PDA

View Full Version : In an Obese World, Sweet Nothings Add Up


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



Nancy LC
Tue, Mar-09-04, 09:09
PERSONAL HEALTH
In an Obese World, Sweet Nothings Add Up
By JANE E. BRODY

Published: March 9, 2004


ow sweet it is. I'm referring to the American diet, replete with sweet foods and drinks, commercially sweetened cereals, sodas, fruit drinks and "ades," ice cream, cake, muffins, cookies and candy, as well as naturally sweet fruits and fruit juices.

We are all born liking a sweet taste, perhaps to stimulate a desire for breast milk, which is naturally sweet, or ripe edible fruit. These foods are excellent sources of nutrients that support growth and good health. Indeed, as the American Dietetic Association points out in a new position paper on sweeteners, "By increasing palatability of nutrient-dense foods/beverages, sweeteners can promote diet healthfulness."

Advertisement


For example, for a child who refuses to drink milk, the addition of sweet chocolate powder can enhance consumption of this health-promoting food. Likewise, a little sugar added to a high-fiber cereal can encourage the consumption of a food that lowers cholesterol and promotes good digestion.

But as with any substance prone to overuse, sweeteners can also work against us. Modern manufacturing has introduced a plethora of sweetened products that are less than nutritious and that could contribute to weight gain and ill health because their sweetness encourages overconsumption.

The consumption of added caloric sugars has soared in the last half-century, despite the introduction and undeniable popularity of artificial (i.e. non-nutritive) sweeteners that supply few, if any, calories.

According to the findings of the latest national nutrition survey, from 1988 to 1994, the average daily intake of added sugar varied from 40 to 120 grams a day, or 160 calories to 480 calories, or an average of 21 percent of daily calories. The World Health Organization recommends half that amount, and my guess is that consumption is considerably higher today, given readily observed changes in the marketplace.

There is no direct evidence that caloric sweeteners by themselves increase the risk of obesity. But there is also no question that in the United States and throughout the world, rates of overweight and obesity are increasing because people are consuming more calories than they expend, even as their intake of several essential nutrients declines. This suggests that people are eating and drinking more calorically dense but nutrient-deficient foods, many if not most because they are sweet.

Perhaps the best example of this phenomenon is the carbonated soft drink sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup. Such beverages contribute nothing but sweet calories and water and have replaced nutrient-rich milk and fruit juices in the diets of millions of Americans, especially adolescents and young adults.

The consumption of high-fructose corn syrup has skyrocketed 4,000 percent since the early 1970's. By 2000, per capita annual consumption of the sweetener in this country exceeded 62 pounds, while consumption of cane and beet sugars decreased just 35 percent, from 100.5 pounds to 65.6 pounds per capita. That represents an annual net gain of 27 pounds of sugar in the average American diet.

Sugar's Health Effects

No responsible nutrition expert suggests abandoning all foods and drinks that contain added sugars, caloric or otherwise. But in seeking to satisfy the desire for sweetness, it helps to know what effects the various sweeteners, natural and artificial, can have on health.

Each gram of sugar, whether sucrose (table sugar, a combination of glucose and fructose from sugar cane or sugar beets) or pure fructose (fruit sugar), supplies four calories, the same as a gram of starch or protein. A teaspoon of sugar provides about 16 calories. Both sugars can promote tooth decay.

In most people, the small intestine contains enzymes to foster the digestion of all natural sugars, but absorption rates vary. Fructose can by itself be malabsorbed and may cause diarrhea in young children who consume large amounts of apple juice or fructose-sweetened drinks. Other sweeteners called polyols — sorbitol and mannitol, for example — are also less than fully absorbed and can cause diarrhea in consumers of any age. Lactose, the milk sugar, can also cause gastrointestinal upset in people who lose their ability to produce the enzyme lactase.


Page 2 here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/09/health/nutrition/09BROD.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5062&en=70ba1dc2e12ff076&partner=GOOGLE&ex=1079413200

MyJourney
Tue, Mar-09-04, 09:18
No responsible nutrition expert suggests abandoning all foods and drinks that contain added sugars, caloric or otherwise.

Why not? Abandoning foods and drinks loaded with refined sugars sounds very responsible to me.

TBoneMitch
Tue, Mar-09-04, 09:41
Sorry, my posts are long today, maybe I'm just in a grinchy mood=) But I felt the need to put that «expert» back in her place.

Quote: «No responsible nutrition expert suggests abandoning all foods and drinks that contain added sugars, caloric or otherwise.»

That's really a good thing! Why would they want us to miss on the awesome nutritive qualities of sugar, corn syrup, or even that health staple, soda?

Quote: «There is no direct evidence that caloric sweeteners by themselves increase the risk of obesity.»

Quote: «"By increasing palatability of nutrient-dense foods/beverages, sweeteners can promote diet healthfulness."»

Quote:«For example, for a child who refuses to drink milk, the addition of sweet chocolate powder can enhance consumption of this health-promoting food. Likewise, a little sugar added to a high-fiber cereal can encourage the consumption of a food that lowers cholesterol and promotes good digestion»

Man, has she got her head in the sand or what? Or in the pockets of the sugar bureau? Adding sugar to milk kinda ruins the nutritive properties of it, and adding sugar to a cereal just makes it worse from a health point of view...
And fiber from cereal doesn't promote «good digestion», especially not in a child...



