The sugar trap

[Demi]

Great to see so many anti-sugar articles now appearing in the UK. Looks as though the message is finally getting through. :thup:

From The Sunday Times
London, UK
5 January, 2014

The sugar trap: part one

Forget diets: the real reason we are putting on weight is all the sweet stuff hidden in our food. Cut it out and watch the pounds slip away

Calgary Avansino

The number one new year’s resolution is to lose weight, and yet we are failing spectacularly. Despite the growing list of diets — from Atkins and Caveman to the fasting or 5:2 diet — none of them ever seems to work, or work long term. Instead, we are getting fatter. There are now 1bn overweight adults worldwide, and 300m of them are clinically obese. In Britain, a 2012 NHS survey found that more than a quarter of all adults in England are obese — rates that have risen threefold since 1980. Increasingly, however, experts here and in America are beginning to wise up to the real culprit behind our ever-increasing girths. Rather than fat, as was originally thought, it is sugar that is the biggest threat to our health. As our sugar consumption has increased, so has our weight, and the more we eat, the more unwell and overweight we become.

The NHS reckons the average person in Britain now consumes about 700g of sugar a week — that’s 140 teaspoons. Experts say our bodies are designed to handle only half that or less a week. If you really want to look and feel better in 2014, then forget about following a diet: make quitting sugar your new year’s resolution. So what exactly is this socially acceptable drug; why is it making us increasingly overweight and unwell; and why can’t we stop eating it?

Any ingredient that ends in “ose” is a sugar, and there’s a mighty long list of them: glucose, fructose, dextrose, maltose, sucrose, lactose and high-fructose corn syrup. The white granulated sugar you put in tea is harvested and refined from sugar beets and sugar cane and, like all other sugars, it has absolutely no nutritional value — no proteins, no essential fats, no vitamins or minerals. These “oses” are the emptiest of empty calories. It’s just pure, refined energy. It contains a whole bunch of calories and nothing else.

When we eat any form of sugar, the body deals with it in one of two ways. Either we burn it off as energy — but, given the amount of sugar the average person now consumes, it is impossible to expend it through activity unless you are Mo Farah (and I guarantee you he limits his sugar intake) — or, if it isn’t burnt off, it is converted into fat by the liver and stored directly in the fat cells.

The nutritionist Amelia Freer says: “If the amount of glucose in the bloodstream is above the body’s comfort zone of about 1½tsp-2 tsp at any one time — one regular can of Coke has 9 tsp — then the hormone insulin gets produced to chauffeur the excess glucose out of the blood and store it as fat. Elevated levels of insulin circulating in our bodies can be detrimental to our long-term health. Our cells can become less responsive to the presence of insulin, meaning our bodies keep needing to produce more and more insulin to get the same reaction. Eventually the cells stop responding at all. This is type 2 diabetes.”

Dr Robert Lustig, author of Fat Chance, says: “In 2011, there were 366m diabetics in the world — more than double the number in 1980.” Furthermore, the Center for Science in the Public Interest in America reports that “sugar consumption has increased by 28% since 1983, with many individual foods providing large fractions of the US Department of Agriculture’s recommended sugar limits”.

How much sugar should we eat?

Most health organisations recommend that people limit themselves to 10 tsp (40g) of added sugars a day, but many researchers say it should be as low as 6 tsp for women and 8 tsp for men. Teaspoons are a much easier measurement to visualise than grams, so lock this easy equation in your head: divide the number of grams by four to get the number of teaspoons. To put that in perspective: a regular Snickers bar contains 27g or about 7 tsp sugar, a 330ml can of Coke has 35g or 9 tsp of sugar, three Oreos have 14g or 3½ tsp, and a chocolate-glazed Krispy Kreme doughnut has 26g or 6½ tsp of sugar.

We shouldn’t eat manufactured sugar bombs like that, full stop. Any food with sugar in the first three ingredients is a bad idea. Sadly, it’s not as simple as cutting out foods that you know are packed with sugar. Lustig (whose YouTube video Sugar: The Bitter Truth is well worth watching) says: “The food industry has contaminated the food supply with added sugar to sell more products and increase profits. Of the 600,000 food items in American grocery stores, 80% have been spiked with added sugar; and the industry uses 56 other names for sugar on the labels. They know when they add sugar, you buy more. And because you do not know you’re buying it, you buy even more.”

So, are we actually physically addicted to the sweet stuff? Most nutritionists respond to that question with: “Try giving it up and then tell me what you think.” The chairman of the Functional Medicine Institute, Dr Mark Hyman, believes we are. “The slick combinations of sugar, fat and salt in junk and processed food have hijacked our tastebuds, brain chemistry and metabolism. These foods are biologically addictive. We are held hostage by the food industry and yet we blame ourselves for not having willpower,” he says. “One animal study found that sugar is more addictive than cocaine. When rats were given the choice between cocaine or sweetened water, scientists found that most rats preferred the sweetened water. Even the rats who initially preferred cocaine switched over.”

Sugar improves our mood by prompting the brain to release the “happy” hormone serotonin, which is exactly why we turn to it when we are happy and celebrating, but also when we are sad, lonely or tired. The problem is that what goes up must come down, and those inevitable sugar crashes just make us crave more sugar and encourage a cycle of binge eating that makes us increasingly overweight and unwell.

Beware the hidden sugar

The nutritionist and naturopath Rhian Stephenson tells her clients to check all labels of canned vegetables, breads, sauces, preprepared foods and so-called “health” foods carefully. “If sugar, or a sugar pseudonym, is one of the first three ingredients, steer clear.” Even though it is a long list, it is important that you acquaint yourself with the vocabulary, much of which is made to sound healthy, organic and pure. The most common terms are: barley malt syrup, beet sugar, brown rice syrup, rice syrup, cane crystals, coconut sugar, corn sweetener, corn syrup, crystalline fructose, dextrin, evaporated cane juice, fruit juice concentrate, fruit purée, fruit pulp, agave, molasses, organic evaporated cane juice, palm sugar, raw sugar, saccharose, sorghum, treacle, turbinado sugar and xylose.

Sugar is often present in foods you don’t even associate with sweetness: pasta sauces, canned salmon, breaded fishfingers, porridge, fruit yoghurt and bouillon cubes. I could scarcely find a breakfast cereal, a deli meat or an Asian cooking sauce that wasn’t loaded with added sugar. And that’s before I got to the plethora of “healthy”, “organic” and “light” products that are boosted with sugar to compensate for the lack of fat. The American dietician Susan Burke-March warns: “Just because a food is labelled ‘low fat’ or ‘fat-free’ does not make it calorie-free; manufacturers add sugar to increase the texture and bulk lost by removing fat.”

Jenna Zoe, author of Super Healthy Snacks and Treats, says: “Craving sugary foods doesn’t make you a weak human being. We are programmed to opt for sweet foods because, in nature, sweetness is a sign that foods are safe to eat; it meant that early man chose juicy fruit over poisonous plants that are bitter in taste. The problem arises with processed foods, because sweeteners are used in conjunction with junky fats or hydrogenated oils. This is where the addictiveness is created. In nature, sugars and fats are not often found in the same foods.”

Alcohol

The sugar content of alcoholic drinks varies greatly. Dry white wine and red wine have a relatively low fructose content, while dessert wine and champagne contain more. Stay away from mixed drinks, which are usually laced with sugary syrups and sodas. If you must indulge in spirits, choose a “clean” mixer such as sparkling water or fresh lemon juice.

The author David Gillespie says in his book The Sweet Poison Quit Plan: “Alcoholic drinks are OK for the recovering sugarholic as long as they don’t taste sweet and are not mixed with other drinks that contain sugar. You can keep the dry wines, beers and spirits, but you need to toss out the dessert wines, ports, sweet sherries, liqueurs and mixers.” But remember: all alcohol is calorie dense, so if you want to lose weight, drink as little alcohol as possible.

Carbohydrates are sugar too

Starches and carbohydrates are more of the same, I’m afraid. Our bodies process certain types of carbohydrates (the white, refined kinds) in a similar way to pure sugar, and they create an equally powerful endorphin response, making us want them more and more. The author of Grain Brain, Dr David Perlmutter, says: “During the course of digestion, carbohydrates are broken down and sugar is liberated into the bloodstream, causing the pancreas to increase its output of insulin so glucose can penetrate cells. The carbs that trigger the biggest surge in blood sugar are typically the most fattening, for that very reason. They include anything made with refined flour such as breads and cereals; starches such as rice, potatoes and corn; and liquid carbs such as soda and fruit juice.”

The scientists at Harvard School of Public Health explain: “The glycemic index ranks carbohydrates on a scale from 0 to 100, based on how quickly and by how much they raise blood-sugar levels after eating. Foods with a high glycemic index, such as white bread, are rapidly digested and cause substantial fluctuations in blood sugar. Foods with a low glycemic index, such as whole oats, are digested more slowly, prompting a more gradual rise in blood sugar.”

Eating too many high-glycemic foods may lead to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, some forms of ovulatory infertility and colorectal cancer.

A piece of toast is no longer just a piece of toast. Carbs such as white bread, white rice, pretzels, crackers and bagels are high on the glycemic index, while rye bread, pumpernickel bread, rolled oats, barley and quinoa fall in the low range. So although all carbohydrates are converted into sugar when digested, some are converted into more sugar than others. However, this doesn’t mean a bread-free life for ever. Try experimenting with new flours such as almond flour, coconut flour, quinoa flour and flaxmeal.

During the initial sugar-free week of our plan, however, try to resist carbohydrates as much as humanly possible. If you do feel the need for carbs, choose the good ones: brown rice, rolled oats, millet, quinoa, buckwheat, wild rice, bulgur and rye.

How to calculate sugar consumption

Most health organisations recommend that people limit themselves to 10 tsp (40g) of added sugar a day, but many researchers say it should be 6 tsp for women and 8 tsp for men. Teaspoons are easier to visualise than grams, so remember this easy equation: to get the number of teaspoons, divide the number of grams by four. So, a regular Snickers bar contains 30g or about 7 tsp of sugar, a 330ml can of Coke has 35g or 9 tsp of sugar. We shouldn’t eat or drink manufactured sugar bombs, full stop. Any food with sugar in the first three ingredients is a bad idea. Avoid foods with more than 10g of sugar per portion.

The truth about fruit

Fruit is not fundamentally bad for us, but the amount we are eating can be detrimental. In The Sweet Poison Quit Plan, the author David Gillespie recommends that adults eat only two pieces of fruit a day and children only one. Fruit containing higher amounts of fibre and lower quantities of fructose such as kiwis, apples, grapefruit, blackberries, pears, strawberries, blueberries, raspberries and lemons are the best choices, while bananas, watermelon, pineapple, mangoes, papayas and grapes should be avoided.

None of this matters when it comes to fruit juice, as it’s all bad. When fruit is juiced, any positives are squeezed out and all that’s left is sugar, water and a bit of vitamin C. Dried fruit is even worse and often contains nearly 70% sugar.

The author of Grain Brain, Dr David Perlmutter, says: “Our caveman ancestors did eat fruit, but not every day of the year. A medium-size apple contains 44 calories of sugar in a fibre-rich blend thanks to the pectin. If you juice several apples and concentrate the liquid down, you get a blast of 85 sugar calories.”

If you want to think about it in terms of grams (as a benchmark a 330ml can of Coca-Cola has 35g of sugar), the average glass of orange juice has 21g of sugar, apple juice 28g, cranberry juice 37g and grape juice 38g, and many bottled fruit smoothies contain between 20g and 35g of sugar. All of which says we shouldn’t be starting our mornings or hydrating our kids with fruit juice.

However, the Plenish Cleanse founder, Kara Rosen, reassures us that not all juice is evil. “The new juice taking the market by storm is cold-pressed vegetable juice, particularly green juices made up of ingredients such as cucumber, spinach, kale, broccoli and lettuce and low-glycemic-index fruit such as pears. The sugar content is lower than conventional juices, and due to the cold-press juice extraction method, they have other nutritional benefits.” So, go green or go water. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/style/living/Wellbeing/article1356281.ece

[ImOnMyWay]

Good article, Demi. I think I learned yet a few more synonyms for "sugar"!
.

[Nancy LC]

What is even more impressive is that they're finally catching onto the fact that starch turns into sugar:

Carbohydrates are sugar too

[Bob-a-rama]

I think what is happening in the UK is that they have socialized medicine, and that means the taxpayer has to pay for everything. Of course the taxpayer thinks he/she is paying too much taxes.

So prevention becomes the best way to keep the health care costs and associated taxes manageable. It's a strong advantage for Socialized medicine (actually I prefer the middle ground - Nationalized; Neither Socialized nor For-Profit)

Here in the US with profit-based medicine, it's more profitable to make you sick and keep you coming back for treatments. Both prevention and cures mean less profit for the health care corporations. Thus the food pyramid. The corporate farms and corporate medical providers make out like bandits at the expense of our health.

So in the face of that, here in the USA we have to get past the propaganda initiated by the food and drug corporations (hence the FDA who represents them and not us) and educate ourselves. In the face of all the TV, Radio, Newspaper, and Magazine propaganda, the sheep will think us weird.

I can't count how many people told me, "You can't stay on Atkins for life - your cholesterol will go sky high and you'll have a heart attack." Well, I've been a high fat, moderate protein, low glycemic diet for over a dozen years and my LDL and HDL are right in the recommended ranges.

Of course, we all choose what to believe from the glut of information available. Everybody has an agenda, and most modern propaganda is pretty convincing. But what works for you? Low glycemic works for me, and the proof is in the scale and blood test numbers.

Thanks for posting that Demi, I hope you will grace us with Part 2 when it comes along.

Bob

[jmh]

I've noticed that some good studies have been coming out of Australia too, which has a national health service. That's not to say that big pharma doesn't lobby ministers, but they have the taxpayer to answer to as well.

[Elizellen]

Thanks for posting that Demi! :thup:

I have saved the text to show to a few friends.

I look forward to seeing what is in "The sugar trap part 2" - next Sunday I assume?

[Demi]

I think what is happening in the UK is that they have socialized medicine, and that means the taxpayer has to pay for everything. Of course the taxpayer thinks he/she is paying too much taxes.

So prevention becomes the best way to keep the health care costs and associated taxes manageable. It's a strong advantage for Socialized medicine (actually I prefer the middle ground - Nationalized; Neither Socialized nor For-Profit)While I appreciate your assumption, when it comes to the British National Health Service (NHS) this really is not the case. Unfortunately, for us in the UK, the NHS still follows the low fat, high carb, calories in, calories out mantra. The following article, which was published in the UK today, illustrates this perfectly:

Stop pouring money down drain with fad diets, warns NHS

The NHS has warned slimmers that they are wasting their money with fad New Year diets and has urged them to follow its own 12 week plan.

The NHS has warned that people are ‘pouring money down the drain’ with fad New Year diets and has launched its own 12 week weight-loss plan (http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/weight-loss-guide/Pages/losing-weight-getting-started.aspx)*.

January traditionally sees hundreds of miracle diet and detox plans rushed out in an attempt to cash-in on the guilt many feel after an over-indulgent Christmas.

But health experts warn that few have any nutritional or scientific basis and rarely work in the long term. Some can even be dangerous, they claim.

Now a simple four month plan has been developed by the NHS and British Dietetic Association (BDA) based on the latest advice on diet and exercise.

“Every year, people pour millions of pounds down the drain to no avail following one fad diet or another,” said Professor Susan Jebb, of Oxford University, an advisor on obesity for the government.

“There is no easy way to lose weight, but the NHS Weight Loss guide is full of valuable tips and support to help you put your good intentions into practice.

“It is free, straightforward and based on the best available evidence of what helps people to succeed in losing weight.

“Research shows that monitoring what you eat and how active you are can make a real difference to your success, so use the food and activity charts to check that you are sticking to your plans."

The NHS Weight Loss plan encourages people to reduce their calorie intake by helping them stick to a strict daily calorie allowance of 1,900kcal a day for men and 1,400kcal for women,

That is around 600kcal less than most people need to maintain their current weight and will help them lose weight at a safe rate of 0.5-1kg (1-2lb) a week, which will reduce the chances of them putting the weight back on.

Each week the weight-loss programme gives advice on how to lose pounds without feeling hungry, hints on low calorie snacks and help on how to beat cravings and comfort eating.

The programme includes a “stick-on-your-fridge” food and activity chart for people to record each day’s calorie intake, physical activity and weekly weight loss.

British Dietetic Association spokesperson Sian Porter said: “Without a shadow of a doubt, as soon as the clock strikes midnight on New Year’s Eve, the marketing machines will go into overdrive in their attempts to sell us the latest miracle diet books, websites, DVDs and more for 2014.

“The truth is there is no miracle approach to losing weight in a safe and sustainable way.

“This is exactly why the BDA was so keen to partner with NHS Choices to create a rational and sustainable way to achieve and maintain a healthy weight without having to resort to extreme dieting, which can often do more harm than good and could see you quickly piling the pounds back on.”

Lesley Trundle, 53, from London, has already lost 2 stone and 4 lbs (14.6kg) while trialling the plan.

“The weight loss plan has worked so well for me because I haven't seen it as a diet, but as a healthy way of eating and feeling great,” she said.

“It is unlike any other diet I have tried before.”

A spokesman for NHS England said: “Instead of encouraging rapid and unsustainable weight loss, the NHS weight loss plan shows people how to lose weight the healthy way to avoid putting it back on again.

“There are no promises of dropping a stone in five days, no cutting out entire food groups, no starving yourself – no gimmicks, just sensible and practical weight loss advice based on the best available evidence of what works.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10554523/Stop-pouring-money-down-drain-with-fad-diets-warns-NHS.html



* Getting started on the NHS weight loss plan

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/weight-loss-guide/Pages/losing-weight-getting-started.aspx


If you clink on the link to the NHS weight loss plan, you'll see exactly what we are up against in the UK when it comes to dietary advice.

Furthermore, as well as being on the advisory boards for companies such as Kelloggs and Coca-Cola (http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/02/17/why-does-the-uk-governments-obesity-advisor-dish-out-useless-advice/), Government Obesity Advisor, Professor Susan Jebb has also been paid to promote Weight Watchers and Rosemary Conley slimming groups (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1299513/Obesity-adviser-Government-paid-diet-firms.html) in the UK. Not only that, she was also the nutritionist who condemned the protein-based Atkins Diet while working on a report looking at the benefits of a high-carbohydrate diet (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1439138/Anti-Atkins-nutritionist-working-for-flour-millers.html) funded by the Flour Advisory Bureau (Fab)!

However, despite all this, we are beginning to see a transformation in the way the UK media appears to be taking an anti-sugar, pro-fats stance in its reporting.


Thanks for posting that Demi, I hope you will grace us with Part 2 when it comes along.You're welcome and, yes, I will.

I look forward to seeing what is in "The sugar trap part 2" - next Sunday I assume?Yes, next Sunday.

[Bob-a-rama]

Sad that the corporate giants infiltrated the UK health service too.

Here in the USA big food and drug corporations control the FDA (Food And Drug Administration), the department that is supposed to represent and protect the citizens of the USA is being run as a support group for the giant food and drug corporations. They leave their posts to get multi-million dollar do-nothing jobs with the corporations they served while in office.

I'm definitely not a fan of communism, but this illustrates perhaps one of the greatest faults of capitalism. I guess no system is perfect, and a perfect system were invented, it would probably get corrupted in a few, short years.

Thanks again for posting.

[ojoj]

Sad that the corporate giants infiltrated the UK health service too.

Here in the USA big food and drug corporations control the FDA (Food And Drug Administration), the department that is supposed to represent and protect the citizens of the USA is being run as a support group for the giant food and drug corporations. They leave their posts to get multi-million dollar do-nothing jobs with the corporations they served while in office.

I'm definitely not a fan of communism, but this illustrates perhaps one of the greatest faults of capitalism. I guess no system is perfect, and a perfect system were invented, it would probably get corrupted in a few, short years.

Thanks again for posting. Heres an insight into the problem in the UK by one of my favourite Doctors/writers http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2014/01/07/is-medical-research-now-beyond-redemption/

Jo xxx

[Demi]

From The Times
London, UK
9 January, 2014

Sugar is the new tobacco, say doctors

Sugar is the “new tobacco” and companies need to cut the amount they add to food by 30 per cent to help to stem the obesity epidemic, a new campaigning group of doctors says.

Action on Sugar, which launches today, says that better labelling and more action by the food industry is urgently needed to reduce our consumption of sugar.

Sugar added to food has little nutritional value, does not make people feel full and is dangerous beyond merely the number of calories it contains, the experts say. The sugar we add to food ourselves is dwarfed by the amounts added by food companies, they say.

Action on Sugar models itself on Consensus Action on Salt and Health, which has helped to reduce salt intake by 15 per cent over the past decade. Supermarkets taking salt out of their products has been a big cause of that fall and the group says that the same thing must happen with sugar.

Graham MacGregor, the chairman of Action on Sugar, said: “We must start a coherent and structured plan to slowly reduce the amount of calories people consume by slowly taking out added sugar from foods and soft drinks.

“This is a simple plan which gives a level playing field to the food industry and must be adopted by the Department of Health to reduce the completely unnecessary and very large amounts of sugar the food and soft drink industry is adding to our foods.”

Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist at Croydon University Hospital, said: “Added sugar has no nutritional value whatsoever and causes no feeling of satiety. Aside from being a major cause of obesity, there is increasing evidence that added sugar increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome and fatty liver.”

Simon Capewell, a professor of clinical epidemiology at the University of Liverpool, said: “Sugar is the new tobacco. Everywhere, sugary drinks and junk foods are now pressed on unsuspecting parents and children by a cynical industry focused on profit, not health.”

Robert Lustig, a paediatric endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco, said: “Sugar is dangerous, exclusive of its calories, just like alcohol.” Andrew Goddard, of the Royal College of Physicians, said: “Sugar is a major factor in obesity and diabetes, and with many everyday foods, such as bread and breakfast cereals, containing high levels of added sugar, it can be difficult for consumers to make healthier choices.”

Barbara Gallani, of the Food and Drink Federation, said: “Sugars, or any other nutrient for that matter, consumed as part of a varied and balanced diet are not a cause of obesity, to which there is no simple or single solution.” http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/news/article3969870.ece


From The Independent
London, UK
9 January, 2014

'Sugar is the new tobacco': Cuts to amounts hidden in food could halt obesity epidemic, claim doctors

The growing obesity epidemic could be “halted or reversed” in less than five years if the food industry makes cuts the amount of “hidden sugar” in our food, leading doctors have said.

Sugar is a major cause of obesity and also increases the risk of type 2 diabetes. Leading experts today launched a new campaign group, Action on Sugar, to alert the public to the high levels of sugar in their food and lobby the government and the food industry to reduce its use of “unnecessary” sugar.

The group, which brings together doctors from the UK, the US and Canada, aims to emulate the reduction in salt levels in our diet. Intake of salt dropped by 15 per cent between 2001 and 2011, leading to a minimum of 6,000 fewer strokes and heart attack deaths per year, saving £1.5bn.

Experts said that if major manufacturers reduced the amount of sugar in their products, adding up to a 20 to 30 per cent decrease in sugar content in three to five years, the obesity epidemic could be stopped in its tracks. Graham McGregor, professor of cardiovascular medicine at the Wolfson Institute of Preventative Medicine and chairman of the new group, said that the Government’s “Responsibility Deals” with the food industry had failed and a new approach was needed.

“This is a simple plan which gives a level playing field to the food industry, and must be adopted by the Department of Health to reduce the completely unnecessary and very large amounts of sugar the food and soft drink industry is currently adding to our foods,” he said.

Children were particularly at risk from high sugar foods and soft drinks, said Simon Capewell, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology at the University of Liverpool. “Sugar is the new tobacco,” he said. “Everywhere, sugary drinks and junk foods are now pressed on unsuspecting parents and children by a cynical industry focused on profit not health.”

The obesity epidemic is costing the UK over £5bn a year, he said, estimating that costs could rise to £50bn by 2050. Nearly two thirds of adults and more than a quarter of children in England are overweight.

A Department of Health spokesperson said it wanted to sign up more company to its Responsibility Deals, which have seen 38 food and drink companies volunteer to improve people’s diets.http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/sugar-is-the-new-tobacco-cuts-to-amounts-hidden-in-food-could-halt-obesity-epidemic-claim-doctors-9047785.html



From BBC News
London, UK
9 January, 2014

Campaigners vow to cut sugar in food

A campaign group has been formed to reduce the amount of sugar added to food and soft drinks in an effort to tackle obesity and diabetes in the UK.

Action on Sugar has been set up by the team behind Consensus Action on Salt and Health (Cash), which has pushed for cuts to salt intake since the 1990s.

The new group aims to help people avoid "hidden sugars" and get manufacturers to reduce the ingredient over time.

It believes a 20% to 30% reduction in three to five years is within reach.

Like Cash, Action on Sugar will set targets for the food industry to add less sugar bit by bit so that consumers do not notice the difference in taste.

It says the reduction could reverse or halt the obesity epidemic and would have a significant impact in reducing chronic disease in a way that "is practical, will work and will cost very little".

'Completely unnecessary'

The group listed flavoured water, sports drinks, yoghurts, ketchup, ready meals and even bread as just a few everyday foods that contain large amounts of sugar.

A favourite tactic of Cash has been to name and shame products with large quantities of salt.

Action on Sugar chairman Graham MacGregor, who is professor of cardiovascular medicine at the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine and set up Cash in 1996, said: "We must now tackle the obesity epidemic both in the UK and worldwide.

"This is a simple plan which gives a level playing field to the food industry, and must be adopted by the Department of Health to reduce the completely unnecessary and very large amounts of sugar the food and soft drink industry is currently adding to our foods."

Dr Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist and science director of Action on Sugar, said: "Added sugar has no nutritional value whatsoever and causes no feeling of satiety.

