RutlandFlyer Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Haven't a lot of the studies that showed fat was more harmful than sugar since been debunked? They tended to link back to highly suspect research from the 50s and 60s that was commissioned to demonise fat and promote sugar, so American agriculture could be saved by growing corn for High Fructose Corn Syrup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Haven't a lot of the studies that showed fat was more harmful than sugar since been debunked? They tended to link back to highly suspect research from the 50s and 60s that was commissioned to demonise fat and promote sugar, so American agriculture could be saved by growing corn for High Fructose Corn Syrup. They are both harmful if consumed to excess. However, whilst the body need small quantities of fat in the diet (preferably from unsaturated fats), it does not need any added sugar. There are more than enough calories/energy in the fruit, vegetables and starchy carbohydrates in our diets to keep up going, even with a busy, active lifestyle. We do not need more and to consume more on a regular basis leads to weight gain and poor health. Adults need about 2-3 tablespoonfuls unsaturated fat daily: http://www.heartandstroke.com/site/c.ikIQLcMWJtE/b.3484237/k.D734/Healthy_living__Dietary_fats_oils_and__cholesterol.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olive Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Cylcone, I'm not so sure that you're right about sugar not being physically addictive. I was under the impression that there's increasing evidence to show that it is. I'm not talking about the mythical "sugar rush" or the fact that it tastes nice so people go back for more. I'm pretty sure that it triggers the same or similar neurological response that other addictive substances do (increases dopamine levels etc), which leads to changes in neurological pathways long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Bear in mind that the actions of children after drinking fizzy drinks can't be necessarily atributed to the sugar content, as most fizzy drinks contain caffeine, which, unlike sugar, has been shown conclusively to trigger such behaviour, as it is a stimulant. I agree that caffeine in fizzy drinks is also implicated here, but the soft drinks were high-sugar, too and included squash, which doesn't contain caffeine. Fatty snack such as chips and pasties didn't seem to have the same effect; they weren't banned (until post Jamie Oliver era at least!) but behaviour did improve when sugary snacks and drinks were removed. Whereas several studies have indicated that the 'sugar rush' is a myth. Perhaps you would like to provide a link to one of those 'studies' as nobody has sop far responded to my request for one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I agree that caffeine in fizzy drinks is also implicated here, but the soft drinks were high-sugar, too and included squash, which doesn't contain caffeine. Fatty snack such as chips and pasties didn't seem to have the same effect; they weren't banned (until post Jamie Oliver era at least!) but behaviour did improve when sugary snacks and drinks were removed. Perhaps you would like to provide a link to one of those 'studies' as nobody has sop far responded to my request for one? https://www.google.com/search?q=%22sugar+rush%22myth&hl=en Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted January 16, 2014 Author Share Posted January 16, 2014 Perhaps it would be useful not to use the word 'sugar' so loosely. I think we are all agreed that the body needs glucose; as Cyclone has said, this is produced when carbohydrates of any kind (whether cabbage, or cupcakes) are ingested and broken down by the body. The difference is the 'concentration' if you like - the amount of glucose produced from a given weight of any particular foodstuff. Refined sugar products have way too much sugar, even in a single portion, for health and when much of someone's daily intake consists of processed, sugar-rich foods, it plays havoc with their insulin production system. Plus, they are also unlikely to be getting the fibre, vitamins and minerals they need; in some cases (esp. children) they may even not be getting enough protein (not usually a problem in Western diets), as the sugary foods create a temporary sense of satiety (followed by hunger pangs) which encourages snacking through the day rather than eating a protein-based meal every four to five hours (which is less highly glycaemic and would satisfy for longer). Until about 100 years ago, very few people risked developing diabetes from their diets because the kind of intensely sugar-rich foods and drinks consumed so widely today, were not available, or not to most people, anyway. Throughout the 20th century Western diets changed to the point where we started to take in more calories than we expended in exercise/daily living/working. Sugar is cheap and it preserves food, making it profitable to produce and store sweet foods in bulk. We're walking blindlfold into huge overconsumption of sugar, partly because it is made so easy for us. Food and beverage manufacturers (through design or accident?) starting packing more and more refined sugar into products, even promoting it as 'healthy', 'energy-giving'(Lucozade, etc). It is undeniably energy-giving, but not all sources of energy in the diet are equally health-giving. Energy or glucose (from food) is not something we need an uncontrolled source of. Individuals must of course take more responsibility for what they eat, but the manufacturers need to be responsible, too. For some people in some parts of the country, it is difficult to buy affordable fresh, whole food all the time. Processed food could have a part to play - but the big food manufacturers need to help wean the population off its craving for added, refined sugar. As for the 'addictive'/sugar rush and crash properties of high-sugar foods and drinks - just watch a teenager who's had no breakfast be listless and grumpy Lesson 1 and 