Anyone else concerned about the Anti Sugar hysteria?
Comments
-
It's not as simple as "processed foods bad, unprocessed good". Frozen vegetables are a processed food and likely to be fresher than unfrozen ones by the time you eat them. It's possible to buy microwave meals that aren't particularly bad for you - just read the ingredients (all of them). It's added salt, sugar and dodgy processed fats that make processed food bad, not the fact it's processed. And processed meat is particularly bad.0
-
It's not as simple as "processed foods bad, unprocessed good". Frozen vegetables are a processed food and likely to be fresher than unfrozen ones by the time you eat them.
I half disagree with you. Something frozen although it has gone through a 'process' is not necessarily processed foods. A better description of food manufacturing' may be the right term to describe as always bad. Simply freezing something would not really be considered manufacturing.
And manufactured foods would include bread, refined flour, sugar added fruit juice (which is not really fruit juice), soy milk, burgers, and almost all ready meals, which are all largely bad for you.
Tried a paleo diet and it was hard to shop for it. Gets you thinking.Raleigh RX 2.0
Diamondback Outlook
Planet X Pro Carbon0 -
You can quite easily get ready meals which I think are pretty healthy these days - i.e., low in sugar and salt, and balanced in terms of the other contents, with a good amount of veg in. Just because it's pre cooked doesn't necessarily make it bad - although of course you need to take a good look at the ingredients and nutrition info. Time was when low calorie ready meals where generally high in salt (in order to give them flavour) and other flavourings, but I think manufacturers have cottoned onto the fact that if someone is looking for a healthy ready meal they're probably going to look beyond the calorie information.
Of course some people still think they're evil and I have a feeling someone is going to disagree with me (
), but IMO the idea that all ready meals are necessarily bad for you is a few years out of date. 0 -
Any of these terms ("manufactured", "processed") are artificial when it comes to food and can only be rules of thumb at best. You need to consider any food item on an individual basis as well as in the context of the rest of your diet.A better description of food manufacturing' may be the right term to describe as always bad. Simply freezing something would not really be considered manufacturing.
And manufactured foods would include bread, refined flour, sugar added fruit juice (which is not really fruit juice), soy milk, burgers, and almost all ready meals, which are all largely bad for you.
Tried a paleo diet and it was hard to shop for it. Gets you thinking.
I agree that sugar-added fruit juice, burgers and probably most ready meals are largely bad for you, but good bread (real, full wholemeal, nowadays only really available as "artisan" bread) isn't (unless you have celiac disease) and is just one of many examples of perfectly healthy "manufactured" foods.
Well, we're not living in the paleolithic.. ;-) I think you're supposed to hunt and gather for it, they didn't have shops in these days.. :-)Tried a paleo diet and it was hard to shop for it. Gets you thinking.
But of course paleolithic diets would actually have been incredibly varied, depending on where you were. We're omnivores, we can survive healthily on a lot of different diets. The biggest problem we have nowadays is abundance, we can eat exactly what we feel like, whenever we feel like it, and we don't need to exert ourselves physically to get it - that doesn't make for a balanced diet.0 -
It is an interesting question the extend to which different human populations have adapted genetically to agricultural diets. We have had agriculture for many thousands of years in Eurasia at least, long enough for some of us to have evolved to better cope with it and even to thrive on it. The most obvious example is lactose tolerance, something that most humans worldwide still don't have. I know myself that I need to eat complex carbs, if I just ate fish and non-starchy vegetables I would fall over... But some human populations seem to do badly on carb rich diets and might be better on something more closely approaching the "paleo" diet. In 20 years time we'll all have had our genomes sequenced and be able to have diets recommended specifically tailored to our genetic makeup. Until then we just need to find what works best for us (if you are fit, healthy, not overweight and your blood tests are all fine, you are fine).0
-
I'm not concerned about the Anti Sugar hysteria, I think it's a good thing. Tax it hard, I say - more revenue for the government that I don't have to pay for.
I think the tax should be ring-fenced for the NHS though.