"Aside from being a major cause of obesity, there is increasing evidence that added sugar increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes, metabolic syndrome and fatty liver."http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25650352

[Demi]

From The Times
London, UK
9 January, 2014

Sugar: the bitter truth

It’s addictive, it’s everywhere and scientists are coming round to thinking it does us no good at all

There’s a sad time in a parent’s life when they realise they’ve raised an addict. For me it came when my son woke me at 2am, eyes wild, clutching his tongue, croaking: “I just need the taste in my mouth.” The fact that he was 3 and asking for juice didn’t make the scene any less desperate — like a tiny Keith Richards coming off a heroin bender, his parents torn between whatever gets him through the night and putting him in the tank to dry out. A little bit of sugar never hurt anyone, right?

Well, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO) it does. With some relief I heard that its expert committee of doctors is due to lower its recommended limit for sugar consumption this year. At last, I thought, a bit of hard science to harden my resolve when the going gets tough. I committed our family to stick to the new limits it is considering. This was, as was pointed out to me several times, not a democratic choice. I had no idea how tough the going would get, and also how mixed up I would feel.

First, a little background. If you are a parent you have to decide your stance on sugar, and it’s like deciding how uncool you’re going to be at a party. Modern food habits are one long sugar party. In 1704, the British ate 1.8kg (4lb) of sugar per head a year. In 1800, we ate 8.2kg (18lb) of it a year — now we each eat about 0.7kg (1.5lb) of it every week. If you’re making a chicken sandwich, it’s in the Tesco roast chicken and Hovis wholemeal, and if you go out instead, the chef will slather it on almost everything. Now, when you’re at tea, and your host breaks out the Iced Gems, do you become the fun sucker who snottily says: “Clara doesn’t do sugar, so I’ve supplied my own spelt sticks.” Hard that, no one likes a Gwyneth.

So, I let things slide. The juice and the Cheerios and the home-baked muffin seemed as wholesome as apple pie. The other stuff, the hard stuff — the sweets, the jelly, oh God the sherbet I once caught them trying to inhale like a line of cocaine — that was pushed at them from all quarters without any conscious control on my part. To anyone who’s ever tasted breast milk, it’s easy to see how our sugar addiction has got out of hand — it’s as sweet as the milk left after a bowl of Frosties. Our first suck on life is this sugary liquid, and here we are now, doughy-plump 21st-century adult babies, munching sweet treats all day long. Seems only natural. Everyone else is doing it. But can we give up any time we like?

I had no idea the WHO, or the NHS, had a guideline on added sugar. It’s currently 10 per cent of our calorie intake, and surveys suggest that no age group sticks to this (nor barely a cereal manufacturer) and young people flout it completely. Now, after some strong representations from British scientists, the WHO’s expert committee is considering halving this limit. Obviously, this doesn’t affect us — have another biscuit, do — but it matters enormously to manufacturers in the event that government has the courage to tax sugar. Their findings are political in another way: the scientific community is currently split on whether sugar is bad just because it makes us fat, or whether sugar itself is directly linked to diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s, a previously minority opinion now supported by growing evidence.

I faced the sweet faces of my children, aged 5 and 7, at the breakfast table. That is when I looked down the barrel at what limiting added sugar to 5 per cent of the calories in our diet actually means. This is basically the sugar in anything except whole (not dried or juiced) fruit, which has enough fibre to balance the fructose kick. Children could have roughly 20g of added sugar a day, or five teaspoons. Adults, maybe six teaspoons. Forget all this juicing your way to health: we would blow our entire day’s sugar budget in just one glass of our usual apple juice. I poured out milk instead.

Now, food. Granola out, muesli out. My son crunched through some dry Weetabix — one of the few low-sugar cereals in town — in an unappetising protest gesture. My daughter swapped honey on toast for plain butter, a joyless breakfast, and still their wholewheat carbs were laced with sugar. This was going to be harder than I thought.

Michael Mosley, the BBC health presenter and co-author of the Fast Diet, told me his research led him to ban his four children from the sweet stuff — no juice, no puddings — “the poor little buggers”. However, it’s David Gillespie, a former Australian lawyer and author of the bestselling Sweet Poison books, who really goes hardline. His six children all went sugar-free when Gillespie started researching the latest scientific studies on fructose, a component of normal table sugar that is now being fingered as a factor in our modern epidemics of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and Alzheimer’s. Gillespie now bans sugar in the house, and he even makes his own ketchup. I told him I was already struggling — at breakfast; he didn’t give me any slack.

“You won’t win parent of the year (well, at least not the kids’ choice category) when you tell them they won’t be eating sugar again, but if you make a decision and stick to it they learn to accept the new reality. Make sure your house is a sugar-free zone and they won’t starve to prove a point.”

Gillespie’s tactic is to keep going back to the scientific literature, and the horror stories therein.

“We are increasingly seeing kids get the first stages of chronic fructose damage, such as fatty liver disease (one in 10 children has this now) and type 2 diabetes (now affecting three million people in the UK, with the age of onset declining rapidly). The sooner a person stops consuming fructose, the better off they are.

“If the WHO is satisfied that harm is caused by this non-food, then why is it not recommending it be removed altogether? It is the equivalent of finding that smoking causes lung cancer but then recommending that people can safely consume a pack a day, instead of two.”

I ponder his thoughts at lunch, as our egg mayonnaise sandwich and my pudding-replacement bribe of a packet of crisps sends us halfway through our sugar budget. At this point in the day I would normally reach for a Jaffa Cake with tea, but at a teaspoon and a half per tiny biscuit, it feels like being given the keys to the sweet shop.

The new anti-fructose scientific studies draw inspiration from the work of the late British scientist John Yudkin, whose 1972 book, Pure, White and Deadly, rubbished for decades by the low-fat champions, could now win some kind of “I told you so” award. Yudkin’s son, Michael, an Oxford biochemistry professor, eats no added sugar and gave his children none, even in the 1970s when we were mainlining Angel Delight. The Yudkin family know something about going against the grain, and Michael is gently amused by my difficulties.

“Yes, my children suffered,” he says, “but it doesn’t mean you have to prowl with a shotgun at every party. Just, you know, have fruit instead of pudding.”

What, I say, about a little apple crumble after Sunday lunch? Shortbread for tea? My family is glued together by sugar. “These seem like splendid English traditions, but those traditions have not been going very long — more than 100 years ago, these things would have been a luxury; now we regard it as so standard we can’t manage without it. What is clear is that the scientific community is coming around to what my father said a long time ago. A lot of people still haven’t accepted it, but if you compare the position on sugar to even ten years ago, you will see how far we have come.”

John Yudkin’s biggest disciple is Robert Lustig, professor of paediatric endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco, and leading light of the growing group of scientists who believe sugar, not just obesity, is dangerous, and especially for children. His YouTube lecture about how fructose messes with your metabolic hormones has been viewed nearly four million times. We have a conversation, and it’s mind-bending stuff: juice worse for you than Coke, that sort of thing. Amazingly, though, his wife makes cookies for the kids once a week (but only once).

“A once-a-week treat is OK; it’s once a meal that isn’t. I’m a scientist, not a zealot,” says Lustig.

I think about my children’s normal diet: honey and juice at breakfast, pudding provided by school lunches, biscuits for tea. They are hardly going four hours without their five teaspoons of sugar, let alone a whole day. Pretty much every week a kid has a birthday and brings cupcakes to class; at their weekly cooking club they always bake cookies. Does Lustig ever despair of how sugar-coated we are?

“This is going to require a tectonic shift in people’s thinking,” he says, “but over time, such shifts are possible. It has happened at least twice in the past 30 years: one, smoking in public places; two, drunk driving. In each case, the science drove the policy, but public education softened the playing field.”

Even someone like me, who has read the anti-fructose books and finds them convincing, feels I can’t go unilateral. I can avoid sugar, and only feel a little sad about chocolate Digestives, but I’d have to make my children into freaks.

We just about make it through the grumbles on that first bad day. On the second day, I surreptitiously get under the five-teaspoon limit by fussing around with recipes from online no-fructose forums, inventing concoctions with cocoa and oat milk. This would work if I had a full-time chef.

On the third day, I turn some thinking on its head and make it into “add your own sugar day”, inspired by a psychological trick that was conducted on children at a residential summer camp. One group were given normal high-sugar cereal for breakfast; the others were given no-sugar cereal and allowed to add their own from the sugar bowl. These children ended up loving breakfast and eating barely any sugar compared to the first group.

I find some zero-sugar sourdough bread, Greek yoghurt and so on, and we spend the day scattering our five teaspoons and enjoying it. This would only work if manufacturers stopped adding sugar — as if.

This year the anti-fructose movement received backing from a medical superstar. Lewis Cantley, a Harvard cell biologist, has for decades been one of the world’s leading cancer researchers. He told me that for the past year he has been entirely convinced by recent studies of the role of fructose in diabetes and many cancers. He went public in the journal Nature in October with a piece titled “F stands for fructose and fat”.

“Since then, I avoid fructose entirely, except for fruit,” Cantley says. Now he finds himself checking labels, using the rule of thumb about avoiding products with sugar in the top two ingredients.

“I’m trying desperately to find a breakfast cereal that doesn’t have sugar as the second ingredient. It has zero value. The trouble is, not many people are informed. But I think at the moment the science is just reaching the tipping point.”

I sure hope so, because I just can’t do this alone. On the next day of our experiment, my mother takes the children to a show, where they observe “everyone” had ice cream at the interval and sweets throughout.The show? Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, of course. The day after that, it’s my daughter’s birthday and, well, let’s just forget the whole thing. If five teaspoons a day is going to work, we will have to move to a remote Japanese island. Here, I feel doomed to Britain’s sickly fate.


How much is in your cereal?

Shredded Wheat
Where sugar appears in ingredients: not listed
Amount of sugar (all without milk) per 45g serving (2 biscuits): 0.3g
Amount of sugar per 100g: 0.7g

Scott’s Porage Oats
Sugar: not listed
Sugar per 40g serving: 0.4g
Amount per 100g: 1g

Kellogg’s Corn Flakes
Sugar: 2nd on list
Sugar per 30g serving: 2.5g
Amount per 100g: 8g

Weetabix
Sugar: 3rd on list
Sugar per 37.5g serving (2 Weetabix): 1.7g
Amount per 100g: 4.4g

Rice Krispies
Sugar: 2nd on list
Sugar per 30g serving: 3.1g
Amount per 100g: 10g

Essential Waitrose Wholegrain Bran Flakes
Sugar: 2nd (after grains)
Sugar per 30g serving: 5.1g
Amount per 100g: 17g

Jordan’s Super Berry Granola
Sugar: 3rd on list
Sugar per 45g serving: 9.5g
Amount per 100g: 20.1g

Special K Red Berries
Sugar: 2nd on list
Sugar per 30g serving: 7g
Amount per 100g: 22g

Nestlé Cheerios
Sugar: 2nd (after grains)
Sugar per 30g serving: 6.4g
Amount per 100g: 21.4g

Sugar Puffs
Sugars: 2nd & 3rd on list
Amount of sugar per 30g serving: 10.6g
Amount per 100g: 35g

Kellogg’s Coco Pops
Sugar: 2nd on list
Amount of sugar per 30g serving: 10.5g
Amount per 100g: 35g http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/food/article3969406.ece

[Demi]

From The Telegraph
London, UK
9 January, 2014

Sugar not as bad as tobacco say nutrition experts

Claims that eating sugar is as dangerous as smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol are dismissed by nutrition experts

Warnings that eating sugar is as dangerous to human health as smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol have been dismissed as "nuts" by nutrition experts and a former health secretary.

Andrew Lansley, who was health secretary until 2012 and is now the Commons Leader, insisted that sugar is an essential component of food and that the comparison with tobacco was inaccurate.

His comments were echoed by a number of nutritional scientists who said the claims, which were made by a group of doctors campaigning for a reduction in the levels of sugar in food, were alarmist and misleading.

The doctors, who launched their campaign Action on Sugar on Wednesday, warned that sugar in processed foods was “the new tobacco” in terms of the risk it posed to human health.

They said that the obesity crisis could be reversed within five years if the food industry cut the amount of sugar they put into food by 30 per cent, and claimed that sugary snacks had become the “alcohol of childhood”.

But Mr Lansley said the comparison with tobacco was not appropriate and that consumers would likely reject dramatic reductions in sugar.

Speaking during his weekly question and answer session in the Commons, he said: "You can't simply slash the sugar in food otherwise people simply won't accept it.

“That is what they are looking for. I don't think it is helped by what I think are inaccurate analogies. I just don't think the analogy between sugar and tobacco is an appropriate one.

"I think we have to understand that sugar is an essential component of food, it's just that sugar in excess in an inappropriate and unhelpful diet."

Nutrition experts from around the country also criticised the attempt to compare sugar with tobacco, saying blaming a single nutrient for obesity overlooked the other aspects of the nation’s diet that contribute excessive calories.

Professor Susan Jebb, a diet and population health expert at the University of Oxford said: “The scale of the obesity problem in this country clearly needs greater action to improve the nation’s diet.

“But we need to move away from a reductionist approach which blames individual nutrients, such as sugar, and instead take a more holistic approach if we are going to reduce diet-related disease.”

Dr Victoria Burley, a senior lecturer in nutritional epidemiology at Leeds University, described the comparison with alcohol and tobacco as “nuts”.

She said: It’s total hyperbole, quite crazy. The epidemiology for smoking causing cancer is strong.

“You can look at figures and see that one quarter of cancer deaths are linked to smoking, that’s something like 43,000 deaths a year.

“There is certainly evidence that obesity is linked to cancer and coronary heart disease but there is little evidence that there is a causal link between sugar and obesity.

“So you can’t say with any certainty that sugar is a cause of death.

“Consumption of sugar has been decreasing steadily since the 1960s. Sales of sweets, jams and preserves have all gone down.

She added that sugar can be a useful nutrient for those who are physically active or trying to gain weight.

Professor Naveed Sattar, an expert in metabolic medicine at Glasgow University, insisted that it is only when sugar is consumed excessively that it becomes harmful.

He said: “The truth is that sugar on its own is not necessarily bad if overall calorie intake matches calorie burn and individuals are normal weight and healthy.

“However, when the diet leads to overconsumption of calories – here excess fat or sugar can both be stored as excess fat in important body organs such as the liver or muscle increasing health risks such as diabetes, liver disease and associated conditions.”

Action on Sugar is aiming to help the public to avoid products that contain hidden sugars and warns that children are a particularly vulnerable group.

The group lists flavoured waters, sports drinks yogurts, ketchup, bread and ready meals as being particularly high in sugar. A can of Coca Cola, for example, contains nine teaspoons of sugar while a 0% fat yogur contains five teaspoons of sugar.

Professor Simon Capewell, an expert in clinical epidemiology at the University of Liverpool who is leading the campaign, said: Professor Simon Copewell, a clinical epidemiologist at the University of Liverpool who is leading the campaign, said: "We think the parallels between sugar and tobacco are very clear, but there is a time lag.

"Tobacco was flagged up as a public health problem some decades ago and opinion slowly shifted and then debate and legislation followed.

"Sugar is like that but it is at a much earlier stage of the process.

"We feel that children are completely unprotected at the moment and are expected to survive in a world that is full of marketing on sugary foods and drinks.

"This is very like tobacco 20 years ago, and we think the state is avoiding its duty of care, especially for children." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10561800/Sugar-not-as-bad-as-tobacco-say-nutrition-experts.html


:rolleyes:

[Fransson]

These articles reminded me that I STILL hadn´t watched the now four year old youtube video "Sugar, the bitter truth" with DR Lustig.

So I watched all 90 minutes of it. I recommend that anyone who still haven't seen it, to seek it out now. It is worth it.

[ojoj]

The "sugar is bad" message has been all over the UK news today. Its wonderful to see.

Is it as bad as tobacco? Well, its affects seem to be - disfigurement in the shape of obesity, diabetes, heart disease..... and of course its given freely - even to babies. So whether its as bad or not is neither here nor there, its a poison and we need to treat it as we do tobacco IMO!

Jo xxx

[Bonnie OFS]

From the first article:

Barbara Gallani, of the Food and Drink Federation, said: “Sugars, or any other nutrient for that matter, consumed as part of a varied and balanced diet are not a cause of obesity, to which there is no simple or single solution.”

She missed the point - sugar is in virtually every processed food. So how does she consider sugar to be part of a "varied and balanced diet?"

If, as many people do, you eat 3 meals plus snacks of processed food, you're going to ingest a humongous amount of sugar.

[Bonnie OFS]

Well, its affects seem to be - disfigurement in the shape of obesity, diabetes, heart disease..... and of course its given freely - even to babies.

After the birth of my first baby 25 years ago, the nurse didn't want to wake me, so they gave my baby sugar water. Great move, nurse! They knew I was planning on breastfeeding, but didn't honor my choice at all. They even gave me a 6-pack of soy formula when we left.

On the whole, my time in that hospital's maternity ward was a dismal experience. :(

[ImOnMyWay]

Glad to see all the media attention on sugar! It's about time.

(I still haven't watched Lustig's video, hope to get to it soon...)

.

[ojoj]

From the first article:



She missed the point - sugar is in virtually every processed food. So how does she consider sugar to be part of a "varied and balanced diet?"

If, as many people do, you eat 3 meals plus snacks of processed food, you're going to ingest a humongous amount of sugar.


But she's a classic case of having a financial interest in her claim!

Jo xxx

[Bonnie OFS]

But she's a classic case of having a financial interest in her claim!

I missed that! No wonder she missed the point - she's too busy looking after her paycheck.

[WereBear]

I can't get too excited about this. They are trying to "get the sugar out of cereal" instead of ditching both!

Are they going to get the results they think they will? Their blood sugar is still taking a beating!

[aamama]

I can't say with certainty that all kids are like mine, but my five year old daughter and three year old son have shocked me. I started LC ing in January 2012. Initially I thought I was the one with the problem and my family all seemed healthy, so I still made them their standard side dishes, and just had the proteins and salads for myself. That soon changed. My daughter started having completely unexplained stomach upset. My own entire childhood was full of what was diagnosed as IBS.....constant tummy aches, diarrhea, constipation, nausea. By early adulthood I just got used to it, assuming that would be my life. With LC though all those symptoms went away within days. When my daughter started having problems I thought "maybe it's grains/carbs/sugars like me..." Took her to the doctor for tests. She was diagnosed with "unexplained IBS". I mentioned my own findings to my doctor who got up in arms over making sure she was eating according to the food guide....don't get me started on that.

In 2011 I stopped breast feeding my son and transitioned him to cows milk. Within weeks he was covered in eczema. When I took him to the doctor they prescribed steroid creams and said he had sensitive skin. I told them it seemed too coincidental to me that he got these symptoms as soon as he went to cows milk. She said "well he has to have milk!?!?!??" I took him home, stopped giving him milk, and tore up the steroid cream prescription. His eczema was gone within days.

Basically these things created an open dialog where we began talking about food and it's impact on our bodies. As time went on they (and my husband) have Learned they prefer my "egg bread" for sandwiches and French toast and garlic bread, they really don't like potatoes at all, that most puddings, ice creams, and jellies that don't get made by mom taste way too sweet. If we are at a party I don't say they can't have a piece of birthday cake. But they generally have one or two bites and leave the rest, because it's too sweet. They nearly always choose meat/cheese slices over potato chips or crackers. If they are at someone else's house and are served a sandwich, they pick everything out of the middle and leave the bread. Don't get me wrong, there are times when they really want something and we argue over the fact that I don't think they should have it. Especially with my three year old - it can be hard to explain that something that tastes so good can hurt you. But in general, if left to their own food-selecting devices, they go for real food almost everytime.

One thing my kids aren't allowed, ever: breakfast cereal. We have Eggs and bacon. Full fat Greek yogurt and berries. No breakfast cereal. It's like poison.

Anyways, if my own little experiments have shown me anything it's that food directly impacts our entire system, regardless of whether we are obese adults or tiny children. We are all much happier, healthy ppl because of our food choices. I've also learned its sad to realize so many people out there just accept that they don't feel good, and can't make the correlation between their consumption and their body's reaction to its fuel provision.

[Liz53]

I'm encouraged by the onslaught of anti-sugar articles. I can see how people cling to the idea that maybe they give up sugar, but not grains. I started with South Beach and gradually weaned myself off of sugars AND starches. Most of us come here not because we think "Hey it would be cool to give up sugar and starch and lots of delicious foods". We here due to a health crisis, either overweight or diabetes or some other consequence of metabolic syndrome. It usually takes a while for us to get our heads around the fact that getting rid of sugar and grains (and even most starches) will have to be a permanent change.

You gotta start somewhere and I am glad the British press is giving this so much notice.

[WereBear]

You gotta start somewhere and I am glad the British press is giving this so much notice.

Yes. That's true.

[Whofan]

The stores will be inundated with "sugar-free" everything. Like the "fat-free" hype. What substances are they going to substitute for sugar, I wonder, so they can continue profiting from sweet-toothed consumers.

[Demi]

We must end this sweet madness of excess sugar consumption

Eating too much sugar is damaging our health, but the food, drink and farming industries are blocking change

Felicity Lawrence

We have no physiological need for refined sugar: before the 16th century we managed with tiny amounts of it. In fact, all the glories of Renaissance art and thought were created on just a teaspoonful of sugar per head per year. But by the 20th century sugar had become ubiquitous. And its industry had become so powerful that it had penetrated the heart of governments. The sort of access sugar barons enjoy was exposed when Bill Clinton famously interrupted an Oval Office assignation with Monica Lewinsky in 1996 to take a phone call — the call was from one of the Fanjul family who control much of sugar production in the electorally key swing state of Florida. (The Fanjuls have played it both ways: another brother was one of George Bush's top fundraisers.)

The Action on Sugar initiative (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/09/obesity-campaign-cut-sugar-processed-foods), launched in Britain and the US this week, is recognition that different weapons are needed in the battle against the promoters of this vector of disease. A distinguished posse of professors has signed up to the campaign to cut sugar consumption by 30% by naming and shaming big companies that sell us these empty calories.

The evidence that excess consumption of refined sugars is damaging our health is now as clear as the case against tobacco. Nutritionally bankrupt products loaded with sugars have displaced the whole foods our bodies need. To tackle the preventable diet-related diseases that have reached epidemic proportions around the globe – obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancers – we simply need to eat less of them. But the vested economic interests of the food, drink and farming industries are blocking change. They lobby ferociously against attempts to set lower targets for consumption or restrict marketing or recalibrate subsidies. They have captured regulators so successfully that a guerrilla campaign is needed to speak directly to consumers. Leading the charge with Action on Sugar is cardiovascular expert Graham MacGregor, veteran of the successful campaign to force the food industry to reduce blood-pressure inducing levels of salt in its products. The fight against sugar will be much tougher and dirtier.

Cutting sugars represents an existential threat to large parts of the food and drink industry. Take salt out and they are left with a problem that their products are short of good ingredients and don't taste of much. Take sugars out and they are left with not much at all. Sugars give them their bulk. In theory, they could use proper whole foods instead, but then their economic model starts falling apart. Their businesses are built on taking the cheapest of cheap commodity ingredients, deconstructing them, and turning them into "added value" goods – not in lightly processing real unrefined foods.

Consumption of sugars is a function of price, availability and production, and has been for centuries. The price of refined sugar dropped dramatically at the beginning of the 18th century as the English, Dutch and French Caribbean colonies were established. A mass market developed, with the amount eaten in Britain increasing over the next hundred years from about 2kg per person per year to about 8kg. Sugar, and cheap bread, became the fuel of the industrial revolution; it fed the factory workers of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Governments have long subsidised sugars and protected their domestic markets in them, fostering the interests of a handful of transnational corporations. As a result, sugar comes at us from every quarter. The fundamental problem is a mismatch between supply and our biology.

By the age of 15, 21st-century British boys typically have a 40kg-a-year sugar habit, according to the official National Diet and Nutrition Survey, the equivalent of 1,000 cans of cola or 11,800 sugar cubes – they are matching or exceeding the consumption of impoverished 19th-century manual workers doing up to 14 hours of physical labour a day. Action on Sugar cannot change the trade system that makes this profitable, but as the health costs of diet-related disease soar, it may at least awaken a new audience to its madnesses.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/09/end-excess-sugar-consumption


Felicity Lawrence (http://www.theguardian.com/profile/felicitylawrence) is the author of Not On the Label: What Really Goes into the Food on Your Plate (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Not-Label-What-Really-Plate/dp/0241967821/) and Eat Your Heart Out: Why the food business is bad for the planet and your health (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Eat-Your-Heart-Out-business/dp/0141026014/).

[RonnieScot]

I really like this being in the media. It's going to take years, decades for "fats ok, sugar is killing us and hey, starch isn't much better" message to come through cleanly. My mother in law worries about me being on primal or Atkins. Now I'm pregnant, she's worried. I told her just a couple of days ago that there was no absolutely no need for sugar in my diet and I was eating loads of different veg, meat, fish, etc, and I was happy this was fine. Shes not sure. So these articles couldn't have come at a better time for me!

[Demi]

From The Mail
London, UK
10 January, 2014

Mother switched her boys to a 'healthier' diet - and found they ate even MORE sugar than before

World Health Organisation’s recommended daily allowance (RDA) is 90g of sugar per day
Amanda Cable managed to push her sons' sugar content up to 152 grams each day

Rushing around the room in a wide-eyed frenzy, knocking over the nest of tables on which my canapes had been neatly arranged and upon which my dismayed guests had rested their flutes of champagne, my son Charlie, then 11, was making New Year’s Eve 2012 a night to remember for all the wrong reasons.
Worse, it was all my fault. Earlier in the evening, I had served a sweet-and-sour chicken Chinese takeaway — a family favourite — to Charlie, his twin brother, Archie, and their sister, Ruby.

