Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


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

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Mon, Jan-06-14, 05:47
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,762
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default The sugar trap

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

Quote:
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...icle1356281.ece
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Mon, Jan-06-14, 09:44
ImOnMyWay's Avatar
ImOnMyWay ImOnMyWay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,831
 
Plan: OWL
Stats: 177/168/135 Female 5'1"
BF:50.5/38/25
Progress: 21%
Location: Los Angeles
Default

Good article, Demi. I think I learned yet a few more synonyms for "sugar"!
.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Mon, Jan-06-14, 09:58
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,866
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

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

Carbohydrates are sugar too
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Mon, Jan-06-14, 10:38
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,961
 
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 235/175/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 120%
Location: Florida
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Mon, Jan-06-14, 13:20
jmh's Avatar
jmh jmh is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 480
 
Plan: my own
Stats: 224/182/165 Female 175cm
BF:
Progress: 71%
Location: Was in London, now in NZ
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Tue, Jan-07-14, 10:22
Elizellen's Avatar
Elizellen Elizellen is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,733
 
Plan: Atkins (DANDR)
Stats: 290/141/130 Female 65.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 93%
Location: Bournemouth (UK)
Default

Thanks for posting that Demi!

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?
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Tue, Jan-07-14, 12:56
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,762
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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)
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:

Quote:
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*.

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/n...-warns-NHS.html



* Getting started on the NHS weight loss plan

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/weight-l...ng-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, Government Obesity Advisor, Professor Susan Jebb has also been paid to promote Weight Watchers and Rosemary Conley slimming groups 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 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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob-a-rama
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elizellen
I look forward to seeing what is in "The sugar trap part 2" - next Sunday I assume?
Yes, next Sunday.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Tue, Jan-07-14, 15:04
Bob-a-rama's Avatar
Bob-a-rama Bob-a-rama is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,961
 
Plan: Keto (Atkins Induction)
Stats: 235/175/185 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 120%
Location: Florida
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Tue, Jan-07-14, 15:11
ojoj's Avatar
ojoj ojoj is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,184
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 210/126/127 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 101%
Location: South of England
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Heres an insight into the problem in the UK by one of my favourite Doctors/writers http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2014/0...ond-redemption/

Jo xxx
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Thu, Jan-09-14, 02:22
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,762
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default 'Sugar is the new tobacco', say doctors

Quote:
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/healt...icle3969870.ece


Quote:
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-s...rs-9047785.html



Quote:
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

Last edited by Demi : Thu, Jan-09-14 at 02:43.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Thu, Jan-09-14, 02:38
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,762
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default Sugar: the bitter truth - Could your children kick the dangerous addiction to sugar?

Quote:
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/...icle3969406.ece
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Thu, Jan-09-14, 13:45
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,762
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
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/h...on-experts.html


Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Thu, Jan-09-14, 13:51
Fransson's Avatar
Fransson Fransson is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 994
 
Plan: Pefect Health Diet and IF
Stats: 205/198/150 Female 160 cm
BF:
Progress: 13%
Location: Sweden
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Thu, Jan-09-14, 14:05
ojoj's Avatar
ojoj ojoj is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,184
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 210/126/127 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 101%
Location: South of England
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Thu, Jan-09-14, 14:12
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,573
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/150/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: NE WA
Default

From the first article:

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:54.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.