Freedom of choice is overrated, especially when exercised by stupid people.Is the gorilla tired yet?0 -
RutlandGav wrote: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 also pro-choice, in principle. But, this whole area is such a mixture of genuine data-backed advice, pseudo science, marketing and mass scale psychological sickness around food and fitness, that I don't think most people have a chance. If a person is set on being fit, then they have half a chance of cutting through the BS, because that influences priorities and forces an 'honesty' about food to a certain degree.
But, yes, I do think there is a hysteria about sugar. Anyone who says sugar is a poison, I really don't think understands what a poison is.0 -
Did you know that water is a poison?Alex99 wrote:But, yes, I do think there is a hysteria about sugar. Anyone who says sugar is a poison, I really don't think understands what a poison is.Is the gorilla tired yet?0 -
Completely agree, nice summary.Alex99 wrote:I'm also pro-choice, in principle. But, this whole area is such a mixture of genuine data-backed advice, pseudo science, marketing and mass scale psychological sickness around food and fitness, that I don't think most people have a chance. If a person is set on being fit, then they have half a chance of cutting through the BS, because that influences priorities and forces an 'honesty' about food to a certain degree.
But, yes, I do think there is a hysteria about sugar. Anyone who says sugar is a poison, I really don't think understands what a poison is.
You need an understanding of basic organic chemistry and biology to give you the framework that lets you recognise the BS and put any individual piece of information in context. But hardly anyone these days would go and read a molecular biology introductory textbook unless they were studying for a qualification, they would delve into the internet instead and end up lost in a sea of indistinguishable fact and BS.0 -
ChrisAOnABike wrote:
Did you know that water is a poison?Alex99 wrote:But, yes, I do think there is a hysteria about sugar. Anyone who says sugar is a poison, I really don't think understands what a poison is.
Almost anything can be poisonous if administered in the right (wrong) way and in sufficent quantity.
I work in the crop protection industry. If they'd just been discovered and we were attempting to introduce salt, nicotine, alcohol, tea, coffee etc as new actives they would never make it out of research.
It is becoming increasingly difficult / expensive to develop new active substances because of the ever more stringent regulatory hurdles, especially in Europe where the Greens have had a significant influence. It's going to be a real problem for food production in the future, and organic isn't a viable way of feeding the projected population.
Maybe food shortages in the developed world will help stem the obesity tide?0 -
ChrisAOnABike wrote:
Did you know that water is a poison?Alex99 wrote:But, yes, I do think there is a hysteria about sugar. Anyone who says sugar is a poison, I really don't think understands what a poison is.
It is in the sense that everything is a poison - everything has an LD50. So, saying that 'anything' is a poison loses all meaning. It is just semantics.
Water is also good for you - essential in fact. There is a level at which it does not harm. The point being made by some regarding sugar, is that there is NO level at which it is good for you. I don't agree with this. It is good for you if your body's primary need is for energy. There are no circumstances under which your body needs mercury, or snake venom.0 -
Likewise oxygen (cba to link). However, I'd be fairly (ok, moderately) confident that most people who claim that sugar is a poison aren't thinking in the traditional sense of the word. Rather that it's more than just a tooth-rotting substance that people can't get enough of - it's something that contributes significantly to conditions that impact greatly on life expectancy. More so than it has previously been given credit for...ChrisAOnABike wrote:
Did you know that water is a poison?Alex99 wrote:But, yes, I do think there is a hysteria about sugar. Anyone who says sugar is a poison, I really don't think understands what a poison is.0 -
Glucose, sure - it goes both ways, but in general current research (and even some past research that has been overlooked/ignored) seems to suggest that fructose fits the "not good for you at all" description.Alex99 wrote:The point being made by some regarding sugar, is that there is NO level at which it is good for you. I don't agree with this. It is good for you if your body's primary need is for energy.0 -
JoeNobody wrote:
Glucose, sure - it goes both ways, but in general current research (and even some past research that has been overlooked/ignored) seems to suggest that fructose fits the "not good for you at all" description.Alex99 wrote:The point being made by some regarding sugar, is that there is NO level at which it is good for you. I don't agree with this. It is good for you if your body's primary need is for energy.