My husband, Ray, and I had had the same, and we’d all tucked into chocolate pudding afterwards.
Every mother will recognise this scenario.

An indulgent meal as a treat, followed by an over-excited child who, quite literally, bounces off the walls.

But Charlie’s reaction to sugar was more than just excitement. It was toxic.
And, from watching my son carefully, I could see that his worst episodes of bad behaviour and hyperactivity took place after he’d had a sugar binge.

So, that very night, I decided to reform my family’s eating habits. Out with the sugary cereals and sweet treats, and in with wholegrains and cereal bars.
I even ditched cow’s milk for the soya alternative.

Such a change in diet was the only thing I could think of that might put Charlie on a more even keel — and improve my entire family’s health in the process.

After all, if an occasional sugar splurge could have such a dramatic impact on him, what was it doing to the rest of us?

So imagine my horror on reading yesterday’s findings that many of the ‘healthy’ alternatives I’d started to buy were actually doing my family more damage than before.

Indeed, doctors and academics are so horrified by the hidden sugar epidemic they’ve dubbed sugar ‘the new tobacco’.

The World Health Organisation’s recommended daily allowance (RDA) is 90g of sugar per day — 22.5 teaspoons.

Charlie’s typical menu before gave him an overall daily total of 121.3 grams of sugar — a whopping 30-odd teaspoons.

But I now realise the so-called healthy diet is even worse. Thanks to sugars hidden in them, I have managed to push his sugar content up to 152 grams each day — the same as 38 teaspoons.

Charlie’s behaviour had been deteriorating since just after he turned ten.
As a toddler, it was far easier to control his diet, and rather than sugary drinks, he would have only water or milk. The tantrums were few and far between.

But as he grew older, he wanted what the other boys at school were having. Brand-name cereals, cartoon-branded juice drinks, and so on.

I capitulated. And I’m ashamed to admit that every day he would eat the following: Coco-Pops for cereal, peanut butter on crumpets as a snack and a Fruit Shoot drink after school.

And while I tried always to prepare healthy dinners, if I didn’t have time to cook from scratch, I would resort to ready-meals.

It wasn’t ideal, but I made sure that I chose the very best, high-end options. Surely it couldn’t do much harm?

But by the age of 11, these treats were taking their toll on Charlie’s behaviour. Making him spend just 45 minutes reading or doing homework would leave him angry and temperamental.

Copybooks were often thrown across the room (by him) and our dining-room table was regularly banged in frustration (me and him).

So our new regime began. The chocolate breakfast cereal was out and I brought in what I thought was a healthy alternative — oat-based cereal flakes.

We ditched the white bread sandwiches and started having veggie soups and wholemeal bread for lunch. Ready-meals were ditched for home-cooked meat and vegetable stir-fries that used delicious shop-made sauces.

I thought I would win the war on sugar. How wrong I was.

Talking to registered nutritionist Angela Dowden, I have learned the bitter truth about my children’s sugar intake.

These so-called healthy options contain so many hidden sugars that my son’s diet is actually worse than before.

‘A little sugar won’t do any harm,’ Angela tells me. ‘But some foods lower their fat contents, enabling manufacturers to bill them as “healthy”, and then add sugar to make them taste better.

‘It’s only when you inspect the food labels, which most parents don’t, that you realise you are being misled.

‘The recommended daily limit of sugar for an adult female is 90g, which is the same as for a boy of 12, like Charlie. But the lower you can get your sugar intake, while still enjoying your diet, the better.’

Amanda was shocked to discover that a can of Heinz soup contains 14.9g of sugar

Angela found that swapping the obviously sugar-loaded cereals, like Coco-Pops, which has nearly five teaspoons per 40g bowl with semi-skimmed milk, for the same amount of Special K Oats and Honey Cereal with ‘healthy’ soya milk, still delivered 2.65 teaspoons of sugar.

‘It may be sold as “healthy”, but Special K Oats and Honey Cereal still has 19g of sugar per 100g. NHS guidelines suggest that anything containing over 22.5g of sugar per 100g is “high”. So while this isn’t technically over, it’s close — and not the healthy option people think,’ says Angela.

‘It’s wiser to choose porridge. Better still, scrambled egg with mushrooms or tomatoes is a lower-sugar start to the day.’

So what about our new healthy lunch with cheese sandwiches ditched in favour of vegetable soups, with tuna and sweetcorn sandwiches made with wholegrain bread.

Charlie’s favourite soup was Heinz tomato. But I am stunned to discover that this contains 14.9g of sugar, per 300ml can — equivalent to almost four teaspoons.

Worse was to come. While I thought I’d picked a truly healthy sandwich, Angela tells me that it contains more than a teaspoon of sugar, thanks to the wholemeal bread.

My healthy drinks also got the thumbs-down. Our new breakfast drink was a pre-packaged orange, mango and passionfruit smoothie, which I thought would help our vitamin intake without adding too much sugar.

Wrong, as Angela tells me: ‘It contains 19.5g of sugar in a 250ml serving, which is four teaspoons of sugar. That’s more than a fifth of the daily RDA in a single drink.’

I’d also swapped the lunchtime Fruit Shoot drinks for a glass of Tropicana fresh orange juice. I need not have bothered.

‘A 200ml glass of orange juice contains 20g of sugar — almost exactly the same as the 22g of sugar within the Fruit Shoot,’ says Angela. ‘That’s five teaspoons in just one glass. You are far better sticking to water or milk. One small glass of fruit juice in one day is enough.’

Charlie’s original after-school snack was peanut butter on a crumpet, which contained more than a teaspoon of sugar. I’d ditched the peanut butter — too many additives and syrups, I thought — for the more natural-seeming honey, served on a bagel. What a mistake.

Angela says: ‘There’s a massive 11g of sugar in just two teaspoons of honey. It’s pure sugar. And added to the 5.1g of sugar which is part of every bagel recipe, you are loading Charlie with more than three teaspoons of sugar in just one snack.’

And while I had been feeling smug that I no longer have any sort of posh ready-meal in my supermarket trolley, I would have been better off sticking with them.

I had replaced them with shop-bought stir-fry sauces with fresh meat and veg to make quick dinners feel more ‘home-made’. What an error! These sauces are packed with sugar, too.

Angela says: ‘While overall this is a healthy meal, you could choose a better option by checking the label. Those with sweet chilli contain more sugar. Your favourite black bean sauce contains 7.7g sugar per half jar — almost two teaspoons.’

So, despite my best efforts, Charlie has still been consuming 38 teaspoons of sugar per day — almost 16 more than his allowance.

I am horrified by these results. By opting for home cooking, what I had thought were low-sugar breakfast options and snacks, I was actually doing more harm to my children’s health than good.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2536913/Mother-switched-boys-healthier-diet-MORE-sugar.html

[WereBear]

Thank you, Demi, this is precisely the outcome I was grumping about, above. "Oh, I ate healthy and it didn't do a thing!"

Though the endgame does, inevitably, lead to low carbing. Sometimes I think everyone should have a blood sugar meter; after all, they give them out free in the US!

Test for one week, and people will be astonished:


at what their meals mean in blood glucose
that the "healthy" meal can be even worse!
that a meal of meat and vegetables creates dramatic improvement
gives them a preview of what life with diabetes can be

[Demi]

From The Times
London, UK
11 January, 2014

We are too sweet on sugar to give it up easily

The way to kick the habit is to cut down on the stuff hidden in pasta sauce, ready meals and fizzy drinks

Janice Turner

Last week my husband spotted an unmissable bargain in Waitrose: two whole pounds of its own-brand chocolates reduced to 69p. He was heading for the till in triumph when I grabbed it from his hands. Would you buy a carton of Silk Cut if I was trying to give up smoking? Would you stock an alcoholic’s house with cheap gin?

Sugar is my crack. If sweets or chocolate, cake or biscuits are in the house, I will eat them. And as I work from home, with 24/7 secret snacking opportunities, I don’t buy them. When my mother arrives from Yorkshire, suitcase bulging with chocolate teacakes, Tunnock’s wafers and Kit Kats, I fling them on top of the highest cupboard. Which means that a week later I will be found teetering on a chair, trying to dislodge a family pack of Maltesers with a ladle.

Christmas brought so many sugary gifts that I considered sneaking them off to a food bank. But, as I have bred a family of fellow addicts, by New Year’s Day only the crystallised ginger was left. It seems Type 2 diabetes, which my father developed late in life, will be our shared destiny.

The scientists who this week launched a campaign to persuade consumers that sugar is “the new tobacco” and that companies should reduce the sugar content of food by 30 per cent, have a hard sell. Their battles against saturated fat and salt have been largely won but that is no indicator of likely success.

It is hard to see as an enemy something so intricately bound up with love. As far as I know “my salt” is no endearment and “fatty” certainly is not. But “my sugar”, “my sweet”, “ah honey, honey, you are my candy girl . . .” How can a lover’s heart-shaped box, a mother’s special cake, the mint from Grandpa’s pocket, the centrepiece of birthdays and feast days, the cargo of Santa and the Easter Bunny be poison? Are we to believe The Great British Bake Off is a pushers’ convention?

When the friends in Sex and the City sat outside the Magnolia Bakery picking at colourful frosting, it seemed that the cupcake had replaced the cigarette: a shared moment, a communal rebellion. Certainly as tobacco has waned, the cupcake has risen, a symbol of both female domestic artistry and a curious kind of empowerment: sod the diet, sod being “good”, this sickly little sucker is for me.

Once we were satisfied with a smear on top of a sticky bun; now we demand the icing be higher than the cake. With greater affluence weekly treats become daily; my grandmother would bring me a small chocolate bar, my kids receive a Toblerone the size of a roof beam. Little bags of sweets have been replaced by huge “shareable” ones you can reseal, but never do because without thinking you shovel in the lot.

What fun-suckers could resist this surfeit of sweetness, this abundance of love. This week Gwyneth Paltrow and her daughter Apple were photographed outside her Los Angeles home running a stall selling home-made lemonade. “No sugar added”, said the colourful crayoned sign; that sour, self-denying brew embodying all the smug purity on which Gwynnie is building her retail wing.

Yet in one sense she is right — we have a right to know when our food contains sugar. Over the years, manufacturers have pumped it into savoury dishes. Why is Heinz tomato soup every child’s favourite? Because it contains more than a teaspoonful per 100g. “Sports drinks” such as Lucozade market themselves as promoting fitness, when if drunk instead of water they will more than replace every calorie sweated off on the pitch.

Pizza, white bread and low-fat yoghurts are suffused with sugar because it enhances taste and makes you eat more, as it suppresses production of the hormone leptin, which tells your brain you are full. Sugar gives you a pleasurable hit to the brain, a rush akin to the thrill of gambling or drugs or alcohol. The writer Simon Gray told me that when he gave up booze he found relief from his cravings by drinking melted-down bars of Green & Black’s.

And sugar only makes you crave more sugar. My inability to resist the chocolate in my house is not just my pathetic weak will, but chemistry. Eating too much makes me shaky with a roiling brain; giving up leaves me headachey, light-headed and exhausted. Anyone who has taken small children to a birthday party will know the cycle of rush, crash and, next day, cranky sugar “hangover”.

It is a powerful drug and manufacturers use it cynically. In super-sweet breakfast cereals and “health” bars they are breeding the next generation of sugar junkies and contributing to the devastation of our collective health.

As Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, remarked this week,
64 per cent of British adults being overweight and a third of children obese should be a cause for “national soul searching”. Yet his predecessor, Andrew Lansley, immediately rubbished the call for manufacturers to cut added sugar — people will find the taste “unacceptable”,* he said.

Food businesses will resist any threat to sales, but what can we do when obesity costs the NHS £5 billion a year and public health campaigns make no difference? If we eat sugar it should be done consciously. Scientists calculate that if we removed only the stuff shoved stealthily into pasta sauce and ready meals or glugged in fizzy drinks, the crisis would ease. Without denying us “sweets for my sweet, sugar for my honey”.http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article3972227.ece

[Demi]

Click on the link below to watch a video where former British health secretary Andrew Lansley suggests it is "inaccurate" to claim a sugary diet is as dangerous as smoking, while Action on Sugar chairman Graham MacGregor calls on the food industry to reduce the amount of sugar in their products:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraphtv/10561365/Andrew-Lansley-analogy-between-tobacco-and-sugar-inaccurate.html

[bike2work]

The stores will be inundated with "sugar-free" everything. Like the "fat-free" hype. What substances are they going to substitute for sugar, I wonder, so they can continue profiting from sweet-toothed consumers.
Wheat and dairy are both highly addictive.

It's driving me crazy that starch is not recognized as a form of sugar in these articles.

[WereBear]

It's driving me crazy that starch is not recognized as a form of sugar in these articles.

Very true! I have a much higher tolerance for actual sugar (in the form of higher-ladder fruit and dark chocolate, able to not go crazy in either case) than I do for ANY form of starch, which creates cravings, hunger, and the inability to not take more, next time.

[Whofan]

Oh, starch affects my body worse than sugar. Cravings, rashes, bloating, gas, asthma, weakened bones, did I say cravings? Sugar "only" makes me want more sugar.

[WereBear]

The thing that bugs me about Lustig is that he admits to having a half bagel in the mornings because he's "busy." He's totally clear on the dangers of sugar, but oblivious to the equal dangers of gluten and starch.

He needs to join Wheat Anonymous.

[ojoj]

The thing that bugs me about Lustig is that he admits to having a half bagel in the mornings because he's "busy." He's totally clear on the dangers of sugar, but oblivious to starch.

He needs to join Wheat Anonymous.


He's aware that he's part of the modern society therefore eats some of whats available - it obviously isnt affecting him yet. Apparently his wife bakes cookies for his kids too - I think they do everything in moderation?????

Jo xxx

[Demi]

The Sunday Times
5 January 2014

Sugar free: The plan

Eliminating sugar from your diet is no easy task, so take it slowly. Here’s how

Step one

If you were trying to quit drinking or smoking, the first thing you would do is throw away the cigarettes and give your alcohol to a friend. We need to strip your kitchen of as many unmistakable sugar sources as possible, followed by a special-ops mission to search out all the hidden sugars that are undoubtedly residing on your shelves. Use this first week slowly but systematically to eliminate the bad stuff. We’re starting with four categories: sauces, cereals, soft drinks and sweets.

Sauces

Without even looking you can throw away ketchup, barbecue sauce and any other “brown” sauce you may be partial to. Then move on to salad dressings, which I can pretty much guarantee will be loaded with sugar. Out they go. Next, look at the pasta sauces I am sure you have for last-minute Italian nights, and you will notice that most tomato-based varieties (even the organic ones) are crammed with sugar.

Cereals

They get a bad rap for a good reason. You will be hard-pressed to find a conventional cereal brand without sugar, often as one of the first three ingredients. This is not a productive way to start your or your children’s day. Finish off the ones you have (if you can’t stand the waste) and then commit to buying only cereals without sugars. However, even those with low sugar, such as Weetabix and Shredded Wheat, aren’t great for weight loss since they are made of wheat and so have a high GI. Try to limit cereal to a few times a week, because there are far more balanced and nutrient-rich meals with which to start your day. Try some of my easy breakfast alternatives, which don’t take much longer to whip up, but are packed with good fats and lasting energy.

Soft drinks

The nutritionist Libby Limon says: “It is thought that our hunger mechanisms do not register the calories from diluted sugars in the same way that we do from whole foods, which means that you can add hundreds of extra calories to your diet without even noticing.” So, if you like fizzy drinks (regular or diet), start limiting your intake. If you are a four-cans-a-day person (yikes), then cut it to two, and if you drink five a week, limit it to two. And don’t be fooled into thinking iced teas, flavoured waters, lemonades, Red Bull and “vitamin” waters are sugar-free options, because they are not. The diet versions of the above are obviously lower in calories, but experts agree that artificial sweeteners taste a lot sweeter than regular sugar, which conditions people to crave more sweet foods. They also trick our metabolisms into thinking sugar is on the way, which causes surges of insulin and more fat. The nutrition researcher David L Katz says: “We refer to a ‘sweet tooth’, not a ‘sugar tooth’, and I think that is absolutely right. Our tastebuds don’t really differentiate between sweet in sugar and sweet from, say, aspartame.” He adds: “What I have seen in my patients is that those who drink diet soda are more vulnerable to stealth sugars like those added to processed foods that don’t taste sweet, such as crackers, breads and pasta sauce.”

Sweets

This is a pretty self-explanatory, but just to be clear: I mean everything from Percy Pigs, Jelly Babies and chocolate bars to homemade brownies, ice cream and doughnuts. Even if you make a habit of sucking throat lozenges, those have to go, too. Think of this as the “easy” category to give up, because it’s so straightforward. Nobody can pretend eating a bag of Minstrels is a good thing.

Step two

Keep a sugar diary. It doesn’t have to be scientific or precise, but at the end of the day or the week, you will have an honest and comprehensive view of how much sugar you are really taking in. Write down the obvious sugary indulgences and when you eat them, but also record all the hidden sugars you find. It’s far easier to make changes when you know exactly what you are up against. If you notice that afternoons or late nights are your biggest struggle, then those times should be your primary focus. Don’t worry about having a little jam on your porridge if you are bingeing on chocolate every afternoon at 3pm — focus on that. One battle at a time.

Step three

You now know what you need to eliminate, but what should you add to fill the gaping sugar holes? Let’s start with some small but powerful swaps.

Breakfast

It is all right to treat yourself to coffee first thing, but, please, no sugar. If you’re not ready to give up toast, try topping it with coconut oil, almond butter or sliced avocado instead of jam or marmalade. Once you are off toast altogether, start eating an omelette with spinach (use frozen spinach, it takes no time at all) or porridge made out of rolled oats, quinoa flakes and millet, topped with coconut flakes and sliced almonds. If you are devoted to fruit yoghurt, start buying whole-fat plain yoghurt or coconut yoghurt instead (remember, eating fat doesn’t make us fat), and top it with a handful of raspberries and walnuts. I am a huge believer in green smoothies — start making them. I have them for breakfast, but also as snacks and even as a late-night treat if I’m really craving something sweet.

Lunch and dinner

Focus on combining lots of green vegetables with good fats and proteins such as salmon, lean chicken, eggs, tofu, feta cheese, goat’s cheese and avocado. Just remember to leave off any ready-made salad dressings, sauces and marinades. Use lemon, olive oil, nut oils, tamari, spices or mustards as flavour enhancers instead. And if you crave something sweet in the afternoon, or after dinner, be prepared with a low-sugar alternative. I often cut up an apple and eat it with a few teaspoons of almond butter, or I have a bowl of pure coconut or whole-fat yoghurt topped with a tablespoon of chia seeds, blueberries or raspberries or walnuts. Anything coconut-based is good for curbing a sugar craving. Buy whole coconuts and chop them up into chunks; or toasted coconut flakes are a good takeaway option. Some nutritionists even suggest a spoonful of coconut oil takes the edge off a craving.

Snacks

A plate of chopped raw vegetables with hummus, pesto or guacamole makes a great snack. As do nuts of every variety, sunflower and pumpkin seeds, kale chips, a handful of coconut flakes, a bowl of dark berries, or celery sticks topped with nut butter. Olives, flax crackers and rye toast are good, as are hard-boiled eggs, sticks of cheese or half an avocado. And for refreshments, make your own herbal and green teas (hot and cold), and try a whole lemon squeezed into a large glass of water as an alternative to sweet drinks. Good luck.

Your sugar-free shopping list

Breakfast
Coconut oil, almond and peanut butter, apples, avocado, eggs, frozen spinach, plant-based protein powder, gluten-free bread, rolled oats, quinoa flakes, millet, coconut flakes, sliced almonds, plain full-fat and coconut yoghurts, unsweetened coconut and almond milks, raspberries and walnuts

Lunch and dinner
Green vegetables, lean protein (such as chicken, salmon, eggs, tofu, feta and goat’s cheese) Snacks Raw veg, hummus, pesto, guacamole, cheese, roast chickpeas, fresh coconut, coconut flakes, mixed nuts, kale chips, celery sticks, olives, flax crackers and rye toast

Drinks
Green and herbal teas

Calgary's green smoothie
2 cups bottled water
1½ cups coconut water
2 handfuls of frozen or fresh fruit: blueberries, raspberries, kiwi and lime are all low in sugar and high in fibre
Handful of frozen kale
Half an avocado
1 tbsp almond butter
1 tbsp chia seeds
Protein powder — not whey- but plant-based. My favourite is Sunwarrior
1 tsp lucuma powder (a natural sweetener)



See more at calgaryavansino.com

Next week

Lots more nutritious recipes and alternatives for a sugar-free existence. Plus, learn more about why we are addicted to sugar http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/style/article1357831.ece

[Demi]

From The Sunday Times
London, UK
12 January, 2014

Sweet enough already — part 2

It’s not easy cutting sugar completely from your diet. But with perseverance, and plenty of healthy alternatives, it’s a habit that can — and should — be broken

Calgary Avansino

How did the first week go, my sugar-free warriors? Whether it was absolute torture or utterly effortless, the good news is that your first sugar-free week is the toughest. Studies have found that after only three weeks, most people have cracked their dependency. Remember, sugar affects the same feelgood brain hormones as street drugs, but unfortunately this sweet object of our desire is around every corner. Research shows that once you retrain your taste buds and your psyche, the obsession with sugar does go away. Dr Gayelord Hauser, the author of Look Younger, Live Longer, says: “When you get used to eating fewer supersweet things, you crave them less and you won’t feel guilty on those less frequent occasions when you do splurge.”

That doesn’t change the fact that purging sugar can cause significant symptoms. Over the past week, you may have experienced headaches, nausea, fatigue, edginess, lethargy, mood swings, or all of the above. The Princeton Neuroscience Institute has been studying signs of sugar addiction in rats for years and has presented new evidence that the brains of lab animals demonstrate withdrawal, craving and relapse — a complete picture of addiction.

So, in moments of weakness, remember the benefits: a healthy weight, reduced risk of illness, more energy and better moods. You’ll also awaken your palate, allowing new flavours and tastes to come alive. That’s why it’s so important to cut out sugar in things such as coffee, porridge or yoghurt, so your palate can start to enjoy those delicious things without the mask of sweetness.

Stephen Price, a personal trainer, says: “The main way of breaking any habit, particularly sugar, is pinpointing the reason for the craving and addressing it directly. This may be more of an emotional craving than a physical one.” This is where the psychology of habits comes into play. In his book The Power of Habit, Charles Duhigg says: “Change might not be fast, but with time and effort, almost any habit can be reshaped by finding an alternative routine, and your odds of success go up dramatically when you commit to changing as part of a group. Belief grows out of a communal experience, even if that community is only as large as two people.” So find a friend who also tore this piece out of the paper and commit together to replacing the sugar in your life with other healthier snacks, meals and habits.

If you truly want to reap the benefits of sugar-free living, it is crucial that you stay on course for the next few weeks. First, acknowledge that hunger is your enemy. If you are ravenous, it is 10 times harder to resist temptation, so be sure to eat three quality meals a day, containing low-fat proteins such as lean meats, eggs, tofu and beans, plus avocados and nuts. High-protein foods don’t spike your blood sugar and they digest more slowly, making you feel satisfied for longer.

The same goes for fibre, which, like protein, stabilises your blood-sugar levels, ensuring you don’t have a crash-and-crave feeling soon after a meal. Try to be conscious of adding lean proteins and high-fibre foods such as beans, lentils, broccoli, porridge, berries and leafy greens to your meals at least twice a day. If your taste buds and psyche are satisfied by the food you’ve eaten, you are far less likely to cave in and reach for a packet of crisps (yes, those also have sugar in them) or a bar of chocolate when you are tired or bored.

Equally important to the success of this endeavour is snacks. You have to have them with you at all times and they have to be good ones. Nuts are the hero snack, so stock up on unsalted and unflavoured almonds, walnuts, brazil nuts, cashews — or any other variety you like. Other good snack options are mixed seeds, apples, flax crackers, kale chips, berries, pieces of raw coconut or dried coconut flakes, roasted chickpeas and chopped carrots and celery.

A regular exercise routine is the final piece to this puzzle. Moving your body, sweating and raising your heart rate is important in the fight against sugar dependency on many levels. Very practically, it can distract you. If you are going stir crazy in your kitchen as the pantry beckons, head outside and go for a brisk walk, a run or head to a nearby exercise class. When you come back, the “sugar” moment will have passed. Biologically, exercise promotes surges of endorphins that make us feel happier and calmer. In fact, the trainer Russell Bateman says: “Make squats and sprints a big part of your routine. They are orgasmic exercises that release dopamine and serotonin akin to when you’re having sex. This will reduce your need for sugar and educate your body to get your highs from elsewhere.”

“Exercise boosts the production of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors, or PPARs,” Rhian Stephenson, the nutritionist at KX Gym, explains. “These regulate the expression of genes involved in fat metabolism and insulin sensitivity.” So if increasing the amount of exercise you do is not on your list of new year’s resolutions yet, make it top of the list — after cutting out sugar, of course.

