. Many fad diets seem to be based on a very skewed selection of foodstuffs, the complete avoidance of something, or reliance on the latest and usually very expensive superfood. And pseudoscientific waffle. Vitamin supplements for people with no vitamin deficiency. And bloody antioxidants. And Organic food. There's also an inevitable book to buy too.
I'm a believer in eating / drinking as many different things as possible, but all of them in moderation.* But trying to use fresh / unprocessed ingredients where possible, and not consuming more than needed to maintain bodyweight / fitness. We still eat red meat, full fat dairy products and the occasional bacon sarnie, just not to excess and not every day. We often cook fish and vegetarian stuff, and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times in a year I drink a full fat coke or eat somewhere like McDonald's.
This stuff needs to be taught properly in schools.
* except at Christmas0 -
This stuff needs to be taught properly in schools.
This is the problem. People do not realise the crap that is in processed food. Cooked whole foods in correct portions sounds really easy but is very hard and I am not sure little Susan is going to find it easy to persuade her mother to stop buying everything from Iceland because teacher said so.
It is the parents who need the eduction. But people need to stop questioning why healthy food is expensive but why the other stuff can be so cheapRaleigh RX 2.0
Diamondback Outlook
Planet X Pro Carbon0