How can fruit be bad for you? It seems very unlikely.0 -
JoeNobody wrote:
Glucose, sure - it goes both ways, but in general current research (and even some past research that has been overlooked/ignored) seems to suggest that fructose fits the "not good for you at all" description.Alex99 wrote:The point being made by some regarding sugar, is that there is NO level at which it is good for you. I don't agree with this. It is good for you if your body's primary need is for energy.
Sure, glucose is essential for energy production. We don't have to consume glucose in food, I think, although possibly never tested???
Fructose is different of course, not having the same central role that glucose does.0 -
Fruit, in general, isn't, but it is laden with fructose, which is. The theory is that we (well, our distant ancestors) evolved to gorge on fruit when we found it, so the body metabolises it straight to fatty acids (and then to fat) for long term storage. We haven't yet evolved to handle the much great quantities of fructose (table sugar - sucrose - being 50% glucose, 50% fructose) we consume on a daily basis now, and this is causing health problems.Alex99 wrote:How can fruit be bad for you? It seems very unlikely.
It's true that we don't need to consume glucose, this is because most foods are broken down to glucose during digestion.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the book "Sweet Poison" is well worth a read. I haven't gone all the way in terms of cutting out sugar (dates in particular are my guilty pleasure, and 60% sugar!) but I have greatly cut back. My dad developed type 2 diabetes, and I want to do what I can now to make sure that doesn't happen to me.0 -
Dextrose is glucose. Strictly speaking it's the "right handed" isomer of glucose, but that's the one we use in our bodies. If you take energy or recovery drinks, chances are that's the main ingredient. So if fructose really is worse for you than glucose, these energy drinks shouldn't be as bad for you as sucrose (normal sugar), which is half glucose and half fructose. But I think if you /really/ need energy, even fructose will be metabolised in a way that isn't harmful. But of course most of the time most people consume sugars, they don't need them.Alex99 wrote:
Sure, glucose is essential for energy production. We don't have to consume glucose in food, I think, although possibly never tested???0 -
JoeNobody wrote:
Fruit, in general, isn't, but it is laden with fructose, which is. The theory is that we (well, our distant ancestors) evolved to gorge on fruit when we found it, so the body metabolises it straight to fatty acids (and then to fat) for long term storage. We haven't yet evolved to handle the much great quantities of fructose (table sugar - sucrose - being 50% glucose, 50% fructose) we consume on a daily basis now, and this is causing health problems.Alex99 wrote:How can fruit be bad for you? It seems very unlikely.
It's true that we don't need to consume glucose, this is because most foods are broken down to glucose during digestion.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the book "Sweet Poison" is well worth a read. I haven't gone all the way in terms of cutting out sugar (dates in particular are my guilty pleasure, and 60% sugar!) but I have greatly cut back. My dad developed type 2 diabetes, and I want to do what I can now to make sure that doesn't happen to me.
Sure, too much fructose, too much conversion to and storage of fat, is bad. But, that is exactly what we're defining as too much.
I also love dates. Little gooey bags of sugar that they are. I eat quite a lot of those at a time and I'm a low body fat kind of person. n of 1 to be fair, and people are different. I also don't want to develop diabetes. But, having less than 10% body fat, and being quite fit, is that still a risk for me?0 -
neeb wrote:
Dextrose is glucose. Strictly speaking it's the "right handed" isomer of glucose, but that's the one we use in our bodies. If you take energy or recovery drinks, chances are that's the main ingredient. So if fructose really is worse for you than glucose, these energy drinks shouldn't be as bad for you as sucrose (normal sugar), which is half glucose and half fructose. But I think if you /really/ need energy, even fructose will be metabolised in a way that isn't harmful. But of course most of the time most people consume sugars, they don't need them.Alex99 wrote:
Sure, glucose is essential for energy production. We don't have to consume glucose in food, I think, although possibly never tested???