Ready to get going? Try these delicious recipe ideas

Natasha Corrett: Founder of Honestly Healthy alkaline food company

Natasha’s perfect sugar-free day:

Breakfast Green smoothie or porridge sweetened with cinnamon and star anise.
Smoothie recipe 100g mango, 60g celery, 60g cucumber, 25g spinach, 5g mint, 40g avocado, juice of 1 lemon, 260ml coconut water, Å tsp spirulina, 1 tbsp ground flax or chia seed. Blend ingredients until smooth.
Mid-morning snack Edamame with tahini dressing.
Dressing recipe 2 tbsp tahini, 4 tbsp water, juice of ½ a lemon, ¼ tsp cumin, pinch of salt, ¼ clove of garlic, grated (optional).
Whisk all the ingredients in a glass until smooth. If it looks as if it is curdling, whisk faster. If it’s too runny, add a touch more tahini, and if too thick, add a little water.
Lunch Pearl barley salad with roast vegetables of your choice, and toasted nuts and seeds.
Afternoon snack Raw veg with bean dip.
Dip recipe 1 x 250g can cooked butter beans, 2 tbsp olive oil, 10g parsley, ½ tsp cumin, zest and juice of 1 lime, 1 clove of grated garlic, cracked pepper. Blend all the ingredients in a food processor until completely smooth.
Dinner Green alkalising soup
Recipe ½ red onion, 1 clove of garlic, ¼ tbsp fennel seeds, 1 tbsp sunflower or coconut oil, 1 tbsp bouillon powder, 1 pt water, 220g tender-stem broccoli, juice and zest of 1 lemon, 140g baby spinach.
Sauté the red onions, garlic and fennel seeds in the oil on a medium heat for 2 minutes. Add the bouillon powder and water. Bring to the boil, then add the broccoli and lemon juice and zest and leave to cook for 4 minutes. Take off the heat, then add the baby spinach. Transfer immediately to a blender and blitz until smooth.

Johnny Lomax: Trainer and founder of Lomax Bespoke Fitness

Johnny’s sugar replacements:

Natural sweeteners Nutmeg, coriander, cinnamon, cloves and cardamom.
Rice syrup A natural sweetener, made from fermented cooked rice. You can find it in health food stores and some supermarkets. Make sure the ingredients panel lists only rice (and water).
Stevia A natural sugar alternative, derived from a leaf and containing no fructose.
Xylitol A natural sugar form found in plums, strawberries, raspberries and birch trees, it has much lower GI than fructose.


Johnny’s sweet treats:

Cacao An antioxidant that gives you an intense chocolate hit.
Chia Add these little proteiny seeds to natural yoghurt — they will fill you up and do wonders for digestion.
Coconut water It’s sweet, but contains no fructose, and will satisfy any sugar craving.
Coconut oil Again, very sweet. Add to smoothies and cook with it.
Macadamia and almond paste A thick dollop of this on a rice cake — delicious.
Oatcakes With avocado and raw cocoa powder, or raw almond butter and cinnamon.

Stephen Price: Founder of SP&Co fitness company

Stephen’s sugar-free supplement tricks:

• The herb Gymnema sylvestre, known in Hindi as gurmar, or sugar destroyer. It interferes with the ability to taste sweetness, which helps us lose the desire for sweet food. It’s available from health-food shops.
• Chromium assists in promoting fat burning.
• Cinnamon and lemon juice. Add them to food or water — they both have properties that help slow the rise in blood sugar after a meal.

Eve Kalinik: Nutritional therapist

Eve’s warming sugar-free recipes:

Moroccan spicy beetroot, carrot and mint salad
Serves 2

1 medium/large cooked beetroot, or 2 small raw organic beetroots 4 carrots
1 clove of garlic, crushed or finely chopped
1 tbsp of organic butter or ghee 1 tsp ras el hanout
1 tsp cumin seeds
1 tbsp fresh lemon juice
1 generous handful of fresh mint, roughly chopped
Sea salt and black pepper
1 small handful of pistachio nuts

If you’re using raw beetroot, wash and trim, then place in a saucepan covered with water. Bring to the boil, reduce and simmer for about 1 hour until cooked through. Remove from heat and allow to cool slightly, then peel away the outer skin. If you’re using precooked, simply chop into 6-8 chunks and put to one side.

Wash, trim and peel the carrots and steam for 5 minutes, or boil for 1-2 minutes, so they are still firm. Cut into 5in batons and put to one side.

In another pan, lightly heat the garlic, ras el hanout and cumin seeds in the butter or ghee for a few minutes. Add the cooked chopped beetroot and carrots and combine.

Remove from the heat and add lemon juice, the fresh mint, salt and black pepper and stir through. Divide onto plates and garnish with pistachio nuts. Serve with a dollop of hummus.

Cauliflower and red lentil curry with raita
Serves 2

For the raita
150ml coconut (or sheep’s-milk) yoghurt
¼ cucumber, finely chopped
Handful of mint leaves, finely chopped
Pinch of sea/Himalayan salt

For the curry
½ cup of dried red lentils
1 medium cauliflower
Ghee or coconut oil
1 red onion, finely sliced into rounds
2 cloves of garlic, crushed
1 tsp curry powder
1 tsp dried chilli flakes
1 tsp tumeric
1 tsp cumin seeds
Sea salt and black pepper
1 handful of baby spinach leaves
Coconut shavings or almonds to garnish

Mix all the raita ingredients together and refrigerate.

Rinse and drain the red lentils and place in a large saucepan and cover with water. Bring to the boil, reduce and simmer for 20-25 minutes until cooked through. Cut the cauliflower into small florets. Lightly steam or boil for a couple of minutes and put to one side.

In another pan, lightly heat 1 tbsp of ghee or coconut oil and lightly stir-fry the sliced onions for about 5 minutes until soft. Then add in the garlic, curry powder, tumeric, cumin seeds, black pepper and salt and cook for another couple of minutes. Add the cauliflower until it is coated in the mixture, then finally the cooked lentils. Stir well, then add the spinach to wilt. Garnish with coconut shavings or almonds (optional) and serve with brown rice.


Sesame sweet potato and kale
Serves 2

1 sweet potato
5-6 kale leaves
1 small red onion
1 tsp of ghee or coconut oil
1 clove of garlic, crushed
1 tbsp tamari (gluten-free soy sauce)
1 tbsp mirin (rice vinegar)
2 tbsp sesame seeds
Sea salt and black pepper

Heat the oven to 200C. Peel and slice the sweet potato into small chunks, about 1cm square. Place on a lined baking tray in the oven and bake for about 25 minutes. Meanwhile, trim the kale by removing the stalks and steam for 3-5 minutes. Place to one side.

Thinly slice the red onion and lightly stir-fry for 5 minutes in a small amount of ghee or coconut oil. Add the crushed garlic and cook for a further 5 minutes, then add the kale, cooked sweet potato, tamari, mirin and sesame seeds and stir to combine. Season and serve.

How to calculate sugar consumption

In week two of our sugar-free plan, we recommend cutting out sugar entirely, but once cravings are gone you can reintroduce the sweet stuff in strictly limited amounts. Until recently health organisations recommended that people limit themselves to 10 tsp sugar a day. However, The Sunday Times recently revealed that the World Health Organisation has agreed a draft proposal to recommend people reduce their sugar intake to 5% of their total energy intake, or 5 tsp a day. Most food sources cite grams of sugar, but teaspoons are a much easier measurement to visualise, so lock this easy equation in your head: divide the number of grams by four to get the number of teaspoons. To put that in perspective: a regular Snickers bar contains 30g, or about 7 tsp sugar, a 330ml can of Coke has 35g, or 9 tsp of sugar. We should not eat or drink manufactured sugar bombs at all. Any food with sugar in the first three ingredients is a bad idea.

Extra recipes

Chia Breakfast ‘porridge”
Makes 2 portions

Ingredients:
4 tbsp Chia Seeds
Hazelnut Milk
1 fresh orange, squeezed
Zest of 1 orange (to garnish before serving)
1 tsp ground Cinnamon
2 drops Vanilla essence or 1/4 tsp fresh vanilla Instructions:

Hazelnut milk:
2 tbsp hazelnut butter (or other nut butter)
250ml water
Add the vanilla & cinnamon
Put into a blender and blend for 30 seconds until smooth.

Method:

1. Put chia seeds into a bowl, jar or tuppa ware (anything with a lid)

2. Pour over freshly squeezed orange juice & stir

3. Pour over hazelnut milk and mix together

4. Refrigerate for 30 mins or overnight

5. To serve, pour into 2 small bowls, and sprinkle orange zest over the top

6. Delicious with some tangerine segments or finely sliced pear or berries when they are back in season.

7. This can be warmed in a pan or served cold.

Breakfast Omelette

Ingredients:
2 eggs, whisked
½ red pepper, sliced
1 red onion, sliced
4 mushrooms (any kind you chose), sliced
4 cherry tomatoes
1 small handful of spinach
Coconut or olive oil
Pinch of paprika (optional)
Sea salt and fresh black pepper to taste (optional)

Method:

1. Heat a frying pan and add 1 tsp coconut or olive oil.

2. Add the chopped onion, peppers, mushrooms and tomatoes and sauté until soft.

3. Add spinach and paprika and mix well.

4. Put all vegetables into a dish and set aside.

5. Return the frying pan to the heat and pour whisked eggs into the pan, shuffling the pan to encourage the egg to fill the entire space. Cook both sides until the omelette is golden on each side.

6. Slide the omelette onto a plate and spoon over the vegetable mix.

7. Flip over one half of the omelette and serve.

Quick & simple chicken & vegetable soup
Serves 2

Ingredients:
1 large chicken breast, diced
1 onion, roughly sliced
1 clove garlic, finely chopped or put through a presser
1 leek, roughly sliced
1 courgette, roughly sliced
½ head broccoli, cut into bite size florets
2 carrots, roughly chopped
1 cup frozen peas
1 tbsp coconut oil
500ml boiling water or fresh vegetable or chicken stock

Method:

1. Heat a large pan with coconut oil.

2. Add the onion, garlic & leek and mix well, stir to soften. Do not brown.

3. Add in the carrot, courgette & broccoli and stir.

4. Add in the chicken pieces, mix well then cover with boiling water, vegetable or chicken stock and bring to the boil then lower the heat and simmer for 5 minutes. Add more water or stock if necessary.

5. Add in the frozen peas and continue to simmer for another minute.

6. Sprinkle with fresh or dried chilli flakes and fresh coriander and serve.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/style/living/Wellbeing/article1359865.ece

[Demi]

Wheat and dairy are both highly addictive.

It's driving me crazy that starch is not recognized as a form of sugar in these articles.Check out the article I posted last week: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=457415

Carbohydrates are sugar too
Starches and carbohydrates are more of the same, I’m afraid. Our bodies process certain types of carbohydrates (the white, refined kinds) in a similar way to pure sugar, and they create an equally powerful endorphin response, making us want them more and more. The author of Grain Brain, Dr David Perlmutter, says: “During the course of digestion, carbohydrates are broken down and sugar is liberated into the bloodstream, causing the pancreas to increase its output of insulin so glucose can penetrate cells. The carbs that trigger the biggest surge in blood sugar are typically the most fattening, for that very reason. They include anything made with refined flour such as breads and cereals; starches such as rice, potatoes and corn; and liquid carbs such as soda and fruit juice.”

[Demi]

From The Independent
London, UK
12 January, 2014

Sugar, I've filed for divorce: What happened when sweet-toothed Viv Groskop swore off 'the most dangerous drug of the times'?

First day of the four-week sugar detox is a typical failure. I am late. I have to catch a train and I haven’t eaten breakfast. At this point I would usually have a vanilla latte and flapjack. Instead, I seek a no-sugar breakfast. A sandwich, perhaps? Seems weird. A protein hit in the shape of turkey, chicken or prawns? Gross. Plus, I’m sure there’s some sugar lurking in that sliced bread. Muesli. Pain au chocolat. Fruit. Can’t have any of them. How am I going to do this.

Then I see a packet of nuts. Nuts! I can eat nuts! I would not usually eat nuts for breakfast. But this is an extreme circumstance. If I eat the £3 worth of nuts I’ve bought (in a relatively small packet), I will have consumed 1,545 calories. This is worrying. I pick up a bottle of water next to the till. It’s only as I’m walking out that I realise it’s flavoured and has half a gram of sugar in it. Damn. This is going to be difficult.

Completely eliminating sugar from a diet seems extreme. But that’s what certain experts are advocating. In the US they call it a “sugar divorce”, named after San Francisco-based blogger Suzanna Stinnett’s book. “We are a nation addicted to sugar and addiction is your brain twisting the truth,” she wrote. Last year, Paul van der Velpen, the head of Amsterdam’s health service, said: “Just like alcohol and tobacco, sugar is actually a drug. This may seem far-fetched, but sugar is the most dangerous drug of the times and can still be easily acquired everywhere.”

The warnings are no less dire here. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends our intake of “free sugars” (those added to foods by the manufacturer or consumer) should be 10 per cent of our daily calories – or 10 teaspoons a day – but last month, a study by Newcastle University advised that in the UK we need to halve that to five teaspoons. “Treats traditionally saved for birthdays or Christmas have become everyday staples,” warned Paula Moynihan, professor of nutrition and oral health at the university.

But what does this reduction mean in reality? If you’re drinking an Innocent fruit smoothie, that’s six teaspoons in one 250ml bottle. There’s a bit more than that in a 330ml serving of Tropicana Orange Juice. There are about 10 teaspoons of sugar in a can of Coke. But that’s all quite obvious and easy to avoid; what about all the hidden sweetness? Tomato ketchup. Ready-made soups. “Low-fat” foods bulked out with sugar. Plus all the “healthy” foods with surprisingly high amounts of sugar: yoghurt, granola bars, salad dressing, canned fruit, pasta sauces, bottled teas, sorbet… It’s endless.

This is not the stuff that worries me, though. My sugar intake is much worse than a few smoothies. I wish it was smoothies. My problem is snacking, over-eating and replacing meals with processed foods. I will happily replace breakfast with a KitKat at 11am or eat a load of biscuits and doughnuts mid-afternoon because I forgot lunch. When you’re 21 and hungover, it’s OK to have a doughnut for breakfast. You have your whole life ahead of you to eat healthily. When you are 40 (as I was last birthday), suddenly there is not so much time to play with. Plus, several friends have had diabetes warnings. It would be weird if I wasn’t next.

I have been on diets on and off over the years, but sugar always creeps back in, and I find wrappers in my handbag from stuff I’d forgotten I’d bought, let alone eaten. So I wanted to see if I could cope with a month off sugar. No sweets, no desserts, no cake. Maybe even no fruit.

For the layperson, the information about sugar is increasingly confusing. What I know is that it’s not possible to avoid it completely, because it’s not really possible to live without consuming carbohydrates.

Last year, the WHO recommended a cut in the amount of sugar in our diets, following reviews of the scientific evidence of its link to obesity; many in the anti-sugar brigade now contend that sugar is a direct cause. However, the food industry and many academics argue that the problem stems from eating too much of everything, not just sugar. Professor Jim Mann, part of the WHO review, said that sugar “unquestionably contributes to obesity”, but added: “I don’t think sugar is the cause of all evil. It’s an important factor and if we’re eating more sugar and less fat then we need to take note of it.”

The sugar war has stepped up a notch in the past year with Dr Robert Lustig’s Fat Chance: The Bitter Truth about Sugar. The book grew out of a 90-minute video with four million YouTube hits in which he argues that we wrongly demonise fat. An American paediatrician who specialises in treating overweight children, Lustig claims that, “Added sugar is 11 times more potent at causing diabetes than general calories.” For him, the only way forward is to “rid sugar from your diet”.

A lot of Lustig’s arguments are inspired by the prevalence of high-fructose corn syrups (HFCS) in processed foods in the US. “A much cheaper version of table sugar, it is used in many commercial foods, and has an immediate, measurable affect on blood sugar, insulin and fat storage,” explains nutritional therapist Henrietta Norton. This has been shown to contribute to “fatty liver disease”. To avoid HFCS completely means following a diet “as nature intended – if you can’t pick it, dig it or catch it, don’t eat it”. Put in layman’s terms, the syrup is a cheap sugar substitute used to make food taste better. It delivers the hit faster and more effectively, making you immediately crave more. Lustig argues that this addictiveness makes sugar the most dangerous thing for us: we soon become unable to stop eating it.

Many nutritionists, though, are circumspect about Lustig’s claims. They point out that HFCS is not widely used here and that UK consumption of sugar has not risen that dramatically recently. According to the British Nutrition Foundation (BNF), over the past 30 years it has remained at around 115g a day for men and 88g for women. (Though Norton disagrees: “Sugar consumption has gone up by 31 per cent in 20 years,” she says.) The BNF further considers the case that sugar is “toxic” and Lustig’s argument that it has similar properties to alcohol to be unproven. “Food and drinks that are high in sugar and/or fat should be consumed in limited amounts,” it concludes. “But there is no need to completely cut these foods out of a healthy and balanced diet.”

I turn to the NHS, thinking it might give me a bit of leeway. But no. “Most adults and children in the UK eat too much sugar,” intones its website. “Choose wholegrain breakfast cereals, but not those coated with sugar or honey.” k Done that. Been having Bran Flakes every morning. (I later discover they contain sugar. D’oh.) “If you like fizzy drinks, try diluting fruit juice with sparkling water.” I imagine this said in the voice of Fatfighters’ Marjorie from Little Britain. “Swap cakes or biscuits for a currant bun.” Do they know how many currant buns I can eat?

A week into detox and my attitude towards avoiding sugar is yo-yo-ing like crazy. On the one hand, it’s easier than I had thought it would be: just don’t eat sugar. I’ve rediscovered cheese, bread (home-baked, to avoid refined sugar), vegetables and popcorn. I’d forgotten about falafel. I love falafel! Foccaccia has no sugar in it! Hurrah! When I eat out, I enjoy it so much more because I’m not thinking, “I’d better not have a starter because then I can’t have a dessert.”

On the other hand, the urge for sugar has not receded. I still have to remind myself to avoid vanilla lattes and ubiquitously proferred biscuits. I bite into a mini mince pie by mistake and have to decide whether to spit it out. (I eat it. But not the whole thing.)

By week two, I’m actually quite happy not eating sugar. I never thought I’d say that. This is why diets are useful: it’s not about what you eat, it’s your attitude to it. But how can I make that mental shift stick? Even now, I’m not being strict: I’m avoiding fruit juice but I have eaten some bananas. So sue me. (Henrietta Norton: “Fruit has no immediate impact on our blood sugar or insulin levels when eaten in moderate doses.” So, as long as you’re not overdosing on smoothies or fruit juices, you’re fine.)

Alcohol is a tricky one. I decide it’s OK to have the occasional glass of wine (1g of sugar) or fizzy wine (2.5g) maybe once or twice a week (come on – I’m doing this during the Christmas party season), but I’m avoiding so many things anyway that it’s not that difficult to not drink. I could have gin or vodka with soda water but I decide that is a slippery slope. More importantly, I worry that drink might impair my judgement and make me more likely to seek out doughnuts.

By week three (I discover almonds!), the experience has convinced me that there is a good case for sugar detox for some people. My moods have improved. I don’t “crash” and crave a sugar high in the afternoon. A skin irritation on my face has cleared up.

Having kicked cigarettes 15 years ago (40 a day at one point) and cut down on my drinking over the past 10 years, I have a theory that slowly but surely these noxious habits have been replaced by a more socially acceptable one: eating sugar. Cutting out sugar for a month gave me a new habit: checking ingredients panels for sugar content. But what it really gave me was an awareness of when I want to eat and how to avoid getting so hungry that I just eat any old junk.

The nutritionist Ian Marber says it’s not wrong to use the word “addictive”: “Sugar triggers the reward system. That’s the dopamine. You have a pleasurable experience and you have a glucose high which gives you energy.” It sounds great. He adds: “The problem is, when you have an excess it is stored away.” Hello, my body. “And that happens quite dramatically so you feel hungry again quickly.” So is total avoidance the only way around this? “To avoid any food 100 per cent is really difficult. It gets you into a mode where you think, ‘I’ll be good in January.’ But by February you’re less motivated. Find something you can manage and do it all the time. Take the drama out of it.” Semi-avoidance I can manage.

By week four, this is what I’m heading towards. Sugar and I are not quite divorced: I have half a glass of pink lemonade. But we’re separated. The other party keeps begging for a reconciliation, but I kind of like it on my own. It turns out, the question is not what should we be eating – we all know the answer and most of us are able to ignore the (sensible) answers to it – but how do you maintain common sense when surrounded by temptation?

The inability of many of us to find an answer to this question is what makes us overweight. But – guess what? – my four-week sugar detox started to solve it. The key to eating what you should be eating and being a healthier weight is that it’s all in the mind. If you can fool yourself that you don’t need to eat a certain food group and “train” yourself to avoid it, you save a lot of time and procrastination. I’m not sure I will be able to think for life that “I don’t eat sugar”. But I can manage to think – and live – the idea that I don’t eat sugar most of the time.

Oh, and by the way, despite the cheese and the foccaccia and the 1,545 calories of nuts, I lost 5lb in four weeks. Why? You just can’t eat as much cheese and bread and nuts as you can cake and chocolate. It was worth it just to find that out.

Sugar by the numbers

2,250,000: The UK’s annual consumption, in tonnes, of sugar, about three-quarters of which is sold direct to industrial users, such as soft-drinks and confectionery manufacturers. Source: Defra

100: The percentage increase in consumption of fizzy drinks in the UK in the past 15 years. Source: Food Standards Agency

13.5: The percentage of our energy intake derived from non-milk extrinsic sugars –those ingested via preserves, non-low-calorie soft drinks, honey, confectionery etc. Source: Family Food 2012

One-third: The proportion of British under-nines thought to be clinically obese (for British male and female adults, it’s one-quarter). By 2050, this figure is predicted to rise to half the population. Source: NHS, Foresight studyhttp://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/features/sugar-ive-filed-for-divorce-what-happened-when-sweettoothed-viv-groskop-swore-off-the-most-dangerous-drug-of-the-times-9047036.html

[Demi]

From The Guardian
London, UK
11 Janaury, 2014

Sugar is now enemy number one in the western diet

Action on Sugar is keen to make the public aware of the dangers and for manufacturers to face regulation

Dr Aseem Malhotra

In 2012, the United Nations World Health Assembly advocated a significant new health goal: to reduce avoidable deaths from non-communicable diseases (NCDs) by 25% by 2025. Cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer and respiratory disease kill 35 million per year. The UN has identified tobacco, alcohol and poor diet as central risk factors. The first two have been regulated by governments in order to protect public health, but poor diet is actually responsible for more disease than smoking, alcohol and physical inactivity combined.

But what component of the western diet should be targeted? The evidence suggesting that added sugar should be the target is now overwhelming. Unlike fat and protein, refined sugars offer no nutritional value and, contrary to what the food industry want you to believe, the body does not require any carbohydrate from added sugar for energy. Thus it is a source of completely unnecessary calories.

Sugars are added to the majority of processed foods in the UK. Yet disturbingly, many consumers are unaware of its presence in such large quantities. In the UK and Europe guideline daily amounts for sugar have not been updated since 2003. These obsolete guidelines still suggest one can consume a staggering 22 teaspoons of sugar daily.

The World Health Organisation has recently been advised by scientific experts that added sugar or, more specifically, non-milk extrinsic sugar should constitute no more than 5% of energy. That would give a limit to the average man of a maximum of eight teaspoons a day and the average woman to six tea spoons a day. And that would include sugars from fruit juice and honey.

The misleading labelling and health claims on "low fat" foods that actually have shocking levels of sugar added is a scandal. Worse still, it has created the perfect storm for public health. Therefore, last Thursday, a group of UK and international experts, including myself, launched Action On Sugar. The main aim is to pressure the food industry to reduce added sugar in foods by 40% over four years. That would mean 100 fewer calories per person, which according to the UK Department of Health would reverse the obesity epidemic.

However, the industry remains in denial. Barbara Gallani, director of regulation at the Food and Drink Federation, made a statement of immediate resistance, denying sugar's role in obesity and failing to acknowledge the multitude of scientific studies to the contrary. We mustn't forget that it took 50 years from when the first scientific studies between smoking and lung cancer were made before any effective legislation was introduced through regulation. Why? Because Big Tobacco very successfully adopted a corporate strategy of denial. By planting doubt, confusing the public, bribing political allies and even buying the loyalty of rogue scientists.

The comparisons with the sugar industry are quite chilling. Leader of the Commons Andrew Lansley's aggressive intervention in parliament on Thursday was thus intriguing. He attempted to rubbish respected public health expert Professor Simon Capewell's statement that sugar is the new tobacco. Lansley then compounded his errors by ignorantly asserting in the House that "sugar is essential to food". It is not. He would have been more accurate in saying "sugar is essential to food industry profits and lining the pockets of its co-opted partners". Lansley was a paid director of marketing company Profero to the end of 2009. Profero's clients have included Pepsi, Mars, Pizza Hut and Diageo's Guinness.

During his unhappy time as health secretary, Lansley promoted his brainchild, the Responsibility Deal. There, he invited fast-food companies in for cosy discussions on how to tackle obesity, cynically generating the impression of progress, but only achieving weak and meaningless voluntary calorie reduction pledges.

The food industry spends billions in junk food and sugary drink advertising, targeting the most vulnerable members of society, including children. Worse, the industry cynically associates fitness and sport with junk food and sugary drinks. Thus Mars is one of the official sponsors of the England football team. Yet one regular sized bar contains eight teaspoons of sugar, almost triple the amount recommended as a limit for a four- to eight-year-old child by the US Department of Health and Human Services' dietary guidelines. The commonest cause of chronic pain in children is tooth decay with sugar as the number one risk factor. Regular physical activity has a multitude of health benefits; however, its effect on sustained weight loss is often weak. Furthermore, activity levels have changed little in the past 30 years as obesity has rocketed.

We are all vulnerable, because you don't have to be overweight to be affected by diet-related disease. Of all the chronic diseases, type 2 diabetes, which is entirely preventable, is perhaps the most damaging. Diabetes increases the risk of heart attack, stroke, kidney failure, eye disease and leg amputations. Up to half of all diabetic patients go on to suffer acute or chronic pain, and two-thirds will ultimately develop dementia. The direct and indirect costs to the UK of diabetes is over £24bn and projected to approach £40bn by 2030. If we do nothing, this will cripple the NHS.