2, consume a can of fizz and a chocolate bar at breaktime become hyper and silly in the next 2 lessons, then crash at about 1 pm...after all the real food has been sold/put away in the canteen. He then goes to the shop for another two cans and a packet of crisps, and the whole process starts again. Shudder! The scenario above was typical of many of my former pupils in a rural comprehensive school, until the school had the sense to ban fizzy drinks completely and the consumption of confectionery (cakes, sweets) unless as a dessert after a protein-based meal. The problem (poor concentration and behaviour) largely disappeared. Don't tell me there's no such thing as a sugar rush! I've seen it too often. Very interesting post, especially the part re. No trace of diabetes 100 years ago. In fact I was watching a program the other day which was made in the early 70s, and there weren't any overweight people in that. It seems amazing when compared to today. Ironically, I think as we have prospered we eat more fat and sugary food as a result of a disposable income. Compare the price of fried chicken, which is consumed on a daily basis by school children today, compared to the 70s. The price for fried chicken was around £4-£5 back then. These days you can buy chicken and chips lunch times specials for between £1.50 - £2.00. What has changed compared to years ago is that sweets used to be considered a treat and in some cases only consumed on a Sunday. Such practices are unheard of these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 The difference is the natural sugars that we get from carbs and fruit are not noticeable to us as a form of sugar intake, because there is no immediate high and therefore no craving. There's nothing unnatural about refined sugar, it comes out of sugar beat or sugar cane after-all. Carbs and fruit which contain natural sugar have a slow unnoticeable effect on the system which provides all the sugar our body naturally needs. The glycaemic load of fruit can be pretty high, a banana will still give you a blood sugar spike. We do not need cheap, easily accessible, high caloried junk like sugar, which the food industry use, purely to manipulate our taste buds and with its addictive quality, leaves us wanting more. It's not addictive, still, despite you repeating it. I substitute all my cooking that requires sugar, with honey. I wish they would just ban sugar, then at least the nation's teeth would improve as well as their weight. Sugar in food is not responsible for tooth decay. Talk to a dentist, the biggest issue is snacking or drinking sugary drinks often. It's all about the timing. Natural sugars are just as bad for your teeth, and citrus fruits make it even worse as they are acidic. If you snacked on and off on sugary fruit all day, that would be far worse than eating a chocolate bar once. Anyone that calls for a ban should be banned from thinking about banning things IMO. Bans are almost never the answer. ---------- Post added 17-01-2014 at 08:55 ---------- Don't tell me there's no such thing as a sugar rush! I've seen it too often. I don't think anybody tried to tell you that did they? ---------- Post added 17-01-2014 at 08:56 ---------- Bear in mind that the actions of children after drinking fizzy drinks can't be necessarily atributed to the sugar content, as most fizzy drinks contain caffeine, Most? which, unlike sugar, has been shown conclusively to trigger such behaviour, as it is a stimulant. Whereas several studies have indicated that the 'sugar rush' is a myth. Links please. ---------- Post added 17-01-2014 at 09:01 ---------- http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2747/does-giving-sweets-to-kids-produce-a-sugar-rush Hmm, that really is quite interesting. Although it doesn't debunk the idea of a blood sugar spike and crash (these are well established medical facts as well), which would explain inattention and poor performance whilst having low blood sugar, followed by a period of feeling alert and normal, followed by a crash back to the previous state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 I don't think anybody tried to tell you that [ie that there is no such thing as a sugar rush/spike/crash] did they? Yes, Dromedary did in #64 and onewheeldave in #70, before posting the link you have just commented on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dromedary Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Don't tell me there's no such thing as a sugar rush! I've seen it too often. Plenty of research is available to discount what you have perceived and a quick Google will come up with many. Here is just one: http://www.yalescientific.org/2010/09/mythbusters-does-sugar-really-make-children-hyper/ This myth also caused a storm on the TV show QI when it was also stated as mothers just would not believe the results. ---------- Post added 17-01-2014 at 15:12 ---------- Very interesting post, especially the part re. No trace of diabetes 100 years ago. That is obviously wrong as it was nearly 100 years ago that insulin was developed. Just because it was not a recognised disease did not mean it did not exist and that people didn't die from it. Insulin production was identified in the body in 1889. In fact I was watching a program the other day which was made in the early 70s, and there weren't any overweight people in that. It seems amazing when compared to today. Ironically, I think as we have prospered we eat more fat and sugary food as a result of a disposable income. Since the 1970's smoking has been shown to be harmful. Its well know that smoking and nicotine can act as appetite suppressants so there may be a correlation between stopping smoking and weight gain. The smoking habit can then get replaced by a food habit thus increasing obesity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 This myth also caused a storm on the TV show QI when it was also stated as mothers just would not believe the results. And why do you think that might have been, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.