Some e.g. High Five have 2:1 (dextrose? : fructose) products. The idea being that you can take on more calories per hour during activity, supposedly due to using different (additional) transporters in the gut. Their bars also have a high dried frut content so will also be fairly high in fructose.0 -
And some also have maltodextrin instead of dextrose - I've wondered if there is anything to choose between these in terms of health/safety. Maltodextrin is short polysaccharides of glucose I believe, apparently broken down and absorbed (as glucose) practically at the same rate as basic glucose (dextrose) absorption. But there seems to be some suggestion of links to gut irritation - the other difference is that it isn't actually very sweet (unlike dextrose).Alex99 wrote:Some e.g. High Five have 2:1 (dextrose? : fructose) products. The idea being that you can take on more calories per hour during activity, supposedly due to using different (additional) transporters in the gut. Their bars also have a high dried frut content so will also be fairly high in fructose.
I was surprised to notice that the High 5 chocolate flavour recovery drink is based on dextrose while the vanilla flavour is maltodextrin. So these are different products nutritionally, not just different flavours. I also noticed that fructose is listed as you say, although was assuming it was less than one part fructose to two parts dextrose/maltodextrin, because for the vanilla flavour (based on maltodextrin) the sugar content is only 13g per 100g (maltodextrin presumably isn't classified as a sugar despite being metabolised as one). The total carb content is 68g per 100g - I was assuming that the sugar is all fructose and that practically all of the remaining carb is maltodextrin (or does whey protein isolate contain a few carbs as well as protein?), so that should be about one part fructose to four parts maltodextrin. Maybe the energy drinks have more fructose than the recovery ones though.0 -
neeb wrote:
And some also have maltodextrin instead of dextrose - I've wondered if there is anything to choose between these in terms of health/safety. Maltodextrin is short polysaccharides of glucose I believe, apparently broken down and absorbed (as glucose) practically at the same rate as basic glucose (dextrose) absorption. But there seems to be some suggestion of links to gut irritation - the other difference is that it isn't actually very sweet (unlike dextrose).Alex99 wrote:Some e.g. High Five have 2:1 (dextrose? : fructose) products. The idea being that you can take on more calories per hour during activity, supposedly due to using different (additional) transporters in the gut. Their bars also have a high dried frut content so will also be fairly high in fructose.
I was surprised to notice that the High 5 chocolate flavour recovery drink is based on dextrose while the vanilla flavour is maltodextrin. So these are different products nutritionally, not just different flavours. I also noticed that fructose is listed as you say, although was assuming it was less than one part fructose to two parts dextrose/maltodextrin, because for the vanilla flavour (based on maltodextrin) the sugar content is only 13g per 100g (maltodextrin presumably isn't classified as a sugar despite being metabolised as one). The total carb content is 68g per 100g - I was assuming that the sugar is all fructose and that practically all of the remaining carb is maltodextrin (or does whey protein isolate contain a few carbs as well as protein?), so that should be about one part fructose to four parts maltodextrin. Maybe the energy drinks have more fructose than the recovery ones though.
Maltodextrin is indeed a polysaccharide, but as you say, rapidly absorbed and broken down to glucose, so has a glycemic index close to 100. Basically, it acts like a non-sweet version of glucose and probably does not get listed as sugar content on the nutrition label; which is correct. I'd guess that the choice to use this in one drink over another is flavour based, but I could be wrong.0 -
Sounds like we're in the same boat - I don't know my body fat %age, but at 5'11" and 10st7 there's not too muchAlex99 wrote:I also love dates. Little gooey bags of sugar that they are. I eat quite a lot of those at a time and I'm a low body fat kind of person. n of 1 to be fair, and people are different. I also don't want to develop diabetes. But, having less than 10% body fat, and being quite fit, is that still a risk for me? I've always tended to eat what I wanted, when I wanted, and not worried about the potential consequences. Now I'm applying a level of moderation - basically cut right back on most sugary stuff but keep a few treats. I don't really know if I'm at risk of getting diabetes, but I'd rather err on the side of caution... 0 -
JoeNobody wrote:Now I'm applying a level of moderation - basically cut right back on most sugary stuff but keep a few treats. I don't really know if I'm at risk of getting diabetes, but I'd rather err on the side of caution...