How does sugar compare to tobacco? A teaspoon of sugar or one cigarette will not harm you. But over time, the habit can be fatal. Unlike Big Tobacco, Big Sugar deliberately targets children. And added sugar has become so pervasive within the food environment that we can't avoid it even if we wanted to. It is thus not simply a matter of personal choice. But perhaps most disturbing of all the similarities is the financial and political muscle that both industries have exerted to try and protect their profits, at the expense of our health. It's time to wind back the harms of too much sugar, reverse the "diabesity" epidemic and the unspeakable suffering it causes. It's time for Action On Sugar.


Dr Aseem Malhotra, a London cardiologist, is the science director of Action on Sugarhttp://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/11/sugar-is-enemy-number-one-now

[Demi]

The Action on Sugar website is temporarily being hosted at CASH (Consensus Action on Salt & Health):

http://www.actiononsalt.org.uk/actiononsugar/index.html

Action on Sugar is a group of specialists concerned with sugar and its effects on health. It is successfully working to reach a consensus with the food industry and Government over the harmful effects of a high sugar diet, and bring about a reduction in the amount of sugar in processed foods. Action on Sugar is supported by 18 expert advisors.

Global expert advisors of Action on Sugar:

Medical expert advisors

• Professor Graham MacGregor, Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine at the Wolfson Institute, Queen Mary University of London and Chairman Action on Sugar
• Dr Aseem Malholtra, Cardiologist and Science Director of Action on Sugar
• Professor Andrew Rugg-Gunn, Co-director of the Human Nutrition Research Centre, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle
• Professor Aubrey Sheiham, Emeritus Professor of Dental Public Health, School of Life and Medical Sciences, University College London
• Professor David Haslam, Chair at National Obesity Forum
• Professor Jack Cuzick, Institute Director and Head of Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine, London
• Professor Jack Winkler, Professor of Nutrition Policy (retired), London Metropolitan University, London
• Professor John Wass, Professor of Endocrinology, Oxford University
• Professor Peter Sever, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, National Heart & Lung Institute, Imperial College London
• Professor Philip James, Public Health policy Group and International Obesity Taskforce, London
• Professor Simon Capewell, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology, University of Liverpool
• Professor Sir Nicholas Wald, Professor of Environmental and Preventive Medicine, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts & The London School of Medicine, London
• Professor Timothy Lang, Professor of Food Policy, City University, London
• Dr Mike Rayner, Director of the British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Research Group, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford
• Dr Robert Lustig, Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at University of California, San Francisco, USA
• Dr Yoni Freedhoff, Assistant professor of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada

Non-medical expert advisors

• Malcolm Kane, Cambridge Food Control Ltd, Cambridge
• Neville Rigby, Writer, journalist and NGO consultant, former director of policy and public affairs at the International Obesity Task Force
• Tam Fry, Head spokesperson for the National Obesity Forum

[Demi]

From the Observer
London, UK
12 January, 2014

Politicians should stand up to the sugar lobby

The food and drinks industries need swift and competent regulation

This is National Obesity Awareness Week, focusing on the excess kilos that are presenting a year-round major challenge. Around two-thirds of adults in this country are overweight and a third of year six children are clinically obese, a condition connected to heart disease, strokes and diabetes – the most common causes of death and disability in the country that also drain £5bn a year from the public purse. It is predicted that by 2050, half the population could be obese at 10 times the current cost. At a reception tomorrow, Professor Graham MacGregor, head of Action on Sugar, a campaign group supported by clinicians in both the UK and US, launched last week, will endeavour to meet the public health minister Jane Ellison. This has to happen informally since, astonishingly, requests for an official encounter have so far been refused – although the evidence that we are all consuming far too many spoonfuls of sugar a day is incontrovertible.

The Conservative part of the coalition has a well-documented position on this issue. Consumption is the responsibility of the individual, with the lightest of touches exercised on the food, drink and retail sectors, which pursue their interests by deploying every available tactic including marketing, branding, packaging, advertising, sports sponsorship and political lobbying. As a result, the soaring sales of highly addictive calorie-dense snacks, "added value" processed foods and sugar-suffused soft drinks continues apace.

Definitive research tells us that this state of affairs is far too toxic to be dismissed as sweet nothings. So why is this government so reluctant to take effective action?

One reason might be that the coalition finds the lobbyists persuasive. They are certainly pervasive. Barbara Gallani, of the Food and Drink Federation, for instance, said last week: "Sugars … consumed as part of a varied and balanced diet are not a cause of obesity…" On successive mornings last week representatives of the alcohol, gambling and sugar industries had a good run in a series of media appearances as they did their best to suggest that, really, there isn't much of a problem. Except that there is, and it goes far beyond the nation's health.

The influence these industries wield goes to the heart of how politics plays out, and how it is seen to be gamed by powerful lobby groups. The Observer, among others, has highlighted the connections that Lynton Crosby's firm – Cameron's strategist – has as advisers in Australia to the alcohol and tobacco industries.

Meanwhile an investigation by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) revealed that health officials and ministers had 130 meetings with alcohol and supermarket lobbyists while they were considering imposing a minimum price per unit of alcohol. The proposal was dropped in July, allegedly because of a lack of "concrete evidence".

Doctors have rightly accused the government of "dancing to the tune of the drinks industry". It takes a David to present serious challenges to the Goliaths that are the multimillion pound industries, with their easy access to power. Fortunately, such Davids do exist. But it is surely wrong that on the issue of our national diet, the profit motive and the demands of shareholders appear to take precedence over the public's health?

The protection of profit and the political connections between the Conservative party and the food, drink and retail sectors has a long history. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher set up the National Advisory Committee on Nutrition Education (NACNE), chaired by Professor Philip James, a powerhouse in the drive to improve diet. It produced a seminal report, suppressed until it was leaked in 1983, that warned the British diet was connected to the major diseases of our time. Its targets to reduce sugar, fat and salt were ignored.

Just over a decade later, in 1994, the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (Coma) again recommended that people should reduce salt intake by a third. Incredibly, this advice was first endorsed and then rejected by government because, according to the BMJ, members of the food industry threatened to withdraw funding from the Conservative party. Angered by the lack of government action, Professor Graham MacGregor, a cardiovascular specialist, set up a campaigning group, Consensus Action on Salt & Health (Cash). In 2003, Professor MacGregor co-published a study that predicted reducing an individual's salt intake from 12g a day to 3g would prevent a third of strokes and a quarter of heart disease cases. Under a Labour government, Cash went on to have considerable success. Professor MacGregor and colleagues now aim to see the same reversal in the consumption of sugar – a cut of 20% to 30%. So why is the government reluctant to engage with specialist campaigners, who have the best interests of the electorate at heart?

The new campaign warns of the dangers of "hidden sugars"; there are nine teaspoons in a can of Coke. Coca-Cola and Mars, among others, have taken steps to reformulate some products but progress is patchy. Take refined (cheap) sugar and salt out of ingredients and the profit margin shrinks. Last week, Andrew Lansley, the former health secretary, proposed that the food and drinks industries should take responsibility for a voluntary approach and incremental targets. As a response to a national crisis, that makes no sense.

Instead, a regulatory organisation is required, guided by evidence that sets targets, monitors progress and dispenses punishments. The Food Standards Agency, set up in 2001, showed its teeth, for instance, pushing for stricter rules on TV advertising to children of junk foods. It was rapidly neutered. Government then published a "call for action", a bizarre "new national ambition" to collectively reduce our calorie intake by 5 billion a day. Who is counting? The food and drinks industry applauded. Jamie Oliver called it "worthless, regurgitated, patronising rubbish". Now, we have a voluntary agreement and a reputation as the fattest nation in Europe.

It took a protracted battle with the tobacco industry to establish that smoking is lethal. We cannot wait another 30 years war before sugar and fat are brought under control. Of course, individuals have a responsibility to eat healthily but when advertising, marketing, addictive tastes and low prices combine so seductively that we are unaware how effectively a "normal" diet is killing us then that requires profit to take a back seat and government action to come to the fore.http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/12/observer-editorial-campaign-against-sugar

[RuthannP]

Thanks, Demi.

I always enjoy your posts.

[ojoj]

This anti sugar thing is really gaining momentum isnt it!

Jo xxx

[WereBear]

It's a very encouraging sign. We gotta start somewhere!

[ojoj]

It's a very encouraging sign. We gotta start somewhere!


Theres gonna be a backlash from the sugar industry soon - surely????? Altho I wonder if this has anything to do with reports a while ago that the EU was going to start using HFCS this year????? (I read something like that a while ago??)

Jo xxx

[WereBear]

Umm. Uck.

Blackened prime rib with hollandaise sauce. Now that will make you forget about sugar!

[WereBear]

Theres gonna be a backlash from the sugar industry soon - surely????? Altho I wonder if this has anything to do with reports a while ago that the EU was going to start using HFCS this year????? (I read something like that a while ago??)

Jo xxx

Yes, there will be. But the EU is currently better than us regarding GMOs, so perhaps not.

[Bob-a-rama]

Thanks Demi

Bob

[WereBear]

The real "trap" is: look at those menus.

They eliminate sugar, and they've already told us not to eat meat and fat. What's left? Grains and beans and seaweed.

I'd be miserable the first day, fatter by the second week, and catching every bug around by the second month. My foray into vegetarianism was a disaster because I can't get enough protein from vegetable sources.

I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[Liz53]

A really good accounting of the struggle to give up sugar - the facts and the rationalizations. When I began reading it I wasn't so sure she'd make it, but she sticks with it. She sounds French in that she can eat cheese and bread but not sweets, and lose 5 lbs in a month.

It will be interesting if her final words work for her: If you can fool yourself that you don’t need to eat a certain food group and “train” yourself to avoid it, you save a lot of time and procrastination. I’m not sure I will be able to think for life that “I don’t eat sugar”. But I can manage to think – and live – the idea that I don’t eat sugar most of the time.

Will she be able to *control* her sugar intake or will she find it is NOT mind over matter? Will she gain back the 5 lbs if she takes this approach? She's in the place I was when I first began low carbing, thinking maybe I could turn it on and off at will. I think it is place you have to come out of through trial and error.

[WereBear]

She's in the place I was when I first began low carbing, thinking maybe I could turn it on and off at will.

Yeah, it's all fun and games until the pants don't fit.

[Demi]

Another 'I Quit Sugar' article from today's Mail on Sunday:


Sarah Wilson's I Quit Sugar

Three years ago I decided to quit sugar. I’d played with the idea many times before, but had never quite gone the full distance. Then I decided to get serious

What started out as just a New-Year experiment became something more. Giving up sugar was easier than I thought, and I felt better than ever, so I just kept going and going.

I interviewed dozens of experts around the world and did my own research as a qualified health coach. I experimented, using myself as a guinea pig, and eventually assembled a stack of scientifically tested techniques that really worked. Then I got serious and committed. I chose.

THESE THINGS ARE ALWAYS A MATTER OF CHOOSING. AND COMMITTING
We have a deep-rooted resistance to quitting sugar. We grow up with an emotional and physical attachment to it. Just the idea of not being able to turn to it when we’re feeling happy or want to celebrate, or when we’re feeling low or tired,
terrifies us. If not a sweet treat, then what? Well, I’ll tell you what:

A MIND AND BODY THAT’S CLEAN AND CLEAR
But I soon learned that when you quit sugar, you can feel very much on your own. Our modern food system is set up around sugar, and seductively so.

JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING WE EAT IS LACED WITH SUGAR
I found breakfast became a minefield and trying to grab a healthy, sugar-free snack on the run was virtually impossible. I had to get clever and creative. So I spent the next 12 months inventing new fructose-free snacks and meals, both sweet and sweet-diverting, and devising a step-by-step programme full of tips, tricks and techniques to help you eliminate the white stuff for good.

MY STORY: WHY I HAD TO QUIT
I was a sugar addict. I didn’t look like one. I didn’t drink Coke or put sugar in my coffee. I’ve never eaten a Krispy Kreme doughnut, and ice cream bores me.

BUT HERE’S THE THING: I WAS A COVERT ADDICT
I hid behind the so-called ‘healthy sugars’ such as honey, dark chocolate and fruit. Which made things harder in some ways because first I had to face my denial. From my teens on I’d been riding a horrible rollercoaster of sugar highs and lows. I would binge. Then, feeling guilty, I would starve myself the rest of the day.

I got sick off the back of this reactionary eating – very sick. I developed mood disorders and sleep problems, and finally I developed adrenal issues and my first autoimmune disease – Graves, or overactive thyroid. Ever since, I’ve had stomach problems linked to poor gut balance and have developed further autoimmune issues, most recently Hashimoto’s.

Over time I swapped my processed sugary carbs for ‘healthy’ sugary treats. And, yeah, I ate less sugar overall. But all the symptoms still continued. I didn’t put it down to sugar completely. But I knew it was a major player.
For the past ten years I’ve eaten very well. But up until three years ago I was still eating too much sugar every day. After every meal. I was still addicted.

SO HOW ADDICTED WAS I? HERE’S A SNAPSHOT:
I was eating three pieces of fruit a day, a handful of dried fruit, a teaspoon or two of honey in my tea, a small (35g) bar of dark chocolate after lunch and, after dinner, honey drizzled on yoghurt, or dessert (if I was out).

A conservative day would see me consume about 25-plus teaspoons of sugar, just in that rundown of snacks above. That’s not counting the hidden sugar in things like tomato sauce and commercial breads. I told myself I ate ‘good’ sugar and convinced myself I didn’t have a problem.

BUT SUGAR IS SUGAR...
Sure, the other ingredients mixed in with the sugar in, say, a muesli bar or a piece of fruit were good for me. But the chemical composition of sugar – whether it’s in a mango or a chocolate bar – remains the same. And it is highly addictive.

IT WAS TIME TO FACE THE FACTS

FACT 1 I was eating way more sugar than we’re designed to eat.
Even though I was eating much less sugar than the average Brit or Australian, it was still too much. From my research, I learned that we are designed to metabolise only a small amount of sugar a day, 5-9 teaspoons, equivalent to two small pieces of fruit, which is what we used to eat before the ‘invention’ of sugar in the 1800s.

FACT 2 I was addicted.
And in a most undignified way. If someone put a cheesecake in front of me or a family-sized block of chocolate, and I was having a weak moment, I’d damn well eat the lot. Once I got a taste, I couldn’t control myself.

FACT 3 I wasn’t well.
I suspect my autoimmune disease is, to an extent, linked to my lifelong sugar habit. And it is certainly made worse by sugar. Anyone with a compromised system simply cannot afford to have their stress hormones (adrenaline and cortisol), their neurotransmitter levels (dopamine) or their insulin levels tipped off balance by sugar. It’s a hard, cold but oddly motivating fact!

FACT 4 I wanted to lose weight.
I’d put on weight (nearly two stone) from my thyroid disease a few years back and hadn’t been able to shift it. It wasn’t a core issue for me but it played on my mind. I was keen to see if cutting sugar would help.

FACT 5 I’d had enough.
I was done with riding the rollercoaster of sugar highs and lows and my obsession with my next fix. And I figured it was time to at least try eliminating sugar. Just to see what happened. To begin with, I committed to ‘just trying it out’. But after two weeks I felt so much clearer and cleaner, I kept going. I wasn’t draconian about it. I just remained curious…

FAST FORWARD
Nowadays I try to keep my sugar intake as low as possible: 5–9 teaspoons of sugar a day is my recommended limit. For me, eating sugar-free has become incredibly easy, efficient, economical, sustainable and…right.

For the first time in decades, I am eating exactly what I want. That’s what going sugar-free does – it recalibrates your appetite. I don’t think about restricting my intake. Ever. And eating has become even more joyous and deeply, wholly satiating.

I’m no white-coated expert. But I did succeed in ridding my life of sugar and I did experience first hand what worked and what didn’t. Now I want to share what I found and help as many people as I can make the leap to healthy, sugar-free living.

I wish you luck and a whole lot of wellness.

SarahMy No 1 IQS mantra: ‘Be gentle and kind’. As you do the I Quit Sugar programme, please go gently and don’t punish yourself. We don’t respond well to ‘restrictive thinking’. You’re doing this not because you have to, but because it might make you feel better. Be alive to this as often as you can through the process. Repeat: gentle and kind…


Time to quit? You decide!

♥ Do you get an energy slump in the afternoon?
♥ Do you need something sweet after meals?
♥ Does your stomach get bloated after eating?
♥ Are you unable to eat just one piece of cake and walk away?
♥ Are you ‘podgy’ around the middle, perhaps even slim everywhere else?
♥ Do you often feel unclear? That you’re not always sharp and on-form?

I ticked ‘yes’ to most of the list, left, and had a sneaking suspicion that sugar might be the thing making me feel baseline-crappy. If you do too, then have a go and see if quitting works. It has for tens of thousands of people who have completed my I Quit Sugar programme already. Take a ‘let’s just see’ approach and it will make the process less onerous.

Get an IQS buddy to do it with you. It does make it easier. Even just to have someone to cook new foods with. Read and learn as much information on the science of sugar absorption and sugar politics as you can (the sugar industry is a powerful lobby around the world). It will help remind you why you’re doing it, and keep you motivated.

Change doesn’t happen with an about-face. It happens by building up habits in our minds. Slowly, we form new neural pathways in our brains until we’re doing things differently, effortlessly. So every day that we flex our ‘I’m not eating sugar’ muscle, the stronger we get. I found it helped to view this process as a strengthening exercise.Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-2532775/Food-Sarah-Wilsons-I-Quit-Sugar.html

[Liz53]

Wow, that's another powerful article. So glad that the UK is *getting it* - I wish I could say that North America would be next, but I'm just not that optimistic.

[WereBear]

This is my favorite article on this subject so far.

[ojoj]

Yes, a good one!! I'm just wondering why its all happening now?????

Jo xxx

[Verbena]

Great articles! Thank you!
I did this when I was twelve, in the 1960s. All my friends were giving things up for Lent, and I wanted to be part of the group. I was in boarding school in Ireland (an extended family re-location from California), and the food was horrible. I decided to give up adding sugar to what I ate, which was huge deal! Irish boarding school porridge (yum! Not) ... without several spoonfuls of sugar. Tea (the only drink available at breakfast and ... duh ... teatime) ... tasting strongly of the aluminum pot it was brewed in ... without added sugar. I don't remember if I stopped eating chocolate, or dessert, but I know I was very strict about pouring on the white crystals. By the time Easter rolled around I was desperate for the stuff. Back at school after the holiday I loaded up my tea, and drowned the porridge ... and almost threw up on the dining room floor! In the 50 years since I have never taken sugar in my tea, or on breakfast cereal of any sort. Sweet desserts are something I tend to avoid. Sugary drinks are, IMO, quite awful. I have eaten a predominantly whole foods diet for decades, though that included grains and such, until this last year. But "sweet" is not a sensation I have any problem avoiding. I keep telling my DH this - just give it up for a month - but he a) doesn't believe it, b) doesn't see the need, and c) is totally addicted to sweets.

[Demi]

Yet another 'I quit sugar' articles, this time from (British) Vogue magazine:

Sweet Nothing

9 January 2014
Nicole Mowbray

Have you resolved to give up sugar this year? As more and more people sign up to the "No Sugar" club, Nicole Mowbray looks at the hard-boiled facts about giving up the sweet stuff and explains what it's like to ditch it - for good.

I love sugar: the dark, oozing richness of a hot chocolate pudding; the cloud-like frosting on a perfect carrot cake; the delectable sweetness of a spoonful of muscovado at the bottom of a mojito… Yet, last year, I became concerned about what my sweet tooth was doing to my 33- year-old skin (not to mention my waistline). According to a clutch of studies, sugar is not only contributing to our rising levels of obesity, it ages us, too. With a stressful job, an expensive skincare dependency and an ever-growing collection of fine lines accumulating daily, I decided to give it up.

The decision was spurred by other changes in my life. I'd recently come out of a six-month relationship with a 6ft 5in bon viveur who thought nothing of ordering several puddings each time we dined out, and had encouraged me to share a bottle of wine - or two - over lengthy Sunday lunches. He, a rugby- and cricket-playing sportsman who didn't look a day over 32 (he was 38), seemed to be able to pull off this decidedly unbalanced diet. I, however, couldn't. I'd started having trouble with my sleep, lying awake for hours before dozing off fitfully. I felt increasingly anxious and craved a treat every afternoon. My skin - particularly around the jawline - had become red, angry and blotchy. I'd noticed my thin under-eye area beginning to wrinkle, giving rise to dark circles. My skin was less taut. To top it all off, I felt decidedly unskinny in my skinny jeans.

And so, one sunny Tuesday morning in June, as I cycled to work, salivating over the thought of the honey-baked granola I'd enjoy on arrival, I started to ponder my total sugar intake. Thanks to spending my working week in an office full of women whose desks become extravagant tuck shops at four o'clock - macarons, bags of dried fruit, slabs of Hotel Chocolat, homemade chocolate brownies - it dawned on me the majority of my diet comprised sugar. I wouldn't contemplate having a greasy, fat-laden burger for lunch, but I'd chomp a Kit-Kat at teatime. And it wasn't just food. Although I've never been a big drinker, I'd taken to indulging in a stiff G&T or a large glass of pinot noir to mark the end of my working day. During an evening out, I could easily put away several sweet cocktails.

That day, I went online and ordered sugar-free bibles Clean & Lean Diet and Clean & Lean Diet Cookbook, and that was the beginning of the end. Sugar and I split up.

I went home and purged my cupboards. I threw away cereals, bread, biscuits and cakes. I banished sauces, honey and liqueurs. Less obvious foods, such as sushi, also faced expulsion (sushi rice is marinated in sugary wine). Thai meals, too, became verboten, along with processed food and anything that contained artificial sweetener. Dinners had to be planned and snacks were reduced to a few oatcakes with avocado or a handful of almonds or seeds. I even outlawed fruit, except for some dark berries each morning.

Despite my good intentions, the first sugar-free month was utterly joyless. Two days in, crippled by headaches and a complete lack of energy, I took to my bed, convinced I'd faint if I remained upright. Had I not performed the pre-emptive minesweep to eliminate temptation, I would have cracked. Instead, I felt too weak to crawl 50 metres to the shop.

My colleagues were incredulous of my new regime. Friends were doubtful, especially as I've always pronounced restrictive eaters boring, unsexy and neurotic. Some were aghast. Many lamented the new me. I was "no fun" any more. They rolled their eyes as I opened my packed lunch at work or skipped the dessert course, again. I was hardly likely to be the life and soul of a party. Not that I attended any. I was lucky if I stayed awake beyond 10, and would more often collapse into a fitful night's rest soon after work.

My regime discomfited others. I felt I made them self-conscious of their own choices. (I took three boxes of oatcakes on holiday last summer, and dutifully snacked on them while my friend ate poolside ice creams.) Others lambasted me that "life's too short" to be so restrictive. Four weeks in, they had to eat their words. I had lost a stone (14lbs), dropping from a (UK) size 14 to a 12, and the broken sleep I'd been suffering for the past few months began to abate. People started commenting on how the whites of my eyes were brighter.

But the biggest difference was to my skin. My cheeks took on a rosy tone. People commented that I looked "healthy" or "glowing". I decided to maximise my new energy by enlisting the services of personal trainer and nutritionist Holly Pannett to help me target excess weight around my waist. "There's a direct relationship between sugar and levels of the stress hormone cortisol," she said. "Cortisol has been shown to increase central fat distribution, so by limiting your sugar intake, you'll quickly target this area."

She was right. Within two months, my life had changed. Not only had I lost nearly 10kg, but the emotional rollercoaster of sugar highs and lows I'd become so used to disappeared, as did my cravings. I felt fuller more quickly, and for longer. For the first time, I felt in control of my diet rather than it being in control of me.

Ever since the prime minister, William Gladstone, abolished the sugar tax in 1874, making the sweet stuff affordable for the masses, the health of Britain has declined exponentially. But its more insidious effects have only recently become apparent. Dr Robert Lustig has spent the past 16 years studying the effects of sugar on the central nervous system, metabolism and disease. In his new book, Fat Chance: the Bitter Truth about Sugar, Lustig writes that it works on the brain's reward centre to encourage subsequent intake. "You get hooked on sugar at an early age, and it's harder to kick the habit after years of prolonged usage," he writes. "The stuff is abused… And when the sugar is stopped, symptoms of irritability - withdrawal - become apparent."

Sugar is also emotionally addictive. Most of us grew up with sweet foods used as a reward by our parents, grandparents and even doctors and dentists. "There are deep emotional associations with sweet foods," says James Duigan, founder of Bodyism and the Clean & Lean low-sugar regime. "Birthdays are marked by huge cakes drenched in sugar, sweets are given to soothe scraped knees. Is it any wonder that by the time we've reached our teens we've learnt to associate sugary food with happy times and making ourselves feel better?"

As for its effect on our faces: "There are several reasons too much sugar is harmful for your skin," says aesthetic doctor Mica Engel of London's Waterhouse Young Clinic. "In cases of glycation, excess glucose binds to the skin's youth proteins and turns them brittle and stiff. The surfaces of cells are effectively caramelised; the by-products of glycation accumulate in the body and skin constantly appears dull and aged."

Cell inflammation not only ages the skin; it depletes the stores of vitamins and minerals in your body, compromising your immune system. "It's not only the skin that suffers," continues Dr Engel. "There are other, more serious, issues presented by people with too much sugar in their bodies - circulatory problems, inflammation of the cartilages and joints [arthritis], eye problems [cataracts] and liver and kidney problems, to name a few…"

Buying good-quality ingredients has become my treat. But now I'm a small (UK) size 12 (10 on a good day) and full of energy, I deem it worth the sacrifice.