Sally Fallon and Mary Enig, and Joel Kaufmann PhD already critiqued one of Brody's articles last summer (letters from the www.thincs.org website):

The following letters were sent to the editor of New York Times No answer.

July 16, 2003

The New York Times
Letters to the Editor
By fax: (212) 556-3622

Sirs:

According to Jane E. Brody, your nutrition “expert,” the human anatomy “more closely resembles herbivores like cows and deer, strict vegetarians consuming only plant-based foods” (“Cholesterol: When It’s Good, It’s Very, Very Good” 7/15/2003). If this is the best the New York Times can do, the public is in serious trouble. Even school children know that the human digestive tract is completely different from that of ruminants like cows and deer, which have multiple stomachs, do not produce hydrochloric acid and have extremely long intestines compared to humans. The human digestive tract is much more like that of a dog than any herbivorous animal. If Brody is so wrong on this elementary fact, how can we trust anything else she says, including the merits of the plant-based diet she espouses?

The Times is just emerging from the scandal of a journalist who made up news reports, but in your health section your most prominent health writer is still passing off falsehoods as fact.

Sally Fallon
Mary G. Enig, PhD


19. July, 2003.

The New York Times
Letters to the Editor

By FAX: 212 556 3622

Dear Editor:
You should be aware that Jane E. Brody in Cholesterol: When It’s Good, It’s Very, Very Good, NYT, Tuesday, 15 Jul 03, pF7, wrote quite a number of non-facts. For example, our digestive systems do not resemble those of cows and deer. Cows have multiple stomachs and chew cud; they eat all day long because the nutritional value of their plant foods is so poor.

LDL, called "bad cholesterol" is absolutely vital as the carrier of cholesterol to build membranes and maintain brain function. In people with cardiovascular disease (CVD), low levels of total cholesterol (TC), LDL, and triglyceride (TG) in serum, as well as low HDL, are serious risk factors, contrary to Brody (Horwich TB, et al. Low Serum Total Cholesterol Is Associated With Marked Increase in Mortality In Advanced Heart Failure. J Cardiac Failure 2002;8(4):216-224.)

Not only is more HDL correlated with fewer heart attacks, but more TC is as well. A result of the Framingham study was that mortality increased by 11 % for each 1 % reduction in TC (Krumholz HM, et al. Lack of association between cholesterol and coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity and all-cause mortality in persons older than 70 years. J Am Med Assoc 1994;272:1335-40). The "surge" in HDL level by 1 mg/dL for every 7 lbs lost would require losing 70-140 lbs to achieve a serious increase in HDL.

The old dogma that all calories are alike was hauled out, implying that merely replacing fat with carbohydrate of equal calories was not a benefit. This was actually a tout for a low-fat diet. In 1956 Prof. Alan Kekwick and Gaston Pawan, MD, at Middlesex Hospital, London, England, conducted tests of 4 1,000 kcal/day diets: 90% fat (by fuel values), 90% protein, 90% carbohydrate, and a normal mixed diet. Subjects on the high-fat diet lost much more weight than any of the others. Several subjects on the high-carb diet actually gained weight, even at only 1000 kcal/day! Even at 2,600 kcal/day of very low-carb diet, subjects lost weight (Groves B, Eat Fat Get Thin, 1999, p21-2).

There is no evidence that saturated fats are bad for health, and plenty of evidence that saturated fats prevent both CVD, stroke and cancer (Ottoboni A and F, The Modern Nutritional Diseases, 2002, pp36-7). Instead a high-carb diet was touted, despite overwhelming evidence the such a diet will cause obesity and diabetes, leading to CVD and stroke (Ottoboni A and F, The Modern Nutritional Diseases, 2002, all).

Recommending 1-2 drinks per day of alcoholic beverages to prevent CVD would be acceptable if the cost were not more cancer and stroke; there is hardly any difference in all-cause mortality between low and moderate drinkers (Theobald H, et al. The Effects of Alcohol Consumption on Mortality and Morbidity: A 26-Year Follow-Up Study. J Stud Alcohol 2001;62:783-9).

Many people cannot exercise, so only a low-carb (high fat, high protein) diet will improve health for most of them. The only prospective, randomized study of exercise after heart attack found no effect of exercise on all-cause death and a slight benefit of exercise on cardiovascular mortality for the first few years, disappearing at 5 years (Dorn J, et al. Results of a multicenter randomized clinical trial of exercise and long-term survival in myocardial infarction patients: the National Exercise and Heart Disease Project (NEHDP). Circulation 1999 Oct 26;100(17):1764-9).

The recommendation for gemfibrozil is irresponsible, as heart attacks doubled in trial patients who took it. No anticholesterol drugs reduce all-cause death rates by a significant amount, and some trials of lovastatin showedincreased death rates (Ravnskov U, The Cholesterol Myths, 2000, pp176ff).

From the standpoint of the reader, plagiarism is less of a problem than misinformation, which is more likely to lead to litigation for the NYT.

Sincerely, Joel M. Kauffman, PhD