Remember in that programme where the two doctor twins ate sugar and fat diets respectively that the twin eating fat (to the exclusion of sugar) was pre-diabetic by the end of the test.
This stuff is far more complex than an Internet forum can manage.
I'm interested in doing a rough-and-dirty version of the test they did recently on that "Trust Me..." programme where they measure blood sugar levels continually to see the response to various foods. I've done a version of this before though I was looking at what exercise did and not food. I'm also reading the book "Gut" which gives some interesting insights into our digestive system - there's no doubt that we don't fully understand this either. So talking about Good and Bad foods is rather premature. It may very well turn out what's good for you is bad for me.
One man's meat is another man's poison.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
I missed that one. Have seen That Sugar Film though, and goes the opposite way, with a similar outcome (at least in terms of health problems, if not specific conditions).meanredspider wrote:Remember in that programme where the two doctor twins ate sugar and fat diets respectively that the twin eating fat (to the exclusion of sugar) was pre-diabetic by the end of the test.
Yes indeed :!:This stuff is far more complex than an Internet forum can manage.0 -
Personally I'd rather trust my own experience than conflicting, often vested, reports on the dangers or benefits of sugar.
First thing I did was use a spreadsheet for a week to track what I ate and record the carbs( that sugar). I was amazed at how much was in my food, without even having the obvious things like coca cola and sticky toffee pudding.
Then I cut out sugar 6 days a week for a month. The 7th 'sugar' day each week was for my sanity, I don't believe in punishing myself overly. The benefits of cutting out sugar were apparent after about the 3rd day and the cheat day, while mentally needed, wasn't physically needed at all. In fact I felt like sh*t on the sugar days.0 -
I've just got the book "Gut" and I'm about 2/3rds through it - it's a bit Mickey Mouse in places but it also opens up some fascinating questions about your guts and how they impact your wellbeing and your behaviour. Advances in DNA testing have obviously allowed us to far better understand the massive variety of bacteria that live in our gut and how this influences us in ways we haven't really even begun to understand.
It goes back to a point I've made a few times that giving nutrition advice on here is utterly pointless in anything more than broad terms. We humans can do some amazing things but we really don't understand our bodies very well at all. It comes as no surprise to me that diet advice changes all the time because we've so much to learn.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0 -
A few years back I developed an insulinoma (a non cancerous pancreatic tumour that releases insulin), only found out because I kept blacking out due to permanently dangerously low blood sugar (because the excess insulin was telling my body to store everything as fat). In the period between finding out and getting surgery I learnt very quickly that processed sugar food went very quickly straight to fat (although temporarily boosting blood sugar levels) but real non processed food was much better at maintaining level glucose and allowing me to not die without getting obese!
My opinion on it is simple and driven by the massive personal effects I could see, I eat what I can cook from scratch whenever I can.0 -
One of the issues with fructose is that it follows a different metabolic path to other sugars, which is where the problem lies apparently. There's a really interesting film that explains this on Youtube, for anyone who wants to have a look, which explains this in some detail, although it's a bit academic in parts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
- Robert Lustic, Sugar - The Bitter Truth.
Cheers,
MarkPBoardman Road Comp - OK, I went to Halfords
Tibia plateau fracture - the rehab continues!0 -
MarkP80 wrote:One of the issues with fructose is that it follows a different metabolic path to other sugars, which is where the problem lies apparently. There's a really interesting film that explains this on Youtube, for anyone who wants to have a look, which explains this in some detail, although it's a bit academic in parts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
- Robert Lustic, Sugar - The Bitter Truth.
Cheers,
MarkP
And the book I've read has a different view on this.ROAD < Scott Foil HMX Di2, Volagi Liscio Di2, Jamis Renegade Elite Di2, Cube Reaction Race > ROUGH0