One year after making my sugar-free pact, I haven't looked back. Of course, eliminating sugary treats - and the associations bound up with them - leaves a hole in one's life: asking for a vodka and soda to accompany dinner doesn't feel as "social" as sharing a bottle of wine and socialising itself can be awkward - there's nothing like advising a host of your food fads to send their blood pressure soaring. I get around dinner parties by eating what I'm given and not worrying about it. I do, however, find I cook at home more often and spend a lot more on food. Buying good-quality ingredients - organic fish, meat and dairy products, say - has become my treat. But now I'm a small size 12 (10 on a good day) and full of energy, I deem it worth the sacrifice.

Shortly after starting my sugar-free life, I met someone new. Ironically, he has the sweetest tooth of anyone I've ever met and will sit beside me wolfing down chocolate brownies and praline ice cream. Happily though, neither of us is bothered by the other's eating peccadilloes, and for that I feel very thankful.

And I'm not a robot. There are times when I buckle and have the odd glass of red wine or scoop of gelato, but I don't beat myself up about it. I weigh two stone less than I used to, and my body shape is transformed. My hair and nails have never looked better. I sleep soundly and my skin is free from blotches. But, best of all, the lines that were beginning to cause me consternation are much less pronounced. And that's the sweetest treat of all.http://www.vogue.co.uk/beauty/2014/01/09/giving-up-sugar---nicole-mowbray-on-sugar-free-diets

[ojoj]

So true! Lets hope this momentum continues - Having been a sugar addict and still a nicotine addict. The two addictions are without doubt the same. I've conquered one, I need to try and eliminate the other one.

Jo xxx

[Demi]

So true! Lets hope this momentum continues - Having been a sugar addict and still a nicotine addict. The two addictions are without doubt the same. I've conquered one, I need to try and eliminate the other one.

Jo xxxGood luck with giving up smoking! I finally gave up 11 years ago after a 40+ a day habit! Conquering the nicotine addition made me realise that I could do the same with sugar and wheat, and I haven't looked back! :)

[Bob-a-rama]

I agree with no sugar (and that includes medium to high glycemic carbs which to me are just sugar in disguise) but definitely do not agree with low fat. That's what works for me - YMMV

[Demi]

From Amelia Freer's blog at Freer Nutrition:

For the love of......Sugar!

So the January frenzy of life changing diets has started and never has the press been filled with so many different diets = CONFUSION to most! But one article that has really got everyone talking was in yesterday's Sunday Times Style Magazine (http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/style/living/Wellbeing/article1356281.ece) - all about giving up sugar. There is more to come next Sunday with a few recipes from me. I'm thrilled that finally more people are starting to get this message about sugar's detrimental effects on our health and just how vast the sugar problem has become. It truly is the enemy when it comes to our relationship with food and our long term health. So I thought I'd share an article I wrote for Get The Gloss (http://www.getthegloss.com/article/freer-nutrition-s-bikini-body-summer-school-week-two) last summer, just to keep this topic current and in case any of you are feeling overwhelmed by the January diet mayhem, then sugar is where I suggest you consider starting.

Sugar comes in many disguises but whatever form it’s in, it’s harmful and it’s not doing your health, let alone your waistline any good. What’s more it’s also a highly addictive substance – which is why we crave it and it can be so hard to cut out. We get a dopamine response when we first eat it and this pleasure state becomes addictive, but we need to consume more and more each time to get the same effect.

This is just the start. When sugar is consumed, we produce insulin, a highly inflammatory hormone which has the job of transporting excess sugar out of our blood – our body is only comfortable with 1 ½ - 2tsp of sugar in the blood at any one time. Unless you are a professional athlete, most likely insulin will frog march this sugar straight to your hips and tum, creating what we know well as the muffin top or spare tyre. Ideally we want to reduce the amount of insulin that gets produced each day before our cells get lazy and stop acknowledging its presence, a term known as insulin resistance. So, looking at the types of sugars we eat is key.

While most of us know that eating too much sugar isn’t good, many of us are unaware of just how much we are actually still eating. The obvious places to find it are in fizzy flavoured drinks (roughly 10 teaspoons), cakes and biscuits, sweets, jams and pastries. But it’s also added to low-fat products, fruit flavoured yoghurts, breakfast cereals, cooked meats, most ready meals, sushi, salad dressings, ketchup and many “health” foods – the more you read labels, the more you’ll find it in the most unsuspecting foods.

It’s also important to understand that even the natural sugars found in fruits (fructose) need to be monitored. Yes, that does include wine! It also includes fruit juice. Always check the label as the majority of fruit juices contain syrups and artificial flavours in addition to concentrated fruit juice, and even freshly squeezed fruit juice can contain about eight full teaspoons of fructose per 8oz glass! Some fruits are less problematic than others as fructose and antioxidants vary from fruit to fruit. Apple and pear juices are very high in fructose and relatively low in antioxidants, so avoid them if possible.

Aside from the obvious sweet stuff, sugars are also made from the carbohydrates we eat, in particular the white, processed carbohydrates such as white bread, white rice, white pasta and even the humble potato. What we are really looking at is the the Glycemic Load, which is how quickly the sugars from these foods are converted and enter the bloodstream. The more processed a food is, the less nutrients it contains and so eating processed carbohydrates is literally empty calories.

Sugar also competes with nutrients to get to your cells AND it can age the appearance of your skin. Through a process called glycation, sugar attaches itself to cells and forms a hard crust, making cells less plump and soft. Instead the effectiveness of collagen and elastin is reduced and skin becomes thinner and more wrinkly. Definitely not the way to glow.

If you find it hard to give up sugar - it is an addiction after all - you can take chromium which is a mineral that helps keep blood sugar level stable, but it gets used up by a high-carb diet. There are also many blood sugar balancing formulas available to take which can also help to reduce sugar cravings, just check with your healthcare provider about supplements before taking them.

Here are a few “Do's and don’t's” to keep you on the straight and narrow:

•DO use stevia or coconut sugar as a sweetener.
•DO drink water – sugar and calorie free, instead of flavoured drinks and juices..
•DO view sugar as the poison that it is: second to smoking and drug taking, cutting out sugar is the biggest favour you can do for your overall health.
•DON'T use honey, agave or maple syrup as a substitute – they are better for you than refined sugar but still full of fructose and won’t help you reach your bikini goal.
•DON'T resort to artificial sweeteners - they are not at all good for you.
•DO make your own dressings that are sugar free. Ultimately it takes roughly five days to retrain your tastebuds so my advice is to grin and bear it and you’ll feel much better on the other side.http://freernutrition.typepad.com/freer-nutrition/2014/01/wishing-you-a-sugar-free-new-year.html

[Elizellen]

Have you seen part two yet, Demi?

[Demi]

Have you seen part two yet, Demi?Yes, though unfortunately not as good as part one. I've already posted it in this thread; it's post #11, a few posts up.

[jmh]

Natasha Corrett: Founder of Honestly Healthy alkaline food company

Natasha’s perfect sugar-free day:

Breakfast Green smoothie or porridge sweetened with cinnamon and star anise.
Smoothie recipe 100g mango, 60g celery, 60g cucumber, 25g spinach, 5g mint, 40g avocado, juice of 1 lemon, 260ml coconut water, Å tsp spirulina, 1 tbsp ground flax or chia seed. Blend ingredients until smooth.
Mid-morning snack Edamame with tahini dressing.
Dressing recipe 2 tbsp tahini, 4 tbsp water, juice of ½ a lemon, ¼ tsp cumin, pinch of salt, ¼ clove of garlic, grated (optional).
Whisk all the ingredients in a glass until smooth. If it looks as if it is curdling, whisk faster. If it’s too runny, add a touch more tahini, and if too thick, add a little water.
Lunch Pearl barley salad with roast vegetables of your choice, and toasted nuts and seeds.
Afternoon snack Raw veg with bean dip.
Dip recipe 1 x 250g can cooked butter beans, 2 tbsp olive oil, 10g parsley, ½ tsp cumin, zest and juice of 1 lime, 1 clove of grated garlic, cracked pepper. Blend all the ingredients in a food processor until completely smooth.
Dinner Green alkalising soup
Recipe ½ red onion, 1 clove of garlic, ¼ tbsp fennel seeds, 1 tbsp sunflower or coconut oil, 1 tbsp bouillon powder, 1 pt water, 220g tender-stem broccoli, juice and zest of 1 lemon, 140g baby spinach.
Sauté the red onions, garlic and fennel seeds in the oil on a medium heat for 2 minutes. Add the bouillon powder and water. Bring to the boil, then add the broccoli and lemon juice and zest and leave to cook for 4 minutes. Take off the heat, then add the baby spinach. Transfer immediately to a blender and blitz until smooth.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. As if your ordinary Brit has star anise, coconut water and edame in their kitchen cupboard. Not very tasty either. Surely it would be just as effective to have a three egg omelette with a sprinkling of cheese. Yum.

[rightnow]

That sugar-free day makes me want to leap from a ledge. I'd be fasting, not eating, if that was my menu.

I'm suddenly inspired by the gloriously simple beauty of steak and eggs. Perfectly sugar free.

PJ

[Demi]

From The Mail
London, UK
17 January, 2014

I'll quit sugar for a day says Cameron... with my wife's help: PM vows to give up treats to back campaign against obesity

Mr Cameron acknowledges obesity and diabetes are 'major health concerns'
Praises Keith Vaz for campaign against the issues

David Cameron has promised to give up sweet treats for a day – with the support of his wife – to back the campaign against obesity.

He said he will try to take up the challenge to have no sugar and no sugary drinks on one day this week.

The Prime Minister acknowledged that diabetes and obesity were ‘major health concerns’.

Senior Labour MP Keith Vaz attempted to enlist Mr Cameron’s support in the ‘war on sugar’.

He warned voluntary measures to ensure manufacturers cut the sugar content in food and drinks by up to 30 per cent had not worked, adding that obesity and type 2 diabetes were ‘twin epidemics’.

After Mr Vaz asked him at Prime Minister’s Questions to take up the sugar-free challenge, Mr Cameron replied: ‘I’m sure that last proposal would have the strong support of Mrs Cameron so I will take that up if I possibly can.

‘Can I commend you for… speaking out on the issues of diabetes and obesity with such consistency, because they are major health concerns for our country.

‘We are taking them very seriously. We are rolling out the NHS health check programme to identify all those between 40 and 74 at risk of diabetes.’

'Childhood obesity rates are falling but there’s more that needs to be done. I’m happy to facilitate discussions between you and (Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt) to have the discussions you want.

'We take this issue very seriously. We think the Responsibility Deal has achieved great things but there is more to be done.”

Mr Vaz, MP for Leicester East, had said during Prime Minister’s Questions: “Launched last week, Action on Sugar aims to reduce the sugar content of food and drinks by up to 30% because of the twin epidemics of obesity and type 2 diabetes.

'Voluntary arrangements with manufacturers, though well-intentioned, have not worked. Will you meet with a delegation of health experts to discuss this issue and can we enlist your support in the war on sugar by asking you to give up sugar and sugary drinks for one day this week?”http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540956/Ill-quit-sugar-day-says-Cameron-wifes-help-PM-vows-treats-campaign-against-obesity.html

[ImOnMyWay]

Giving up sugar for just one day? That's a pretty lame commitment. I'd be more impressed with a pledge of no sugar for a month, or even a week. But then, I've never been a hound for sweets, so maybe I just don't grok it. Is this really as addicting as heroin or nicotine for some people?

(I have several bags of SF Russell Stovers candies in the house - had them since Halloween. I think I've eaten three of them. They're extremely good. I just don't feel like eating them. OK, this is a bit self-congratulatory - but my Kryptonite is starches. Very difficult for me to say "no" to corn, wheat, potato, if its in front of me.)
.

[rightnow]

I think the addiction factor has got to be a matter of how the individual's biochemistry reacts to it.

Wheat products in my house would be lucky to last minutes. They do not enter my house for that reason. And if I eat them such as in a restaurant, the likelihood % of my eating more wheat, starch of every kind, and serious sugar, in the next 3 days is literally orders of magnitude higher.

Seriously, right this minute if I won the lottery and could have anything in the world I wanted, you know what I'd have? A larger house that included space for a live-in cook. Not making this up. I think that having healthy food (or even any real food, but especially healthy food) is probably the single most important thing in my psychology as well as my body -- so I assume it is for everyone, but I only know me.

On the other hand I have a large collection of 'gluten free' things (which btw I also react to as I react to rice and possibly pea proteins, and are also sadly crappy food, but at least have no wheat) -- everything. Cakes, cookies, brownies, bread flour, you name it. I never use them. Most are so old I should start throwing them away. My friend visited and made some. I love spice cake. I mostly just stared at. Eventually when I ate some I mostly ate the frosting he made. I wasn't trying to be good and not eat it, I was perfectly open to eating it. It just did nothing for me. Had it been made of wheat, I'd have eaten it. All.

I think it's clear I just react differently to wheat than other grains. If I eat wheat I want to eat. I need to eat. The more wheat I eat, the more I want to eat. I can eat enough for six people if I'm eating wheat because it makes me want to eat and the whole concept of appetite/satiation is pretty much nonexistent for me. I can go for about 2-3 days without eating before I really start feeling it, and I can eat tons in a day the same way. But if I eat wheat, I will eat -- and likely more wheat, starches, and sugar. If I don't eat wheat, which I mostly don't but sometimes do, my primary problem is anorexia.

*

I quit drinking regular milk years ago, before I went lowcarb, because I realized it was like heroin to me. The more I drank in a day, the more I needed. To the degree that if I drank a whole lot all day, I'd be waking up 1-3 times during the night, stumbling into the kitchen, drinking out of the carton, falling back against the fridge and literally saying OH MY GOD like I was shaking and in desperate need and it was an INSTANT 'fix.' Me, the one who would never even drink caffeine for more than a few days, didn't drink alcohol or smoke, because "I don't want to be addicted to anything." I realized one day that my reaction to milk literally made it look like heroin or crack or something. I just quit drinking it entirely. My reaction to milk "products" is less -- I limit things like half&half and sour cream to very tiny amounts if I have them at all (they give me the sniffles a bit), but hard cheese I don't seem to have any serious response to (cheddar is a food group for me).

Anyway I was addicted to starches too and didn't realize it (flour tortillas with margarine are surely responsible for much of my weight, as well as massive overwork combined with fast food). Fortunately going VLC wiped out starches entirely which is what let me see, when I would occasionally eat even "a bite of the kid's toast," just how profound an effect wheat had on my appetite and need to eat.

Given how I react radically differently to the SAME food on my counter based on whether it is made of wheat vs. 'gluten-free' I think it's clear that my body simply has a very different response to wheat than it does to other things.

For some people maybe sugar is that way. For me, wheat will spark a great desire for sugar. Not as big a desire as actual sugar will.

I actually figured out that for anybody with my metabolism, if they were really hideous -- serial killers or something -- you'd want to put them on a diet which started the morning with a mere tablespoon of whole milk, and a single bite of wheat toast with strawberry preserves. And then tell them to "just have willpower" and eat minimally and low-carb the rest of the day. I nearly lost my mind and became a raving hyena while 'accidentally' doing this in my early VLC days when my daughter was very little. It didn't take long to realize that wheat, sugar, and milk, had to be 100% out of my diet if I actually wanted to FEEL LIKE eating well.

Unfortunately then I usually don't feel like eating at all. One of my theories is that this has been my body's reaction since I was small and that having spent my whole life motivated to eat by cellular-hormone-enzyme 'reactions' to foods I was intolerant to, but was fed 3x a day my whole life, maybe the appetite regulation suffered an extinction paradigm, you might say.

PJ

[Demi]

From The Mail
London, UKI
18 January, 2014


The sugar detox: Health experts are calling sugar the new nicotine. This major series, by two leading doctors, is the DEFINITIVE guide to kicking it

Health experts calling for food manufacturers to reduce sugar levels
At the lowest, a 50g serving of cereal contains two teaspoons of sugar
Scientists have revealed sugar releases 'euphoria' chemicals which switch off pain sensors, dulls taste buds, and make us want to eat more

The new tobacco. A ticking time-bomb. The hidden menace.

I’m referring, of course, to sugar.

Yes, these are just some of the recent descriptions of the essential ingredient in everything from Mary Berry’s classic Victoria sponge to a tin of Heinz tomato soup.

And while you might expect sugar to be a substantial component of the former, who knew that the latter had four teaspoons of sugar per serving?

But it’s precisely because such large quantities of sugar have made their way into everything from sliced bread to fat-free yoghurts that so many of us unknowingly suffer from an out-and-out sugar addiction.

Just last week, a group of eminent doctors and academics insisted that food manufacturers must reduce the level of sugar in processed foods by up to 30 per cent to halt a wave of disease and death.

They said sugar is as addictive and dangerous as cigarettes.

So what can we do about it? How can you avoid hidden sugar in foods? And can we ever cure our collective sweet tooth?

First, the cure. Starting today in a major new series, the Mail brings you The Sugar Detox, a plan to help you conquer your sugar cravings for good.

I’ve written it with top dermatologist Dr Patricia Farris, who shares my deep-seated concerns about sugar in our diets.

Together we have created The Sugar Detox to maximise the whole-body benefits of cutting out sugar. Our entire approach is based on clinical evidence and research we have conducted on real patients.

This is no diet fad. This is an eating plan that can halt your sugar habit in just THREE days — and completely change your life in 30.

Follow our detox and you will lose weight. You will feel great. And you will even look years younger, as cutting out sugar immeasurably improves your skin and vitality.

With delicious recipes that will replace your beloved sugary treats and conquer those cravings, plus clever meal plans and top tips to keep you on the detox straight and narrow, let us help you beat your sweet tooth for good.

So what’s the cause of our sugar addiction? In my view, it’s simple.

For almost two generations, the message from the most highly respected experts in nutrition has been aimed at just one thing: fat.

The orthodoxy has been that fat in our diet makes us overweight and unhealthy. It alone, so-called experts have said, is to blame for our ever-escalating levels of obesity and heart disease.

For decades we have been swept along with the anti-fat movement, heeding advice from respected government figures and dire warnings from food manufacturers.

No one ever seemed to mention that we should be watching our sugar intake instead of fat.

I have vivid memories of watching my grandfather sitting at his kitchen table, spooning down huge platefuls of white pasta because he had been told by his doctors that this was the food that would best protect him from another heart attack.

He was following the best possible advice at the time and it deeply saddens me to think that he, like so many others, was inadvertently making things much, much worse.

Because if you analyse the nutritional evidence correctly, it is incontrovertible: sugar and refined carbohydrates such as bread and pasta — which are rapidly turned into sugar by our bodies — are our number one dietary enemy. Not fat.

I trained at the highly respected Mount Sinai dietetic program in New York, spending four years studying nutrition, and qualified with a master’s degree in science.

When I set up my practice offering one-to-one nutritional counselling, specialising in weight loss and optimal health, it rapidly became clear that the dietary advice I had been taught didn’t work. My patients weren’t getting slimmer and healthier.

So I looked for something else. And it wasn’t long before I identified the true, horrifying impact of sugar on our health.

Today, more people have found what I did eight years ago.

There is an ever-growing number of highly respected studies which show that sugar is making us obese, and it is sugar, not fat, that triggers heart disease.

Sugar is also incontrovertibly linked to diabetes, kidney disease, certain cancers, cataracts and even premature ageing.

It’s not just the sugar that you spoon into your coffee or sprinkle onto cereal that we need to watch, but the sweeteners — both natural and chemical — that find their way into so many processed foods: the highly processed white flour; fibre-stripped white rice; even fruit juice smoothies.

When I started putting my patients on low-sugar diets, the results were miraculous. I found that even a simple move, such as eliminating fruit and some of the carbohydrates I had been previously recommending, made a huge difference to their weight and their health.

It soon became very clear that it’s not fat we should be worrying about at all. The clients with the most dramatic weight loss results and the most dramatic improvements in health were the ones who cut out sugar.

The success stories at my clinic now number in their many thousands — and all because they gave up sugar.

But my patients didn’t just ditch the doughnuts: if only it were that simple. They had to tackle the sweetness-by-stealth that has crept into almost everything we eat.

For in an effort to make their beloved low-fat products edible, the food industry has upped the sugar levels in both sweet and savoury foods.

So why did they do this? Well, manufacturers realised that by putting sugars directly into processed foods, they could manipulate the amount we ate by making our desire for sweetness override our ‘full’ sensors.

Over decades, the tiny amounts of sugar in bread, savoury ready meals and sauces have crept up and up to dizzying heights — an indicator of our collective increasingly sweet tooth.

Now, a small pot of low-fat yogurt can contain as much as four teaspoons of sugar, and even wholemeal bread hides two teaspoons per loaf.

Anyone who has tried to cut down on their sugar consumption knows that it is worryingly addictive. Indeed, sugar has been compared to the highly addictive class-A drug cocaine.

In 2009 French scientists tested this theory on rats. Their study found that the rodents chose sugar eight times more often than cocaine — which is pretty shocking when you learn that they used rats who were already addicted to cocaine.

So why is sugar so hard to quit? Well, it triggers the release of opioids (chemicals in the body that produce euphoria) and dopamine (a chemical that helps control the brain’s reward and pleasure centres).

This means that at that precise moment sugar hits your brain, your body’s pain sensors are switched off. A pleasurable message is sent to the brain, making you want to reach for sweetness again and again.

Like any addictive substance, the more sugar we have, the more we need. This is because it dulls our taste buds over time, meaning we demand more and more to achieve the same sugary hit.

And so, manufacturers make food sweeter because it makes us more likely to eat more.

For example, a typical slice of wholemeal bread used to contain less than 1g of sugar, but now many manufacturers manage to pack double that into each slice.

Against such powerful forces, what can you do? It’s simple. Follow our Sugar Detox, today and in next week’s Mail.

For the first three days, you will cut out sugar completely and retrain your appetite for ever with delicious protein-packed meal plans.

Our carefully designed plan will keep cravings to a minimum and help you beat your sugar addiction with ease.

The next stage of the diet reintroduces some sugars slowly and carefully.
By the end of this plan, you will no longer reach for the biscuit tin at 4pm. Instead you will be lighter, brighter and look younger.

So follow our plan, and find out how good a life without sugar can really be.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/18/article-2541589-1AC0439100000578-123_634x324.jpg


Extracted from: The Sugar Detox: Lose weight, feel great and look years younger, by Brooke Alpert and Patricia Farris MD (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sugar-Detox-Weight-Great-Younger/dp/0857502565)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2541589/The-sugar-detox-Health-experts-calling-sugar-new-nicotine-This-major-series-two-leading-doctors-DEFINITIVE-guide-kicking-it.html

[Demi]

To be shown on British TV on Monday, 20 January at 8pm

Dispatches, Channel 4

To many people, new year means one thing: time to shed excess pounds. But will eating less really help? Experts say that the real problem lies in the quantity of sugar hidden in the food we eat. So is Britain addicted to sugar?

Dispatches investigates how sugar affects the way our brains work; exposes how the food industry has rapidly increased the sugar in many of our favourite foods; and reveals how a powerful group of companies have tried to fight off any attempt to reduce the amount of sugar we all consume.

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/

Dispatches is Channel 4's award-winning investigative current affairs programme

[WereBear]

You know, there's another parallel to cigarettes, which is that Big Tobacco kept adding more nicotine to their product, to make it more addicting... quite deliberately.

Big Food has learned from that... which is why they add sugar and wheat to everything.

[Bob-a-rama]

As if food wasn't addicting enough (can't go a day without it) ;)

The problem is, most people don't take the time to educate themselves, but simply absorb what the salesman in their living rooms (TV) tells them. And by salesman I don't mean only the commercials, the shows are sales pitches in disguise.

Most people spend 4 to 6 hours per day in front of the TV and never question what they are being fed. Even the news reporters call themselves "presstitutes" and not journalists.

So the media tells them to eat those fat free, sugar loaded treats and the couch zombies just go to the store and buy them. Then they see the actors in the sitcoms and dramas drinking this or that brand of corn syrup loaded soft drinks and they drink that instead of water. And the beat goes on.

We have to take responsibility for our own actions, instead of letting the TV manipulate our habits. Of course that takes a little independent research. But it's a lot more important than those sports statistics or who is committing adultery with who on the soap operas.

Bob

[Merpig]

You know, there's another parallel to cigarettes, which is that Big Tobacco kept adding more nicotine to their product, to make it more addicting... quite deliberately. Years back I read the book "Sugar Blues" by William Dufty. He made the claim (and I don't know where his statistics came from, and I have not tried to verify them) that the percentage of population who smoked in Europe and Asia was far higher than in the US, but that the US had much higher rates of lung cancer than Europe and Asia.

He said that in the US the cigarette manufacturers add SUGAR to their tobacco mixtures used in cigarettes, and European and Asian cigarettes don't have added sugar.And that it's actually the SUGAR that is contributing to the lung cancers. As I said - no clue about his statistics - but I found it an interesting argument.

[rightnow]

I unplugged my TV in 1993. Haven't missed it.

I did have a period in 1995-6 after I married when we watched darkside TV as a sort of bonding ritual.

And Hulu, Netflix and Amazon did tempt me back to the dark side I confess, couple years ago, but generally without commercials. And not very often (~4 hours a month perhaps, 8 rarely. Now that I've seen all the great archived nobody-ever-heard-of shows on hulu that are scifi).

Glucose competes with ascorbic which means the body likely has a little less vitamin C to counteract the toxins of smoking if the cigs have sugar in them. Not sure if or how that matters, just as observation.

PJ

[Demi]

From The Mail
London, UK
20 January, 2014

Quit sugar and lose your wrinkles: In Part 2 of our DEFINITIVE series, a leading skin expert reveals how to kick the new nicotine

* Sugar can be more ageing for the skin than a lifetime of lying in the sun

* Conquer your sugar cravings for good with this sugar detox

* You'll halt your habit in three days - and completely change your life in 30

Every year women spend millions of pounds on high-tech moisturisers, seduced by the promise that a miracle potion might hold back the years. But here's the bad news: if you have a sweet tooth, you could be completely wasting your money.

As a dermatologist who specialises in ageing skin, I noticed that many of my patients who were seeking cosmetic procedures did not have the usual symptoms of sun damage, but their skin was still excessively wrinkled with a marked loss in elasticity.

When I questioned them about their diet, I found they had one thing in common: poor nutrition and excessive sugar consumption.

In fact, research shows that a diet laced with sugar and refined carbohydrates can be more ageing for the skin than a lifetime of lying in the sun.

That's why I teamed up with top nutritionist Brooke Alpert to devise The Sugar Detox, a plan based on clinical evidence and research conducted on real patients that will help you conquer your sugar cravings for good. Today, the Mail continues this major new series that shows you how to halt your sugar habit in just THREE days - and completely change your life in 30.

With delicious recipes that will replace your beloved sugary treats and conquer those cravings, clever meal plans and top tips to keep you on the detox straight and narrow, let us help you beat your sweet tooth for good. Follow our detox and you will lose weight, you will feel great, and you will look years younger, as cutting out sugar immeasurably improves your skin and vitality.

Indeed, I now routinely recommend the Sugar Detox diet as part of a comprehensive treatment plan for patients who suffer from premature ageing, acne, and many other skin conditions, too. In Saturday's paper we highlighted the addictive nature of sugar, and introduced the 3-Day kick-start to the Sugar Detox.

Today, we take you through the second phase of the detox - and explain the destructive toll sugar can take on your skin.

More and more experts now believe our diet is a major contributor to the appearance of our skin. Nutricosmetics is the study of how nutrition and your diet affects your appearance, and is a subject of growing interest among dermatologists.

Early researchers in this field reasoned that if we can reduce the chances of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and other age-related illnesses by dietary interventions, then surely we can improve the way people look as well.

Scientific studies and extensive research have concluded that they could be right.

The link between sugar and premature ageing lies in a process called 'glycation'. This chemical process happens when blood sugar levels become excessively high.

Sugar molecules then circulate in the blood and bind to other components to form substances known as protein-sugar complexes - also called advanced glycation end-products, or AGEs.

These can be found in virtually all organ systems around the body - from the kidneys, brain and nervous tissue to the skin - and trigger an inflammatory response, causing tissue damage and premature ageing.

Glycation should just be part of the natural aging process that starts when you are in your mid-30s and increases with age. But we now believe the speed at which glycation occurs is directly related to your dietary intake of sugar.

The collagen and elastin molecules in the skin that help your face defy gravity are extremely susceptible to being attacked by sugar. When these molecules are turned into AGEs, their soft and supple fibres become more rigid. This leaves skin saggy, baggy, and wrinkled.

So, the more sugar and refined carbohydrates you consume, the more your collagen and elastin will be attacked - and the older your skin will appear.

A high-sugar diet not only contributes to ageing of the skin, but it can lead to the skin becoming unhealthy, dry, and vulnerable to infection.

It can also exacerbate acne. This is because high blood-sugar levels trigger high levels of the hormone insulin, which can set off a hormonal cascade that stimulates oil production and increases the proliferation of skin cells that can block pores - causing acne.

I strongly believe cutting back on sugar is one of the best possible things you can do for your skin.

But by increasing consumption of foods such as apples, which contain anti-glycating antioxidants - chemicals that fight the glycation process - you can further assist your skin.

The Sugar Detox diet that we have devised is packed with skin-enhancing foods that really could be the answer to your skin problems.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2542248/Quit-sugar-lose-wrinkles-In-Part-2-DEFINITIVE-series-kicking-new-nicotine-leading-skin-expert-describes-sugar-detox.html

[Bob-a-rama]

I unplugged my TV in 1993. Haven't missed it.<...>

PJ
Do you ever feel like an outsider looking in?

I know when we get into a group of people and they start talking about TV we have nothing to contribute.

If they ask, we can tell them, "We haven't watched TV since the lat 1980s" and that sometimes doesn't matter. They'll follow with, "Oh but I'm sure you've seen this _____."

Or "I don't watch it either, just the news and sports."

I "bite my tongue". There is no news on TV - it's all propaganda presented by the 'presstitutes' - and I can't be bothered with sports. I put my attention on things that really matter.

But I do remember the power of TV - and not the commercials.

When I was a young person, there was a big movement called "Zero Population Growth" and most of my peers embraced it. We were going to make a difference.

Well ZPG and corporate profits do not go hand in hand. In order for a corporation to have better and better earnings each quarter, it must sell more and more goods, and if the population isn't increasing, the sales could be steady, the company can still exist, but that doesn't make the stock go up. If the stock doesn't go up, the stockholders will 'jump ship'.

Since 90% of our TV stations are owned by half a dozen huge corporations, they simply started putting a woman in almost every sitcom, drama, who said, "My biological clock is ticking" to her husband or boyfriend. This line was heard many times each and every day, and before long I heard the women who were once ZPG people telling their husbands, "My biological clock is ticking." and with a whisper, the ZPG movement died.

That's the power of the TV shows - and how the shows are just as much advertisements as the commercials are.

So when you see the actor slugging down that corn-sweetened, brand prominently exposed, soft drink, you are supposed to subliminally bond with your idol and crave the same thing.

When you see the fictional family excited at the arrival of the pizza delivery man, you are subliminally programmed to be excited about that same brand of pizza.

When you see the kitchen shelves with the brands prominently exposed during the woman to woman, heart to heart talk, you are supposed to bond with them and buy those products, even though the women aren't actually eating them. Those corporations paid big money to put them there.

When you see the guys retiring to the den to watch 'the game' and munch on a specific brand of chips and drink a specific kind of beer, you are subliminally programmed to buy the same.

For those who still watch TV, it's important that you realize this. Then you can guard yourself against it. And that goes for the "news", "entertainment" and all other programming on your TV - it's all advertisements, and there is not necessarily any truth in advertising.

Keeping on topic, the TV is going to both overtly and subliminally try to get you to eat those carbs, recognize their ploy as a trick, and resist, resist, resist.

Bob

[ojoj]

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od#3637776

Jo xxx

[Demi]

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od#3637776

Jo xxxMore about the Dispatches programme here:

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=457699

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=457740

[Demi]

From The Mail
London, UK
21 January, 2014

SUGAR DETOX DIET: Beware the bagel... not to mention rice, dried fruit and crayfish salad: They're ALL secretly sugar laden - with toxic results for your body

We eat far too many sugar-laden soft drinks and foods, such as cakes
With diets of refined carbohydrates, we end up with constant flow of sugar
Triglycerides spill into blood, clogging arteries, increasing heart attack risk
Body can get used to pumping out insulin, cells become 'insulin resistant'

For decades, it's been drummed into us that saturated fat is the greatest dietary evil, so it seems hard to believe that sugar is actually worse.

But there's a growing body of expert opinion that, in fact, it's sugar that's to blame for so many deadly illnesses, from heart disease and type 2 diabetes to Alzheimer's and some cancers.

Sugar is also now known to be highly addictive.

What makes it so pernicious is that it's very difficult to avoid, as manufacturers have hidden it in so many foods in order to make their products more appealing. It's in soups, pasta sauces, salad dressings and bread, as well as cakes and biscuits.

The good news is that you can beat your addiction - and prevent the long-term health risks of that addiction - with our Sugar Detox.

In Saturday's Mail, we set out the simple dietary rules for a three-day blitz that will give your body a complete break from all forms of sugar, and end your addiction.

Then yesterday we explained the best way to slowly re-introduce otherwise healthy foods, such as wholegrains, that form sugar when digested.

This is to increase your options and nutrient intake without triggering addiction. Today, we show you how easy it is to consume large amounts of sugar from even 'healthy' foods.

So why is cutting down on sugar so important to health?

We are all consuming far too many sugar-laden soft drinks and foods, such as cakes, biscuits, white bread and pastries.

Normally the protein, fibre and healthy fats (from foods such as olive oil, avocados and oily fish) in our food would slow down the speed with which our bodies metabolise sugar. This is because these healthy foods take longer to process and make their way through our system.

But because our modern diets are often mostly made up of refined carbohydrates, we end up with a pretty constant flow of sugar through the bloodstream.

This, in turn, triggers the pancreas to release the hormone insulin.

Insulin plays 'good cop' and 'bad cop' in your body. It's good when you eat something with sugar, because it jumps in to control the sugar. But it is also bad because it speeds up sugar's conversion into fat, depositing it in places where you don't want it, such as around your belly.

This is because insulin tries to control the sugar overload by telling the liver to convert some of this sugar into glycogen (so it can be stored for later in the liver).

There are also glycogen stores in the muscles, but once the muscle and liver stores are full, the liver will start to turn excess sugar into fats called triglycerides.

This fat is stored in the liver, but also in fat cells throughout the body, particularly the abdomen. So the more sugar we eat, the more insulin we release - and the more fat we store.

Furthermore, these triglycerides spill out into the bloodstream, clogging up arteries and increasing your risk of heart attacks.

Another problem is that your body can get so accustomed to pumping out quantities of insulin that your cells become 'insulin resistant', which means they are almost numb to insulin and don't respond quickly or effectively to the hormone.

As a result, you can end up with even more sugar in the bloodstream. What happens next is not entirely clear, but it's thought these sugars left unchecked in the bloodstream end up grabbing onto protein molecules throughout the body.

The resulting protein-sugar combinations (or to give them their technical name, advanced glycation end products), can end up in organs all around the body, where they appear to trigger an inflammatory response, causing tissue damage and premature ageing.

These protein-sugar combinations are implicated in a host of age-related illnesses, including cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, Alzheimer's disease and the eye condition macular degeneration.

This all starts with insulin resistance. Worryingly, people with insulin resistance do not realise that they are sick because there are usually no symptoms at all.

Insulin resistance is very tough to fix. Exercise can help, and losing weight is considered to be the best possible move you can make. But it's not easy because insulin resistance very often triggers overeating.

It's thought this is because it makes your body resistant to the 'satiety' appetite hormone, leptin, which tells your brain to stop eating - in this way, sugar can also hijack your brain chemistry.

Another part of the problem is that sugar comes in many disguises, as we reveal here. The secret to preventing your sugar addiction returning is to limit your intake of these foods and drinks.

White flour

The refining process turns any grain into a form of sugar. When the bran and the germ are stripped from wheat, what remains is a simple carbohydrate that's rapidly absorbed by your body, just as a sugar molecule is.

With this quick absorption also comes a tendency to eat more, because the sugar floods straight into your bloodstream, meaning you don't have the same feeling of fullness as you might if you eat something containing fibre or protein (which take longer to digest, so slowing down the digestive process).

So we recommend avoiding - as much as possible - all refined white carbohydrates, especially white pasta, bagels, biscuits, wraps and bread.

Wheat contains a type of carbohydrate called amylopectin A, which is extra potent when the grain has been refined, because the lack of fibre means it converts to blood sugar more easily than any other carbohydrate.

Modern white flour (compared with the flour our ancestors ate) contains a type of protein called gliadin, which triggers a feel-good effect in the brain (it binds to opiate receptors there) and stimulates appetite. This is one of the reasons white-flour foods, such as pasta, are high on the list of comfort foods.

Another one to avoid is the white flour bagel. A plain, average-size bagel is the equivalent in calories and sugar of five slices of white bread and sends your system into a sugar overload - setting you up to crash afterwards and reach for another unhealthy option.

White rice

The refining process takes wholegrain rice and turns it into sugar.

While the glycaemic index (the speed with which it is metabolised by the body) of rice does vary, based on the rice variety and cooking time, all forms of white rice will cause a sugar spike when you eat it. A study in the British Medical Journal in 2012 showed an 11  per cent increase in diabetes risk with each daily serving of white rice.

Opt instead for brown rice or other high-fibre grains, such as quinoa, which slow digestion and make you feel fuller more quickly.

Starchy vegetables

Some vegetables - such as sweetcorn, potatoes, sweet potatoes and butternut squash - are carbohydrates in disguise. The body processes carbohydrates into a form of sugar, so while starchy vegetables aren't as bad as refined carbohydrates, they do raise blood sugar levels.

However, the vitamins and minerals they contain make them better options than desserts, so don't forgo them in favour of cake. Just enjoy them in moderation.

Some fruit

While all fruit has health benefits, some - such as bananas, pineapple and watermelon - are very high in fruit sugars which, though natural, have the same impact on blood sugar levels as table sugar.

It is best to enjoy low-sugar fruits (apples or berries) instead, because just one taste can be enough to start sugar cravings.

Also avoid dried fruit, especially dates, cranberries, raisins and prunes.

The drying process concentrates the sugars and many dried fruits have added sugar, which will increase the jump in your blood sugar levels more quickly.

Fruit juice

Because juice has no protein or fibre, it's a super-quick way to spike your blood sugar levels. A piece of low-sugar fruit gives you the chew factor (which is more satisfying), plus the fibre that will help delay any sugar rush.

Fizzy drinks

All fizzy drinks - full sugar or diet versions - have no nutritional value. Most are merely a cocktail of chemicals and artificial colours in a steady stream of liquid sugar or more chemicals.

Although you may think diet fizzy drinks will sate your sugar cravings, they do the opposite.

Most are much sweeter than regular sugar and cause an imbalance in your tastebud sensitivity that prevents you from perceiving normal sweetness. This may make you want more sweet food to compensate.

One ten-year study, published in the journal Diabetes Care, found that the waistlines of people who consumed diet drinks expanded by 70 per cent more than non-drinkers' waistlines.

Those who drank more than two diet drinks a day were almost five times more likely to gain weight than those who didn't.

Artificial sweeteners

New evidence suggests artificial sweeteners may be as bad as real sugar when it comes to insulin and blood sugar levels. When sugar receptors (in the mouth, gut and pancreas) get tripped, they signal the brain to get ready for a sugar blast.

The body reacts in turn by absorbing more real sugar, triggering insulin production and turning sugar into fat.

Artificial sweeteners stimulate the same receptors that real sugar does, and with the same results - they may actually cause you to absorb more sugars according to a study at Purdue University in the U.S., published in the Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Our Sugar Detox has helped thousands of patients kick the sugar habit and reverse this destructive chemical cascade. It can work for you, too.

Extracted from The Sugar Detox: Lose weight, Feel Great And Look Years Younger by Brooke Alpert and Dr Patricia Farris
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2542951/SUGAR-DETOX-Beware-bagel-not-mention-rice-dried-fruit-crayfish-salad-Theyre-ALL-secretly-sugar-laden-toxic-results-body.html

[rightnow]

Do you ever feel like an outsider looking in?
Culturally, pretty much across the board. I can't blame lack of TV for that, as I'm afraid it's a little more pervasive than that for me lol.

I know when we get into a group of people and they start talking about TV we have nothing to contribute.
I am always completely weirded out by how people talk about TV shows and actors as if they know them personally. There has got to be some word in psychology for this sort of anthropomorphic-personalization-of-virtual-characters.

They'll follow with, "Oh but I'm sure you've seen this _____."
LOL! OMG exactly, usually to me they go, "Oh ok, but you know that commercial where....?"

There is no news on TV
Never research this. It is so profoundly demoralizing. When I was 18 I did a personal study on the news and eventually came to the completely confused, and then mystified, and then horrified as it sank in, realization that it was more predictive than reportive. The implications depressed me profoundly for nearly a year.

Since 90% of our TV stations are owned by half a dozen huge corporations
Agrichem corps, foodchem corps, pharmachem corps, and mediacorps (all forms of media) are all owned by a very small number of the same family-relationship stakeholders.

There was a 1980s privately published book about the founding of the AMA called 'Murder by Injection.' It focused on its founding (truly mind boggling), on a 1986 Supreme Court ruling that found the AMA guilty of literally behaving as a mafia in trying to annihilate chiro, and on the board of directors of several major chemical, medical, and media corps and the relationships of the people.

What you find is that all these people are related to each other, and those that aren't, have worked together at the same places, often trading places at big companies and government agencies. I always thought people who insisted the world was run by fewer and fewer people the higher you went up, until only a few controlled everything, were paranoid lunatics. That everyone-is-connected insight into the directors of major boards really set me back though.

You are never going to get objectivity anywhere, if Jack's income in chemicals, or medicines, or packaged foods, is at stake and Jack's also a major player in newspapers, radio, television, movies, books and magazines. It is a very large "cola war" at this point -- except all forms of media and most forms of megacorporations, to include the captured government agencies, are all basically functioning loosely (or not so loosely) as the cola war players. That TV station is selling air time to that packaged food company which is buying product from that megafarm corp which is buying agrichem from that megachem corp and they are all part of paying for medical education for experts and keeping everyone not in that system out of those topics, and that system is prescribing the products of that pharmacorp, and indirectly helping the products of other megafood corps such as those allegedly for health or weight loss, and of course both the medicine, food, etc. are then buying more of the focus in the media...

The most useful thing I ever read, and I forgot who said it but someone who would know, is that we are not the consumers of television. We are the bait and the goods. We are what is being sold to the corporations. Not the other way around. I had to think about that for awhile before I got it.

they simply started putting a woman in almost every sitcom, drama, who said, "My biological clock is ticking" to her husband or boyfriend. This line was heard many times each and every day, and before long I heard the women who were once ZPG people telling their husbands, "My biological clock is ticking." and with a whisper, the ZPG movement died.
Funny! Never heard of that.

For those who still watch TV, it's important that you realize this. Then you can guard yourself against it.
Pretty sure in my ancient past I've seen some psych studies suggesting it doesn't matter if we recognize it or not, it still generally works.

Keeping on topic, the TV is going to both overtly and subliminally try to get you to eat those carbs, recognize their ploy as a trick, and resist, resist, resist.
The hardest thing to resist with TV is for people like me who are not fully visually held. My attention simply has a lot more bandwidth than a visual input can fully occupy. I must 'do something' while I watch most visual things. For most people, by default, they eat! Other things like crochet for example can fill in there. Many people especially women are just not really held enough visually and are not consciously aware that by eating with the TV they're often just looking for something-else to fill out their attention.

PJ

[Demi]

This programme can now be found on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeTUFU9jU-0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_IouQpGrFM

[Bob-a-rama]

I'm too independent. I dislike the way TV turns people into mindless sheep.

I'd rather live my life by doing things than to live my life vicariously by watching actors pretending to do things.

The ZPG example was one. I'm old enough to remember, "Pet Rocks", "Cabbage Patch Dolls", "Beanie Babies", and other things that don't matter now.

Many years ago we took a tour of China. This was back when the OJ Simson trials were going on. I normally travel independently, but I couldn't read the road signs or train/bus schedules in Chinese.

We stated in Chinese hotels and the tour we chose allowed us to do what we wanted at night - so we were at least semi-independent. You can take a business card from the hotel, show it to the cab driver and get 'home' if you get lost.

Half the tour found the nearest US hotel so they could tune into CNN and watch the OJ trials. My DW and I went to Chinese "Free Markets" (great big street markets), night clubs (couldn't understand a word but enjoyed the music and show), Peking Opera, Shanghai Acrobats and so many other Chinese things. We have memories of China. Those addicted to TV have memories of the OJ trial. Who got the better vacation? I think we did - that OJ thing means nothing, I can still picture the erhu player who played so emotionally and beautifully that she brought tears to my eyes and my DW's eyes as well ... the street market with vendors selling clothing, street food, live ducks, hanging sides of meat, cassette tapes and so on ... the Peking Opera with all that musical dissonance and pageantry ... the taxi driver who didn't think driving on sidewalks was a bad thing and so much more.

Just say "NO" to TV. It's prime objective is to turn you into a mindless sheep.

Bob

[MandalayVA]

Are you talking about TV in general or just commercials? TV is radically different now than it was in the eighties and nineties. News screamers are easily avoided if one gets news online (my sources are my local paper's site and the BBC site). Except for football all major sports stream online games, helpful if you live in one part of the country but are a fan of teams elsewhere. For the sports I watch, baseball has no commercials and hockey's commercials are easily avoided. Between Amazon Prime and Netflix I can choose from thousands of TV shows, old and new, again commercial free. Pretty much every network, broadcast and cable, posts episodes of its shows online on their sites after the initial broadcast, also commercial free.

What about movies? If you go to the theater you're bombarded with commercials. Or do you avoid those too?

[Bob-a-rama]

Are you talking about TV in general or just commercials? TV is radically different now than it was in the eighties and nineties. News screamers are easily avoided if one gets news online (my sources are my local paper's site and the BBC site). Except for football all major sports stream online games, helpful if you live in one part of the country but are a fan of teams elsewhere. For the sports I watch, baseball has no commercials and hockey's commercials are easily avoided. Between Amazon Prime and Netflix I can choose from thousands of TV shows, old and new, again commercial free. Pretty much every network, broadcast and cable, posts episodes of its shows online on their sites after the initial broadcast, also commercial free.

What about movies? If you go to the theater you're bombarded with commercials. Or do you avoid those too?
So how many pairs of Nike, Champion, Reebok, Adidas, or other sports shoes and clothing do you own? Or want? How many team logo items do you own? Do you have that logo decal or bumper sticker on your car? Do you drink Gator-aid? Or anything else the teams display when you see the bench or dugout? And how about the signs on the outfield fence or around the arena? How many of those products do you crave?

And when the sports star get paid zillions of dollars for endorsement deals, do you think they paid that money even though it doesn't cause people to buy what he/she endorses?

TV shows themselves are also commercials in disguise. See my earlier posts about Zero Population Growth and others for examples.

TV is a commercial medium, masquerading as an information/entertainment medium. That includes sports events. If it wasn't, you wouldn't see a brand name on anything, the stadiums would be named after some corporation, and you wouldn't see or hear a corporate name mentioned anywhere. It's either overt or subliminal, but rest assured, the only reason it's there is to get you to buy what they are selling.

Do you think these corporations would spend millions and millions of dollars to get their names displayed in the programming if they didn't think it would make you buy what they are selling? Marketing is a science as well as an art.

It even goes to the kinds of cars and clothing the stars drive and wear in the comedies and dramas. Show enough "good guys" driving black SUV's and many people are going to buy the highest profit item the auto industry has right now. Show the women wearing pointy toed shoes and they'll abandon their perfectly good shoes and buy new pointy toed ones (or whatever).

If the stars of a popular show start eating pop tarts, the sales of pop tarts will measurably increase. If the stars of a dozen shows start eating pop tarts, the sales will skyrocket.

When the stars guzzle down coca-cola or pepsi, the sales go up, so both companies compete to get their drinks put into your TV set.

The big corporations know a few things (1) when you watch the commercials, our defenses are up, (2) when you are watching the "programming" your defenses are down (3) people get up during the commercials or TIVO past them (4) subliminal ads actually work better than the commercials, but it takes more exposures to the subliminal ads to get them to work (5) the subliminal ads make the overt commercials work much better. The stars use/wear it, you want it, and the commercial a bit later drives the point home into your brain.

They are manipulating the viewer, and a lot of research has gone into how best to do just that.

They corporations pay to have their products advertised in the 'entertainment' programming, there are people and departments in the corporations who specialize in buying subliminal advertising in the media ... ... and in the media there are people who are also in the department for selling those subliminal ads.

If you think the programs are safe, you are thinking exactly what they want you to think. It helps them sneak those suggestions into your subconscious.

I've read enough tests in peer-reviewed scientific mags to understand that when watching TV, your brain waves mimic people in drugged states or in deep hypnosis, and are therefore very susceptible to these very kinds of suggestions and subliminal ads.

To keep on topic, the sales of soft drinks, junk food, pasta, bread, and all kinds of other high carb foods are sold through the programming as well as the commercials. The low fat diet is also sold.

And do you think those doctor shows are telling what is good for you? Think again. They are telling you what is good for their bank accounts.

------

I don't go to the theaters either. For a different reason. They are too loud. I know for a fact that anything over 85dba will permanently damage your ears. Not all at once, but little by little so you don't notice it until it's too late. The last time I went to a movie, I brought my sound level meter in, and the volume was 100db. According to the experts, you can only tolerate about 10 minutes of that before the cilia cells in your inner ear begin to die. When they get to the loud shoot-em-up or car race it's about 120db, and at about 100db it's instant, irreversible damage.

I could wear ear plugs, but then you get the person in front of you checking his/her iPhone, or the undisciplined children running around, or the couple behind you who are talking through the movie loud enough for you to be distracted, and so on. No, the theater is not where I want to watch a movie.

Full disclosure, I occasionally watch a rented movie. Usually not the blockbusters as I'm more interested in what they call "art films" (whatever that means), foreign films, and other alternative and independent cinema. I do notice prominent brand placement and other subliminal advertising techniques in many of the movies. IMO that detracts from the movie, but at least I know about it so my guard is up.

I also notice that in the older movies, there were no brand names exposed.

If you watch anything produced in the past few decades, commercial ad or not, you are being marketed to and manipulated.

There is only one solution. Cut the cable off, and ditch the antenna. Just say "No" to TV. It's the worst drug problem in the USA and I would guess other countries as well.

Bob

[MandalayVA]

One can be a fan of sports and other things and be resistant to advertising. Yes, I own Nikes--because no-name shoes fall apart and in my experience Nikes last. Yes, I own jerseys and t-shirts. Of course athletes make money off endorsements, but one thing you don't seem to get is that there are many people, myself included, who can't be sold what they don't want to buy. Peyton Manning can hawk Papa John's pizza all he likes, but I'll never order it. Sidney Crosby can extol the virtues of Gatorade until he's blue in the face, but I'm not drinking it. I can honestly say that I have never bought anything because one of my favorite athletes endorses it. At the most, like during the Super Bowl, commercials are amusing. At the least, they're objects I mute and minimize until the game comes back on. Give a little of the human race some credit, we're not all the sheep you seem to think we are.

[Bob-a-rama]

If that is true, then you are a rarity and one of the few that those zillions of dollars are wasted on.

Bob

[rightnow]

Whole-food real-food eaters are probably in that rare damn-they-make-us-no-money category too. :lol:

PJ

[Bob-a-rama]

That's the problem. TV is there to sell you things you don't need by making you want them. So the sports person pays an extra $10 to have a logo on a shirt. The teams making zillions of dollars just squeezed a few more out of your pocket so you can identify yourself with a bunch of athletes. You aren't one of them. We knew a buyer for a women's shop. She said the designer suits and the ones sold in regular stores are made in the same factories and the only difference is the labels on them. So when the TV has convinced you only DKNY or Armani will do, you are paying extra for the exact same merchandise. When the TV convinces you that water isn't good enough and you have to drink this bottled stuff with corn syrup in it, you are not only making a profit for them but ruining your health. And what about the drugs they push on TV. Take one example: Vioxx. It never worked any better than aspirin for arthritis pain, yet it was promoted "Ask your doctor" and in the 5 years it was on the market, it killed more Americans than the Viet Nam war. And they knew it was going to - the people taking Vioxx in the tests had a 500% greater heart attack rate than the control group. "Ask your doctor".

Just say "No" to TV - the salesman in your living room only cares about one thing, extracting money from your bank account and it doesn't care if it kills you in the process.

Sorry for the rant.

[MandalayVA]

Whole-food real-food eaters are probably in that rare damn-they-make-us-no-money category too. :lol:

PJ

PJ FOR THE WIN! :D

Bob--it's not TV you object to, but the advertising, which is understandable, but there are a lot of ways around it as I've pointed out. Note that right now the most popular show on broadcast TV is "Downton Abbey" ... which is on PBS, which has no commercials (unless you count Pledge Week). Everyone I know who has DVRs has them for two reasons--so that they can watch shows or games when they want and so they can fast-forward through commercials. Streams and Netflix have become hugely popular for the same reasons. Unless you never come out of your house you're never going to be able to completely avoid advertising, but you can greatly lessen to how much you're exposed.

I can pinpoint the exact time I realized that advertising was BS. When I was a kid we drove from New Jersey to Florida every year to visit my mother's family. We'd take I-95, and shortly after one crossed the Virginia/North Carolina border we would start to see black billboards with bright painting on them advertising a place called South of the Border, featuring a Mexican caricature of a guy named Pedro. The farther we got into North Carolina, the more frequent the billboards became (I always remember one that read "Chili today, hot tamale!" which was very amusing when I was younger). As we neared the South Carolina border the billboards were popping up literally every half-mile. When I was smaller (early 1970s) you couldn't see SOTB from the road, so my siblings and I imagined this grand Mexican-themed Disney World (which back then did not put up billboards of any sort; that's very different today), and we'd groan in disappointment when we saw the billboard that said BACK UP AMIGO YOU MISSED IT! a couple of miles over the South Carolina border. Finally when I was eight after much begging and pleading Dad relented and took the exit. We were beside ourselves with excitement when we saw the gigantic Pedro statue holding the neon sign ... and then deflated when we realized that it was a glorified truck stop with a couple of rides. My brother, who was 14 at the time, shook his fist at the Pedro statue and yelled "Truth in advertising!" I drove down to Durham a few years ago and noticed that Pedro is now gone from SOTB billboards, I guess out of political correctness. But he taught me a valuable lesson, so gracias, mi amigo.

[Seejay]

I watch sports too and don't buy the logo merchandise. I agree TV is a huge electronic highly manipulative marketplace. But sometimes I want to go to the marketplace. Doesn't mean I have to buy anything there and I can always leave. I also limit exposure. Just like in "meat space," if you hang around the marketplace too long just consuming, your real life will suffer. Like Pinnochio on donkey island, I think.

[rightnow]

I was in an office today waiting on my teen and, obviously more bored than anyone with a brain has a right to be, I finally gave in and picked up one of the magazines on the table. It was, cover to cover, absolutely nothing but ads, with some ads disguised as articles. There was one pic that made me think of this thread. I realized that this girl was wearing the cutest damn ankle boots. I'm not sold on any brand. No clue what the brand is. But I'm fairly sold on the style. If I were ever the size and shape to wear ankle boots again, I would be likely to buy something like that if I saw it. The sale isn't always in brands. To a degree, it's less important that we buy coke than that we buy cola -- the rest is just the details.

PJ

[Bob-a-rama]

MandalayVA: I remember South Of The Border in the late 1960s when my parents made the trek between New York and Florida before moving here. We never stopped.

Yes, I object to the ads, but at least they are honest, you know they are ads. More than that, I object to the 'entertainment' programming that is an ad in disguise and the so called "news" programs that little more than propaganda/hate outlets.

I first noticed the power of the programming built into the ads during the Zero Population Growth years. As I've mentioned before when the world had only about 3 billion people in it, many people in the USA started a Zero Population Growth movement (ZPG). But corporations don't like ZPG because in order to keep the stockholders from jumping ship, the stock has to continue rising. In order to continue rising the corporation has to sell more and more products every quarter. So a declining or even steady customer base is not good for the stock market.

I never heard this in an advertisement, and no ad I ever saw recommended people to quit the ZPG and start breeding. But I saw and heard it in dozens of TV comedies and dramas. Every day a woman was telling her mate she wanted a baby now, and the phrase was "My biological clock is ticking" implying that it might be too late to put off having babies. Not a day went by that I didn't hear at least a few women on TV saying "My biological clock is ticking" ... and in a few months I heard former ZPG women who were my friends telling their husbands "My biological clock is ticking" and thanks to the subliminal ads in the TV shows, the ZPG movement fizzled out and those former ZPG ladies that I know now have 3-6 children each.

The TV shows are ads too. And they are the sneaky ones.

I changed doctors because in the waiting room he always had the TV turned on to a TV station notorious for spewing political hate and out-and-out lies. I got tired of the anger in the waiting room. I figured anyone who subscribes to that much anger couldn't be a good doctor. And I found a better one.

The so called news shows are ads too, and when they tell you a low fat diet is going to keep you out of the hospital, what they really mean is a high carb diet is profitable to the TV station because the corporate grain and sugar farmers have deeper pockets than the livestock ranchers. The news reporters call themselves "presstitutes".

Bob

[Bob-a-rama]

I read an article a few months ago that stated that 90% of all commercial media (TV, Radio, Newspapers, Magazines) were owned by 6 giant corporations and their subsidiaries -- and that 60% of that was owned by Fox, General Electric and Disney. So much for freedom of the press :(

Bob

[Demi]

From The New Scientist
30 January, 2014


Sugar on trial: What you really need to know

It has been called toxic, addictive and deadly, the driving force behind obesity, heart disease and diabetes. Is sugar really so bad?

IMAGINE you are sitting at a table with a bag of sugar, a teaspoon and a glass of water. You open the bag and add a spoonful of sugar to the water. Then another, and another, and another, until you have added 20 teaspoons. Would you drink the water?

Even the most sweet-toothed kid would find it unpalatably sickly. And yet that is the amount of sugar you are likely to eat today, and every day – usually without realising it.

Sugar was once a luxury ingredient reserved for special occasions. But in recent years it has become a large and growing part of our diets. If you eat processed food of any kind, it probably contains added sugar. Three-quarters of the packaged food sold in US supermarkets has had sugar added to it during manufacturing. You can find it in sliced bread, breakfast cereals, salad dressings, soups, cooking sauces and many other staples. Low-fat products often contain a lot of added sugar.

It's hardly controversial to say that all this sugar is probably doing us no good. Now, though, sugar is being touted as public health enemy number one: as bad if not worse than fat, and the major driving force behind obesity, heart disease and type II diabetes. Some researchers even contend that sugar is toxic or addictive.

As a result, health bodies are gearing up for a "war on sugar". The World Health Organization wants us to cut consumption radically. In the US, doctors and scientists are pressing food companies to reduce sugar and be more open about how much they add; in the UK a group called Action on Sugar has just launched a campaign to ratchet down sugar. Politicians are mulling taxes on sugary drinks. But is sugar really that bad? Or is it all a storm in a teacup – with two sugars please?

When nutrition scientists talk about sugar they are not fretting about sugars found naturally in food such as fruit and vegetables, or the lactose in milk. Instead they are worried about added sugar, usually in the form of sucrose (table sugar) or high-fructose corn syrup (see "Sugar basics").

Our early ancestors would have been totally unfamiliar with these refined forms of sugar, and until relatively recently sugar was a rare and precious commodity. Only in the 1700s, after Europeans had introduced sugar cane to the New World and shackled its cultivation to slavery, did it become a regular feature of the Western diet. In 1700, the average English household consumed less than 2 kilograms of table sugar a year. By the end of the century that amount had quadrupled (see diagram).

The upward trend has continued largely unbroken ever since. Between the early 1970s and the early 2000s, adults in the US increased their average daily calorie intake by 13 per cent, largely by eating more carbohydrates, including sugar. In 1996, the average US adult swallowed 83 more calories per day from added sugar than in 1977. Today, yearly sugar consumption in the US is close to 40 kilograms per person – more than 20 teaspoons a day.

The sugar rush has many causes, but one of the most important was the invention of high-fructose corn syrup in 1957. HFCS is a gloopy solution of glucose and fructose that is as sweet as table sugar but has typically been about 30 per cent cheaper.

Once this source of sweetness was available, food manufacturers added it liberally to their products (see charts). "Because hunger is no longer an important factor in most developed countries, what can make people eat more?" asks Serge Ahmed, a neuroscientist at the University of Bordeaux, France. "Food pleasure. And what creates food pleasure? Sugar."

Unfortunately, it is a guilty pleasure. Not all scientists see eye to eye on the health effects of sugar but there is one point on which most agree: we don't actually need it. Luc Tappy, a physiologist at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, sums it up: "You cannot live without essential fats. You cannot live without protein. It's going to be difficult to have enough energy if you don't have some carbohydrate. But without sugar, there is no problem. It's an entirely dispensable food."

All that unnecessary sugar adds calories to our diet, so it is no surprise that the rise in consumption coincided with the rise of obesity and related problems such as type II diabetes. In 1960, around 1 in 8 US adults was obese; today more than a third are. Since 1980, obesity levels have quadrupled in the developing world to nearly 1 billion people. One recent study found that for every additional 150 calories' worth of sugar available per day in a country there is an associated 1.1 per cent rise in diabetes.

So far so simple. But some researchers see something more sinister going on. To them, sugar isn't just a source of excess calories: it is a poison.

The most outspoken is Robert Lustig, an endocrinologist at the University of California, San Francisco. Described by some of his peers as an anti-sugar evangelist, Lustig's main beef is with fructose, a simple sugar found naturally in fruit but which is also a component of sucrose and HFCS.

The case against fructose is built on the fact that, unlike glucose, it doesn't play an essential role in human metabolism (That is not to say we need to eat glucose; complex forms of carbohydrate such as starch supply all the glucose our metabolisms need). Our ancestors would have encountered fructose in fruit but in nothing like the quantities we eat today, so part of the argument is that our bodies are simply not adapted to deal with it.

To begin with, fructose is almost exclusively metabolised by the liver. When we eat a lot of it, Lustig and others say, much of it is converted into fat. Fat build-up in the liver can lead to inflammation and scarring and progress to cirrhosis. Fatty liver has also been linked to insulin resistance, a precursor to diabetes.

Toxic attack

Fructose is converted into energy, but Lustig claims that, unlike glucose breakdown, this produces lots of oxygen radicals, dangerously reactive chemicals that attack our bodies and cause ageing. To mop these up requires antioxidants, but how many you get often depends on the quality of your diet. "People who can't afford better food don't get the antioxidants. That's one of the reasons why people in the lower socio-economic strata get sicker on the same dose of sugar," Lustig says.

What's more, unlike glucose, fructose isn't regulated by insulin. This hormone keeps blood glucose levels stable and spurs the production of leptin, the hormone that lets you know when you are full. Fructose doesn't affect leptin production; one small study even suggests it ups the level of its counterpart, ghrelin, the hormone that makes you feel hungry. In other words, fructose encourages overeating.

Finally, eating lots of fructose has been shown in both animal and human studies to boost levels of triglycerides in the blood, which increase the risk of hardened arteries and heart disease.

It's a compelling argument that has captured imaginations: a lecture Lustig gave in 2009 has been viewed more than 4 million times on YouTube. Still, many nutrition scientists remain unconvinced. A number of studies have failed to find evidence that fructose is uniquely harmful – though these have been criticised because their authors received funding from food and beverage companies.

More credibly, in 2012 Tappy reviewed the case against fructose for the journal BMC Biology. He concluded that while there is cause for concern in people who already have a metabolic disease or are at risk of developing one, there is no evidence that fructose is the sole, or even the main, cause of these diseases. But the case remains open. "There are many unanswered questions," he says.

Another sinister claim against sugar is that it warps eating habits by altering brain chemistry to make us want more. For several years neuroscientists have found it useful to compare energy-dense foods to addictive substances such as cocaine – at least in a metaphorical sense – because it equips them with the language to discuss their habit-forming properties. But is this anything more than a metaphor?

Several studies in rats have shown that a burst of sweetness affects the reward system in the brain in a similar way to cocaine. One study even gave cocaine-addicted rats the option between cocaine and sugar water. "Most turned away from the drug for the sweet reward," says Ahmed, who ran the study.

That sounds damning, but is it also true in humans? Foods high in fat and sugar – called "hyperpalatable" foods – are known to trigger our reward systems by boosting dopamine levels much as addictive drugs do. And there is research suggesting that most people with conditions such as binge-eating disorder display similar psychological characteristics to people with substance abuse problems. But is that enough to condemn sugar as addictive? And how can you distinguish the allure of sugar from that of fat and salt in these foods?

Although some doctors find the evidence compelling enough that they treat obesity using techniques for treating addiction, the scientific case for food addiction is far from iron clad. Last year, for example, NeuroFAST, an independent, European Union-funded collaboration between 13 universities that produces "consensus statements" on controversial issues in nutrition science, reviewed all the relevant evidence from human studies. Its conclusion: there is "no evidence" that food can be addictive.

Unsurprisingly, the sugar lobby agrees. "There is little evidence available from human studies, performed in a way that is representative of how food is consumed as part of everyday life," says Glenys Jones from Sugar Nutrition UK, which is mainly funded by UK sugar manufacturers.

So if we can't conclude that fructose is the culprit or that sugar is addictive, where does that leave us? Is it simply that too much sugar equals too many calories? Or has the entire case against sugar been overstated?

This question is now in the hands of the World Health Organization. Alarmed by reports of sugar's dangers, its Nutrition Guidance Expert Advisory Group has been carrying out a review of the evidence with a view to making some recommendations.

As part of that process, last year Lisa Te Morenga, a researcher in human nutrition at the University of Otago in New Zealand, reviewed the research on the relationship between sugar and body weight. She concluded that it wasn't necessarily eating too much sugar that was making us fat, but eating too much of everything. "There was no difference between higher and lower sugars when the energy people were consuming was exactly the same," says Te Morenga. In other words, if total calorie count was controlled for, people didn't get any fatter when more of those calories came from sugar. These findings, too, were welcomed by the sugar industry.

So is the white stuff off the hook? Not so fast. When Te Morenga looked at studies that more closely replicate food choices in real life – that is, when participants weren't held to precise calorie counts – those who ate a lot of sugar tended to consume more calories overall and gained more weight. And the most important source of sugar was one that has been high on the list of obesity campaigners' concerns for years: sugary drinks. This was yet more evidence that sweetened drinks really do cause weight gain – which is the strongest reason to point the finger at sugar.

Why does it matter if we consume calories in liquid rather than solid form? Think of it this way. It takes about 2.5 oranges to make a glass of juice. But drinking a glass doesn't make you feel as full as eating two-and-a-half oranges. That's because the fibre in the fruit makes you feel fuller for longer.

As Te Morenga puts it, "all sugar-sweetened drinks really do is contribute calories to the diet" – but without making you full. This is partly because fructose – which can make up 65 per cent of the sugar in drinks from soda fountains – doesn't activate the fullness hormone leptin.

This lack of satiety from sugary drinks makes it possible to consume many more calories at a sitting than you would otherwise. Having a sugary drink with a meal, for example, doesn't make you eat less (and replacing it with a diet drink might not help – see "Just one hit").

This lack of satiety in exchange for calories seems to have long-term consequences. Several epidemiological studies have linked the consumption of sugary drinks with increased risk of obesity, type II diabetes and heart disease. That's why soda is a prime target for public health officials: so far legislators in 30 US states have tried and failed to restrict sales in some way, the most famous being New York City's thwarted attempt to ban super-sized sodas last year.

The failure, in part, can be put down to campaigns by the food industry, which has a long history of waging war against threats to its profits – as the WHO knows only too well.

The WHO's upcoming sugar advice won't be the first of its kind. Ten years ago it tried something similar. After reviewing the evidence it concluded that people should get no more than 10 per cent of their calories from "free sugars" (see "Sugar basics"), otherwise they wouldn't be getting a balanced diet. That was about half of what people were actually consuming.

Industry threats

The sugar industry went ballistic. The US Sugar Association wrote to the director general of the WHO, pointing to a report from the US Institute of Medicine suggesting that 25 per cent of daily calories was an acceptable sugar intake, and threatening to put US funding for the WHO in peril if the report was widely circulated. It sent a similar letter to then-US Health Secretary Tommy Thomson.

The report and its 10 per cent figure were still published, but with little fanfare – and almost no impact. Many researchers contacted by New Scientist were unsure whether it had ever been released, or if it had, if the 10 per cent figure was included.

The new WHO guidelines are still a work in progress, but an early leak suggests they are likely to go further and recommend that just 5 per cent of daily calories come from free sugars. That would mean cutting current consumption by two-thirds, to about 8 teaspoons a day for men and 6 for women. By way of comparison, a standard can of cola contains 10 teaspoons.

This figure won't go down well with the industry. Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, expects them to play dirty again, citing parallels between their tactics and those used by the tobacco industry of yesteryear.

"This is about marketing," she says. "They lobby behind the scenes to make sure that no government agency makes regulations they don't like, they fund election campaigns to do the same thing, they attack critics." They also try to influence the science: "In general the food companies sponsor research to give them the answer they want." WHO director Margaret Chan has echoed Nestle's concerns.

So what can be done? There are signs that the WHO has learned lessons from 2003. The anticipated 5 per cent consumption figure appears to be based not on evidence about sugar's link to obesity, but to a less controversial condition: tooth decay.

One of the WHO's analyses looked at the relationship between sugar and dental cavities. Led by Paula Moynihan at Newcastle University in the UK, the review concluded that there was evidence – albeit of very low quality – to justify reducing intake to 5 per cent to minimise risk of tooth decay.

If correct, that might look like smart tactics by the WHO. It will be harder to attack this recommendation as everybody knows that sugar rots your teeth. But the poor quality of evidence leaves plenty of room for the industry to manoeuvre.

Not all anti-sugar campaigners, though, see the industry as the enemy. For the past two decades, Graham MacGregor of the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine in London has been spearheading a global campaign against dietary salt. He and his colleagues have persuaded the food industry to reduce added salt by about 30 per cent. Now they are trying to do the same with sugar. "There's no point screaming at the industry, it doesn't do any good," he says. "You have to work with them."

That, however, is a long-term project, which is why many public-health researchers advocate more aggressive tactics. In October, for example, the BMJ published projections that a 20 per cent tax on sugary drinks could reduce the number of obese people in the UK by 180,000.

Of course, taxes drop the debate squarely into familiar political territory: the nanny state versus individual responsibility. Do governments have a duty to intervene or is it down to people to look after themselves?

Te Morenga isn't convinced that sugar is the uber-villain of our health woes, but is confident that the way sugary foods are marketed makes us eat more than we need. "Maybe people should take more personal responsibility," she says. "But we're letting food companies spend millions of dollars to convince people to buy their products – or that soft drinks are a perfectly normal thing to have with a meal."

While politicians weigh up their options, for individuals, the advice is quite simple: try to reduce how much sugar you are consuming. Above all, avoid sugary drinks. "It's the easiest thing to do," says Tappy.

Of course, critics of efforts to curb sugar intake will counter that if you simply eat well and exercise, sugary drinks and snacks can be reasonable indulgences. That's true, so far as it goes. But there is also another simple truth about sugar: however much you might want it, you really don't need it.

This article appeared in print under the headline "Sickly sweet"

Just one hit

One obvious way to cut down on sugar is to switch to artificial sweeteners. Unfortunately, recent research casts doubt on their effectiveness (Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism, vol 24, p 431).

Instead of helping us skimp on calories while getting the same hit of sweetness, artificial sweeteners may prompt us to eat more. That's because real sugar gives you two hits of sweetness. First, it activates sweet receptors on your tongue, boosting dopamine in the brain. Later, as glucose is absorbed during digestion, the reward system gets a second hit. With artificial sweeteners, you only get the first hit. So by decoupling sweetness from satisfaction, people may be left unsatisfied, and compensate by eating more.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129540.500

[Demi]

In today's Mail on Sunday:

The ultimate quit sugar handbook


When we launched Sarah Wilson’s I Quit Sugar programme in YOU in January it shot to national attention. Result: Sarah’s book has become a bestseller and the idea of quitting sugar is now headline news. More and more of us are waking up to the dangers of the white stuff. It’s suggested that sugar might be as addictive as cocaine and potentially as harmful as tobacco. What’s true is that we’re all consuming far too much of it. We need to cut down. This handbook is here to help. On the following pages, Sarah gives you the know-how, the inspiration and the confidence to quit for good!Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-2558712/The-ultimate-quit-sugar-handbook.html

[Demi]

From The Mail
London, UK
16 February, 2014

'I used to cry in the supermarket biscuit aisle because I wanted sugar so badly!' Woman addicted to the white stuff says too many sweets left her depressed

Nikki Oakley, 45, from Redditch, was eating a huge 50tsp of sugar a day
Mound of sweets left her depressed, listless and plagued by headaches
Has been diagnosed with sugar addiction and banned from eating it
Cries in supermarket aisles because she wants biscuits so badly

A mother who was so addicted to sugar she consumed the equivalent of 50 teaspoons a day has told how kicking the habit has transformed her life.

Nikki Oakley ate chocolate biscuits for breakfast, substituted supper with puddings and raided the sweet cupboard during years of overindulgence to satisfy her cravings.

Yesterday, the 45-year-old said that while her sugar habit did not cause her weight to balloon, it was an ‘emotional crutch’ that she turned to for a pick-me-up or even because she was bored.

The mother-of-two said her addiction was so severe that when she quit sugar she would often burst into tears and was short-tempered, listless and depressed. She also suffered severe headaches.

‘It took a fortnight for those feelings to subside,’ she said. ‘Everywhere I looked there were people eating bags of sweets, ice-creams and drinking fizzy drinks. Shopping was torture. I would walk up the aisles looking at the biscuits, feeling like crying, I wanted them so much.

‘It was a cycle – I ate sugary foods as a pick-me-up, but after the high came a low and I would need more.

‘But once I’d got through those first few weeks I started to feel so much better – calmer but more alert and with more energy.’

In the old days, if Mrs Oakley did have proper meals they consisted of sugar-laden cereal bars for breakfast, sandwiches with crisps and cake for lunch and processed ready meals for dinner with dessert.

Occasionally she would cook a curry or sweet and sour dish but the sauce would be from a jar and therefore high in sugar. Throughout the day she would snack on cookies, pies, sweets and chocolate bars. She would also sip on fizzy drinks all day.

Now, however, she has porridge for breakfast, chicken or ham salad for lunch and snacks on oatcakes with low-fat hummus, berries and natural yoghurt sprinkled with nuts or raisins. Instead of relying on microwaveable meals for dinner, she cooks curries, stir-fries and spaghetti bolognese from scratch without sauces from jars.

And Mrs Oakley, who works as a childminder and lives in Redditch, Worcestershire, with electrician husband Glyn, also 45, has cut out puddings completely. She had always jogged and now she is running faster than ever. Her weight has also dropped from 9st 11lb to 8st 7lb.

To help her change her ways, Mrs Oakley contacted The Healthy Employee, which works with companies to educate workers on diet and wellbeing to improve health and cut absenteeism. Its specialists deemed her a sugar addict.

Anna Mason, who runs the company, warned yesterday that sugar could be ‘more powerful than any opiates’ and said Britain is ‘hooked on processed food’. She added: ‘Many people on an apparently healthy diet can be consuming 40 to 50 teaspoons of sugar a day eating things like granola bars – which are held together with sugary syrup – or baked beans, which have sugar in the sauce.’

Mrs Oakley has been on a no-sugar diet since last September because even the smallest amount can reignite her cravings.

However, she admitted that she has occasionally been unable to resist temptation and recently had a gingerbread biscuit when baking with the children she cares for.

She said of her addiction: ‘It takes hold after the first few mouthfuls of intense pleasure – I would start putting food into my mouth, even though I don’t really want it.

‘Your head is telling you to stop, but you just can’t.’

The recommended daily sugar intake for a woman is six teaspoons, according to the World Health Organisation, but the typical Briton will consume double that.

At a time when obesity and diabetes cost the UK more than £5billion a year, campaign group Action on Sugar is calling on food manufacturers to cut the sugar in their products by 20 to 30 per cent within the next three to five years.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2560658/Woman-addicted-sugar-reveals-turned-diet-around.html

[Demi]

Sarah Wilson's I Quit Sugar for Life: Let's go over the gist again...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-2612225/Sarah-Wilsons-I-Quit-Sugar-Life-Lets-gist-again.html

[Demi]

Facing Our Sugar Addiction to Save Our Lives

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/blog/facing-our-sugar-addiction-to-save-our-lives/

[JEY100]

Interview with Sarah Wilson, "I Quit Sugar" on the Sugar Podcast, a production from Action on Sugar. Good interview with tips on quitting. If you have not heard the two previous shows, they are also good. She mentions she is working with a UK grocer to remove sugars from their foods.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-sugar-podcast/id821065327?mt=2